A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is entirely consistent with contra-causal free will that nothing can cause us to do anything we don't want to do. So how does this rule it out? You really have no conception at all of the meanings of the words you use, do you?

Those were my words, not yours. What does it say about you that after a decade of posting online, you still can't even properly format a post? 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

It's really not delusional crap. It's just your anger that is saying this because I called you on your own crap.

What do you imagine you called me on? Do you even know? And yes, when you say things like "You are very confused, believe me when I say this", you are spouting delusional crap.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooooooooo Spacemonkey, don't twist my words, okay? Determinism is alive and well. I am really getting frustrated with your arrogance, and I will not talk to you unless you change your attitude. Without an attitude change, you will get nothing from this knowledge at all, which is exactly what's happening.

Another completely irrational and content-free non-response. Try commenting upon the detailed explanation I just gave you. Try saying something relevant instead of just telling me to change my attitude. Determinism is not alive and well according to you, because you keep telling me that determinism (as standardly defined) is inaccurate. That means the thesis of determinism should be rejected as false, not that it needs to be redefined as something true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we are always learning from a descriptive analysis of reality. So in that sense, I agree. But there are no verbal shoulds in the new world whatsoever.

What does this have to do with anything I've been saying? I will return you to my original comment which spawned this silly tangent about shoulds: It is a trivial tautology that one always does what one considers most preferable out of one's available alternatives. One can still be blameworthy for choosing a morally sub-optimal option that they should not have preferred.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was very clearly explained in the first and second chapters of which you don't know much about, but you think you do. He presupposed nothing. But...you are part of a think tank that knows better.

Bullshit. The presuppositions I have been asking you about are not explained anywhere in the first two chapters. You know this perfectly well, for you have constantly weaseled whenever asked to support them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's so sad to me that your "education" is ruining it for you because it's limited. I am having a hard time digesting this fact.

Another completely irrational non-response. What happened to trying to answer my questions? You just ignored another one! I asked you to elaborate on the alleged false dichotomy you claimed I was making. You have no idea what you were even talking about, do you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And guess what? They are not the end all of who is or who is not rational. In fact, it gives people a false belief in what they actually know.

And yet you think you and your father are the end all of who is or is not rational. Daddy's astute observations are infallible and not to be questioned, whereas anyone else's are worthless and to be rejected out of hand. Get help Peacegirl. You'll never regain your sanity without assistance. Have you worked out why you are still posting here yet?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That's just mimicry.

I don't think it was 'Mimicry', but something akin to that is said to be 'the sincerest form of flattery'. Could somebody help me out here?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All queen bees do is lay eggs. The males do all the pollinating.

You are so wrong again, all the males do is lounge around and do nothing, it is the unfertile female workers that do all the work including pollinating flowers and gathering nectar to make honey.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does. There are more adverse reactions with patented drugs that are chemically altered.

There are some heart medications that are chemically altered from Rattlesnake venom, and it seems that there are less severe reactions from the altered medications than from the straight venom as injected by the rattlesnake. .

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

, that even if I won the Nobel Prize .

I would seriously recomend that you do not hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If someone wants to use the right-of-way system, they need to know whose desire must yield when there are conflicting desires. If they don't want to follow these principles, they don't have to.

Oh really, and what about the heavily armed non-compliance hit squad that are going to inforce the accept or be eliminated clause?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does. There are more adverse reactions with patented drugs that are chemically altered.

Actually, if you look into that you will find the reverse is true. There are far fewer adverse reactions to the manufactured version of medicines than the natural forms. It is the reason we created them in the first place: they can be accurately dosed, and they can be delivered without also delivering a lot of different substances.

You still haven't explained what the difference is between a chemical that a plant has produced and one that is produced in a factory. Both are "altered" in that they are created out of different chemicals.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If someone wants to use the right-of-way system, they need to know whose desire must yield when there are conflicting desires. If they don't want to follow these principles, they don't have to.

You are saying that the right-of-way system is the voluntary application of a principle that governs the behavior of those who choose to adopt that system. If that is the case then you are talking about an ethical principle. Something I believe you have previously denied.

In any case, there can be no must involved if the application of the principle is voluntary. It then becomes a matter of should, something you have also previously denied.

Let me give you an example. Suppose you and I sit down to a game of cards. The game has certain rules and by agreeing to play the game we both agree to abide by those rules. In other words, we both agree to voluntarily apply the principles that govern the game. Suppose then that one of us decides to gain an unfair advantage by palming a key card, or substituting a marked deck (this is called cheating). By your reasoning this would not be possible because, having agreed to abide by the rules of the game, both of us must fairly and consistently apply the principles that govern the game. Cheating is however quite possible, therefore there is no must.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I don't think it was 'Mimicry', but something akin to that is said to be 'the sincerest form of flattery'. Could somebody help me out here?

I believe that the word you are looking for is 'imitation'. The original quote "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" is attributed to Charles Caleb Colton.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, and you are using these false accusations to confirm that I am not a credible person? Please don't come to my website. I would not let you join because you're a liar, and you think too much of yourself as the final arbiter on this knowledge. Therefore, you are intent on distorting everything I say, thus you will never understand this book. I am asking you never ever come to read this book, or join the forum, even out of curiosity. Stay where you are, because here you are Ms. Queen Bee.

Show me where I have lied. And it never occurred to me to join your forum.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is entirely consistent with contra-causal free will that nothing can cause us to do anything we don't want to do. So how does this rule it out? You really have no conception at all of the meanings of the words you use, do you?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Those were my words, not yours. What does it say about you that after a decade of posting online, you still can't even properly format a post? 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.

I was responding to your words. I said it's consistent only if you think in terms of being able to do what we want to do, or make choices. This is considered free will, but only superficially. Lessans uses this phase throughout the book, "I did it of my own free will", but that does not mean my will is free in a deeper sense. Here is an interesting take on determinism. Maybe you can swallow it a little better since it has nothing to do with anything my father wrote, which you will automatically reject:

mphil - Why Contra-Causal Free Will is not an option

It's really not delusional crap. It's just your anger that is saying this because I called you on your own crap.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What do you imagine you called me on? Do you even know? And yes, when you say things like "You are very confused, believe me when I say this", you are spouting delusional crap.

I called you on the fact that according to Lessans' proposition, just because we can choose does not mean we have libertarian or contra-causal free will. In other words, just because we are not being constrained and have the ability or agency to choose what we want to do (which is the standard definition of freedom of the will) does not mean our will is free. This is where there is great confusion in the philosophical world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooooooooo Spacemonkey, don't twist my words, okay? Determinism is alive and well. I am really getting frustrated with your arrogance, and I will not talk to you unless you change your attitude. Without an attitude change, you will get nothing from this knowledge at all, which is exactly what's happening.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Another completely irrational and content-free non-response. Try commenting upon the detailed explanation I just gave you. Try saying something relevant instead of just telling me to change my attitude.

It's getting harder and harder for me to tolerate your attitude toward me. You are very disrespectful and it is starting to really bother me. If you don't think it's relevant, then keep talking to me with this blatant disregard for me as a human being (just because my thoughts don't jive with yours), and our conversation will be over. So it's up to you whether what I say matters or is relevant.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Determinism is not alive and well according to you, because you keep telling me that determinism (as standardly defined) is inaccurate. That means the thesis of determinism should be rejected as false, not that it needs to be redefined as something true.

Fine.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we are always learning from a descriptive analysis of reality. So in that sense, I agree. But there are no verbal shoulds in the new world whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What does this have to do with anything I've been saying? I will return you to my original comment which spawned this silly tangent about shoulds: [I]It is a trivial tautology that one always does what one considers most preferable out of one's available alternatives. One can still be blameworthy for choosing a morally sub-optimal option that they should not have preferred.

You don't understand the implications of determinism at all, and you can't follow the simple logic that follows from this understanding. If you can't even understand that this observation is not a tautology, it is no wonder you think that one can still be blameworthy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was very clearly explained in the first and second chapters of which you don't know much about, but you think you do. He presupposed nothing. But...you are part of a think tank that knows better.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bullshit. The presuppositions I have been asking you about are not explained anywhere in the first two chapters. You know this perfectly well, for you have constantly weaseled whenever asked to support them.

He had no presuppositions. There were no assumptions before he made this discovery. The truth about our conscience is proven after the fact, not before.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's so sad to me that your "education" is ruining it for you because it's limited. I am having a hard time digesting this fact.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Another completely irrational non-response. What happened to trying to answer my questions? You just ignored another one! I asked you to elaborate on the alleged false dichotomy you claimed I was making. You have no idea what you were even talking about, do you?

In your presentation you are saying that we can have both free will and no free will. That's a false dichotomy because we cannot have both.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And guess what? They are not the end all of who is or who is not rational. In fact, it gives people a false belief in what they actually know.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet you think you and your father are the end all of who is or is not rational. Daddy's astute observations are infallible and not to be questioned, whereas anyone else's are worthless and to be rejected out of hand. Get help Peacegirl. You'll never regain your sanity without assistance. Have you worked out why you are still posting here yet?

I never said his discovery can't be questioned, but not challenged with the kind of resentment that will never allow you to grasp these concepts. NEVER! That's the problem. You are so convinced that he could not have a discovery (afterall, I'm considered a troll and who in the world would come to a small forum with something of real value) that this is blocking your ability to hear me or take the time to really study this work. And if you dare tell me I'm not sane one more time, I will not engage with you. Even though you have the capacity for understanding this knowledge, it won't be worth it to me to continue our conversation.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you're so conditioned to hating me

You have a laughably overblown view of your own significance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

that even if I won the Nobel Prize

I had no idea there was a Nobel Prize for My Daddy is Smarter Than Your Daddy Neener Neener Neener.

[Dragar]

peacegirl, none of these sweeping claims of Lessans are 'observations' at all. They are, at best, shaky conclusions. You only think they are observations because he offered no support for them beyond saying they were obvious.

You've already told me that there's no good reason to believe Lessans. Why are you still even trying to argue it? You have absolute faith for no good reason. You can't persuade anyone, because nobody else shares your absolute faith.

[Dragar]

Double post!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, and you are using these false accusations to confirm that I am not a credible person? Please don't come to my website. I would not let you join because you're a liar, and you think too much of yourself as the final arbiter on this knowledge. Therefore, you are intent on distorting everything I say, thus you will never understand this book. I am asking you never ever come to read this book, or join the forum, even out of curiosity. Stay where you are, because here you are Ms. Queen Bee.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Show me where I have lied. And it never occurred to me to join your forum.

You bring up things that have no relevance at all to what the main topic is about. You skirt issues, you hide behind your sleazy way of trying to distract from the main topic; you focus on the minutia to try (like a prosecutor does) to make people question my credibility as a representative of this knowledge. The sad part in all this is that discovery is genuine, and one day it will be recognized for the contribution to humanity that it is deserving of. I never said that empirical testing is not a good way to prove that what he has is valid, but the way all of you put me down, laugh in my face, make jokes at my expense, call me names, will one day come back to haunt you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, none of these sweeping claims of Lessans are 'observations' at all. They are, at best, shaky conclusions. You only think they are observations because he offered no support for them beyond saying they were obvious.

You've already told me that there's no good reason to believe Lessans. Why are you still even trying to argue it? You have absolute faith for no good reason. You can't persuade anyone, because nobody else shares your absolute faith.

This is not faith based Dragar. You can shake your head in pity that I am just a daughter that loved her father, and I can't accept that he may have been wrong, but this has nothing to do with it. These are not shaky conclusions. He was an unusual thinker, beyond what most people are capable of. I'm sorry if you have not read the book carefully or even gotten a rudimentary understanding of these principles. The sad part is that because of his claims regarding the eyes, you have decided that he is a fraud. He is not a fraud. Why can't you keep an open mind until further testing is done? Why are you being so dogmatic? I am not telling you to accept at face value what he has come to conclude as true. I am only saying that you will be blocked from any further understanding if you are not capable of giving him a chance.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Show me where I have lied. And it never occurred to me to join your forum.

You bring up things that have no relevance at all to what the main topic is about.

They are relevant to me, but even if irrelevant, they are not lies.

You skirt issues, you hide behind your sleazy way of trying to distract from the main topic; you focus on the minutia to try (like a prosecutor does) to make people question my credibility as a representative of this knowledge.

I do not skirt issues. Regardless, if you think I do, and think I am sleazy or whatever, this is still not evidence of me lying.

The sad part in all this is that discovery is genuine, and one day it will be recognized for the contribution to humanity that it is deserving of. I never said that empirical testing is not a good way to prove that what he has is valid, but the way all of you put me down, laugh in my face, make jokes at my expense, call me names, will one day come back to haunt you.

Still not evidence of me telling lies. Yet you called me a liar.

[Vivisectus]

The queen of dodging questions accuses Shea of skirting issues and distracting people with irrelevant minutiae. Fabulous.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, if you look into that you will find the reverse is true. There are far fewer adverse reactions to the manufactured version of medicines than the natural forms. It is the reason we created them in the first place: they can be accurately dosed, and they can be delivered without also delivering a lot of different substances.

You still haven't explained what the difference is between a chemical that a plant has produced and one that is produced in a factory. Both are "altered" in that they are created out of different chemicals.

There is a difference in chemical structure. I never said it's a good choice to take venom. I am not going to play this game again. I will just say to go do your own research. If you feel the FDA is doing a good job at permitting drugs to get on the market after enough testing has been done, then take their medicines. Maybe you will be one who is lucky, but there are many who are not. I don't want to take that chance, and it's my right-of-way to do what I feel is best for myself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The queen of dodging questions accuses Shea of skirting issues and distracting people with irrelevant minutiae. Fabulous.

This is not going to start up all over again. I am going to skip over the posts that have one motive, and that is to get me; to convince people I am wrong, and to make comments that are mean and vindictive just so they can get people to doubt anything I say. Enough is enough Vivisectus. Just know that if you are not respectful and don't have a relevant question, we will not be talking anymore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are relevant to me, but even if irrelevant, they are not lies.

I do not skirt issues. Regardless, if you think I do, and think I am sleazy or whatever, this is still not evidence of me lying.

Still not evidence of me telling lies. Yet you called me a liar.

To me, you are a liar, okay? You lie in your omission. You don't tell the honest truth because you don't know the honest truth. This has become a game to you to see who is the winner. I am not into games. You obviously are positive he is wrong and are calling, without true justification, his knowledge as mere assertions. Believe what you want, but there is no reason for us to continue the conversation. I am eliminating everyone who will confront me with a confidence that is unwarranted. I am starting to market and if I answer any posts at all, they will be relevant. Yours is not.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not faith based Dragar. You can shake your head in pity that I am just a daughter that loved her father, and I can't accept that he may have been wrong, but this has nothing to do with it. These are not shaky conclusions. He was an unusual thinker, beyond what most people are capable of. I'm sorry if you have not read the book carefully or even gotten a rudimentary understanding of these principles. The sad part is that because of his claims regarding the eyes, you have decided that he is a fraud. He is not a fraud. Why can't you keep an open mind until further testing is done? Why are you being so dogmatic? I am not telling you to accept at face value what he has come to conclude as true. I am only saying that you will be blocked from any further understanding if you are not capable of giving him a chance.

peacegirl, you agreed with me earlier that there are no good reasons to believe Lessans.

And why have I ruled out Lessans? You mean aside from the fact he contradicts stuff we already know and rely on to be true, aside from the fact that if we listened to him we couldn't land spaceships on Mars, aside from the fact his claims have often been ruled out hundreds of years ago?

If all that isn't enough: because there are hundreds of thousands of cranks and crackpots on the internet, and I can confidently dismiss all of them, just like Lessans, because their methods are shoddy and they have all the hallmarks of having other reasons than science and logic for believing what they do - and that, almost all of the time, means they're wrong.

So noboody, even you, should believe Lessans right now. Go investigate his claims if you want, but claiming they resemble anything other than a crackpot's rantings right now, with no evidence for and plenty against...that's terribly dishonest, and why everyone who gives a damn about science and intellectual integrity and getting things right considers you deceiptful and a hypocrite.

[LadyShea]

To me, you are a liar, okay? You lie in your omission. You don't tell the honest truth because you don't know the honest truth.

I tell the truth as I perceive it, which is all any human can do. I am not a liar. I have evidence that you are liar, can you not provide evidence that I am? Like what am I "omitting"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If someone wants to use the right-of-way system, they need to know whose desire must yield when there are conflicting desires. If they don't want to follow these principles, they don't have to.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are saying that the right-of-way system is the voluntary application of a principle that governs the behavior of those who choose to adopt that system. If that is the case then you are talking about an ethical principle. Something I believe you have previously denied.

I am not denying that this principle has to do with right and wrong, but it is not the kind of principle that deals with right and wrong in terms of what we usually think of when we think of ethical situations such as murder and war. Nevertheless, there is an underlying principle that allows us to know who has the right-of-way in situations that are cloudy. Again, this does not mean that someone who has the right-of-way will consider his desire more important than others. I hope you're not confused by this, but it seems that everyone is trying to take this out of context and make it into something that it is not.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In any case, there can be no must involved if the application of the principle is voluntary. It then becomes a matter of should, something you have also previously denied.

No, this is not about shoulds at all. It's about what is best for ourselves, and once we know that doing certain things are for our benefit, we will do them because we believe they will make our life better. We don't need someone to tell us we should do this because it is the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Let me give you an example. Suppose you and I sit down to a game of cards. The game has certain rules and by agreeing to play the game we both agree to abide by those rules. In other words, we both agree to voluntarily apply the principles that govern the game. Suppose then that one of us decides to gain an unfair advantage by palming a key card, or substituting a marked deck (this is called cheating). By your reasoning this would not be possible because, having agreed to abide by the rules of the game, both of us must fairly and consistently apply the principles that govern the game. Cheating is however quite possible, therefore there is no must.

Cheating is always possible, but you need to understand why cheating would never be an option in the direction of greater satisfaction, once people become citizens. Don't you see that there is so much that is miscontrued in a forum like this? I just hope after all this time there might be some people who are interested in really studying these principles. If not, it's okay too. I am not depending on the time I spent here to approve this knowledge.

If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then
only am I wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive or
dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive over
something that is undeniable such as two plus two equals four. In
order for this discovery to be adequately understood the reader must
not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false,
but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an
opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused
with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away
the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the
years.

For purposes of clarification please note that the words
‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable,’ and are
interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.
Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself.

The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to
win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone... is to
stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen
because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or
because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then
it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the
truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost.

However,
when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion,
government, education and all others want, which include the means
as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because
we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding
of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are
compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas
that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial?

[LadyShea]

You obviously are positive he is wrong and are calling, without true justification, his knowledge as mere assertions. Believe what you want, but there is no reason for us to continue the conversation. I am eliminating everyone who will confront me with a confidence that is unwarranted. I am starting to market and if I answer any posts at all, they will be relevant. Yours is not.

Yet you continue to visit . Persecution complex much?