A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you were told that a
woman with a pocketbook full of money went on a spending spree to
ten stores, paid a dollar to get in every one, a dollar to get out, spent
half of what she had in each and came out of the last place absolutely
broke, it would be very easy to determine the amount of money she
had to start because the dollar she paid to get out of the last store
which broke her must represent one-half of the money spent there.
Consequently, she had two dollars left after paying a dollar to get in,
giving her three just before entering. Since she paid a dollar to get out
of the penultimate store, this added to the three gives her four which
represents one-half of the money spent there. Continuing this process
eight more times it is absolutely undeniable that she must have begun
her spending spree with $3,060. As we can see from this example,
when a key fact is available from which to reason it is then possible to
solve a problem, but when it is not, we must form conjectures and
express opinions with the aid of logic.

Great, so Lessans - your mathematical genius - couldn't even perform basic arithmetic. Well done.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Impersonal laws of nature do not impose timelines and requirements like that. You are talking about a supernatural deity, YET AGAIN

There is no imposition by a supernatural deity LadyShea. You are making stuff up. Does a supernatural deity impose the rate at which a child grows? The answer is no.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Great, so Lessans - your mathematical genius - couldn't even perform basic arithmetic. Well done.

Was the answer $3,069? You are so mean Spacemonkey. I am starting to despise you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Was the answer $3,069?

What was Lessans' answer? I asked you to look at his own manuscripts rather than to just quote me from your own PDF. What did he think the answer was?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no imposition by a supernatural deity LadyShea. You are making stuff up. Does a supernatural deity impose the rate at which a child grows? The answer is no.

Biological development of an individual organism and the societal development of an entire species are not analogous. Talk about apples and oranges.

You claim there is a timeline on eradicating evil.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...and you said that belief in free will suspends causality. And then confirmed that was what you said and meant. Which means you are either off your rocker, or you just didn't have a clue what you are talking about.

I have a clue to what I'm talking about Vivisectus. Determinism rules out free will. I said that free will does not suspend causality because there is no such thing.

You are such a vindictive guy and I don't know what I did to bring this out in you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have literally given you what you said you could never find: access to the scientific community! The Scientists! (tm) that your father just could not reach! If the theories in the book are "undeniable" and "mathematical", how can it fail to convince them? And once they are convinced, they will teach it to their students - in universities all over the US and the UK.

Unless, of course, the book is unconvincing and full of fallacies. If that is the case, they will point it out and nothing happens. But hey! Neither do you lose anything. You don't actually have any credibility to lose.

I have no idea who these philosophers are or what their worldview is. Just because they are philosophy instrucotrs does not mean they are open minded to new ideas.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Professors is what we generally call them. Why is their worldview important? You are making excuses before you even start. just like the book, you brand all criticism as biased before you have even presented your ideas. Tut tut, Peacegirl! This is not the behavior of someone with a genuine discovery, but that of a crackpot!

Your vindictiveness is getting worse and worse by the minute.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And I should say being open to new ideas - or at least carefully analyzing them - is part of the job spec. Once they analyze it, will they not be brought to agreement move by move, like in a chess-game? That is what the book says anyway. I would think this is the perfect opportunity to get these ideas out there!

You're right on that point.

Durant was a philosopher but his worldview was based on the idea of free will, and he could not see how to overcome the implications of determinism. His syllogistic reasoning convinced him he was right, when he was completely wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I do not understand where this obsession with an obscure philosopher who is now remembered (when he is remembered at all) mostly for his cheerful pop-science history books comes from.

Because he was the person who gave my father the impetus to read about free will and subsequently recognize the fallacy.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Even if philosophers remain unconvinced, they can at least give you a professional opinion about the book. It is their job to analyse ideas. And if the ideas have merit, then surely one of the 37 panelists, all professional thinkers, should be able to spot it?

That's not necessarily true. It depends. Look at all the philosophers out there who have a difference of opinion on this topic? That's why it's very difficult to argue with a compatibilist, or a libertarian. They might not see the relations involved because of their established way of thinking.

I will hold onto this link and see what it's about. If there is anyone on the panel that is a proponent of determinism, the review would be more fair, otherwise I'm afraid bias would be built in. That doesn't mean they couldn't see the validity of these principles, but it would that much more of a challenge.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There are bound to be several - determinism is not a rare point of view. At the very least they will all have an excellent understanding of the concept.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm trying to get hold of Bruce Waller. I would be interested to get a review from a guy like him, or Harris, or Clark, or others who really have devoted their lives to this issue.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I find it very strange that this scientific, mathematical, undeniable work apparently requires people to already agree with some of it in order to be convincing, but there you go.

I really don't, but I'm not going on a wild goose chase looking for people who already have a certain worldview that is in opposition to this one. It makes it difficult to follow the relations. Look at how Spacemonkey reacts to this book. He's getting nastier and meaner by the second just because I'm in disagreement with the compatibilist notion that blameworthiness is the best solution to the world's problems given that man does not have free will.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So why not submit the chapter on free will - or perhaps a synopsis, as it is rather wordy - and see what they think? Enough of these lily-livered excuses, lets get some work done! The revolution awaits!

That was sweet even though I know you're being sarcastic. I moved around some of the wording in the intro to make it more integrated, and I took out that motor vehicle operators will be our first citizens. Koan made a good point. It's not necessary to confuse people as to who will be first. Other than the leaders, everyone will be becoming our first citizens, so now I have to resubmit it. I can't stand having to do this again. I have no problem giving them the first three chapters, so I will do that as soon as I get the new version from my formatter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Biological development of an individual organism and the societal development of an entire species are not analogous. Talk about apples and oranges.

You claim there is a timeline on eradicating evil.

But societal development is going at a certain pace. Due to our nature, we cannot go any faster than what our development at a particular time in history allows us to go. As we learn more, our preferences and beliefs change accordingly, which go on to create behavioral shifts. Look how much has changed in the last 50 years? We could not have gotten to this point in history if we had not gone through the racism, the hatred, the killing, the anger, the injustice, etc. Everything is going at a particular rate. I have no control over this, and neither do you. We're part of our times.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not resistant. I have one guy's address who is interested in the book, not from this group. I think I'm going to post the first three chapters on my website. That should be enough for them to know if they are interested to learn more, but to expect them to read an entire online book of 600 pages is asking a lot, and I don't think the majority of them are going to do it. If I contact a person first, and they act interested, that's a different story.

Nobody wants you to post the whole book on that philosophy forum. Goodness you are dense.

They allow questions. Post the greater satisfaction principle and ask what they think of the reasoning. That will gauge the interest in knowing more if they think it is intriguing

If you don't I will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What was Lessans' answer? I asked you to look at his own manuscripts rather than to just quote me from your own PDF. What did he think the answer was?

I don't have his manuscript. He may have made a typo, who knows, but to criticize him like that is horrible Spacemonkey. In your effort to discredit him, you are being very unfair and callous. So what is your answer? The one ceptimus gave?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody wants you to post the whole book on that philosophy forum. Goodness you are dense.

They allow questions. Post the greater satisfaction principle and ask what they think of the reasoning. That will gauge the interest in knowing more if they think it is intriguing

If you don't I will.

No way am I going to do that. There is too much information that leads up to the satisaction principle. I will not jeapordize the coherence of what he wrote. That's what happened here, and I refuse to do it again.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But societal development is going at a certain pace. Due to our nature, we cannot go any faster than what our development at a particular time in history allows us to go.

That is gibberish without a pace setter or "allower". That was my whole point.

Nature doesn't care about timelines, nor allow/disallow things at various times in history. Only a mind can do these things. Rather than anthropomorphizing the laws of nature, be honest with yourself and us with this shit and just admit that you believe a deity is in charge

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As we learn more, our preferences and beliefs change accordingly, which go on to create behavioral shifts. Look how much has changed in the last 50 years? We could not have gotten to this point in history if we had not gone through the racism, the hatred, the killing, the anger, the injustice, etc. Everything is going at a particular rate. I have no control over this, and neither do you. We're part of our times.

there is no "particular" rate, as if on a timer.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have his manuscript. He may have made a typo, who knows, but to criticize him like that is horrible Spacemonkey. In your effort to discredit him, you are being very unfair and callous. So what is your answer? The one ceptimus gave?

What did you do with his originals after you did the compiling and editing?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have his manuscript.

From what did you compose your version of his book then? I am asking you to tell me what HE said the answer was in whatever materials YOU used to write up his answer as $3069. What did Lessans think the answer was?

And what makes you think he was good at mathematics when your example of his mathematical reasoning was either wrong or a typo? What you don't seem to have is any example of him actually getting the answer right.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No way am I going to do that. There is too much information that leads up to the satisaction principle. I will not jeapordize the coherence of what he wrote. That's what happened here, and I refuse to do it again.

So you refuse to share his work with the very authorities you say you need to convince. That's a good way to ensure that you never get to make any progress and instead get to replay the same sick cycle over and over again.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, appealing to a comparison with something else that you can't explain is NOT a reasonable explanation.

Satisfying your requirements DOES NOT explain how the light gets to be there at the film. Anything that is somewhere has to get there.

Of course not the full spectrum. So long as objects have absorptive properties, it will not be the full spectrum that bounces off objects. But the light is still distinct from the object and travels without bringing anything but itself.

No, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a simple matter of understanding what the word 'reflect' means.

Photons that get from the object to the distant camera to form a mirror image there with zero travel time are TELEPORTING photons. Getting from one physical location to another physical location without traveling through the intervening distance and without taking any time to get there is teleportation.

You haven't tried to EXPLAIN anything. You don't even seem to understand what an explanation actually is.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Dr. Bruce Waller
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies
DeBartolo Hall, Room 402
Youngstown State University
Youngstown, OH 44555

(330)941-3447

bnwaller@ysu.edu

[LadyShea]

I'm in disagreement with the compatibilist notion that blameworthiness is the best solution to the world's problems given that man does not have free will.

Where did Spacemonkey say anything at all about blameworthiness being a "solution" to anything, let alone the best solution?

You are completely projecting views onto people that they have never expressed! Weasel.

[LadyShea]

Eddy Nahmias has devoted his life to the issue, and is a panelist on that site. He'd be perfect to share with if you are truly interested in an objective view, rather than those who already seem to agree with you

Eddy Nahmias
Department of Philosophy
Neuroscience Institute
Georgia State University

phone: (404) 413-6117
email: enahmias@gsu.edu

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have a clue to what I'm talking about Vivisectus. Determinism rules out free will. I said that free will does not suspend causality because there is no such thing.

Ermm... no if you read back I think you will find you said the reverse of that?

Your vindictiveness is getting worse and worse by the minute.

I see - so to put your ideas to the actual test is vindictiveness?

You're right on that point.

Then why have you not acted on it?

Because he was the person who gave my father the impetus to read about free will and subsequently recognize the fallacy.

More irrational circles... and they all centre on daddy.

That's not necessarily true. It depends. Look at all the philosophers out there who have a difference of opinion on this topic? That's why it's very difficult to argue with a compatibilist, or a libertarian. They might not see the relations involved because of their established way of thinking.

They can still tell you about the basics. Because this book lacks the basics, I think it would be interesting. Ultimately it would be to your profit, even though you may not recognize it right away. Because the simple truth is that if you are to get anywhere with this book, it needs work. These people can tell you where to start.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm trying to get hold of Bruce Waller. I would be interested to get a review from a guy like him, or Harris, or Clark, or others who really have devoted their lives to this issue.

I'd say Harris is your best bet. He likes appeals to emotion and incredulity. He seems to use them often enough in his books.

I really don't, but I'm not going on a wild goose chase looking for people who already have a certain worldview that is in opposition to this one. It makes it difficult to follow the relations. Look at how Spacemonkey reacts to this book. He's getting nastier and meaner by the second just because I'm in disagreement with the compatibilist notion that blameworthiness is the best solution to the world's problems given that man does not have free will.

All he rails against is your irrational devotion to this religion - this daddy worship you have going. Mostly because it is fundamentally dishonest.

That was sweet even though I know you're being sarcastic. I moved around some of the wording in the intro to make it more integrated, and I took out that motor vehicle operators will be our first citizens. Koan made a good point. It's not necessary to confuse people as to who will be first. Other than the leaders, everyone will be becoming our first citizens, so now I have to resubmit it. I can't stand having to do this again. I have no problem giving them the first three chapters, so I will do that as soon as I get the new version from my formatter.

Excellent - and let us see what they say.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have one guy's address who is interested in the book, not from this group. I think I'm going to post the first three chapters on my website. That should be enough for them to know if they are interested to learn more, but to expect them to read an entire online book of 600 pages is asking a lot, and I don't think the majority of them are going to do it. If I contact a person first, and they act interested, that's a different story.

I think that is an excellent idea. It will allow you to ignore anyone who might have a bias or a worldview that is different from yours. We sure wouldn't want anyone with a worldview that is different from yours to get hold of the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is gibberish without a pace setter or "allower". That was my whole point.

Nature doesn't care about timelines, nor allow/disallow things at various times in history. Only a mind can do these things. Rather than anthropomorphizing the laws of nature, be honest with yourself and us with this shit and just admit that you believe a deity is in charge

You have absolutely no understanding of why the law of greater satisfaction does create a rate at which mankind progresses in his development. You have absolutely no understanding of anything I've ever expressed, so stop acting like you do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As we learn more, our preferences and beliefs change accordingly, which go on to create behavioral shifts. Look how much has changed in the last 50 years? We could not have gotten to this point in history if we had not gone through the racism, the hatred, the killing, the anger, the injustice, etc. Everything is going at a particular rate. I have no control over this, and neither do you. We're part of our times.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

there is no "particular" rate, as if on a timer.

There is definitely a particular rate at which we are moving. Unfortunately, it cannot be predicted when this new world will become a reality since there is no way of knowing how quickly this knowledge will spread. The rate at which we are moving has already been set, just like a timer, because we can't move any faster than time will allow.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have absolutely no understanding of why the law of greater satisfaction does create a rate at which mankind progresses in his development.

Of course I don't understand that, it makes no sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course I don't understand that, it makes no sense.

To whom?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dr. Bruce Waller
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies
DeBartolo Hall, Room 402
Youngstown State University
Youngstown, OH 44555

(330)941-3447

bnwaller@ysu.edu

Well, I'll be dipped in shit! Youngstown State's my undergrad alma mater. I majored in philosophy there (which is weird as hell at a school that basically exists to produce engineers) about a million years ago, and was pleasantly surprised to see that one of the profs from my era (not Waller) is still in the department.

[peacegirl]

dupe