A revolution in thought - Page 885

Spacemonkey · #**22101** 11-21-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This response just shows how desperate you are.

How so? You're the one not providing any rational response. You made false claims about your own behaviour. I merely proved those claims false by quoting clear examples of you doing precisely what you claimed you do not do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't win Spacemonkey by trying to influence a group of people with no actual proof.

No shit. Yet you've been trying to do just that for nearly a decade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave it to you and what did you do? Ignore it.

When did you give me "actual proof"? What was it proof of? And where did I ignore it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Good bye.

See you soon! :wave:

Spacemonkey · #**22102** 11-21-2012, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get to use a term in the way it is normally defined Spacemonkey.

You can use your words in any way that you like, but if you insist on defining a term differently to how it is being used by those you are arguing against, then you will be arguing against a strawman instead of the view they are actually expressing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't insist you do anything at all. Do what you want, and define terms any way that you want, but you won't get any closer to the truth. Non-causal compulsion is an oxymoron.

Here you make a valid point. "Non-causal compulsion" was a very poor choice of words on my part. Obviously all compulsion will be causal. The point of the distinction I was making is that some (of what you wish to call) compulsion is merely causal, while there is also a stronger form of compulsion which involves a strong and experienced psychological impulse towards a certain action that one feels unable to act against. Consider a drug addict choosing to inject himself (or you choosing to continue posting here). There is a strong and experienced psychological compulsion which involves more than merely being caused to choose as one does. It is a causal influence which overrides all other causal factors, rendering the final choice largely immune from influence by changes in any other antecedent circumstances.

A causally determined choice need not involve any such experienced psychological compulsion. I can be caused to choose toast over cereal for breakfast without feeling compelled to choose one over the other. The choice is still rigid in the sense that given those exact antecedent circumstances I would always have chosen the same. But it is not rigid in the stronger sense involved in the kind of compulsion compatibilists speak of. In this case the choice is rigid across not only the actual antecedent circumstances, but also a wide range of counterfactually differing circumstances. The drug addict will still inject himself even if offered a great deal not to do so, or if the consequences are known to be very bad. Differing antecedent circumstances will not be likely to result in a different choice given this kind of compulsion.

Compatibilism says that freedom from coercion and this stronger sense of compulsion is all that is required to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. It says that merely being caused to choose as one does (regardless of whether or not you wish to also call this 'compulsion') does not prevent us from being morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no such thing as compatibilist freedom, as if this is different from the standard usage of the word. You cannot give your sacred belief a free pass because you don't want it to be wrong. If compatibilist freedom requires only freedom from coercion, you still are left with the standard definition of free will. If compatibilist freedom requires freedom from compulsion, you also still left with the standard definition of free will because "compulsion" means "compelled". If one is compelled, he does not have a free choice.

There is a compatibilist notion of freedom which differs from the contra-causal variety. I have defined it for you, and will do so again. And contra-causal/libertarian free will is not the 'standard usage'. Plus you are still equivocating between different senses of compulsion.

Compatibilist free will: The freedom to choose without the kind of experienced psychological compulsion which renders a choice highly resistant to variation in antecent causal conditions (i.e. no 'compulsion' beyond mere causal determination), and without coercion, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

Contra-causal/Libertarian free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion, coercion, or causal necessity, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices, i.e. such that with exactly the same antecedent causal conditions, one could have chosen otherwise.

Compatibilism says that the former is sufficient, and the latter is unnecessary, for making us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. And you still have no argument or rational objection against it.

Bump.

thedoc · #**22103** 11-21-2012, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not the point. The point is that sex is important; in fact it's the most important when it comes to finding a life partner. I didn't say personality doesn't sometimes have an influence, but in the end sexual appeal is central in any romantic relationship. If physical attraction does not follow, then the conditions that allow a couple to be romantically involved are not there. You can love someone in a different way, but not in a sexual way which is the basis for marriage. You are so defensive for some reason that you think being in love shouldn't have anything to do with sex, but it does.

Sex is only a part of the relationship and not always very important. Many relationships start out with no sex at all and not even the thought of a sexual relationship but then love developes and finally sex is brought into the relationship but not always. Sometimes sex is never a part of a very sound relationship. Lessans ideas of sex as the basis of marrage, is the result of a very biased and perverted view of reality.

Spacemonkey · #**22104** 11-21-2012, 02:55 PM

Looking back through the thread I found Peacegirl had edited a post after I had begun replying to it, managing to make it even more retarded than it was to begin with...

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's no proof that non-absorbed photons get reflected. White light strikes objects and goes in the direction of the angle, but non-absorbed photons do not.

White light hits objects, and bounces away... but non-absorbed photons don't do this at all! But then what is this white light made of as it travels away? Does it consist of absorbed photons? Or is it unabsorbed light composed of something other than photons? If neither, then this white light is composed of non-absorbed photons... despite the fact that she thinks the white light does something thing which non-absorbed photons do not. Plus there's the additional problem that if white light is hitting the object, and the same white light is bouncing off and traveling away, then the object is obviously not absorbing any light at all... despite Peacegirl's insistence that she is not contesting the absorptive properties of objects.

And yet we are supposed to suspend our judgment and consider these claims to be plausible while we await future testing? Madness. Utter lunacy.

peacegirl · #**22105** 11-21-2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Looking back through the thread I found Peacegirl had edited a post after I had begun replying to it, managing to make it even more retarded than it was to begin with...

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's no proof that non-absorbed photons get reflected. White light strikes objects and goes in the direction of the angle, but non-absorbed photons do not.

White light hits objects, and bounces away... but non-absorbed photons don't do this at all! But then what is this white light made of as it travels away? Does it consist of absorbed photons? Or is it unabsorbed light composed of something other than photons? If neither, then this white light is composed of non-absorbed photons... despite the fact that she thinks the white light does something thing which non-absorbed photons do not. Plus there's the additional problem that if white light is hitting the object, and the same white light is bouncing off and traveling away, then the object is obviously not absorbing any light at all... despite Peacegirl's insistence that she is not contesting the absorptive properties of objects.

And yet we are supposed to suspend our judgment and consider these claims to be plausible while we await future testing? Madness. Utter lunacy.

What the *#$* are you bringing this into the discussion on free will? Utter lunacy, I agree. Goodbye Spacemonkey.

Spacemonkey · #**22106** 11-21-2012, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the *#$* are you bringing this into the discussion on free will? Utter lunacy, I agree. Goodbye Spacemonkey.

It has nothing to do with your discussion on free will. I was obviously responding to an earlier post you made on a different topic. One that was completely nuts.

You seemed to have abandoned our discussion on compatibilism, so I consider myself free to respond to whatever the hell I like. Deal with it.

peacegirl · #**22107** 11-21-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the *#$* are you bringing this into the discussion on free will? Utter lunacy, I agree. Goodbye Spacemonkey.

It has nothing to do with your discussion on free will. I was obviously responding to an earlier post you made on a different topic. One that was completely nuts.

You seemed to have abandoned our discussion on compatibilism, so I consider myself free to respond to whatever the hell I like. Deal with it.

You can respond however you like, but our conversation is over Spacemonkey. You turned out to be anything but a free thinker and a careful investigator. All you have done is tried to protect your sacred worldview at any cost, and I can't win even if Lessans is right. You are giving him no chance in hell.

Spacemonkey · #**22108** 11-21-2012, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You seemed to have abandoned our discussion on compatibilism, so I consider myself free to respond to whatever the hell I like. Deal with it.

You can respond however you like, but our conversation is over Spacemonkey. You turned out to be anything but a free thinker and a careful investigator. All you have done is tried to protect your sacred worldview at any cost, and I can't win even if Lessans is right. You are giving him no chance in hell.

What happened to our "dual"? I've carefully explained my compatibilist position to you as you requested, bumping the posts you asked me to bump. And you've refused to address my post at all, claiming you were not lying when you said you are trying to answer as many questions as you can, while pointedly refusing to answer any of the questions I actually ask. I don't have any "sacred worldview" and you've refused to present any actual argument or objection against my position. Which one of us is not being rational?

Spacemonkey · #**22109** 11-21-2012, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to thank the person who said I made a good impression on them. It helped to boost my morale since it's been pretty low lately. Thanks again for your vote of support! :wink:

Are you hallucinating now? Where was this vote of support?

Bump.

LadyShea · #**22110** 11-21-2012, 03:34 PM

You want to talk about free will, how about this post you responded to with a total weasel?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, when you're done weaseling by throwing a "LadyShea is a meanie" fit, please respond to my posts regarding the greater satisfaction principle and associated tautology and fallacies.

I excerpted the page that explained where his observations came from. If you don't understand it or don't agree that life moves in this direction; all forms of life, not just when making a choice between two or more alternatives, then you will employ the false accusation that this is a tautology. It is not.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Your weaselly response via assertion

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Do you have a better response than that?

LadyShea · #**22111** 11-21-2012, 04:50 PM

Bumping to ensure any lurkers see this on the latest page

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

in order to know what people are actually thinking you need to take a survey and come back and report the results

Participants and lurkers, please respond to the poll at the following link: Stastical analysis for peacegirl - Freethought Forum

Poll responses are anonymous

Currently there are 19 votes (14 from past and current thread participants and 5 from lurkers), all stating peacegirl has FAILED to make a favorable impression.

If you are a lurker that is interested in the book and wants to know more, but for whatever reason doesn't want to participate here at :ff:

, please contact peacegirl directly so she can hook you up. The website is Decline and Fall of All Evil - The Most Important Discovery of Our Times

peacegirl, there is no contact form, should people register as members to contact you?

peacegirl · #**22112** 11-21-2012, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the *#$* are you bringing this into the discussion on free will? Utter lunacy, I agree. Goodbye Spacemonkey.

It has nothing to do with your discussion on free will. I was obviously responding to an earlier post you made on a different topic. One that was completely nuts.

You seemed to have abandoned our discussion on compatibilism, so I consider myself free to respond to whatever the hell I like. Deal with it.

I answered all your posts. Compatibilism is false. You can respond to whatever the hell you like, but it's not going to involve me. Your overbearing demeanor and utter disrespect for me is now going to cost you. Deal with it.

peacegirl · #**22113** 11-21-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You want to talk about free will, how about this post you responded to with a total weasel?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, when you're done weaseling by throwing a "LadyShea is a meanie" fit, please respond to my posts regarding the greater satisfaction principle and associated tautology and fallacies.

I excerpted the page that explained where his observations came from. If you don't understand it or don't agree that life moves in this direction; all forms of life, not just when making a choice between two or more alternatives, then you will employ the false accusation that this is a tautology. It is not.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Your weaselly response via assertion

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Do you have a better response than that?

No I don't LadyShea. Nothing I have to say will be enough to prove to you that this is a genuine discovery, and I'm wasting way too much time here. You will continue to have a hostile reaction to anything I say because he didn't provide the kind of evidence you are open to and willing to accept, so we're also done. I am letting you claim victory.

LadyShea · #**22114** 11-21-2012, 05:53 PM

Quote:

No I don't LadyShea. Nothing I have to say will be enough to prove to you that this is a genuine discovery, and I'm wasting way too much time here. You will continue to have a hostile reaction to anything I say because he didn't provide the kind of evidence you are open to and willing to accept, so we're also done. I am letting you claim victory.

So you cannot respond rationally by offering a thoughtful refutation to my statement, and are going to avoid responding instead?

I do not consider that a victory at all. I would much prefer an actual debate where you refrained from being a drama queen and weasel and supported your points rationally. Any hostility I have towards you is based solely on those traits of yours.

Vivisectus · #**22115** 11-21-2012, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, sex is far from the only issue in a relationship, peacegirl. Sex is important, but sexuality is only one aspect about a person. Reducing individual human beings to their sexual organs, and diminishing rich and robust relationships to merely satisfactory fucking, is disgusting and dysfunctional.

Maybe if you understood what a healthy relationship is you wouldn't be divorced.

Lessans was very clear what he meant when he said: The basis of a sound marriage in the new world will be this physical attraction[/B] and satisfaction both experience in the presence of each other, nothing else, not money, education (which is another farce that came into existence out of necessity and will surprise everybody, especially those who consider themselves educated), social position, religion, race, or anything else — only physical attraction

Hear hear. And it is not the only place where the book attempts to reduce the rich, varied and complex human experience to overly simplified claptrap.

Stephen Maturin · #**22116** 11-21-2012, 07:15 PM

Y'all are just jealous because you don't look good in translucent fuck garments.

Stephen Maturin · #**22117** 11-21-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

But Dr. Phil is one of those established academics that Lessans was ranting about in the book, he even stated that Psychology was unnecessary and would disapear.

Not only that, but "educated" is supposed to be one of those words that doesn't properly describe reality and needs to be done away with because it damages self-esteem. A Ph.D. is nice and all, but in Lessantopia it's no better plain ol' street smarts. Thus, a pimp who learned by trial and error the skill of inflicting horrific pain on his employees without leaving any marks is every bit as smart and valuable as Phil McGraw and all his fancy book learnin'.

Spacemonkey · #**22118** 11-21-2012, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered all your posts.

You just can't stop lying, can you? You haven't replied to post #21988 at all, despite my having bumped it for you 4 TIMES after you asked me to bump it for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Compatibilism is false.

Really? Because you haven't given me any reason to think so. Try responding to post #21988 to show me some flaw in compatibilism.

LadyShea · #**22119** 11-21-2012, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

{Dr. Phil} has been chosen as America's psychologist for a reason

"America's Psychologist" is Dr.Jeff Gardere - America's Psychologist

Stephen Maturin · #**22120** 11-21-2012, 11:57 PM

Yes, that makes sense. Gardere possesses that special mix of pomposity, condescension and wingnutty social conservatism that all real Americans look for in their official Psychologist.

naturalist.atheist · #**22121** 11-22-2012, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing I have to say will be enough to prove to you that this is a genuine discovery, and I'm wasting way too much time here. You will continue to have a hostile reaction to anything I say because he didn't provide the kind of evidence you are open to and willing to accept, so we're also done. I am letting you claim victory.

Sorry peacegirl, nobody considers matching wits with the mentally ill to be a fair fight in any way. It's really very sad. And no matter what you say, your insanity will keep you coming back. Until you get help or you die.

Get help peacegirl. You will only make the story all the sadder if you die in this crazy condition.

LadyShea · #**22122** 11-22-2012, 01:22 AM

WTF is "America's Psychologist" anyway :lol:

Ymir's blood · #**22123** 11-22-2012, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

WTF is "America's Psychologist" anyway :lol:

"one of the most widely sought-after expert[sic] in the field of mental health."
duh.

Angakuk · #**22124** 11-22-2012, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Ruth

"your brain is your most important sex organ, not your genitals. Tickling your partner's intellect has as much to do with foreplay as does tickling the fun parts."

LOL at Lady Shea trumping peacegirl's Dr. Phil with a Dr. Ruth.

Angakuk · #**22125** 11-22-2012, 06:03 AM

I just read this on John Hawks' blog and was immediately struck by how well it applies to Lessans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Hawks

Larry Moran describes a lecture by Michael Behe, an advocate of intelligent design arguments: "Michael Behe in Toronto, Part 1". Moran didn't care for the lecture. I wanted to react to this comment:

This is one of the distinguishing characteristics of kooks. If you have to defend your views by pointing out that many great scientific ideas were initially rejected by the scientific community then you've already lost the battle. No legitimate scientist does this.

Some scientists unfortunately do do this. Especially in paleoanthropology. As in, "They all scoffed at Dart, too". Or, "They all said Neandertals were just pathological modern humans, too". Yes, former paleoanthropologists faced challenges in having their ideas accepted. It is the nature of science. It doesn't follow that your ideas are correct.

I think paleoanthropologists should take Moran's words seriously. Great scientists overcome challenges. Kooky scientists try to make their own trivial challenges sound like the great intellectual battles of history.