A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to talk to you anymore Spacemonkey. You are ruining it for yourself.

How can that be, when LadyShea is still busy ruining it for everyone?

Why can't you support your claim that "Under the changed conditions it will be impossible to find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow without justification"?

Why are you still posting here, Peacegirl? Have you worked that out yet? Do you think you are making some kind of progress?

[Vivisectus]

The fact that you say that I'm arguing against determinism is so completely off-base that it just makes me resigned to the fact that there's no point for us to communicate. All you're trying to do is find ways to make it appear that I don't know what I'm saying. I hope people can see through you.

Out of the two of us, I am not the one trying hardest to make it seem like you do not know what you are talking about!

It is not boastful, and one day, if we're all still here, you'll see that it's not.

Any moment now... aaaaany moment. After all it is only about 35 years late, because of scientists being so hard to reach. Oh wait! There is an entire panel of them offering their services.

Please remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development.

Even Mathematical propositions need proof, which you famously lack.

I did the best I could in a very difficult venue. I think I should be applauded for sticking it out this long.

That went straight over your head didn't it?

Bias comes in many forms.

You should know.

No, it's not nonsensical. But taking his claim seriously might take another 100 years. Nothing I can do about that.

This will still be a big lump of nonsense 100 years from now.

I haven't gotten my books yet, so yes I have nothing better to do when it comes to the book. But not for long.

Is that when the Forum Where People Are Now Allowed To Disagree With Lessans is going to take off?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so dense I have to repeat this for the 100th time. For some reason it just won't penetrate. The past cannot cause the present because all we have is the present, but that does not mean that our memories of what happened a moment ago, ten minutes ago, a month ago, a year ago, ad infinitum, doesn't influence our choices in the direction of greater satisfaction each and every moment of time. You are the one that looks like a fool.

LOL!

The past cannot cause the present because all we have is the present,

And yet, events from the past cause things in the present - the earthquake causes the tsunami, despite not existing anymore when the tsunami hits. As I already pointed out. Ad nauseam.

but that does not mean that our memories of what happened a moment ago, ten minutes ago, a month ago, a year ago, ad infinitum, doesn't influence our choices

Ermmm... what you said, namely "the past cannot cause the present" DOES mean that the past cannot influence our choices. Or that we are not bound to choose according to our desires.... one or the other.

in the direction of greater satisfaction each and every moment of time.

I love that mantra. "We choose those things, that we end up choosing!!!" Amazing.

You are the one that looks like a fool.

I would not dream to attempt foolishness in the presence of such a master in the field.

[naturalist.atheist]

When peacegirl says all she has is the present, that present is a frozen moment in time she can never escape. She has a broken brain that will not be fixed by people trying to prod her into realizing her predicament. If anything can be done, it will have a major pharmacological component and intense therapy in the right setting. Anything else is merely taunting a crazy person. It's not a nice thing to do.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not sent the book to anyone yet. If I think they are objective thinkers, I will send them the book for free.

You said you had some academic person interested, and it was several weeks ago. You still haven't sent him/her the book?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can that be, when LadyShea is still busy ruining it for everyone?

Does that mean that if we disagree we are exempt from participating in the 'golden age'? We don't need to wear the transluscent sex robes to have sex with our spouse, eat spaghertti every monday eve. or passively let some bully beat us up because we don't blame him for hitting us first? Thankyou Spacemonkey and LadyShea for showing us the way to ruin it for everyone, if we choose to, of our own free will.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The desire comes from one's heredity and environment, but when you say these things cause, as in the standard definition, we get in trouble. This does not mean that man's will is not free, but the way it is defined causes serious confusion. This has been the longest running debate in philosophy. Lessans cleared it up by reconciling these two ideologies and showing that moral responsibility and determinism are not mutually exclusive.

Saying that "desire comes from one's heredity and environment" is the same as saying that desire is the result of one's heredity and environment. Results are the products of causes. Therefore, saying that "desire comes from one's heredity and environment" is the same as saying that heredity and environment cause desire, all of your circumlocutions notwithstanding.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the only truth value comes from the truth, and the truth is that we only have the present, so how can the past "cause" the present. This has become a serious problem due to inaccurate reasoning. If you don't get this, you will not get why his definition of "greater satisfaction" is more accurate and turns this debate on its head. Who would want to use a definition that is inaccurate, and continue to say that it's useful?

In the post to which you are responding I made no reference to past events causing anything. What I was addressing was your persistent claim that the standard definition of determinism must be wrong because it can be used as an excuse. That it can be used as an excuse has no bearing on whether or not it is an accurate or useful definition.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so dense I have to repeat this for the 100th time. For some reason it just won't penetrate. The past cannot cause the present because all we have is the present, but that does not mean that our memories of what happened a moment ago, ten minutes ago, a month ago, a year ago, ad infinitum, doesn't influence our choices in the direction of greater satisfaction each and every moment of time. You are the one that looks like a fool.

CAUSE noun
1.a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect: You have been the cause of much anxiety. What was the cause of the accident?
2.the reason or motive for some human action: The good news was a cause for rejoicing.
3.good or sufficient reason: to complain without cause; to be dismissed for cause.

You seem to be working under some other definition of cause. What is it? "Influence our choices" is the effect of the causes. Thus past states of affairs can absolutely cause present states of affairs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the only truth value comes from the truth, and the truth is that we only have the present, so how can the past "cause" the present. This has become a serious problem due to inaccurate reasoning. If you don't get this, you will not get why his definition of "greater satisfaction" is more accurate and turns this debate on its head. Who would want to use a definition that is inaccurate, and continue to say that it's useful?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In the post to which you are responding I made no reference to past events causing anything. What I was addressing was your persistent claim that the standard definition of determinism must be wrong because it can be used as an excuse. That it can be used as an excuse has no bearing on whether or not it is an accurate or useful definition.

Let me ask you this again because maybe you didn't understand. If a definition describes something that is not real, would you want to follow the logic that comes from said definition?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, the only truth value comes from the truth, and the truth is that we only have the present, so how can the past "cause" the present. This has become a serious problem due to inaccurate reasoning. If you don't get this, you will not get why his definition of "greater satisfaction" is more accurate and turns this debate on its head. Who would want to use a definition that is inaccurate, and continue to say that it's useful?

Originally Posted by Angakuk"

In the post to which you are responding I made no reference to past events causing anything. What I was addressing was your persistent claim that the standard definition of determinism must be wrong because it can be used as an excuse. That it can be used as an excuse has no bearing on whether or not it is an accurate or useful definition.

Yes, this definition could be used as an excuse which is why there is a problem with the definition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The desire comes from one's heredity and environment, but when you say these things cause, as in the standard definition, we get in trouble. This does not mean that man's will is not free, but the way it is defined causes serious confusion. This has been the longest running debate in philosophy. Lessans cleared it up by reconciling these two ideologies and showing that moral responsibility and determinism are not mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Saying that "desire comes from one's heredity and environment" is the same as saying that desire is the result of one's heredity and environment. Results are the products of causes. Therefore, saying that "desire comes from one's heredity and environment" is the same as saying that heredity and environment cause desire, all of your circumlocutions notwithstanding.

Yes, it is true that the desire based on one's heredity and environment result in a certain response, but to say it was caused implies that we had no control over the choice that was made.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but to say it was caused implies that we had no control over the choice that was made.

As I have asked before, who, besides you and Lessans, see this implication in the word cause?

You are the only people I have ever heard of that think the fact that opinions, thoughts, desires and needs are caused (arise from previous states of affairs) implies lack of control for decisions.

Compulsion is a cause. Our nature is an effect of a cause. So when you and Lessans say we are compelled by our nature to choose that which leads to greater satisfaction, you are describing causal chains of effects.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let me ask you this again because maybe you didn't understand. If a definition describes something that is not real, would you want to follow the logic that comes from said definition?

That is too funny. That has been the entire premise of Angakuk's life.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, this definition could be used as an excuse which is why there is a problem with the definition.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Just remove all the excuses in the world and people who justify themselves with excuses will just suddenly vanish.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I have asked before, who, besides you and Lessans, see this implication in the word cause?

It is implied in the word LadyShea. That's why it's not helping the debate because the past does not cause the present, if all we have is the present.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are the only people I have ever heard of that think the fact that opinions, thoughts, desires and needs are caused (arise from previous states of affairs) implies lack of control for decisions.

The very definition of determinism states that we are caused to do what we do by previous events and circumstances. We are just robots with no say in the matter. That is why the proponents of free will are so up in arms because they say this would free us of all responsibility. In a court of law we could easily say we were caused to kill someone by our heredity and environment; we really didn't want to kill that person but had to. Lessans is saying that nothing can make us someone kill someone unless we want to, for over this we have absolute control. But this is denied in the standard definition due to the confusion with the word "cause", which is extremely misleading.

Lessans is saying that even though we have no free will because we must move in the direction of greater satisfaction, nothing can make us do what we don't want to do, for over this we have mathematical (undeniable) control. Once we transition to a world of no blame, we are forced to take responsibility for anything we do because we can't shift it away from ourselves. How can we say something is not our responsibilty, when no one is holding us responsible? The only time we can use the excuse that we couldn't help ourselves in an effort to shift our responsibility to something other than ourselves, is in the world of free will (a world of blame and punishment).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Compulsion is a cause. Our nature is an effect of a cause. So when you and Lessans say we are compelled by our nature to choose that which leads to greater satisfaction, you are describing causal chains of effects.

That is all very true, but there is a distinction between saying "I was caused to do what I did by my past or my heredity, and I did it because it gave me greater satisfaction, which is a true statement. This faulty reasoning could also allow someone to excuse himself by saying that he really didn't want to hurt that person, but had to not because he chose to do it but because his past made him do it. But, to repeat, nothing can make a person do anything they don't want to do. This faulty reasoning would allow someone to not only lie to others, but to himself. The minute he is questioned, it allows him to rationalize his behavior and his conscience will not be able to work at full throttle. Until you understand this reasoning, you won't understand why the way he defines determinism is accurate and you'll continue to fight me on this issue.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is implied in the word LadyShea.

It is not implied in the word, unless you are using an idiosyncratic definition of the word "cause". I have quoted several definitions, in which one is this implication inherent?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why it's not helping the debate because the past does not cause the present, if all we have is the present.

Present states of affairs arise and continue from past states of affairs. The past therefore causes the present.

Are you positing that the entire universe is created anew at every present moment?

Yes, because the present states of affairs arises and continues from past states of affairs. Our present opinions, thoughts, desires and needs, etc. all arise and continue from our past opinions, thoughts, desires and needs (and everything else you can name because it's all "states of affairs")

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are just robots with no say in the matter.

No, that predeterminism, not determinism. Are you confusing two separate concepts?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why the proponents of free will are so up in arms because they say this would free us of all responsibility.

Bully for them. As far as I know there are no proponents of libertarian free will here....so why are you arguing with them?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In a court of law we could easily say we were caused to kill someone by our heredity and environment; we really didn't want to kill that person but had to.

-snip- there is a distinction between saying "I was caused to do what I did by my past or my heredity, and I did it because it gave me greater satisfaction, which is a true statement. This faulty reasoning could also allow someone to excuse himself by saying that he really didn't want to hurt that person, but had to not because he chose to do it but because his past made him do it.

It is absolutely true that someone's heredity and environment influences their conscience, motivations, opinions, cognition and judgement so of course people will use this truth to try to absolve themselves. That doesn't mean those excuses are heartily accepted by every court or jury as freeing the person of all responsibility. Various events and states of affairs, both past and present, can be considered mitigating or aggravating factors in deciding that, sure.

People also say they are controlled by deities or demons and therefore have absolutely no control over their actions. Should we change the definitions of God or Demons or Angels because some people use them as an excuse?

[Vivisectus]

so how can the past "cause" the present.

By a chain of causation:

Yesterday I warn you the blue berries are poisonous, today you hesitate to pluck and eat them. My warning yesterday causes you to hesitate today, thanks to the memories that the event created.

Unless you want to argue that this does not happen, or somehow does not count as causing something.

By the same token: a lightning strike causes me to hear a thunderclap, despite the fact that by the time the sound reaches me, the lighting no longer exists. Unless you want to say that we also hear "efferently"?

Once again, the silly axioms from the book fall down at the first hurdle.

[LadyShea]

Start the car and drive to the grocery store.

How do you know how to start the car? Knowledge from the past. How is the car running in the present? Because you started the car in the past and put gas in it in the past. Why are there roads to drive on? Because they were built in the past. How do you know the route to the grocery store? Either you drove it in the past, so have that knowledge, or you looked at a map in the past. Why does the grocery store have the foods on the shelves for you to buy in the present? Because they were ordered and stocked in the past.

How do you have money in the present to pay for your groceries? How do you know what foods to buy? How do you know your own name? Because of the past. How do you have clothes to put on in the present? How do you have a place to live in the present? Because of the past. The word because literally means "by cause".

So, how the present NOT be caused by the past? Unless you are positing that the entire universe is created anew at every present moment complete with artifacts from previous present moments.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In the post to which you are responding I made no reference to past events causing anything. What I was addressing was your persistent claim that the standard definition of determinism must be wrong because it can be used as an excuse. That it can be used as an excuse has no bearing on whether or not it is an accurate or useful definition.

I want to add to this post: I am extending the implications of this position. According to the standard definition, someone could easily use the fact that his past made him kill this person, so as far as he is concerned, this definition is very useful. But it is not useful for society because it would allow people to get away with murder literally and figuratively. That's why this position, the way it's defined, is not only inaccurate, but counterproductive. Lessans' proposition is not only more accurate; it increases responsibility to the fullest, so I would say that it's very useful.

p. 80 Instead of being
able to absolve one’s conscience by justifying an act of crime or some
other form of hurt because of the knowledge that he will be blamed
and punished (which permitted efforts to shift his responsibility while
encouraging what had to be criticized and condemned), he is
prevented from deriving any satisfaction from the contemplation of
this hurt by the realization that he will never be blamed, criticized,
punished or judged for doing what he knows everyone must condone,
while being denied a satisfactory reason with which to excuse his
contemplated conduct.

[LadyShea]

That humans use all kinds of things to excuse or explain their behavior, has no bearing on whether it is a fact that present states of affairs are determined by past states of affairs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Start the car and drive to the grocery store.

How do you know how to start the car? Knowledge from the past. How is the car running in the present? Because you started the car in the past and put gas in it in the past. Why are there roads to drive on? Because they were built in the past. How do you know the route to the grocery store? Either you drove it in the past, so have that knowledge, or you looked at a map in the past. Why does the grocery store have the foods on the shelves for you to buy in the present? Because they were ordered and stocked in the past.

How do you have money in the present to pay for your groceries? How do you know what foods to buy? How do you know your own name? Because of the past. How do you have clothes to put on in the present? How do you have a place to live in the present? Because of the past. The word because literally means "by cause".

So, how the present NOT be caused by the past? Unless you are positing that the entire universe is created anew at every present moment complete with artifacts from previous present moments.

There is no doubt that the present moment is based on what happened before. I am not denying this, nor am I saying that the entire universe is created anew at every present moment. In actual reality, everything we do is in the present even though we remember what we did yesterday. Read this again and maybe it will help.

p. 484 Now to solve this apparently unsolvable problem, it is first
necessary to establish certain undeniable facts. Therefore, let me
begin by asking you if there is such a reality as the past? Does this
word symbolize something that is a part of the real world?

“Of course…yesterday is the past, today is the present, and
tomorrow is the future. And this is a mathematical relation.”

It is true that yesterday was Thursday, and the day before was
Wednesday, and there isn’t any person alive who will disagree. But
this does not prove whether the word past is an accurate symbol. Can
you take it, like you can the words apple and pear, and hang it up on
something so I can look through it at the real McCoy? When does
the present become the past? I actually want you to demonstrate how
the present slips into the past. That cannot be done, by God Himself.
The reason man cannot do what I asked is because there is no such
thing as the past. The past is simply the perception of a relation
between two points. As I move from here to there, the past is what I
leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something
that happened. In actual reality you are not moving between two
points, a beginning and an end, you are in motion in the present. I
know that we were talking yesterday, and that I was talking a fraction
of a second ago, and that I am still talking.

The word ‘past’ is
obviously the perception of a relation that appears undeniable because
it has reference to the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to
the sun. You are conscious that it takes a certain length of time to do
something, and because you are also conscious of space you perceive
that as you traverse a point from here to there, what is left behind as
you travel is called the past and your destination is the future. Here
lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how is it
humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future
when in reality all we ever have is the present? Yet we have a word to
describe something that has no existence in the real world. Socrates
didn’t live in the past — he lived in the present, although our
recollection of him (which is in the present) allows us to think back to
this time period. The reason we say that Socrates lived in the past is
because this particular individual is no longer here. But is it possible
for you to say that God or the sun existed in the past? Does anyone
ever sleep in the past; does the sun ever shine in the past; is it possible
for you to do anything in the past?

[Vivisectus]

I know! Mix and match from the following ingredients:

1: The past does not cause the present anyway because of MEANIES!!!

2: How are you going to understand that Peacegirl is right if you do not even agree with her basic principles?

3: Wouldn't it be nice if Peacegirl was right, why do you hate nice?

4: While events in the past give rise to actions, phenomenons, or conditions, that does not mean they cause the past.

5: The past does not cause the present because of images that arrive without travelling because of the focusing of the lenses and mirror images neeble weeble flub flub kaWEEEE frou frou kennedy-kennedy-kenndy schaWINGGGG badda.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no doubt that the present moment is based on what happened before. I am not denying this

You have denied it. Repeatedly.

Every time you say "the past does not cause the present" you deny it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In actual reality, everything we do is in the present even though we remember what we did yesterday

Well hello there, Captain Fucking Obvious! Do you imagine anyone here disagrees with this statement? It's akin to saying "Water is wet".

[Vivisectus]

There is no doubt that the present moment is based on what happened before

LOL called that one. Number 4.