A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Is it possible to know something that isn't true?

Yes, a lot of people "Know" things that are not true. You need to get out more.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why are you threatening to leave again when you have no real intention of doing so?

koan has made coherent points and supported her views. Why not try the same in your refutation for once?

Her refutations are bullshit. She has no coherent point of view because she doesn't even know what his observations are. She immeidately assumed he was wrong from the very beginning. She said he was schizophrenic before she read anything. Doesn't that tell you something? Yes, she's making her arrogant presence known, because she wants points for her smarts. But she's really not smart at all if she can't even ask a dam question before parading around in this thread as if she's the big cheese. Seriously, I think she is covering for her insecurity and I want nothing to do with it.

[thedoc]

Koan, I have stated this before, the closer you get to the truth, the more hostile and abusive peacegirl gets with her responses. Keep up the good work.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Her refutations are bullshit. She has no coherent point of view because she doesn't even know what his observations are. She immeidately assumed he was wrong from the very beginning. She said he was schizophrenic before she read anything. Doesn't that tell you something? Yes, she's making her arrogant presence known, because she wants points for her smarts. But she's really not smart at all if she can't even ask a dam question before parading around in this thread as if she's the big cheese. Seriously, I think she is covering for her insecurity and I want nothing to do with it.

It tells me you don't like the work being critiqued so are, once again, going for the ad hom. She has obviously been reading the work, and told you her conclusions from that reading.

You can attempt to adequately refute for a change, or you can throw a shit fit as usual. Which one furthers your goals? Do you even know what your goal for staying here at :ff is?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I looked at the logical fallacies and none of them fit. He did not make these kinds of mistakes. If you want to list them, I will go over them with you.

koan did list them, with links, and with the examples from the book. So, grab them and start going over them. Why are you asking for something that was already done?

Just like the charge of modal fallacy, which was laid out very clearly by davidm, you will continue to say "No it isn't" as your only response.

[koan]

I'm really not that smart.

To show how not smart I am, I realized this morning that my two sided equation question gave a one sided equation example and she seems to know even less about math than I do because she didn't notice. I didn't write that out to show her how smart I am. I wrote it to find out what her equation looks like. I still want to know. Perhaps we can work out "the algebra" if she isn't willing just to see how it was supposed to work.

3x-1=2x+5 (solve for x)
3x-2x=5+1
x=6

Then we need an equation that has A(Man has no free will) and B(Man has complete control over what gives satisfaction) on opposite sides and see if we get anything other than zero.

Meanwhile... I haven't asked a single question? I have asked one pointedly single question that I've promised to repeat until answered:
What do you know about evil, peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

I'm really not that smart.

To show how not smart I am, I realized this morning that my two sided equation question gave a one sided equation example and she seems to know even less about math than I do because she didn't notice. I didn't write that out to show her how smart I am. I wrote it to find out what her equation looks like. I still want to know. Perhaps we can work out "the algebra" if she isn't willing just to see how it was supposed to work.

3x-1=2x+5 (solve for x)
3x-2x=5+1
x=6

Then we need an equation that has A(Man has no free will) and B(Man has complete control over what gives satisfaction) on opposite sides and see if we get anything other than zero.

Meanwhile... I haven't asked a single question? I have asked one pointedly single question that I've promised to repeat until answered:
What do you know about evil, peacegirl?

Again, what the hell are you talking about koan? You are such a know it all and you haven't a clue. That's the most dangerous thinking of all. Where was it stated that man has complete control over what gives satisfaction? Show me in the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

koan did list them, with links, and with the examples from the book. So, grab them and start going over them. Why are you asking for something that was already done?

Just like the charge of modal fallacy, which was laid out very clearly by davidm, you will continue to say "No it isn't" as your only response.

I've answered this question. Even animals move in this direction whether they consciously choose to or not. Choice itself is an illusion. If man is always moving in one direction (the direction of greater satisfaction), this has nothing to do with actual or necessary. Every movement is a necessary choice. You are making a false distinction before a choice before it is made and a choice that has definitely been made. Contemplating which choice is preferable does not make will free. Every single movement from the time you get up to the time you go to sleep is done not of your own free will. Now tell me again how this is a modal fallacy?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

koan did list them, with links, and with the examples from the book. So, grab them and start going over them. Why are you asking for something that was already done?

Just like the charge of modal fallacy, which was laid out very clearly by davidm, you will continue to say "No it isn't" as your only response.

I have laid it out LadyShea. You are just not listening. As far as going through the links, I'm not willing to go out on a limb if she isn't willing to work with me step by step. Let her list the first one in a new post and I'll go to that link. She made the charges so now she now has to live with her false accusations. Believe me, she won't come forward because she doesn't want to be proved wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've said many times that if man is always moving in one direction (the direction of greater satisfaction), this has nothing to do with actual or necessary.

If you say "man MUST do something", you are introducing the element of necessity.

If you say "man does something", that is a statement about actuality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Every movement is a necessary choice.
Nothing is optional.

This is what makes your argument fallacious.

[LadyShea]

I have laid it out LadyShea.

You've never laid anything out. You simply deny that he used fallacious reasoning

Originally Posted by davidm

Your argument, or the author’s argument, seems to go: If option A is best for me, than I must choose option A (hence, no free will).

This commits the fallacy of modal logic, illicitly assigning neccessity to a contingent outcome.

If indeed there is a “necessity” component to your argument (true in all possible worlds,) then the necessity lies, not in the consequent, but in the conjoint relation between the consequent and the antecedent.

Assuming the truth of the claim that we all invariably choose what we think is best for us, the proper logical construction is:

Necessarily, (If I think A is best for me, then I will (Not Must!) choose A)

And NOT:

If I think A is best for me, then I must (necessarily) choose A.

The modal fallacy here is plain to see, and the author’s argument against free will is formally logically invalid, and needs no further rebuttal.

For more on the modal fallacy, see here, for example

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It tells me you don't like the work being critiqued so are, once again, going for the ad hom. She has obviously been reading the work, and told you her conclusions from that reading.

Ad hom? I don't have to respond to someone who is so high falutin that she can't accept her own mistakes in reasoning. She doesn't even have the two sides to this equation right. She is a know it all, and know it alls don't usually know half of what they think they know.

Originally Posted by koan

You can attempt to adequately refute for a change, or you can throw a shit fit as usual. Which one furthers your goals? Do you even know what your goal for staying here at :ff is?

I am not throwing a shit fit LadyShea. I will not talk to somebody who talks down to me. She came here and without knowing what this discovery was about, she concluded he was wrong. Her sarcasm is very offensive. The refutations she has brought up are full of holes and she hasn't asked one question in earnest. I'm not going to engage with someone like this unless she changes her tactics.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ad hom? I don't deserve to respond to someone who is filled with accusation? I'm not even trying to be nasty. I'm just telling her she is a know it all, and know it alls don't usually know half of what they think they know.

You sound quite unhinged when you start going off about people's motivations and mindset, that you know nothing about, like you did there.

Weasel.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've never laid anything out. You simply deny that he used fallacious reasoning

No LadyShea, I will choose A versus I must choose A is a false distinction. No one is saying you must choose A before it is chosen. Saying I will choose means only that it has not yet been chosen, and that B could be chosen instead of A. Nothing is in stone until it is chosen. But that doesn't change the fact everything (the contemplation, the pondering, etc.) is part of the deterministic process. Why did you ignore my last post entirely? Every single thing we do, including our decision not to choose something after gathering the facts, is a necessary move so the distinction you are making is not valid.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, what the hell are you talking about koan? You are such a know it all and you haven't a clue. That's the most dangerous thinking of all. Where was it stated that man has complete control over what gives satisfaction? Show me in the book.

You also know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that nothing has the power, that no one can cause or compel you to do anything against your will — unless you want to, because over this you have mathematical control.(p77)

man controls want (want being the need to move towards greater satisfaction)

Remember now, you haven’t hurt me yet, and you know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that nothing, no one can compel you to hurt me unless you want to, for over this you have mathematical control;(p77)

reminder that man controls want, (but is "want"= "satisfaction"?)

consequently, your motion from here to there, your decision as to what is better for yourself, is still a choice between two alternatives — to hurt me or not to hurt me.(p77)

Yes, "want"="satisfaction"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ad hom? I don't deserve to respond to someone who is filled with accusation? I'm not even trying to be nasty. I'm just telling her she is a know it all, and know it alls don't usually know half of what they think they know.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You sound quite unhinged when you start going off about people's motivations and mindset, that you know nothing about, like you did there.

Her words are sarcastic. I don't care what her mindset is, I don't have to engage with her. My god, she accused him of having a mental illness the first day she was here. That's foul play.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

WEASEL

You love that word don't you? You have accused me of throwing a shit fit, and I am defending myself against that accusation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

man controls want (want being the need to move towards greater satisfaction)

reminder that man controls want, (but is "want"= "satisfaction"?)

Yes, "want"="satisfaction"

And you call this precise thinking? Satisfaction in this context only means choosing the best option as you move from here to there. I don't always want what gives me greater satisfaction, but I have no better choice. If I am starving I might eat dog food because there is no other option other than starvation. I don't want to eat that food (it doesn't satisfy me); in fact it's hard to keep it down, but it is better than the alternative.

[koan]

I am here to protect the English language. Others have done a fine job of protecting science before I arrived. Please stop slaughtering words.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. I'm not going to engage with someone like this unless she changes her tactics.

In other words, you have to 'Kiss Peacegirl's ASS' to even hope to get a civil, meaningful response from her.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ad hom? I don't have to respond to someone who is so high falutin that she can't accept her own mistakes in reasoning.

Well this certainly explaines Peacegirl's attitude toward everyone, but it doesn't explain why Peacegirl expects everyone to respond to her posts.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, I will choose A versus I must choose A is a false distinction. No one is saying you must choose A before it is chosen. Saying I will choose means only that it has not yet been chosen, and that B could be chosen instead of A. Nothing is in stone until it is chosen. But that doesn't change the fact everything (the contemplation, the pondering, etc.) is part of the deterministic process. Why did you ignore my last post entirely? Every single thing we do, including our decision not to choose something after gathering the facts, is a necessary move so the distinction you are making is not valid.

Peacegirl, in previous posts you have stated that the act of choosing, is retroactive, making the choice a necessary one before the choice is made.

[LadyShea]

she's making her arrogant presence known, because she wants points for her smarts. But she's really not smart at all if she can't even ask a dam question before parading around in this thread as if she's the big cheese. Seriously, I think she is covering for her insecurity and I want nothing to do with it.

This is a shit fit

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you need a justification to blame.

I know that is what you and Lessans believe. What I want to know is why you think that is true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you blame a person who was in a wheelchair for not being able to walk?

I could, if I wanted to.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, I will choose A versus I must choose A is a false distinction. No one is saying you must choose A before it is chosen.

You are saying man is compelled (ie" must) to choose that which he believes will lead to greater satisfaction. You have also stated that he has no choice (again must) but to do so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Saying I will choose means only that it has not yet been chosen, and that B could be chosen instead of A. Nothing is in stone until it is chosen.

Correct. There is no element of necessity if there is more than one option that might be chosen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that doesn't change the fact everything (the contemplation, the pondering, etc.) is part of the deterministic process.

So? What do you think this explains? Deterministic doesn't mean predictable...determined does not predetermined.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why did you ignore my last post entirely?

Which post?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Every single thing we do, including our decision not to choose something after gathering the facts, is a necessary move so the distinction you are making is not valid.

You just made the distinction again by using the word necessary.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I am starving I might eat dog food because there is no other option other than starvation. I don't want to eat that food (it doesn't satisfy me); in fact it's hard to keep it down, but it is better than the alternative.

Really? Just how much 'Dog Food' have you eaten, to have this good an assesment of it's eatability? I have heard of poor people eating Dog Food but don't recall seeing any culinary reviews, However my son has said that some of it does taste good. Are you making this up?