A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not the point I was making LadyShea. You are oblivious. I'm sorry to say this but I felt compelled. I know you will then respond with some kind of attack. I am letting it go because I know you believe this forum has it all figured out. This is where my resentment comes in because you have no idea what this discovery is about, not even a little bit. SERIOUSLY, YOU HAVE NO CLUE BUT YOU STILL CHOOSE TO REFUTE WHAT YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF. FOR THIS REASON I AM EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED.

And I am frustrated that you weasel all the time via backtracking, goalpost shifting, flip-flopping, and just general avoidance, refuse to respond coherently to valid criticisms, use all manner of woo tactics, and throw histrionic fits...and they are histrionic: calling us Gestapo, book burners, and crucifiers is histrionic. Claiming persecution and victimhood when you voluntarily post here is histrionic.

So I call you on your bullshit, yes. I have done so since we started this discussion. If you don't like it, then don't read it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And I am frustrated that you weasel all the time via backtracking, goalpost shifting, flip-flopping, and just general avoidance, refuse to respond coherently to valid criticisms, use all manner of woo tactics, and throw histrionic fits...and they are histrionic: calling us Gestapo, book burners, and crucifiers is histrionic. Claiming persecution and victimhood when you voluntarily post here is histrionic.

So I call you on your bullshit, yes. I have done so since we started this discussion. If you don't like it, then don't read it.

My bullshit doesn't come close to the bullshit you've given me LadyShea, but you only see what you want to see. I have never avoided valid criticisms, I responded to them. I have never changed the goalposts, backtracked (unless something wasn't made clear), flip-flopped if you understood the basis of what I was saying, or used woo tactics. What woo tactics are you talking about? I have also not avoided any questions posed to me. In fact, I have responded intelligently to each and every question. I use no underhanded tactics. I admit I may throw a histrionic fit once and awhile, but only out of frustration as when I used the term Gestapo. BTW, I never ever mentioned the term "book burners," so now you're exaggerating. And yes, I agree that using the term crucifiers is histrionic, but I don't believe this was anymore histrionic than the names I've been called. Furthermore, I don't feel that just because I voluntarily post here that I am not being persecuted because no one believes these claims could be true, which is bringing out the worst in people and entitling them to use me as a scapegoat. I agree that I am not a victim because I can leave any time I want, but after all this time I will not leave unless I feel there isn't anyone at all who is interested in this man's work, because I cannot do this again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And what reason is that, Janis?

It give me greater satisfaction. What is your reason Spacemonkey?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How are you disallowed from responding "in kind" or in any way you want?

You're completely missing the point. Of course I can respond in kind but it's a defensive response. This entire experience is based on attack after attack, questioning my credibility, my intelligence, and my honesty. I am in a defensive posture which changes the way in which I would respond in a different kind of setting. It puts me under pressure to have to answer to these attacks, and therefore takes away from the actual reason for being here (i.e., explaining the actual discovery, which I never did get to do).

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I really don't have that right. It's not my work and to just discard a huge section of his book would be unethical, in my eyes. If people can't overlook their bias and would reject all of his book on account of this, what can I say? It's not just that part that people don't like. They don't like the idea that man's will is not free either. In fact, some people resent his discovery on death. They would burn up all of his books so there would be no trace of his writings left, if they had the opportunity. Thank goodness they won't have that opportunity.

Yes you did

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is tautological as stated. It doesn't matter how he came to the conclusion or what led him to believe it is the truth, it remains a tautology as explained.

Can you support it in a way that is not tautological? If not, then the charge stands.

But a tautology in and of itself does not mean that a claim is wrong, or that a premise is not supported by observation. You cannot make a blanket statement that just because it looks circular, that he doesn't have a strong justification for his premise. Your accusation is unwarranted.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But a tautology in and of itself does not mean that a claim is wrong, or that a premise is not supported by observation.

You are correct. But it is still a tautology even if it true.

You cannot make a blanket statement that just because it looks circular, that he doesn't have a strong justification for his premise.

I never said that circular reasoning precludes a strong justification. I merely said it was circular, and that without being able to review the "strong justification" and without being able to review the data used to reach his conclusion, all we have to evaluate is his explanation, which is tautological and fallacious.

Your accusation is unwarranted.

It's perfectly warranted. Feel free to explain the principle in a non circular manner, otherwise the charge stands.

Here is my support, my "warrant", for calling it tautological. Can you refute it?


The foundational premise, "Humans always move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is a tautology because Lessans defined all actions/choices, whether voluntary or involuntary, as movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. His conclusion that "Mans will is not free because humans always move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is therefore also a tautology, because all actions/choices are already included in the premise.

BTW simply denying is not refuting.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

BTW simply denying is not refuting.

This is peacegirl's idea of an argument. She should charge. It's the only way she is gonna make any money off of her daddy's work.

Monty Python: The Argument Clinic: Director's Cut...

[peacegirl]

cont. from prevous post

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans' claim proves determinism is true; there is no free will even though this does not mean that what we want to do "of our own free will" of our own desire, is taken away. He was so clear about this. He uses this phrase, "I was compelled, of my own free will," throughout the book which is accurate if understood correctly. It means: I did it because I wanted to do it, BUT THIS AGAIN DOES NOT MEAN WILL IS FREE.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why not? All you are showing me is that both you and he refuse to use the term 'free will' for compatibilist free will, despite accepting that compatibilist free will exists and is sufficient for moral responsibility (in every sense except for the application of blame and punishment). Your only objection is verbal - he didn't use the word in this way, so you refuse to allow it to be used this way as well.

He did not use the word that way or any other way BECAUSE THERE IS NO FREE WILL SPACEMONKEY. Until you see that he is right, you will fight me on this and miss the entire discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The way he defines determinism (which is more useful because his proposition is more accurate) keeps responsibility not only intact, but brought to a much higher level where blame and punishment are no longer required because no one would desire to do those things the make blame and punishment necessary, as the lesser of two evils.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Another unsupported assertion based on no more than your ridiculous assumptions about conscience.

Of course it is because you have no conception of what this discovery is about, or that it actually can do what it claims to be able to do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is incorrect. That's what I've been trying to tell you for months on end, that just because this knowledge preserves moral responsibility does not in any way, shape, or form, mean that we have freedom of the will.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is correct by definition, Peacegirl. Any form of freedom that preserves moral responsibility qualifies as a form of free will. This is what the term means.

False. That is the standard definition. Being free to choose right over wrong which, according to compatibilism, qualifies as a form of free will. But if we're not free to choose at all, right or wrong, how can we be held responsible? Seriously, if you are not free to choose, are you free to choose Spacemonkey? You're going right back to the definition of free will, which is an illusion because we really don't have a choice at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The use of the term "free will" in the sense that we can choose among many possibilities (which in today's terms is defined as free will) does not mean we actually have free will. How can we have free will if what we choose is a forced move based on a comparison of preferable differences, which only allows one choice each and every moment of time, rendering all other choices at that moment an impossibility?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We have free will for exactly the same reason that you maintain we are still morally responsible for our choices under these conditions.

We are responsible for performing an action because no one else but us is doing the performing. We are not morally responsible for those actions because our will is not free to do otherwise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The standard definition, if extended, would mean that we cannot hold people responsible for their actions, which is true based on the very definition of determinism. It does not imply that we can be held responsible, which is why philosophers cannot get past this impasse.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wrong again. The standard definition can only be 'extended' to rule out moral responsibility by making an incorrect and fallacious inference - one that you have repeatedly agreed to be wrong despite repeatedly continuing to make it yourself.

There is no incorrect fallacious inference. The only responsibility we hold in an action is that we ourselves caused that action to occur. If I kill someone in a car accident, I am responsible for committing that act, but I am not to be held responsible because my will is not free. You believe that we have to be held accountable for our actions since we had the freedom not to choose what was done. That is incorrect. Again, you have no patience to see the truth because you think your reasoning proves determnism wrong, and it does no such thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Any kind of free will would justify punishment and blame because then we would know that he could have chosen otherwise under the same conditions. But there is no free will Spacemonkey, so we have to start at this point in order to extend this knowledge to see where it leads. You haven't let me do this.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And there's the real reason you refuse to call compatibilist freedom free will. You think that if you did you would have to concede that blame and punishment would be justified. Only it is not the use of a word which does this. It is the simple fact that there is a form of freedom we have which determinism doesn't rule out, and which preserves our moral responsibility, that provides the justification. It is this freedom - which both you and Lessans agree we have - that justifies blame and punishment by maintaining our moral responsibility. It makes no difference whether or not you personally choose to call it free will.

Determinism rules out any kind of free will Spacemonkey. It does not rule out the ability to choose between alternatives, but as he made very clear in the first chapter, this does not mean we actually have freedom of the will. You're not getting this for some reason. You think that because we are able to make choices, that means we have the kind of free will that justifies blame and punishment. You can't get beyond this sticking point because you believe not holding people accountable will exempt them from taking responsibility for a sub-optimal choice of which they should now have to pay a hefty price.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Past states of affairs do give rise (or compel, or cause) present states of affairs, but this phrase has to be qualified. That's all I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So the past does cause the present, despite the fact that you've spent several days arguing otherwise.

I said all of our experiences, our heredity, our environment, our interpretatinos, our past including what happened two minutes ago, all contribute to our present choices. Lessans made clear that one cannot say the past made me do it if I didn't want to do it. As long as that is qualified, we can say the past caused or compelled me to move in a particular direction, which is absolutely true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The very definition of determinism means that what we do is beyond control. How can we punish someone if we know that he could not have chosen otherwise? Think about it. I'm not making this up. This is implied in the very definition of what determinism means.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No it isn't. The definition of determinism does not say or imply this. We can punish someone for the very same reasons you insist they will still be morally responsible for their actions. Their choice may have been caused, but it was still caused in accordance with their strongest preference.

Determinism means you are not responsible because you had no choice. If you had no choice, how can you be blamed for something you could not help doing? Only when it is believed you did have a choice can you be held responsible. You are accepting compatibilism because you believe it resolves the conflict, but how can we have free will and no free will at the same time. You're giving special allowances for human behavior, which is certainly not scientific. It's is a complete contradiction. You want this to be true so punishment can be justified, which you believe is necessary in preventing these type of behaviors.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if there is no free will whatsoever, then compatibilism is a flawed mental construct in a desperate effort to reconcile these two opposing ideologies.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The only thing flawed here is your understanding of compatibilism, and your refusal to allow compatibilist freedom to be labelled as a form of free will. Lessans' own argument is a form of compatibilism.

No it is not. He is extending the principle of determinism to show that when we don't blame because man's will IS NOT FREE, responsiblity goes up, not down. There is no free will whatsoever and is preventing the very world we all have been hoping for.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then that's fine, but I will tell you that people who don't understand this fact will use it and do use it in courtrooms all over the country.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

People like you who do not know what they are talking about. People can and do legitimately use certain causal influences as mitigating factors in their own defense, but this is not the same as saying that one is not responsible for what one did merely because their actions were causally determined. Show me one documented case where a defendant successfully employed this defense to avoid prosecution. I'll bet you can't. I bet you won't even try.

That's because when someone offers certain causal influences as a factor in his defense, he isn't trying to get out of responsibility by saying that he didn't perform the act; he is just saying that these causal influences caused him to choose what he did because he didn't have a better choice under the circumstances. That is a perfectly legitimate defense and could help someone avoid prosecution.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're completely missing the point. Of course I can respond in kind but it's a defensive response.

So when you wrote that the rules of this forum allow people to make false accusations against you but disallow you from responding in kind, you were full of shit. As always.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're completely missing the point. Of course I can respond in kind but it's a defensive response.

Flip-Flop, Flip-Flop, Flip-Flop. Just like clockwork.

[Vivisectus]

The problem with tautologies is that they generally carry no useful information. Saying "We always choose what we prefer" is just another way of saying "we choose what we choose" because there is no other definition given for "what we prefer" other than "That which we end up choosing".

There is no evidence given that that which we choose is determined, and that we can make predictions about human behaviour based on this. In the end, all that he proffers with his "amazing discovery" is Schopenhauers old statement: we may be able to choose what we prefer, but we cannot choose our preferences".

To make it seem like anything else that the re-hashing of centuries-old idea, he requires a scapegoat: blame. Without it, he claims, our consciences would work perfectly.

Now, anyone who is actually interested in the truth would stop at that point and try to find a way to test that idea. It is all very well to wonder if it is the case that human conscience works the way he wants it to without blame. But we simply have no way of knowing if that is the case.

We also have no way of knowing if what he imagined perfect conscience to be is the best conscience we can imagine or attain. Lessans seems to have assumed his idea of the perfect conscience was the best one attainable.

none of these questions seem to have bothered him in the slightest. I see no reason in the book to assume they even crossed his mind. Both philosophy and science are so much more complicated than he could imagine that he seems to have been able to cheerfully ignore both as he bumbled along.

[LadyShea]

What woo tactics are you talking about?

You are closed minded
If you disagree you don't understand
Look at Mendel!
You are too immersed in group think
Modern medicine is bad
Scientific methodology is misleading
Definitions mean nothing'

Need I go on?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care if that syllogism is a tautology. That is not his proof. His proof comes from observing the real world. If you carefully look at his observation, instead of throwing it out because you believe it is unsupported, you will see that this observation is self-evident.

Not at all. I shared with you his observation which was described in the book. You can deny it as being unsupported if you want to, but you'll never appreciate this discovery and what it can do to help our world. I believe that his observation that life itself is an effort to remove some sort of dissatisfaction (this doesn't have to be a conscious movement) with the present position, is 100% accurate. Just because we have the ability to weigh our options does not mean that we're not moving in this direction.

It's perfectly warranted. Feel free to explain the principle in a non circular manner, otherwise the charge stands.

Here is my support, my "warrant", for calling it tautological. Can you refute it?


The foundational premise, "Humans always move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is a tautology because Lessans defined all actions/choices, whether voluntary or involuntary, as movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. His conclusion that "Mans will is not free because humans always move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is therefore also a tautology, because all actions/choices are already included in the premise.

BTW simply denying is not refuting.

I just gave you his observation regarding living things. I know you will not accept his observations as true because he didn't write his observation down on paper. Nevertheless, his observation is spot on, and is a valid foundational premise from which to reason.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are closed minded (I feel that you are being close-minded)

If you disagree you don't understand (That's true, and when this discovery is recognized you'll see why I had to say this. Look at Spacemonkey. He thinks he understands the book but he understands nothing).

Look at Mendel! (There is nothing wrong with comparing what happened to Lessans wiith what happened to Mendel.

You are too immersed in group think (There is definitely an element of bias in here because of the group's influence. I will guarantee you that if I was one on one with someone, they would have a different perspective).

Modern medicine is bad (I didn't say modern medicine is bad. Some medicines are lifesaving. Look at the medicines that are helping AIDS victims. This book does not tell anyone to take or not take medicine, but it does force doctors to live up to the Hippocratic Oath when caring for patients.)

Scientific methodology is misleading (In this case it is. The fact that you are not interested in even trying to understand why conscience works the way it does, because you believe this is only an assertion, is really fucked up).

Definitions mean nothing' (Lessans said definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. In other words, you can have thousands of definitions that do you know good because they aren't defining anything that is real.)

Need I go on?

I realy don't care. I am not a woo, trying to make stuff up.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are closed minded
If you disagree you don't understand
Look at Mendel!
You are too immersed in group think
Modern medicine is bad
Scientific methodology is misleading
Definitions mean nothing'

Need I go on?

Don't forget:

This book claims to solve evil - so if you disagree with it you are in favour of not solving evil!

This book was written by someone with special wisdom that you should just accept: they were just astute observations!

Scientific consensus has changed before, and this makes this idea plausible!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realy don't care. I am not a woo, trying to make stuff up.

Woos don't make stuff up usually. Most wholeheartedly believe what they are saying and all use those same statements against skeptics. You are not different from them

[Spacemonkey]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes you did

You threw me off. I did say people who don't believe in determinism would burn the book if they could, but I didn't label them as being "book burners."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Woos don't make stuff up usually. Most wholeheartedly believe what they are saying and all use those same statements against skeptics. You are not different from them

Your logic is faulty. What you are saying is that just because I wholeheartedly believe what I'm saying is true, it makes me a woo, and just because I use similar statements against skeptics, I must be a woo. That's stupid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Don't forget:

This book claims to solve evil - so if you disagree with it you are in favour of not solving evil! (No, it doesn't mean you're not in favor. What is does mean is that it will take longer to solve the problem of evil because this knowledge is necessary to get rid of evil permanently and on a large scale).

This book was written by someone with special wisdom that you should just accept: they were just astute observations! (He did have special wisdom and ability; you would hate it if he was right).

Scientific consensus has changed before, and this makes this idea plausible!

This is not a matter of concensus. A concensus isn't always right. Only proof of what he observed through empirical testing will vindicate this man.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You threw me off. I did say people who don't believe in determinism would burn the book if they could, but I didn't label them as being "book burners."

People who would burn books if they could are book burners.

Book burners are a horrid breed of humans. It's an evil state of mind. One need not actually make a bonfire to be a book burner.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You threw me off. I did say people who don't believe in determinism would burn the book if they could, but I didn't label them as being "book burners."

Whew, it's a good thing we got that settled. Now I can go burn your dad's book, that is if I ever find a copy being given away.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your logic is faulty. What you are saying is that just because I wholeheartedly believe what I'm saying is true, it makes me a woo, and just because I use similar statements against skeptics, I must be a woo. That's stupid.

My accusation was that you use woo tactics. And you do by making their same tired old arguments. How is my logic faulty?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a matter of concensus. A concensus isn't always right. Only proof of what he observed through empirical testing will vindicate this man.

Appealing to non-existent future evidence that will vindicate the idea. Also a woo tactic.