Misunderstood responses to New Discovery

[FlashDangerpants]

There are very few things that are factual in science, which makes it difficult because when words are used like opinion, theory, conjecture, or hypothesis, you are in a realm that wants to argue. Look, people can say it's their opinion that one plus one is two, because they believe that it's three. Where is the line drawn between fact and theory? If you believe there is no fact anywhere, then I don't know what to say. You will deny anything he writes because of his claim that determinism is not a theory.

It is a theory, your opinion that it extends beyond that is evidence of nothing. That other stuff you wrote there about facts indicates that you are entirely unfamiliar with philosophy, something which lines up with your previous claims about "the philosophers" not understanding things.

Your dad thought he had a mathematical proof of determinism, all I see is a poor argument that takes a tautology and miscasts it as the result of a prediction evben though like all tautologies it is true by definition not observation.

You can’t observe determinism directly. Yes, whatever we choose is in the direction of greater satisfaction. That doesn’t make it a poor argument.

What has that got to do with anything I wrote?

Pay attention please and I will try to explain for you why it is a bad argument: In the normal real world where we live, if you ask somebody "why did you drop that hammer on my toes?" the answer "because it was what I chose to do" doesn't work, it adds no information, it is a tautology. If you don't know what a tautology is, now is the time to say so. The whole "greatest satisfaction" thing is just that tautology expressed in, erm, "prose of a certain standard" that you seem to enjoy. The extra steps with animals having to move away from what is unsatisfactory towards the greatest satisfaction is specious, pointless, redundant, unnecessary ... etc...

I offered to ignore that and just stipulate to determinism without relying on that argument, but you seemed to think it was really important. If so, then that's a shame, because it's shit.

You meanwhile insist that understanding and agreeing are the same thing, your mind is closed to the prospect of your dad not being perfect. That's sort of sweet I suppose, but not my problem.

I never said he was perfect.

This notion that you have that your dad was the one to "prove" determinism isn't based on you having a sophisticated understanding of philosophical argument. It seems you are brainwashed, or poorly educated, or easily persuaded by your dad even though nobody else could possibly fall for this stuff.

You complain of other people not having open minds, but yours is not open to the possibility you have wasted decades pursuing a fairly bad argument. When I say fairly bad, I mean horrendous. Its basic self-evident awfulness is why I tend towards the view that you know it is junk but you hope to make money off those who are easily manipulated with this crap. If you genuinely believe in it, well... whoops.

If there is organic brain injury then a change in environment will not help. I am talking strictly about neuroses and depression caused by environmental factors and I stand by that.

That's a fairly significant climb down. What happened to "In this kind of environment, mental illness will be virtually nonexistent." Are you trying to gaslight me here?

Pretending to "stand by" after running away is blatant shamelessness.

So he didn't mean " there are no problems unless someone is being hurt in a concrete, not imaginary, manner"? Those don't look like particularly mystical words. Your feelings get hurt very easily, your suffering is imaginary - much more so than Gary's.

Often people manipulate to try to elicit guilt by saying you hurt them in some way when you did nothing to hurt them at all. It’s an effort to get you to do what they want. Please stop reading into stuff.

I'm mainly looking for an explanation of the actual mechanism that supports your stated claim that your theory brings an end to nearly all mental illness. It seems to be a matter of faith healing. Does it involve raw milk and healing crystals, is that chapter 22?

[peacegirl]

It is a theory, your opinion that it extends beyond that is evidence of nothing. That other stuff you wrote there about facts indicates that you are entirely unfamiliar with philosophy, something which lines up with your previous claims about "the philosophers" not understanding things.

Your dad thought he had a mathematical proof of determinism, all I see is a poor argument that takes a tautology and miscasts it as the result of a prediction evben though like all tautologies it is true by definition not observation.

You can’t observe determinism directly. Yes, whatever we choose is in the direction of greater satisfaction. That doesn’t make it a poor argument.

What has that got to do with anything I wrote?

Because you called it a tautology and I agree that whatever you choose will be in this direction. That does not make it unimportant.

Pay attention please and I will try to explain for you why it is a bad argument: In the normal real world where we live, if you ask somebody "why did you drop that hammer on my toes?" the answer "because it was what I chose to do" doesn't work, it adds no information, it is a tautology. If you don't know what a tautology is, now is the time to say so. The whole "greatest satisfaction" thing is just that tautology expressed in, erm, "prose of a certain standard" that you seem to enjoy.

What standard are you referring to?

The extra steps with animals having to move away from what is unsatisfactory towards the greatest satisfaction is specious, pointless, redundant, unnecessary ... etc...

All of life moves in this direction, but the word "satisfaction" when talking about animals may be confusing. It is not specious, pointless, redundant, or unnecessary when you begin to understand why it is true that, under these new conditions, a person cannot hurt another with a first blow. It's not a matter of choice. This is huge because if will was free, we could choose to hurt others no matter what the environmental conditions.

This has nothing to do with one's motivation. He was just establishing that everything we do is a movement away from some form of dissatisfaction, otherwise, we wouldn't move off of the position we're in. He gave an example of taking a bath. It feels good to be refreshed in the bath until it suddenly grows uncomfortable. This feeling of dissatisfaction pushes us to get out of the bathtub to a more satisfying position.

I offered to ignore that and just stipulate to determinism without relying on that argument, but you seemed to think it
was really important. If so, then that's a shame, because it's shit.

Why the expletives? This doesn't help your refutation.

I never said he was perfect.

This notion that you have that your dad was the one to "prove" determinism isn't based on you having a sophisticated understanding of philosophical argument. It seems you are brainwashed, or poorly educated, or easily persuaded by your dad even though nobody else could possibly fall for this stuff.

You did not understand the two-sided equation, did you? I don't think so. You're just barking at me. I'm sorry that I upset you so much, but I'm not changing my position that this is a genuine discovery. Unfortunately, people will listen to you and move on. Isn't that what happens in these forums? Someone takes the lead and everyone else follows, especially in today's world where soundbites are even too much for people to hear.

You complain of other people not having open minds, but yours is not open to the possibility you have wasted decades pursuing a fairly bad argument. When I say fairly bad, I mean horrendous. Its basic self-evident awfulness is why I tend towards the view that you know it is junk but you hope to make money off those who are easily manipulated with this crap. If you genuinely believe in it, well... whoops.

This is so sad. I can see there's nothing that will change your mind. So let this thread die a natural death, okay?

Steve Patterson's perspective on tautologies challenges the traditional view that they are merely true by definition and do not contribute to knowledge. Patterson argues that tautologies are foundational for critical reasoning and provide a basis for an accurate worldview. He emphasizes that tautologies are not trivial or redundant but rather essential for understanding the structure of propositions and the nature of truth. Patterson's work challenges the notion that tautologies should be dismissed as empty of content, advocating instead for their importance in philosophical discourse.

https://stevepatterson.substack.com/p/t ... missed-759

If there is organic brain injury then a change in environment will not help. I am talking strictly about neuroses and depression caused by environmental factors and I stand by that.

That's a fairly significant climb down. What happened to "In this kind of environment, mental illness will be virtually nonexistent." Are you trying to gaslight me here?

Where am I gaslighting you?

gaslight: manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity, memory, or powers of reasoning.

I said emotions that are the result of the interaction with the environment, and in this new environment, the chances that people will become mentally ill will be virtually nonexistent. He never made the claim that there will be no organic brain diseases.

Pretending to "stand by" after running away is blatant shamelessness.

When did I run away?

Often people manipulate to try to elicit guilt by saying you hurt them in some way when you did nothing to hurt them at all. It's imaginary and an effort to get you to do what they want. Please stop reading into stuff.

I'm mainly looking for an explanation of the actual mechanism that supports your stated claim that your theory brings an end to nearly all mental illness. It seems to be a matter of faith healing. Does it involve raw milk and healing crystals, is that chapter 22?

Think about it Flash. If children are not hurt by false messages that give them feelings of inferiority because they conclude they are not good enough, smart enough, pretty enough, worthy enough, etc., they will grow up with less chance of developing a mental illness, especially for those who are predisposed to depression or anxiety due to genetic differences.

[accelafine]

Pay attention please and I will try to explain for you why it is a bad argument: In the normal real world where we live, if you ask somebody "why did you drop that hammer on my toes?" the answer "because it was what I chose to do" doesn't work, it adds no information, it is a tautology. If you don't know what a tautology is, now is the time to say so. The whole "greatest satisfaction" thing is just that tautology expressed in, erm, "prose of a certain standard" that you seem to enjoy. The extra steps with animals having to move away from what is unsatisfactory towards the greatest satisfaction is specious, pointless, redundant, unnecessary ... etc...

I offered to ignore that and just stipulate to determinism without relying on that argument, but you seemed to think it was really important. If so, then that's a shame, because it's shit.

Could you be any more patronising and pompous, old man? That's not tautology. It could be called tautolgy if the person said 'I chose to drop the hammer, or I did not choose to drop the hammer', or, 'I chose, myself, to drop the hammer'. Twat. Shame about your narcissistic personality disorder. Sign of someone who's had a really poor upbringing--possibly an overindulged only child with no friends.

[peacegirl]

Is there a way to put someone on ignore. This guy is out in left field.

[accelafine]

15 years and they haven't worked out how to use either the 'quote' or 'ignore' function.

[accelafine]

Is there a way to put someone on ignore. This guy is out in left field.

Yet you can't see when the flasherwithoutpants is making fun of and talking down to you, and seem to worship the ground he hobbles around on. You have obviously inherited your father's intelligence...

[FlashDangerpants]

You can’t observe determinism directly. Yes, whatever we choose is in the direction of greater satisfaction. That doesn’t make it a poor argument.

What has that got to do with anything I wrote?

Because you called it a tautology and I agree that whatever you choose will be in this direction. That does not make it unimportant.

You can't build new knowledge from the tautology that all bachelors are unmarried me because the only thing that can be learned is already encapsulated. If you know that Bertie is an unmarried man you already know, thanks to the tautology, that he he is a bachelor. Vice to the versa, if you know of Bertie that he is a bachelor, then thanks to the tautology, you know that he is a man, and that he is not a man with a wife.

Whatever Billy made a choice to do was the thing that Billy chose to do because it seemed like the thing to do. You cannot determine from this anything other than Billy made a choice and the choice seemed to be the thing to do. Spinning the tautology on its head to demonstrate determinism doesn't work because the argument used here took the tautology (from which nothing can be learned because the tautology is just true by definition, not true in some way that can be discovered or shown) and adding nothing useful. Some meaningless drivel about animals having to move and sitting still being suicide. The argument isn't there, the stuff that isn't the tautology is just window dressing.

Also, that tautology - you seem not to have noticed that the argument that if there is free will then we would be able to choose against it falls foul of that tautologous nature. Again, just bad argument. It isn't good.

Pay attention please and I will try to explain for you why it is a bad argument: In the normal real world where we live, if you ask somebody "why did you drop that hammer on my toes?" the answer "because it was what I chose to do" doesn't work, it adds no information, it is a tautology. If you don't know what a tautology is, now is the time to say so. The whole "greatest satisfaction" thing is just that tautology expressed in, erm, "prose of a certain standard" that you seem to enjoy.

What standard are you referring to?

Your dad's prose is bloviated and empurpled. It's written like the author is a high school dropout with a chip on his shoulder. It gets in the way. You would do better to give it a 21st Century re-write.

The extra steps with animals having to move away from what is unsatisfactory towards the greatest satisfaction is specious, pointless, redundant, unnecessary ... etc...

All of life moves in this direction, but the word "satisfaction" when talking about animals may be confusing. It is not specious, pointless, redundant, or unnecessary when you begin to understand why it is true that, under these new conditions, a person cannot hurt another with a first blow. It's not a matter of choice. This is huge because if will was free, we could choose to hurt others no matter what the environmental conditions.

This has nothing to do with one's motivation. He was just establishing that everything we do is a movement away from some form of dissatisfaction, otherwise, we wouldn't move off of the position we're in. He gave an example of taking a bath. It feels good to be refreshed in the bath until it suddenly grows uncomfortable. This feeling of dissatisfaction pushes us to get out of the bathtub to a more satisfying position.

Of course it has to do with motivation, don't be silly. Why on Earth would an organism pursue "greatest satisfaction" if it isn't motivated towards satisfaction? This is foolishness. The whole thing there is about motivation and nothing about it is important, that we are motivated towards what motivates us is just another tautology that shouldn't need mentioning and is not the seed of a giant discovery that will change anything, nor of a proof of determinism.

I offered to ignore that and just stipulate to determinism without relying on that argument, but you seemed to think it
was really important. If so, then that's a shame, because it's shit.

Why the expletives? This doesn't help your refutation.

Uhm. Relly? Ok, it's poo poo.

I never said he was perfect.

This notion that you have that your dad was the one to "prove" determinism isn't based on you having a sophisticated understanding of philosophical argument. It seems you are brainwashed, or poorly educated, or easily persuaded by your dad even though nobody else could possibly fall for this stuff.

You did not understand the two-sided equation, did you? I don't think so. You're just barking at me. I'm sorry that I upset you so much, but I'm not changing my position that this is a genuine discovery. Unfortunately, people will listen to you and move on. Isn't that what happens in these forums? Someone takes the lead and everyone else follows, especially in today's world where soundbites are even too much for people to hear.

Such weakness. If I am missing something important about this equation argument then just explain it in your own words, simply. But just saying I must not understand it if I don't agree with it is brainwashed argument, worthless. Nobody here follows my lead.

If I'm wrong, show me how I am wrong. Otherwise, I think I've shown how you are. At least in one regard. It would take a while to get through all the main ways you are mistaken.

You complain of other people not having open minds, but yours is not open to the possibility you have wasted decades pursuing a fairly bad argument. When I say fairly bad, I mean horrendous. Its basic self-evident awfulness is why I tend towards the view that you know it is junk but you hope to make money off those who are easily manipulated with this crap. If you genuinely believe in it, well... whoops.

This is so sad. I can see there's nothing that will change your mind. So let this thread die a natural death, okay?

You can change my mind by showing me better arguments. The problem is that you don't have those, but you can't change your mind.

Steve Patterson's perspective on tautologies challenges the traditional view that they are merely true by definition and do not contribute to knowledge. Patterson argues that tautologies are foundational for critical reasoning and provide a basis for an accurate worldview. He emphasizes that tautologies are not trivial or redundant but rather essential for understanding the structure of propositions and the nature of truth. Patterson's work challenges the notion that tautologies should be dismissed as empty of content, advocating instead for their importance in philosophical discourse.

https://stevepatterson.substack.com/p/t ... missed-759

And? I've given you additional explanation for why your tautologous argument isn't expandable. That's not dismissing tautologies, it's just recognising their limits.

If there is organic brain injury then a change in environment will not help. I am talking strictly about neuroses and depression caused by environmental factors and I stand by that.

That's a fairly significant climb down. What happened to "In this kind of environment, mental illness will be virtually nonexistent." Are you trying to gaslight me here?

Where am I gaslighting you?

gaslight: manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity, memory, or powers of reasoning.

I said emotions that are the result of the interaction with the environment, and in this new environment, the chances that people will become mentally ill will be virtually nonexistent. He never made the claim that there will be no organic brain diseases.

Pretending to "stand by" after running away is blatant shamelessness.

When did I run away?

You are trying to pretend that...
"In this kind of environment, mental illness will be virtually nonexistent"
...is just some small thing. It's a really big claim, not a small one. And you are nowhere near delivering. It is a lie.


This....
"In this kind of environment, mental illness will be virtually nonexistent"
... is not "I said emotions that are the result of the interaction with the environment".

[peacegirl]

What has that got to do with anything I wrote?

Because you called it a tautology and I agree that whatever you choose will be in this direction. That does not make it unimportant.

You can't build new knowledge from the tautology that all bachelors are unmarried me because the only thing that can be learned is already encapsulated. If you know that Bertie is an unmarried man you already know, thanks to the tautology, that he is a bachelor. Vice to the versa, if you know of Bertie that he is a bachelor, then thanks to the tautology, you know that he is a man, and that he is not a man with a wife.

Whatever Billy made a choice to do was the thing that Billy chose to do because it seemed like the thing to do. You cannot determine from this anything other than Billy made a choice and the choice seemed to be the thing to do. Spinning the tautology on its head to demonstrate determinism doesn't work because the argument used here took the tautology (from which nothing can be learned because the tautology is just true by definition, not true in some way that can be discovered or shown) and adding nothing useful. Some meaningless drivel about animals having to move and sitting still being suicide. The argument isn't there, the stuff that isn't the tautology is just window dressing.

You are so off base, it's truly mind-boggling. There is a lot to understand in relation to free will. Didn't you see the definition that he gave in the very beginning? Free will would mean you could choose either/or, this or that, A or B, without any compulsion or necessity. Although this states "I chose what I chose", by defnition, you're not understanding the underlying meaning in that it's impossible to choose this if you chose that. IOW, YOU COULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN OTHERWISE. You can't choose A or B equally if there are meaningful differences between A or B. This has major implications that you are failing to recognize. You are just poised to prove him wrong, and you'll do it with gusto, even though you're wrong.

Also, that tautology - you seem not to have noticed that the argument that if there is free will then we would be able to choose against it falls foul of that tautologous nature. Again, just bad argument. It isn't good.

No it doesn't. If one didn't pick that, it is because he chose this, and he chose this, because he didn't choose that, may be a tautology, but you're missing the whole point of "greater satisfaction." He couldn't have picked both options equally. If A represents shooting and killing a stranger, and B represents not shooting and killing a stranger, free will states you could choose both equally without any compulsion to choose one or the other when the difference between the two choices is night and day. Can't you see this, or are you that blind?

Pay attention please and I will try to explain for you why it is a bad argument: In the normal real world where we live, if you ask somebody "why did you drop that hammer on my toes?" the answer "because it was what I chose to do" doesn't work, it adds no information, it is a tautology. If you don't know what a tautology is, now is the time to say so. The whole "greatest satisfaction" thing is just that tautology expressed in, erm, "prose of a certain standard" that you seem to enjoy.

What standard are you referring to?

Your dad's prose is bloviated and empurpled. It's written like the author is a high school dropout with a chip on his shoulder. It gets in the way. You would do better to give it a 21st Century re-write.

Would you please leave his writing style alone? Stop picking on him. It's very easy to criticize when you're on the sidelines. You have no idea what his backstory was, and why he prefaced the book the way he did. The reason he was so defensive is because of people like you who are too quick to judge the accuracy of his 30+ year work. There is no way there will be a rewrite. If you can't get through it to find the gem, don't read it.

The extra steps with animals having to move away from what is unsatisfactory towards the greatest satisfaction is specious, pointless, redundant, unnecessary ... etc...

All of life moves in this direction, but the word "satisfaction" when talking about animals may be confusing. It is not specious, pointless, redundant, or unnecessary when you begin to understand why it is true that, under these new conditions, a person cannot hurt another with a first blow. It's not a matter of choice. This is huge because if will was free, we could choose to hurt others no matter what the environmental conditions.

This has nothing to do with one's motivation. He was just establishing that everything we do is a movement away from some form of dissatisfaction, otherwise, we wouldn't move off of the position we're in. He gave an example of taking a bath. It feels good to be refreshed in the bath until it suddenly grows uncomfortable. This feeling of dissatisfaction pushes us to get out of the bathtub to a more satisfying position.

Of course it has to do with motivation, don't be silly. Why on Earth would an organism pursue "greatest satisfaction" if it isn't motivated towards satisfaction? This is foolishness. The whole thing there is about motivation and nothing about it is important, that we are motivated towards what motivates us is just another tautology that shouldn't need mentioning and is not the seed of a giant discovery that will change anything, nor of a proof of determinism.

This is really sad. If we are compelled to move in one direction only out of necessity, how can our will be free to move in a direction that is dissatisfying given our options. It would be reversing the motion of life. And it is the seed of a giant discovery even if you believe otherwise.

I offered to ignore that and just stipulate to determinism without relying on that argument, but you seemed to think it
was really important. If so, then that's a shame, because it's shit.

It is the gateway to the discovery. He was establishing one thing and one thing only, the direction we are compelled to move each and every moment. Free will cannot be proven true FlashDangerpants, no matter how much you hate the idea of determinism.

“The first step is to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, and regardless of any opinions to the contrary, that the will of man is not free.”

“But if you plan to use the knowledge that man’s will is not free as a point from which to start your chain of reasoning, couldn’t you get the same results without demonstrating that man’s will is not free, simply by showing what must follow as a consequence?”

“Yes, I could, and that was a very sharp question, but my purpose in proving that man’s will is not free is not so much to have a sound basis from which to reason but to show exactly why the will of man is not free.”

“I am still trying to understand your reasoning as to why free will cannot be proven true.”

“Once again, let me show you why this is a mathematical impossibility by repeating the same question I asked the rabbi. Take your time with this.”

“Is it possible for you not to do what has already been done?”

“Of course it’s not possible for me not to do what has already been done, because I have already done it.”

“Now, if what has just been done was the choosing of B instead of A, is it possible not to choose B, which has already been chosen?”

“No, it is not possible.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible not to choose B instead of A, once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A in this comparison of possibilities, when in order to make this choice, you must not choose B, which has already been chosen? Yet, in order to prove free will true, it must do just that — the impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has already been done, and then show that A, with the conditions being exactly the same, could have been chosen instead of B. Such reasoning is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer. Let me rephrase this in still another way.

“If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever it is, is it possible to prove this something true?”
“Obviously, the answer is no.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following: If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something false? Obviously, the answer must be no, it is not possible, unless the person asked does not understand the question. In other words, if it is mathematically impossible to prove free will true, how is it possible to prove the opposite of this, false? Isn’t it obvious that if determinism (in this context, the opposite of free will) were proven false, this would automatically prove free will true, and didn’t we just demonstrate that this is impossible unless we can turn back the clock? How is it possible to prove free will true when this requires doing something that is mathematically impossible? We can never undo what has already been done. Therefore, whatever your reasons for believing free will true cannot be accurate since proof of this theory requires going back in time, so to speak, and demonstrating that man could have chosen otherwise. Since it is utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which is absolutely necessary for mathematical proof, the most we can do is assume that he didn’t have to do what he did. Is it any wonder free will is still a theory? The great humor in this particular instance lies in the fact that though it was always possible to prove determinism true, theology considered it as absolutely false while dogmatically promulgating, in obedience to God’s will, that free will was an absolute reality.”

Why the expletives? This doesn't help your refutation.

Uhm. Relly? Ok, it's poo poo.

Sarcasm will get you nowhere.

I never said he was perfect.

This notion that you have that your dad was the one to "prove" determinism isn't based on you having a sophisticated understanding of philosophical argument. It seems you are brainwashed, or poorly educated, or easily persuaded by your dad even though nobody else could possibly fall for this stuff.

You did not understand the two-sided equation, did you? I don't think so. You're just barking at me. I'm sorry that I upset you so much, but I'm not changing my position that this is a genuine discovery. Unfortunately, people will listen to you and move on. Isn't that what happens in these forums? Someone takes the lead and everyone else follows, especially in today's world where soundbites are even too much for people to hear.

Such weakness. If I am missing something important about this equation argument then just explain it in your own words, simply. But just saying I must not understand it if I don't agree with it is brainwashed argument, worthless. Nobody here follows my lead.

I don't believe that for a second. You seem like the big wheel here.

If I'm wrong, show me how I am wrong. Otherwise, I think I've shown how you are. At least in one regard. It would take a while to get through all the main ways you are mistaken.

And you can't seem to show me even one. How convenient.

You complain of other people not having open minds, but yours is not open to the possibility you have wasted decades pursuing a fairly bad argument. When I say fairly bad, I mean horrendous. Its basic self-evident awfulness is why I tend towards the view that you know it is junk but you hope to make money off those who are easily manipulated with this crap. If you genuinely believe in it, well... whoops.

This is so sad. I can see there's nothing that will change your mind. So let this thread die a natural death, okay?

You can change my mind by showing me better arguments. The problem is that you don't have those, but you can't change your mind.

Not when you call it shit. That right there will prevent you from grasping anything because you are blind sighted by rage.

Steve Patterson's perspective on tautologies challenges the traditional view that they are merely true by definition and do not contribute to knowledge. Patterson argues that tautologies are foundational for critical reasoning and provide a basis for an accurate worldview. He emphasizes that tautologies are not trivial or redundant but rather essential for understanding the structure of propositions and the nature of truth. Patterson's work challenges the notion that tautologies should be dismissed as empty of content, advocating instead for their importance in philosophical discourse.

https://stevepatterson.substack.com/p/t ... missed-759

And? I've given you additional explanation for why your tautologous argument isn't expandable. That's not dismissing tautologies, it's just recognising their limits.

If there is organic brain injury then a change in environment will not help. I am talking strictly about neuroses and depression caused by environmental factors and I stand by that.

That's a fairly significant climb down. What happened to "In this kind of environment, mental illness will be virtually nonexistent." Are you trying to gaslight me here?

Where am I gaslighting you?

gaslight: manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity, memory, or powers of reasoning.

I said emotions that are the result of the interaction with the environment, and in this new environment, the chances that people will become mentally ill will be virtually nonexistent. He never made the claim that there will be no organic brain diseases.

Pretending to "stand by" after running away is blatant shamelessness.

When did I run away?

You are trying to pretend that...
"In this kind of environment, mental illness will be virtually nonexistent"
...is just some small thing. It's a really big claim, not a small one. And you are nowhere near delivering. It is a lie.

No it isn't, not if the environment is 180 degree turnabout. You can't envision the changes that are going to take place, so there's no way you can even entertain the possibility that much of mental illness will be virtually gone.

This....
"In this kind of environment, mental illness will be virtually nonexistent"
... is not "I said emotions that are the result of the interaction with the environment".

YES, I said mental illness will be virtually nonexistent because there will be nothing to cause it as a new generation is born into a completely different world. Why does this bother you so much?

[FlashDangerpants]

Because you called it a tautology and I agree that whatever you choose will be in this direction. That does not make it unimportant.

You can't build new knowledge from the tautology that all bachelors are unmarried me because the only thing that can be learned is already encapsulated. If you know that Bertie is an unmarried man you already know, thanks to the tautology, that he is a bachelor. Vice to the versa, if you know of Bertie that he is a bachelor, then thanks to the tautology, you know that he is a man, and that he is not a man with a wife.

Whatever Billy made a choice to do was the thing that Billy chose to do because it seemed like the thing to do. You cannot determine from this anything other than Billy made a choice and the choice seemed to be the thing to do. Spinning the tautology on its head to demonstrate determinism doesn't work because the argument used here took the tautology (from which nothing can be learned because the tautology is just true by definition, not true in some way that can be discovered or shown) and adding nothing useful. Some meaningless drivel about animals having to move and sitting still being suicide. The argument isn't there, the stuff that isn't the tautology is just window dressing.

You are so off base, it's truly mind-boggling. There is a lot to understand in relation to free will. Didn't you see the definition that he gave in the very beginning? Free will would mean you could choose either/or, this or that, A or B, without any compulsion or necessity. Although this states "I chose what I chose", by defnition, you're not understanding the underlying meaning in that it's impossible to choose this if you chose that. IOW, YOU COULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN OTHERWISE. You can't choose A or B equally if there are meaningful differences between A or B. This has major implications that you are failing to recognize. You are just poised to prove him wrong, and you'll do it with gusto, even though you're wrong.

Nobody needs to redefine free will. A choice gets made and after the fact the question of why may occur. "Because I wanted to" and "Because it gave me greatest satisfaction" would be the same answer, if either were an answer.

Also, that tautology - you seem not to have noticed that the argument that if there is free will then we would be able to choose against it falls foul of that tautologous nature. Again, just bad argument. It isn't good.

No it doesn't. If one didn't pick that, it is because he chose this, and he chose this, because he didn't choose that, may be a tautology, but you're missing the whole point of "greater satisfaction." He couldn't have picked both options equally. If A represents shooting and killing a stranger, and B represents not shooting and killing a stranger, free will states you could choose both equally without any compulsion to choose one or the other when the difference between the two choices is night and day. Can't you see this, or are you that blind?

It is tautologous that the choice one makes in the moment is the reason why one acts in the moment. Nothing you say against that is even worth the bother. There is no outcome from this tautologous observation because tautologies don't offer that sort of thing. If free will pertains, then it is tautology that I acted thus because I chose to act thus in accord with my beliefs/desires/motivation. If determinism pertains, then I acted thus in accord with an illusion of beliefs/desires/motivation. Tautologies cannot split the difference here.

Pay attention please and I will try to explain for you why it is a bad argument: In the normal real world where we live, if you ask somebody "why did you drop that hammer on my toes?" the answer "because it was what I chose to do" doesn't work, it adds no information, it is a tautology. If you don't know what a tautology is, now is the time to say so. The whole "greatest satisfaction" thing is just that tautology expressed in, erm, "prose of a certain standard" that you seem to enjoy.

What standard are you referring to?

Your dad's prose is bloviated and empurpled. It's written like the author is a high school dropout with a chip on his shoulder. It gets in the way. You would do better to give it a 21st Century re-write.

Would you please leave his writing style alone? Stop picking on him. It's very easy to criticize when you're on the sidelines. You have no idea what his backstory was, and why he prefaced the book the way he did. The reason he was so defensive is because of people like you who are too quick to judge the accuracy of his 30+ year work. There is no way there will be a rewrite. If you can't get through it to find the gem, don't read it.

The unclear writing style is what prevents you from noticing how meaningless the whole "greatest satisfaction" thing is. It is just a clumsy way to describe motivation.

The extra steps with animals having to move away from what is unsatisfactory towards the greatest satisfaction is specious, pointless, redundant, unnecessary ... etc...

All of life moves in this direction, but the word "satisfaction" when talking about animals may be confusing. It is not specious, pointless, redundant, or unnecessary when you begin to understand why it is true that, under these new conditions, a person cannot hurt another with a first blow. It's not a matter of choice. This is huge because if will was free, we could choose to hurt others no matter what the environmental conditions.

This has nothing to do with one's motivation. He was just establishing that everything we do is a movement away from some form of dissatisfaction, otherwise, we wouldn't move off of the position we're in. He gave an example of taking a bath. It feels good to be refreshed in the bath until it suddenly grows uncomfortable. This feeling of dissatisfaction pushes us to get out of the bathtub to a more satisfying position.

Of course it has to do with motivation, don't be silly. Why on Earth would an organism pursue "greatest satisfaction" if it isn't motivated towards satisfaction? This is foolishness. The whole thing there is about motivation and nothing about it is important, that we are motivated towards what motivates us is just another tautology that shouldn't need mentioning and is not the seed of a giant discovery that will change anything, nor of a proof of determinism.

This is really sad. If we are compelled to move in one direction only out of necessity, how can our will be free to move in a direction that is dissatisfying given our options. It would be reversing the motion of life. And it is the seed of a giant discovery even if you believe otherwise.

"Reversing the motion of life". Mystical drivel. Beings are motivated do stuff, end of, there is no need for this claptrap.

[peacegirl]

You can't build new knowledge from the tautology that all bachelors are unmarried me because the only thing that can be learned is already encapsulated. If you know that Bertie is an unmarried man you already know, thanks to the tautology, that he is a bachelor. Vice to the versa, if you know of Bertie that he is a bachelor, then thanks to the tautology, you know that he is a man, and that he is not a man with a wife.

Whatever Billy made a choice to do was the thing that Billy chose to do because it seemed like the thing to do. You cannot determine from this anything other than Billy made a choice and the choice seemed to be the thing to do. Spinning the tautology on its head to demonstrate determinism doesn't work because the argument used here took the tautology (from which nothing can be learned because the tautology is just true by definition, not true in some way that can be discovered or shown) and adding nothing useful. Some meaningless drivel about animals having to move and sitting still being suicide. The argument isn't there, the stuff that isn't the tautology is just window dressing.

You are so off base, it's truly mind-boggling. There is a lot to understand in relation to free will. Didn't you see the definition that he gave in the very beginning? Free will would mean you could choose either/or, this or that, A or B, without any compulsion or necessity. Although this states "I chose what I chose", by defnition, you're not understanding the underlying meaning in that it's impossible to choose this if you chose that. IOW, YOU COULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN OTHERWISE. You can't choose A or B equally if there are meaningful differences between A or B. This has major implications that you are failing to recognize. You are just poised to prove him wrong, and you'll do it with gusto, even though you're wrong.

Nobody needs to redefine free will. A choice gets made and after the fact the question of why may occur. "Because I wanted to" and "Because it gave me greatest satisfaction" would be the same answer, if either were an answer.

Again for the last time because I’m not invested in explaining this to someone who thinks “because I wanted to” is synonymous with the explanation of “greater satisfaction” when it comes why will is not free. Obviously you did it because you wanted to and in that sense you can say you did it if your own free will, but this doesn’t mean you actually had free will for the reasons given.

Also, that tautology - you seem not to have noticed that the argument that if there is free will then we would be able to choose against it falls foul of that tautologous nature. Again, just bad argument. It isn't good.

No it doesn't. If one didn't pick that, it is because he chose this, and he chose this, because he didn't choose that, may be a tautology, but you're missing the whole point of "greater satisfaction." He couldn't have picked both options equally. If A represents shooting and killing a stranger, and B represents not shooting and killing a stranger, free will states you could choose both equally without any compulsion to choose one or the other when the difference between the two choices is night and day. Can't you see this, or are you that blind?

It is tautologous that the choice one makes in the moment is the reason why one acts in the moment. Nothing you say against that is even worth the bother. There is no outcome from this tautologous observation because tautologies don't offer that sort of thing. If free will pertains, then it is tautology that I acted thus because I chose to act thus in accord with my beliefs/desires/motivation. If determinism pertains, then I acted thus in accord with an illusion of beliefs/desires/motivation. Tautologies cannot split the difference here.[/quote”]

Free will does not pertain which is why this new world is possible, for no one can choose harm to another under these new conditions. Free will states otherwise, which will prove to be false when these principles are empirically tested.

Would you please leave his writing style alone? Stop picking on him. It's very easy to criticize when you're on the sidelines. You have no idea what his backstory was, and why he prefaced the book the way he did. The reason he was so defensive is because of people like you who are too quick to judge the accuracy of his 30+ year work. There is no way there will be a rewrite. If you can't get through it to find the gem, don't read it.

The unclear writing style is what prevents you from noticing how meaningless the whole "greatest satisfaction" thing is. It is just a clumsy way to describe motivation.

This is really sad. If we are compelled to move in one direction only out of necessity, how can our will be free to move in a direction that is dissatisfying given our options. It would be reversing the motion of life. And it is the seed of a giant discovery even if you believe otherwise.

"Reversing the motion of life". Mystical drivel. Beings are motivated do stuff, end of, there is no need for this claptrap.

Reversing the motion of life would mean moving in the direction that is least satisfying given one’s options, which would reverse the motion of life itself. I believe there is nothing more to say, so let’s agree to disagree and end the concersatiin on a high note.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are so off base, it's truly mind-boggling. There is a lot to understand in relation to free will. Didn't you see the definition that he gave in the very beginning? Free will would mean you could choose either/or, this or that, A or B, without any compulsion or necessity. Although this states "I chose what I chose", by defnition, you're not understanding the underlying meaning in that it's impossible to choose this if you chose that. IOW, YOU COULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN OTHERWISE. You can't choose A or B equally if there are meaningful differences between A or B. This has major implications that you are failing to recognize. You are just poised to prove him wrong, and you'll do it with gusto, even though you're wrong.

Nobody needs to redefine free will. A choice gets made and after the fact the question of why may occur. "Because I wanted to" and "Because it gave me greatest satisfaction" would be the same answer, if either were an answer.

Again for the last time because I’m not invested in explaining this to someone who thinks “because I wanted to” is synonymous with the explanation of “greater satisfaction” when it comes why will is not free. Obviously you did it because you wanted to and in that sense you can say you did it if your own free will, but this doesn’t mean you actually had free will for the reasons given.

That's your problem. The whole "greater satisfaction" thing is total nonsense. People shouldn't dedicate their lives to total nonsense.

No it doesn't. If one didn't pick that, it is because he chose this, and he chose this, because he didn't choose that, may be a tautology, but you're missing the whole point of "greater satisfaction." He couldn't have picked both options equally. If A represents shooting and killing a stranger, and B represents not shooting and killing a stranger, free will states you could choose both equally without any compulsion to choose one or the other when the difference between the two choices is night and day. Can't you see this, or are you that blind?

It is tautologous that the choice one makes in the moment is the reason why one acts in the moment. Nothing you say against that is even worth the bother. There is no outcome from this tautologous observation because tautologies don't offer that sort of thing. If free will pertains, then it is tautology that I acted thus because I chose to act thus in accord with my beliefs/desires/motivation. If determinism pertains, then I acted thus in accord with an illusion of beliefs/desires/motivation. Tautologies cannot split the difference here.

Free will does not pertain which is why this new world is possible, for no one can choose harm to another under these new conditions. Free will states otherwise, which will prove to be false when these principles are empirically tested.

Why would you be empirically testing something that you already proved deductively?

Or are you proposing an experiment where everybody in the world has choose to believe they have no choices and then you'll see if it was a success when nothing bad happens after you take away all governments and laws... ? Absolute foolishness.

The unclear writing style is what prevents you from noticing how meaningless the whole "greatest satisfaction" thing is. It is just a clumsy way to describe motivation.




Reversing the motion of life would mean moving in the direction that is least satisfying given one’s options, which would reverse the motion of life itself. I believe there is nothing more to say, so let’s agree to disagree and end the concersatiin on a high note.

"Reversing the motion of life" is a preposterous slice of purest rubbish.

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh well, now that is over, may as well throw some chum to Accelafine so she can get her rage on..

people will listen to you and move on. Isn't that what happens in these forums? Someone takes the lead and everyone else follows

Nobody here follows my lead.

I don't believe that for a second. You seem like the big wheel here.

LOL, I am indeed super important. I am the best.

Have at it.

[accelafine]

Oh well, now that is over, may as well throw some chum to Accelafine so she can get her rage on..

Nobody here follows my lead.

I don't believe that for a second. You seem like the big wheel here.

LOL, I am indeed super important. I am the best.

Have at it.

She's appealing to your narcissism. American women are renowned for that 'skill'-- the art of simpering to men.

[Eodnhoj7]

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 11:53 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 11:33 am
peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 11:02 am

Ooof, for somebody with all the answers hidden behind a door that's hidden behind an invisible dragon, you don't seem to have much certainty.

This discovery does not judge anyone. You have missed the entire meaning behind the two-sided equation. I should have prepared myself for the complete misunderstanding of these principles.

It's up to them in that current minute. But everything that brings them to that minute is determined and everything after it too. So which minute do they set their identity in?

It doesn't matter what brought them to that minute. Again, it's none of your damn business. Are you an evangelist? You are extremely judgmental when this discovery removes all judgment.

Whatever they choose to set their identity in. It's none of your damn business. This is disturbing.

Hmm, so you say it's a choice then? But you say nothing about how your deterministic function works with that choice they are making... Meanwhile not everyone views their sexuality, gender identity and so on actual choices that are available to them, they see these aspects of their selves as determined in advance. So where do you draw the line of that which is chosen and that which is not? Blurring the lines as your theory does, necessarily comes at a cost.

Whatever they believe is their business, not yours. There is no cost other than your snooping into someone else's life and making a judgment, which only belongs to God, not you. Last time I looked, God did not look like you.
Top

I warned you that philosophy can be ruthless....

You have to understand that all distinctions have an antithetical nature that allows the distinction to occur by nature of a contrast that allows a percievable identity.

Your father's philosophy is a distinction.

It being a distinction leads to the inevitability that people will disagree for that is how distinct things occur: contrast.

[Age]

Imagine claiming to have 'new discoveries', but then just not providing them when they are asked for.