Revolution in Thought

[Belinda]

You're right, not necessarily. But these observations are accurate, and they do turn into a practical solution that will make the whole world happy, not just one country.

How have you determined that without empirical evidence?

I agree with Peacegirl . She doesn't seem to be able to support her assertion by the deductive method, which has actually been done by Spinoza. Peacegirl's assertion can be inductively supported only by Pollyannas.

[Logik]

I agree with Peacegirl . She doesn't seem to be able to support her assertion by the deductive method, which has actually been done by Spinoza. Peacegirl's assertion can be inductively supported only by Pollyannas.

Inductive assertions can only be supported by agreement with reality.

If it doesn't agree with experience. It's wrong.

Good intentions count for nothing with iatrogenics.

[Belinda]

Logik wrote:

If it doesn't agree with experience. It's wrong.

All inductive arguments begin with axioms which are either religions or ideologies. For instance the argument for vaccination against smallpox began with western European belief in saving lives through active discovery.

[Logik]

All inductive arguments begin with axioms which are either religions or ideologies.

Not really.

You take the present tense. Global warming is an existential threat.
If China reduces its reliance on coal by 75% then the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will return to 1995 levels in 100 years.

IS + (some change in behaviour) = inductive prediction about the future

It's pretty much how all predictive models work.

[peacegirl]

All inductive arguments begin with axioms which are either religions or ideologies.

Not really.

You take the present tense. Global warming is an existential threat.
If China reduces its reliance on coal by 75% then the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will return to 1995 levels in 100 years.

IS + (some change in behaviour) = inductive prediction about the future

It's pretty much how all predictive models work.

Logik, this book is based on many years of careful observation. It can predict with accuracy what will take place when this knowledge is understood and recognized as valid. It is the most pragmatic knowledge ever because it touches on real lives and real outcomes once the conditions of the environment reflect this new understanding of man’s nature!

[Logik]

Logik, this book is based on careful observation that took many years to uncover. It can predict with accuracy what will take place when this knowledge is understood and applied. It is the most pragmatic knowledge ever because it touches on real lives and real outcomes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

This is how prediction works in science:

1. Guess it (based on prior observation)
2. Compute the consequences of the guess
3. Compare the consequences to experiences/observation

If it disagrees with experiment. It's wrong.

It doesn't matter how beatiful the idea is, how smart the person who came up with it, how much they thought about it, what their name is.

If it disagrees with experiment. It's wrong.

By your own admission - this 'knowledge' has never been empirically verified. So all you are convincing me of is your own ignorance and dogmatism.

[peacegirl]

Logik, this book is based on careful observation that took many years to uncover. It can predict with accuracy what will take place when this knowledge is understood and applied. It is the most pragmatic knowledge ever because it touches on real lives and real outcomes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

This is how prediction works in science:

1. Guess it (based on prior observation)
2. Compute the consequences of the guess
3. Compare the consequences to experiences/observation

If it disagrees with experiment. It's wrong.

I understand the scientific method but it was never his intention to test a hypothesis, therefore his finding was borne out of astute observation after many years of reading philosophy and history. The fact that he didn’t start out with a guess didn’t make him wrong in his analysis. You really need to keep an open mind before throwing out his observations. Believe me, I understand your skepticism but should it stop you from trying to understand the nature of this discovery just because you believe his claims are far fetched?

It doesn't matter how beatiful the idea is, how smart the person who came up with it, how much they thought about it, what their name is.

If it disagrees with experiment. It's wrong.

I explained that it is not only the most difficult subject matter that has been going on for centuries, but it is an empirical challenge to simulate the environmental conditions that would confirm once and for all that he was right all along. Schooler believed if people knew their will was not free, they would be even less responsible, but his experiment was flawed because he was testing it in a free will environment whiched skewed the test.

By your own admission - this 'knowledge' has never been empirically verified. So all you are convincing me of is your own ignorance and dogmatism.

That’s not true Logik. I am not ignorant and I know what I’m talking about. I think you would be eager to spread this knowledge as you read the book with the goal of understanding, not attacking, what is written.

[Logik]

That’s not true Logik. I am not ignorant and I know what I’m talking about. I think you would be eager to spread this knowledge as you read the book with the goal of understanding, not attacking, what is written.

It's not knowledge. It's a conjecture.

As you say - astute observation.

It is know THAT (in the past sense) , not know HOW (in the future sense)

[peacegirl]

That’s not true Logik. I am not ignorant and I know what I’m talking about. I think you would be eager to spread this knowledge as you read the book with the goal of understanding, not attacking, what is written.

It's not knowledge. It's a conjecture.

As you say - astute observation.

It is know THAT, not know HOW.

It is not conjecture. He proves that man’s will is not free in the sense that, once a choice is made, he could not have chosen otherwise. That does not mean we are not free to make choices and in that context it can be used to mean nothing external constrained me to make a choice. There’s no conflict between the freedom of choice we have (when we don’t have a gun to our head) and the fact that we must choose the option that gives us greater satisfaction each moment in time. But remember, this is only the gateway to this discovery which is the answer to world peace. I know there are haters in here and it makes me sad.

[Logik]

It is not conjecture. He proves that man’s will is not free in the sense that, once a choice is made, he could not have chosen otherwise. That does not mean we are not free to make choices and in that context it can be used to mean nothing external constrained me to make a choice. There’s no conflict between the freedom of choice we all believe we have, and the fact that once a choice is made it could not have been otherwise. But this is only the gateway to this discovery which is the answer to world peace. I know there are haters in here and it makes me sad.

I believe that I mentioned to you that I am quite familiar with proof theory, right?

To speak of 'proof' outside of the realm of mathematics and formal logic is utter quackery.

This is a tautology "once a choice is made, he could not have chosen otherwise.". It's true by definition of what a choice is.
Once you act on a choice - you can't unmake it. Because time! But you can undo the consequences of a choice.

I can return the shows I bought last week.

You are abusing the language for your own agenda. You are promising to 'revolutionize' thought and I am already seeing signs of dogmatic reasoning in your arguments.

Your zealotry is boring me.

[peacegirl]

It is not conjecture. He proves that man’s will is not free in the sense that, once a choice is made, he could not have chosen otherwise. That does not mean we are not free to make choices and in that context it can be used to mean nothing external constrained me to make a choice. There’s no conflict between the freedom of choice we all believe we have, and the fact that once a choice is made it could not have been otherwise. But this is only the gateway to this discovery which is the answer to world peace. I know there are haters in here and it makes me sad.

I believe that I mentioned to you that I am quite familiar with proof theory, right?

To speak of 'proof' outside of the realm of mathematics and formal logic.

You are abusing the language for your own agenda. Stop your zealotry - you are boring me.

If you’re familiar with proof theory you should be able to counteract his claim that we always move in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction. If you can’t, then his proof stands. A tautology does not make this observation inaccurate. What is more important regarding this demonstration is that regardless of the choice made under new conditions, the justification to hurt others with a first blow will be the worst possible choice and therefore an impossibility.

[Logik]

If you’re familiar with proof theory you should be able to counteract his claim that we always move in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction. If you can’t, then his proof stands.

Oh bullshit.

If you want me to counteract his claim you will state his claim precisely and unambiguously!

Go ahead and define 'free will' in Mathematics!

The claim is a truism. Of course I move in the direction that gives me greatest satisfaction. That's exactly what utility theory says.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility is that the 'revolution?'

In the event of the building catching fire it gives me great satisfaction to move towards safety.

[peacegirl]

If you’re familiar with proof theory you should be able to counteract his claim that we always move in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction. If you can’t, then his proof stands.

Oh bullshit.

If you want me to counteract his claim you will state his claim precisely and unambiguously!

Go ahead and define 'free will' in Mathematics!

The claim is a truism. Of course I move in the direction that gives me greatest satisfaction. That's exactly what utility theory says.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility

This is not mathematics. This is pure reason. So let’s start from the utility theory. It doesnt matter what name you give it, it’s either a valid claim or it’s not.

[Logik]

This is not mathematics. This is pure reason.

Fuck off with your sophistry now.

Read this: https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

This is the quote that is pertinent

So far I have presented the orthodox position of scientists: truth about how the universe works cannot generally be arrived at by pure reason.

[Belinda]

All inductive arguments begin with axioms which are either religions or ideologies.

Not really.

You take the present tense. Global warming is an existential threat.
If China reduces its reliance on coal by 75% then the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will return to 1995 levels in 100 years.

IS + (some change in behaviour) = inductive prediction about the future

It's pretty much how all predictive models work.

The axiom that causes people to argue that is that there is something worth saving. Most people are not aware that they presume that there is something worth saving .We can imagine the opposite, that nothing is worth saving, in which case few would bother to argue about it.