A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

However you were dishonest when you said "my skepticism prevented me from taking drugs that were later taken off the market because they were shown to cause cancer". The exaggeration in that claim is the basis for my charge of histrionics, and your patting yourself on the back for not taking the drugs the basis for the charge of self congratulatory.

First of all, I was not patting myself on the back. This is your idiosyncratic conclusion. I was not exaggerating. My skepticism has prevented me from taking a host of drugs that have been implicated as having serious side effects. Who cares whether it causes cancer or permanent disability, the end result is not what anyone would want.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your skepticism seems very tightly targeted to those things Lessans also distrusted...the medical establishment and academics and established scientists. Why do you never turn it on the alternative health industry or on Lessans?

You're right. I don't walk around suspecting everybody and everything. I target my skepticism to the things that I find important. I am also wary of alternative claims. My girlfriend went to a healer who supposedly could take cancer out of people's bodies. She was desperate and of course it did no good. It was her last hope. She died not long after. But for the most part, alternative therapies do no harm and can possibly do some good. I would rather side with a therapy that is closer to nature than to take drugs unless it's a last resort. I'm not advising that people do what I do. They can make their own decisions.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have explained why it is not tautological and why it is not a modal fallacy

You say this repeatedly yet cannot provide a link to this imaginary explanation of yours.

All you've done is repeatedly assert that it is not tautological nor fallacious. You've never even tried to explain it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have demonstrated his observations and how he came to his conclusions

Let's see this demonstration of his observations. Again, all you've done is assert that he made astute observations, through his reading. You've demonstrated nothing. Link to it if I am wrong.

If it can be proven, then it should not follow that it can't be proven, even if it's your reality.

Had I said "Although it cannot be proven, even if such proof were possible..." would you have understood the hypothetical? Presenting counterfactuals to demonstrate or illustrate a point is a very common thing to do in discussions, why are you acting like it's some alien language?

[LadyShea]

Who cares whether it causes cancer or permanent disability, the end result is not what anyone would want.

The point I was making was not about drugs and their side effects. I am perfectly capable of researching all that myself, and I have.

My whole point was about YOU and your DISHONESTY and your refusal to admit that you LIED to make yourself look wise or whatever effect you were going for.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Determinism thus stated is incompatible with quantum indeterminism.

It is also incompatible with the regularity or neo-Humean conception of the laws of physics: that there are no laws of physics. What we call the laws of physics are merely descriptive, and never prescriptive. No law "determines" the way planets orbit stars, for instance. They just do happen to orbit stars in a certain manner, which can be mathematically described, and hence the laws are merely descriptive and never prescriptive. As Norman Swartz has pointed out in his writings on this subject, if this is true, then the problem of free will v. determinism never even arises.

[LadyShea]

That's just my working definition of determinism, davidm, not necessarily anything that is part of my worldview or beliefs about the universe.

Actually, I think the whole free will/determinism question is quite useless, as I've stated many times.

[The Lone Ranger]

I should point out, by the way, that it's far from true that so-called "alternative medicine" never does harm. It most-certainly can, both directly and indirectly. Indirectly in that people sometimes seek out "alternative" treatments that are worthless or even harmful for conditions that are easily treatable by "conventional" medical practices -- and so suffer (and sometimes die) unnecessarily.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are wrong to the point where I feel nauseous.

The above is still not a rational response. Neither regular determinism nor Lessans' redefinition of it rules out compatibilist free will, and Lessans' version doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? I am not saying determinism is false. I am saying the thesis or proposition that is now standard is causing the problem because it is defining determinism as a causal event, when nothing causes anything. Previous events do not cause us to act a certain way.

That is saying that determinism is false. That is what you are saying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no should's Spacemonkey.

Without shoulds there is no morality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you have any inkling that there could be something to this, then join the new forum that I am working hard to produce. But there you will need to be on good behavior. That doesn't mean that "good behavior" is blind acceptance.

Yes, it does. That is all you will tolerate. And no, obviously I am not going to join your forum.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The moderators would never ban people for having questions, but they will not tolerate the vindictiveness and the outright sneering that people are showing in this thread.

Who are the moderators? Are they as imaginary as your supporters?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to show you that it is not just true by virtue of meaning.

Then it is an empirical claim, and as such cannot be established independently of evidence, of which you have none.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again speaking for other people. Do you know everyone that is lurking? Do you think that maybe they see some validity in some of the things I share?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you keep imagining there to be lurkers with completely opposite views to every single person who actually posts here? If there are people out there who think you are making sense, then why has not one of them spoken up at any of the forums you have visited?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are lurkers here because this is an open forum that they happened to join. Just because they are lurking does not mean they are in total agreement that Lessans is automatically wrong because of you and LadyShea, NA, and thedoc's objections.

Apparently you are completely unfamiliar with the concept of inductive inference. When ALL of the people you have talked to are convinced Lessans was wrong, what makes you think that any lurkers you have yet to talk to think any differently? Why do you keep imagining these lurkers will have completely opposite views to every single person who actually posts here? If there are people out there who think you are making sense, then why has not one of them spoken up at any of the forums you have visited?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why does it matter why I'm here? Why are you here?

Again, why are you here? Why do you keep coming back to a forum where everyone thinks you're nuts? Doesn't this strike you as rather odd behavior?

[davidm]

Much as it pains me to write anything that could even be remotely construed as lending even a dust mote's worth of sympathy to any of peacegirl's demented ravings, two points are worth making:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Without shoulds there is no morality.

Hume, is/ought. There probably is no morality if we mean objective morality.

Apparently you are completely unfamiliar with the concept of inductive inference. When ALL of the people you have talked to are convinced Lessans was wrong, what makes you think that any lurkers you have yet to talk to think any differently?

Problem of induction (see also Hume). Inductive reasoning probably cannot be justified.

[peacegirl]

Two of my posts just got lost in the ether. I don't know why they didn't record. I spent 45 minutes answering Vivisectus's post, and that disappeared, and then I condensed it, and that one disappeared as well. Holy moly, now I need to take a break. Be back soon.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Be back soon.

I thought you said you were leaving! Again!

Oh, and peacegirl? You're not going to get anyone here to join your forum. So sorry!

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This shows me you know nothing about this knowledge. You are forgetting how conscience goes up, not down, and when no one is judging your behavior, that does not mean you become irresponsible. The truth is you will become more responsible for your actions. If your child needed you, you would be there, even though you may decide to go hand gliding in order have a break. But you would also never stay out where your child would suffer because of your negligence.

You repeat yourself. The fact remains that the "principle" that you call foolproof does not work: in fact, it requires special circumstances to avoid clearly despicable outcomes.

What a simple cop-out. Just tell me I am arguing against myself, and I should accept that as a reasonable answer.

No, silly. I meant that that was not something I said. It was something you said. You seem to have quoted yourself and then argued against it.

No, this is not about oughts. This is about an undeniable way of knowing who gets the right-of-way scientifically. That doesn't mean you have to listen to it. If you want to take advantage no one is going to stop you from insisting that your wants are more important than your spouse's.

But your "scientific" method leads to outcomes that not even you would consider right. You try to pretend that does not matter by saying that it would not happen because people would not want to do what you feel they ought not to do.

Obviously, you understood nothing I wrote in the last post, which is typical of your reponses. It's like I am speaking to a wall.

Once again you are unable to refute what I say, and so stoop to calling me stupid and consider it a refutation. Ironic, considering that your system seems to want to eradicate the very word "stupid".

My point remains: it is not whether another is required to comply that decides which desire should get the "right of way". It is the nature of the desire, and the circumstances surrounding it.

For instance: my desire to breathe ought to get right of way to your desire not to administer mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Your desire not to do so should not get right of way.

If you think that being selfish leads to good things, then be selfish. If you think that ruining your marriage, or causing resentment, is a good thing, then keep justifying your selfishness by insisting that others yield to your desires, even at the sacrifice of theirs.

That is still neither here nor there, and for the same reasons.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

On top of that, it is easy to imagine a situation where she would be justified in demanding me to stay home and help her cook dinner. As I said, whether it is morally ok for a person to leave and pursue personal pleasure does not depend on the number of people involved, it depends on the situation.

You either didn't read my last post, or hand-waved it away in order to come back with the same old refrain over and over again. This in no way leads to an absurdity because each person, when given the freedom to make his own choice in these matters, will never fail to do the "right" thing by their family whom they love.

You merely state that it would not happen because of special circumstances... but that is not the point. The point is that the "principle" does not work, unless you limit it to extremely mundane situations. As i said: it is useless for anything more important that deciding whose turn it is to do household chores.

I never said that, or if I said something to that effect, it was misconstrued. You could find the original post if you wanted to.

You repeated it only a post or so ago: you say that since a desire requires another to do (or not do) something, it should not get right of way over a desire that does not require the compliance of another.

One problem with that is that it makes a dying parents desire to see their child equally important to that childs desire to watch spongebob.

Another problem is the issue of deciding what compliance entails. As I said before: what is the difference between not wanting to share a bed and not wanting to share one? You could view each as an action that influences 2 people.

Wishing to play golf and desiring to stay with one's wife while giving childbirth can both be desired choices, but most husbands, if not all, would know that childbirth comes a few times in a lifetime, and would want to show their love by being there and supporting their wives. The irony is that no one can force someone to do anything they don't want to do, and hacking someone by making them feel guilty would only serve, in the long run, to push them away, whereas leaving someone alone to make up their own decision without blame or condemnation (because they have the right of way to choose that which is best for themselves) would end up desiring to choose, in the direction of greater satisfaction, to be the choice that is most loving for all involved.

What you are basically saying here is that following your "principle" could lead to behaviour that would be pretty reprehensible, and that people would simply not do it because they would not want to do reprehensible things. You need to invoke all kinds of special circumstances.

If your "principle" worked, then following the "principle" alone would be enough to make sure that you behaved like a good person. It isn't: you require people to know when it is not right to follow the "principle".

So it is no such thing: it is a mere guideline for sorting out whose turn it is to do the dishes.

[peacegirl]

You repeat yourself. The fact remains that the "principle" that you call foolproof does not work: in fact, it requires special circumstances to avoid clearly despicable outcomes.

No, silly. I meant that that was not something I said. It was something you said. You seem to have quoted yourself and then argued against it.

But your "scientific" method leads to outcomes that not even you would consider right. You try to pretend that does not matter by saying that it would not happen because people would not want to do what you feel they ought not to do.

Once again you are unable to refute what I say, and so stoop to calling me stupid and consider it a refutation. Ironic, considering that your system seems to want to eradicate the very word "stupid".

My point remains: it is not whether another is required to comply that decides which desire should get the "right of way". It is the nature of the desire, and the circumstances surrounding it.

For instance: my desire to breathe ought to get right of way to your desire not to administer mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Your desire not to do so should not get right of way.

That is still neither here nor there, and for the same reasons.

You merely state that it would not happen because of special circumstances... but that is not the point. The point is that the "principle" does not work, unless you limit it to extremely mundane situations. As i said: it is useless for anything more important that deciding whose turn it is to do household chores.

You repeated it only a post or so ago: you say that since a desire requires another to do (or not do) something, it should not get right of way over a desire that does not require the compliance of another.

One problem with that is that it makes a dying parents desire to see their child equally important to that childs desire to watch spongebob.

Another problem is the issue of deciding what compliance entails. As I said before: what is the difference between not wanting to share a bed and not wanting to share one? You could view each as an action that influences 2 people.

What you are basically saying here is that following your "principle" could lead to behaviour that would be pretty reprehensible, and that people would simply not do it because they would not want to do reprehensible things. You need to invoke all kinds of special circumstances.

If your "principle" worked, then following the "principle" alone would be enough to make sure that you behaved like a good person. It isn't: you require people to know when it is not right to follow the "principle".

So it is no such thing: it is a mere guideline for sorting out whose turn it is to do the dishes.

The principle is undeniable. It is based on the fact that man's will is not free. Not knowing how to resolve these conflicts of desire has caused a lot of turmoil in relationships. Having the right-of-way does not mean people are suddenly going to be unconcerned about the welfare of others, which you are assuming. In fact, it will create a desire to help others that are truly in need because no one will be taking advantage. Other than that, there really is nothing to argue about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I should point out, by the way, that it's far from true that so-called "alternative medicine" never does harm. It most-certainly can, both directly and indirectly. Indirectly in that people sometimes seek out "alternative" treatments that are worthless or even harmful for conditions that are easily treatable by "conventional" medical practices -- and so suffer (and sometimes die) unnecessarily.

I only said Do No Harm whether through conventional or alternative medicine. What you just said can work the other way around as well. I don't believe in forcing parents to use a therapy that is shown not to work. For example, doctors have forced children to take chemo for brain tumors that did more harm than good. On the other hand, an alternative therapy for certain type brain tumors is proving to be successful in some cases. This doctor almost lost his license but won in court.

Burzynski Clinic | Advanced Alternative Cancer Treatment | Houston, Texas

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are wrong to the point where I feel nauseous.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The above is still not a rational response. Neither regular determinism nor Lessans' redefinition of it rules out compatibilist free will, and Lessans' version doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will.

Yes it does. You just don't want your pet belief to slip away.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? I am not saying determinism is false. I am saying the thesis or proposition that is now standard is causing the problem because it is defining determinism as a causal event, when nothing causes anything. Previous events do not cause us to act a certain way.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That is saying that determinism is false. That is what you are saying.

Not at all. Determinism is making a choice that could not be otherwise. But this does not mean that something is causing one to act in a certain way. That's why his proposition is more accurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no should's Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Without shoulds there is no morality.

Not true at all. No one has to tell me what I should not do for me not to do it. I know this instinctively and I don't need anybody to tell me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you have any inkling that there could be something to this, then join the new forum that I am working hard to produce. But there you will need to be on good behavior. That doesn't mean that "good behavior" is blind acceptance.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, it does. That is all you will tolerate. And no, obviously I am not going to join your forum.

Thank god for small favors.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The moderators would never ban people for having questions, but they will not tolerate the vindictiveness and the outright sneering that people are showing in this thread.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Who are the moderators? Are they as imaginary as your supporters?

Why are you being vindictive. I've only tried in the last day to be nice to you and answer your questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to show you that it is not just true by virtue of meaning.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then it is an empirical claim, and as such cannot be established independently of evidence, of which you have none.

It is an empirical claim as far as being testable in real life. It is not unfalsifiable which I've said countless times.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again speaking for other people. Do you know everyone that is lurking? Do you think that maybe they see some validity in some of the things I share?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you keep imagining there to be lurkers with completely opposite views to every single person who actually posts here? If there are people out there who think you are making sense, then why has not one of them spoken up at any of the forums you have visited?

You cannot go by these forums. I stayed a limited time at each one, the longest being the one where I first met you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are lurkers here because this is an open forum that they happened to join. Just because they are lurking does not mean they are in total agreement that Lessans is automatically wrong because of you and LadyShea, NA, and thedoc's objections.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Apparently you are completely unfamiliar with the concept of inductive inference. When ALL of the people you have talked to are convinced Lessans was wrong, what makes you think that any lurkers you have yet to talk to think any differently? Why do you keep imagining these lurkers will have completely opposite views to every single person who actually posts here? If there are people out there who think you are making sense, then why has not one of them spoken up at any of the forums you have visited?

I told you why. I also believe there's a lot of fear to speak up because in order to get by in here you have to be fairly thick skinned. I also think there's a lot of group think. People tend to go with people who are on the winning side. I am David fighting Goliath. It's no surprise people aren't speaking up, but this doesn't necessarily mean they reject this discovery. They are probably taking everything in and coming to their own conclusions. I also believe that people don't want to be the first one to say that they are interested because it will make them a target.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why does it matter why I'm here? Why are you here?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, why are you here? Why do you keep coming back to a forum where everyone thinks you're nuts? Doesn't this strike you as rather odd behavior?

I answered you already, so why do you keep repeating yourself?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I only said Do No Harm whether through conventional or alternative medicine. What you just said can work the other way around as well. I don't believe in forcing parents to use a therapy that is shown not to work. For example, doctors have forced children to take chemo for brain tumors that did more harm than good. On the other hand, an alternative therapy for certain type brain tumors is proving to be successful in some cases. This doctor almost lost his license but won in court.

Burzynski Clinic | Advanced Alternative Cancer Treatment | Houston, Texas

God, how I love it when you link to total quacks. The last news I've read on Burzynski is that he got a continuance in April. BTW, Burzynski uses chemotherapy, but doesn't like to advertise the fact. He also charges for his treatments, even though they're classified as medical trials. It's generally considered unethical to charge for clinical trials.

I'll bet you heard about this guy from Joe Mercola.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. The goal of pharmaceutical companies is to keep people on medicine long term. That's how they make their money. Why do you think doctors are given samples to hand out to their patients? The pharmaceutical reps know that once patients are put on these meds, they will need to continue on the same regimen after the samples run out.

Some conditions need long term medication that will continue, others are short term till the condition is cured. Some are only one time preventative measures. My Congestive Heart Failure requires that I take certain medication all the time, it would be stupid and fatal if I stopped taking them. If I develope diverticulitis I take antibiotics till it goes away. I take Amoxicillin before every dentist visit, and the local Pharmacy gives it away free, where's the profit in that. your ideas about the drug companies are from the dark ages, probably what your father told you, you need to grow up and face the world as it is today, not at the begining of the last century.

[LadyShea]

I don't believe in forcing parents to use a therapy that is shown not to work. For example, doctors have forced children to take chemo for brain tumors that did more harm than good.

Doctors cannot force treatment on parents or children. Parental consent is required and parents can seek second, third, or even more opinions as well as seek alternative treatments.

And Burzynski? REALLY? Jesus you love the worst kind of hucksters. He's not just a quack, he's a malicious one.

[LadyShea]

Dupe

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For example, doctors have forced children to take chemo for brain tumors that did more harm than good.

Lets see, chemo for a brain tumor that got rid of the tumor but left some serious side effects that may last the rest of that persons life. A brain tumor left untreated will kill the patient, ending their life. Yep, those nasty side effects are a lot worse than death, with death there are no side effects.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

because it mathematically identifies who must yield IF THERE IS A CONFLICT.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

It is a guiding principle that comes from the knowledge that man's will is not free. As I said before, if you don't like this principle, don't apply it.

Your claim, that the "Right of Way" principle identifies who must yield, introduces an element of necessity. Necessity precludes the exercise of options. If there are no options then there is no need for guidance in the exericise of options. If one must do A then one does not need any guidance with regard to doing A because one is necessarily going to do A with or without such guidance. Likewise, if one must act in accordance with this principle then it is not possible for the principle to not be applied, regardless of whether or not one likes the principle.

In short, if it is the case that the principle of right of way identifies who must yield then it cannot also be the case that the principle of right of way is a guiding principle, because, in the face of such necessity, guidance is both unnecessary and irrelevent.

So, Peacegirl, which is it? Is the principle of right of way a necessary principle (i.e., a law of nature) or a guiding principle (i.e., an ethical principle)? It cannot be both.

[Vivisectus]

The principle is undeniable. It is based on the fact that man's will is not free. Not knowing how to resolve these conflicts of desire has caused a lot of turmoil in relationships. Having the right-of-way does not mean people are suddenly going to be unconcerned about the welfare of others, which you are assuming. In fact, it will create a desire to help others that are truly in need because no one will be taking advantage. Other than that, there really is nothing to argue about.

I could claim that my statement that the "principle" is silly is undeniable too. As you will no doubt agree, it does not change anything. Once again you resort to dogma when you cannot refute objections to the book, and simply state "The book is just right, that is all there is to it."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You say this repeatedly yet cannot provide a link to this imaginary explanation of yours.

All you've done is repeatedly assert that it is not tautological nor fallacious. You've never even tried to explain it.

I have tried to explain it but you refuse to accept that his observations are spot on. I can't do anything about that. It is not a tautology just because the conclusion goes back to the premise. The reason it is not circular is because his proof of determinism (and he carefully spells his proof out) is the starting point. In other words, we're not proving determinism in this; it's already assumed to be correct. If you have a problem with his proof of greater satisfaction, you may have to wait until other people confirm that he is right. I can't make you understand that this is a valid proof.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have demonstrated his observations and how he came to his conclusions

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's see this demonstration of his observations. Again, all you've done is assert that he made astute observations, through his reading. You've demonstrated nothing. Link to it if I am wrong.

I gave you this so many times, and you pooh poohed it as if it was nothing. You keep going back to the false belief that this is a modal fallacy because you can't know what someone is going to do until after the fact. That is not a necessary requirement in Lessans' proposition.

If it can be proven, then it should not follow that it can't be proven, even if it's your reality.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Had I said "Although it cannot be proven, even if such proof were possible..." would you have understood the hypothetical? Presenting counterfactuals to demonstrate or illustrate a point is a very common thing to do in discussions, why are you acting like it's some alien language?

I think the wording would have been clearer, but it still remains that you have not presented any counterfactuals in reference to this definition. How can you assert that "it cannot be proven" when that is the very thing that he's trying to prove "can be proven". Where do you come off saying this as if it were fact?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I could claim that my statement that the "principle" is silly is undeniable too. As you will no doubt agree, it does not change anything. Once again you resort to dogma when you cannot refute objections to the book, and simply state "The book is just right, that is all there is to it."

Believe what you want Vivisectus. This is not dogma. I said that people will do what is best for themselves. If you believe that telling others what to do, (or asking them to do what you can do for yourself, or asking people to give up their desire because you feel your desire is more important than theirs), as being the best option to a healthy relationship, then by all means do what you think is best. There are no shoulds. This is a guiding principle, and if it works for you, great. If it doesn't, don't use it.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1086710]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I could claim that my statement that the "principle" is silly is undeniable too. As you will no doubt agree, it does not change anything. Once again you resort to dogma when you cannot refute objections to the book, and simply state "The book is just right, that is all there is to it."

Believe what you want Vivisectus. This is not dogma.

Ten out of ten for irony! You simply state that it is so without ceasing to be dogmatic about it.

I said that people will do what is best for themselves. If you believe that telling others what to do, (or asking them to do what you can do for yourself, or asking people to give up their desire because you feel your desire is more important than theirs), as being the best option to a healthy relationship, then by all means do what you think is best. There are no shoulds. This is a guiding principle, and if it works for you, great. If it doesn't, don't use it.

Not accepting a principle does not mean you always do the opposite, and it especially does not make my opinion the blatant strawman you are now attempting to set up. The principle is unsound because following it leads to ludicrous situations. It would work if all desires were the same in nature, urgency and importance but this is clearly not the case. You seem to find this difficult to accept.

[LadyShea]

this does not mean that something is causing one to act in a certain way

Acting in a way that moves one in the direction of greater satisfaction is "something causing". You have an idiosyncratic understanding of causal, I think.