Revolution in Thought

[Logik]

That's your definition.

My definition is all axiomatic truth is dogma.

I get that because an axiom is not proven. I used the word axiom so we could move forward. Call it dogma, call it a premise, call it whatever you want. The label is irrelevant.

All foundational epistemologies are dogma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

Once again, call it whatever you want but this does not negate the UNDENIABLE FACT that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. That is the definition I AM BRINGING TO THE TABLE, not the conventional definition of cause/effect leaving out the agent entirely.

Careful observation counts.

Careful observation IS counting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

If this is a true universal law (I don't want to get into parallel universes), then we must confirm this law's truth by inference. We cannot see that someone moves in this direction directly, so we must infer. Does this mean he was wrong in his observations and analysis? Not at all.

Not every finding began with the intention to make that finding so there was no hypothesis to start with. That does not make the finding insignificant or empirically untestable.

The hypothesis is synthesised from the counting.

That's okay. Count.

In your case you don't have to worry about empiricism/testability. Because you have admitted that your claim is unfalsifiable.

It's not even wrong! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

If the law is immutable, we can't prove this through an actual example because a law means there are no exceptions or it wouldn't be a law. But hypothetically it could be falsified. As I already mentioned, if we could choose what [we believe] is worse for ourselves when a better option [in our eyes] is available, then the author's definition of determinism would be wrong.

If the law is unfalsifiable it is dogma.

Every law of physics is falsifiable! Even gravity.

If a tennis ball flew upwards I would begin to question gravity! I am willing to give up gravity as a belief IF better evidence was provided.

You can’t even tell me what experience would convince you that you are wrong.

I gave you a falsifiable example that should satisfy you. You didn't blink an eye.

It is precisely because NOTHING can convince you that you are wrong is why I don’t care about the book.

It doesn't matter if you don't care about the book. This knowledge is not dependent on your analysis to determine if it's valid and sound. If nothing I can say inspires you to learn more, then move on my friend.

It is neither valid or sound if it is not empirical.

[peacegirl]

I get that because an axiom is not proven. I used the word axiom so we could move forward. Call it dogma, call it a premise, call it whatever you want. The label is irrelevant.



Once again, call it whatever you want but this does not negate the UNDENIABLE FACT that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. That is the definition I AM BRINGING TO THE TABLE, not the conventional definition of cause/effect leaving out the agent entirely.




If this is a true universal law (I don't want to get into parallel universes), then we must confirm this law's truth by inference. We cannot see that someone moves in this direction directly, so we must infer. Does this mean he was wrong in his observations and analysis? Not at all.




That's okay. Count.






I gave you a falsifiable example that should satisfy you. You didn't blink an eye.



It doesn't matter if you don't care about the book. This knowledge is not dependent on your analysis to determine if it's valid and sound. If nothing I can say inspires you to learn more, then move on my friend.

It is neither valid or sound if it is not empirical.

Then it should give you greater satisfaction to move on (shouldn't it?), not stay on a thread that, in your opinion, is filled with promises and no delivery.

[Logik]

It is neither valid or sound if it is not empirical.

Then it should give you greater satisfaction to move on (shouldn't it?), not stay on a thread that, in your opinion, is filled with promises and no delivery.

It would.

And yet I stay.

Guess your theory can’t explain that...

[peacegirl]

Then it should give you greater satisfaction to move on (shouldn't it?), not stay on a thread that, in your opinion, is filled with promises and no delivery.

It would.

And yet I stay.

Guess your theory can’t explain that...

Are you being serious? It leads right into it. You stay because your preference is to stay (for whatever reason), IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION, otherwise you would leave. That means leaving was not an option a few moments ago because you would have been moving in the direction of dissatisfaction when a greater satisfaction was available (staying). You could try to outwit this law by saying you are now going to leave, but this doesn't negate this law. It just means your desire to prove me wrong by leaving (which has changed your preference in the direction of greater satisfaction) has led you to believe this would be proof that you can move in the direction of dissatisfaction, which it doesn't.

[Logik]

Are you being serious? It leads right into it. You stay because your preference is to stay (for whatever reason), IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION, otherwise you would leave. That means leaving was not an option a few moments ago because you would have been moving in the direction of dissatisfaction when a greater satisfaction was available (staying).

Are YOU being serious? It proves your "law" incorrect!

I stay because DESPITE having the (far more satisfactory) option to leave.
I CHOOSE to remain despite it being painful and unpleasant for reasons that you fail to comprehend.

This means that leaving (despite it being an option) is not being exercised. I can exercise it any moment.

You could try to outwit this law by saying you are now going to leave, but this doesn't negate this law. It just means your desire to prove me wrong by leaving (which has changed your preference in the direction of greater satisfaction) has led you to believe this would be proof that you can move in the direction of dissatisfaction, which it doesn't.

I am telling you that I feel neither gratification nor satisfaction by staying here.
You insist that I do.

So now you are going to tell me how and what to feel?

What else is it that you think you can you tell me about me?

[peacegirl]

Are you being serious? It leads right into it. You stay because your preference is to stay (for whatever reason), IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION, otherwise you would leave. That means leaving was not an option a few moments ago because you would have been moving in the direction of dissatisfaction when a greater satisfaction was available (staying).

Are YOU being serious? It proves your "law" incorrect!

I stay because DESPITE having the (far more satisfactory) option to leave.
I CHOOSE to remain despite it being painful and unpleasant for reasons that you fail to comprehend.

This means that leaving (despite it being an option) is not being exercised. I can exercise it any moment.

You could try to outwit this law by saying you are now going to leave, but this doesn't negate this law. It just means your desire to prove me wrong by leaving (which has changed your preference in the direction of greater satisfaction) has led you to believe this would be proof that you can move in the direction of dissatisfaction, which it doesn't.

I am telling you that I feel neither gratification nor satisfaction by staying here.
You insist that I do.

But you do find greater satisfaction in staying than not staying. So now you're lying to yourself in your effort to prove me wrong.

So now you are going to tell me how and what to feel?

What else is it that you think you can you tell me about me?

I don't have to know the specifics about you to know that you are part of this law and cannot escape it. Among the choices available to you (which are many), you find greater satisfaction coming to this thread, or you would find something else that offers greater satisfaction than this in comparison. You may get bored and an hour from now you may find a different option that you find more satisfying. Each moment presents a different set of alternatives that affects choice. Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction doesn't always involve choice. Remember, we are constantly moving away from a position that has become dissatisfying to a more satisfying position, which direction is life. For example, changing position while sleeping is a motion away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, which doesn't involve contemplation. I will repeat some of my posts because his words are not registering.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible
for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an
inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now
call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of
clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now
standing on this present moment of time and space called here and
you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move
to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving
a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer...” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you
started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes
it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is
death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion
is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from
here to there is a movement away from that which dissatisfies,
otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you
would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly
moves away from here to there, which is an expression of
dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move
constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction.

It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction,
otherwise we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that
at any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life
obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to
make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are
available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself
and his set of circumstances.

[Logik]

But you do find greater satisfaction in staying than not staying. So now you're lying to yourself in your effort to prove me wrong.

How do you know that I find "greater satisfaction" when I clearly stated that I don't?
Are you a mind-reader?

What's my mother's maiden name?

[peacegirl]

But you do find greater satisfaction in staying than not staying. So now you're lying to yourself in your effort to prove me wrong.

How do you know that I find "greater satisfaction" when I clearly stated that I don't?
Are you a mind-reader?

But this is where you're not understanding. I'm not saying that the choices in front of you are satisfying. I'm saying that of the choices you are contemplating, you are compelled to choose the one that is the most satisfying, even if the most satisfying choice is to sacrifice your well-being in order to help someone else.

What's my mother's maiden name?

Come on Logik, now you're just playing games. Greater satisfaction IS the law of our nature, which is why our will is not free. I don't have to know what gives you greater satisfaction because it's not necessary that I know. The point that I'm making is that whatever you decide when comparing alternatives IS, by definition, the choice that gives you greater satisfaction. This in and of itself doesn't seem to have much significance until you understand why it is very significant.

[Logik]

Come on Logik, now you're just playing games.

Am I?

Greater satisfaction IS the law of our nature.

We know that you have assumed that to be the case.

I don't know what gives you greater satisfaction. That's not the point. The point is that whatever you decide IS, by definition, what gives you greater satisfaction.

You are just rewording "Revealed preference" theory.

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

It's not a law. Just a useful tool for measuring choice.

[peacegirl]

Come on Logik, now you're just playing games.

Am I?

You seem to be.

Greater satisfaction IS the law of our nature.

We know that you have assumed that to be the case.

There are no assumptions here. You can test this for yourself if you care to.

I don't know what gives you greater satisfaction. That's not the point. The point is that whatever you decide IS, by definition, what gives you greater satisfaction.

You are just rewording "Revealed preference" theory.

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

It's not a law. Just a useful tool for measuring choice.

Bottom line: man's will is not free. We're not free to choose what we prefer less, which makes only one choice possible. If you don't want to call it a law, then don't. I don't want to argue over semantics. The most important aspect of this is how the corollary that goes along with determinism plays out in real life, as we extend this knowledge. The fact that will is not free is not the discovery, it is the gateway that leads to the discovery.

CHAPTER TWO

THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION

Once it is established as an undeniable law that man’s
will is not free, as was just demonstrated, we cannot
assume that it is free because philosophers like
Durant could not get by the implications. Therefore,
we must begin our reasoning where he left off which means that we
are going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will, corollary,
slide rule or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME, and
transmute the baser metals of human nature into the pure gold of
the Golden Age even though it presents what appears to be an
insurmountable problem, for how is it possible not to blame people
who hurt us when we know they didn’t have to do this if they didn’t
want to.

The solution, however, only requires the perception and
extension of relations which cannot be denied, and this
mathematical corollary, that man is not to blame for anything at
all, is a key to the infinite wisdom of God which will unlock a
treasure so wonderful that you will be compelled to catch your
breath in absolute amazement. This slide rule will adequately solve
every problem we have not only without hurting a living soul, but
while benefitting everyone to an amazing degree. You can prepare
yourselves to say good-bye to all the hurt and evil that came into
existence out of necessity. However, the problems that confront us
at this moment are very complex which make it necessary to treat
every aspect of our lives in a separate, yet related, manner. God,
not me, is finally going to reveal the solution.

[Logik]

There are no assumptions here. You can test this for yourself if you care to.

I know I can test it, but if I can't falsify it - that's just confirmation bias.

I don't know what gives you greater satisfaction. That's not the point. The point is that whatever you decide IS, by definition, what gives you greater satisfaction.

You are just rewording "Revealed preference" theory.

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

It's not a law. Just a useful tool for measuring choice.

Bottom line: man's will is not free. We're not free to choose what we prefer less, which makes only one choice possible. If you don't want to call it a law, then don't. I don't want to argue over semantics. The most important aspect of this is how the corollary that goes along with determinism plays out in real life, as we extend this knowledge. The fact that will is not free is not the discovery, it is the gateway that leads to the discovery.

Bottom line - you are using peoples choices as evidence against free will.

Ironic. Given the false dichotomy you present.

If you pay careful attention you will see that I have indeed exercised my choice. To participate in other threads on the forum.

[peacegirl]

There are no assumptions here. You can test this for yourself if you care to.

I know I can test it, but if I can't falsify it - that's just confirmation bias.

I just told you that you cannot falsify a law, or it wouldn't be a law. There are no exceptions. What would falsify this law is if you could move in the direction of dissatisfaction when a more satisfying alternative is available. It can't be done though.

I don't know what gives you greater satisfaction. That's not the point. The point is that whatever you decide IS, by definition, what gives you greater satisfaction.

You are just rewording "Revealed preference" theory.

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

It's not a law. Just a useful tool for measuring choice.

Bottom line: man's will is not free. We're not free to choose what we prefer less, which makes only one choice possible. If you don't want to call it a law, then don't. I don't want to argue over semantics. The most important aspect of this is how the corollary that goes along with determinism plays out in real life, as we extend this knowledge. The fact that will is not free is not the discovery, it is the gateway that leads to the discovery.

Bottom line - you are using peoples choices as evidence against free will.

Ironic.

It's not ironic at all. You obviously haven't been paying attention. You don't have the free will you think you have, and nothing is going to change that. What we do with this knowledge is what counts.

So let’s proceed to the next
step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what
we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is
done absolutely and positively not of our own free will. Remember,
by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we
also establish undeniable proof that free will is false.”

[Logik]

It's not ironic at all. You obviously haven't been paying attention. You don't have the free will you think you have, and nothing is going to change that. What we do with this knowledge is what counts.

The same thing every religion does.

Brainwash people.

Invert the narrative without any practical difference and everybody believes you are onto something new...

[peacegirl]

It's not ironic at all. You obviously haven't been paying attention. You don't have the free will you think you have, and nothing is going to change that. What we do with this knowledge is what counts.

The same thing every religion does.

Brainwash people.

Invert the narrative without any practical difference and everybody believes you are onto something new...

This is a genuine discovery, but if you don't believe it because it's hard to fathom that someone could be offering something of real value on a philosophy page, then please don't waste your time here. Find something more to your liking. There are many threads you can participate in.

[Logik]

This is a genuine discovery, but if you don't believe it because it's hard to fathom that someone could be offering something of real value on a philosophy page, then please don't waste your time here. Find something more to your liking. There are many threads you can participate in.

Dismantling bullshit that masques as 'knowledge' is more to my liking.

That's why I am a scientist. It's taken a lot of "going against gratification" to earn this mindset.