New Discovery

[FlashDangerpants]

Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is an immutable law. From moment to moment all through life, man can never move in the direction of dissatisfaction, and his every motion, conscious or unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or move to greater satisfaction...

• Regardless of how many women you don't marry, the result will always be the same because it is a tautology. From moment to moment all through life, the unmarried man must always be a bachelor. This is not an experiment, you cannot experiment with the unfalsifiable.

• Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is a tautology. From moment to moment all through life, man can never choose the thing that he didn't choose, and his every (voluntary) movement, conscious or unconscious, falls within the scope of that tautology.

You cannot test a tautology via "experiment", they are unfalsifiable.

You are stuck on this tautology bit. A tautology may be unfalsifiable, but this is much more than a tautology or circular reasoning. You have completely failed (intentionally or not) to recognize the soundness of his observations. Every time we make a move, we are dissatisfied with the position we are in. It's as simple as that, and you don't want to hear it. The empirical test will PROVE that under the changed environmental conditions a person could never desire hurting another without justification.

That's a complete other empirical test where everybody in the world has to join your cult and then find out if that prediction there is true. It's an article of faith for you, but not really for anybody else.

The tautology bit is apt. Your thing is untestable, unfalsifiable, and nothing but confidently asserted nonsense. All that can be said via this tautology is that we are motivated to move by whatever motivates us, there is no source here for speculation about the nature of said motive force.

Every time we make a move, we are moving, the assertion of dissatisfaction is just a descriptive device of no import. You can describe it as a move away from a dissatisfaction (your thing); or a move towards a desire (common sense folk-psychology); or a result of complex neurological processes influenced by the brain's physiological and neurological phenomena rather than being purely conscious or rational choices (as a real determinist does). None of these descriptive contexts is a reason to believe any other thing, nor in itself testable, you must use other reasoning to justify adopting them. That is all.

If you don't get this, you are destined to permanent failure.

[Atla]

Again, here's a tutorial on how to break GOD's unbreakable law:

1. Think of two options, one better for you and one worse.
2. Choose to do the worse option.
3. Notice how every fiber of your being is revolting at the idea, you experience major suffering, you're getting physically sick and you freeze, you can't do what's worse for you.
4. Find a way to cut through this suffering anyway, if you are able.
5. Do the worse option.

It's how I did it at least. (Luckily, lending a little money may not cause too much suffering.) There is no reason why we do such things, we just do them for no reason. And still nothing to do with determinism or free will.

It could be you just are an empathetic person, which makes it hard to say no. But when she fails to pay you back this time, you probably won't get taken the next time and you'll stick to your guns. Your example doesn't prove you are moving in the direction of dissatisfaction. You are finding satisfaction in helping her, even though you know it's a risky move. The author gave a similar example. I guess you don't remember.

No, I already reached the point by then where my dissatisfaction with losing an X amount of money outweighed my satisfaction with helping her. I don't think she really deserves much help anyway, I won't save her from her own bad decisions, I'm not a sucker like that.

As I said I broke your law, and told you how to do it. There's no meeting halfway. And this still has nothing to do with free will or determinism. Under determinism, I was simply determined to want to go against life's nature sometimes, that's possible.

[peacegirl]

• Regardless of how many women you don't marry, the result will always be the same because it is a tautology. From moment to moment all through life, the unmarried man must always be a bachelor. This is not an experiment, you cannot experiment with the unfalsifiable.

• Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is a tautology. From moment to moment all through life, man can never choose the thing that he didn't choose, and his every (voluntary) movement, conscious or unconscious, falls within the scope of that tautology.

You cannot test a tautology via "experiment", they are unfalsifiable.

You are stuck on this tautology bit. A tautology may be unfalsifiable, but this is much more than a tautology or circular reasoning. You have completely failed (intentionally or not) to recognize the soundness of his observations. Every time we make a move, we are dissatisfied with the position we are in. It's as simple as that, and you don't want to hear it. The empirical test will PROVE that under the changed environmental conditions a person could never desire hurting another without justification.

That's a complete other empirical test where everybody in the world has to join your cult and then find out if that prediction there is true. It's an article of faith for you, but not really for anybody else.

It’s not a cult. Are threats of punishment a cult? Why would no threats of punishment be a cult?. It just has to be shown that when all hurt is removed from the environment (and you have no idea how this will take place),including all authority and control (even by government), and when the fear of losing one’s standard of living is also removed, we are compelled to move in only one direction (not two) and that is never to strike a first blow.

The tautology bit is apt. Your thing is untestable, unfalsifiable, and nothing but confidently asserted nonsense. All that can be said via this tautology is that we are motivated to move by whatever motivates us, there is no source here for speculation about the nature of said motive force.

We don’t need to speculate on every motive. All that needs to be true is that in living one’s life, the motive to hurt others, that is rampant today, will no longer be, because conscience will not permit it when the causes that give the justification to hurt others, or the risk of hurting others, is removed. That’s how conscience works.

Every time we make a move, we are moving, the assertion of dissatisfaction is just a descriptive device of no import. You can describe it as a move away from a dissatisfaction (your thing); or a move towards a desire (common sense folk-psychology); or a result of complex neurological processes influenced by the brain's physiological and neurological phenomena rather than being purely conscious or rational choices (as a real determinist does). None of these descriptive contexts is a reason to believe any other thing, nor in itself testable, you must use other reasoning to justify adopting them. That is all.

If you don't get this, you are destined to permanent failure.

Then I must be a permanent failure. There may be unconscious motivations that are not on the surface but this still goes back to someone having been hurt. How can someone be motivated consciously or unconsciously to strike back when his cheek has never been struck, giving him the justification to retaliate? And it is testable.

[peacegirl]

Again, here's a tutorial on how to break GOD's unbreakable law:

1. Think of two options, one better for you and one worse.
2. Choose to do the worse option.
3. Notice how every fiber of your being is revolting at the idea, you experience major suffering, you're getting physically sick and you freeze, you can't do what's worse for you.
4. Find a way to cut through this suffering anyway, if you are able.
5. Do the worse option.

It's how I did it at least. (Luckily, lending a little money may not cause too much suffering.) There is no reason why we do such things, we just do them for no reason. And still nothing to do with determinism or free will.

It could be you just are an empathetic person, which makes it hard to say no. But when she fails to pay you back this time, you probably won't get taken the next time and you'll stick to your guns. Your example doesn't prove you are moving in the direction of dissatisfaction. You are finding satisfaction in helping her, even though you know it's a risky move. The author gave a similar example. I guess you don't remember.

No, I already reached the point by then where my dissatisfaction with losing an X amount of money outweighed my satisfaction with helping her. I don't think she really deserves much help anyway, I won't save her from her own bad decisions, I'm not a sucker like that.

Obviously, you did not reach the point where your dissatisfaction with losing an X amount of money outweighted your satisfaction with helping her, or you would not have made that decision. This does not prove what you think it does, not even a little bit.

As I said I broke your law, and told you how to do it. There's no meeting halfway. And this still has nothing to do with free will or determinism. Under determinism, I was simply determined to want to go against life's nature sometimes, that's possible.

Sorry Alta, it is not my law; it is the law of our nature. It was an observation that we cannot move against what gives us greater satisfaction when given the options at our disposal. Nothing you have said disproves the movement away from a position that is dissatisfying to a movement toward what is more satisfying, given the options you are dealing with.

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[FlashDangerpants]

You are stuck on this tautology bit. A tautology may be unfalsifiable, but this is much more than a tautology or circular reasoning. You have completely failed (intentionally or not) to recognize the soundness of his observations. Every time we make a move, we are dissatisfied with the position we are in. It's as simple as that, and you don't want to hear it. The empirical test will PROVE that under the changed environmental conditions a person could never desire hurting another without justification.

That's a complete other empirical test where everybody in the world has to join your cult and then find out if that prediction there is true. It's an article of faith for you, but not really for anybody else.

It’s not a cult. Are threats of punishment a cult? Why would no threats of punishment be a cult?. It just has to be shown that when all hurt is removed from the environment (and you have no idea how this will take place),including all authority and control (even by government), and when the fear of losing one’s standard of living is also removed, we are compelled to move in only one direction (not two) and that is never to strike a first blow.

The tautology bit is apt. Your thing is untestable, unfalsifiable, and nothing but confidently asserted nonsense. All that can be said via this tautology is that we are motivated to move by whatever motivates us, there is no source here for speculation about the nature of said motive force.

We don’t need to speculate on every motive. All that needs to be true is that in living one’s life, the motive to hurt others, that is rampant today, will no longer be, because conscience will not permit it when the causes that give the justification to hurt others, or the risk of hurting others, is removed. That’s how conscience works.

Every time we make a move, we are moving, the assertion of dissatisfaction is just a descriptive device of no import. You can describe it as a move away from a dissatisfaction (your thing); or a move towards a desire (common sense folk-psychology); or a result of complex neurological processes influenced by the brain's physiological and neurological phenomena rather than being purely conscious or rational choices (as a real determinist does). None of these descriptive contexts is a reason to believe any other thing, nor in itself testable, you must use other reasoning to justify adopting them. That is all.

If you don't get this, you are destined to permanent failure.

Then I must be a permanent failure. There may be unconscious motivations that are not on the surface but this still goes back to someone having been hurt. How can someone be motivated consciously or unconsciously to strike back when his cheek has never been struck, giving him the justification to retaliate? And it is testable.

I shall try to get through to you that I am not making things up to spite you by quoting from Simon Blackburn's Ruling Passions. Note that normally what is described here as API is BDM to me (a term borrowed I think from Jerry Fodor):

"It is a 'constitutive' rule, or a principle that governs the very essence of mental states. It is not open to empirical rebuttal: it is a tautology, or principle that defines its subject-matter. Writing in a form on which we can focus, we have an a priori principle of interpretation (API):

• (API) It is analytic that creatures with beliefs, desires and other states of mind, behave in ways that (best) make sense (and not in ways that make no sense)m given those states of mind.

The idea behind calling this a constitutive rule is that it tells us what it is to have beliefs and other states of mind. According to API, then, it is analytic that creatures conform to the normative order. A creature which appears not to do so is either a creature that we have misinterpreted, or a creature that has no mental states, but merely exhibits movements."

An analytic proposition is one that is true by definition. This is in contrast to synthetic propositions, validation of which require more than an understanding of the meanings of the terms in use.

An A Priori proposition is a statement that can be known to be true without needing any experience of the outside world. If we needed to do any investigating to find out that animals move from one place to another because it in some way conforms to their best efforts to attain their desires, that would make it an A Posteriori proposition.

As I hope you can finally grasp, there is no market for a "discovery" that animals move from one place to another in pursuit of satisfaction, that is an a priori tautology that cannot be proven. Any effort to prove it or discover it is redundant. Any effort to use a discovery of such a tautology as the basis for some other claim is unfounded.

[peacegirl]

That's a complete other empirical test where everybody in the world has to join your cult and then find out if that prediction there is true. It's an article of faith for you, but not really for anybody else.

It’s not a cult. Are threats of punishment a cult? Why would no threats of punishment be a cult?. It just has to be shown that when all hurt is removed from the environment (and you have no idea how this will take place),including all authority and control (even by government), and when the fear of losing one’s standard of living is also removed, we are compelled to move in only one direction (not two) and that is never to strike a first blow.

We don’t need to speculate on every motive. All that needs to be true is that in living one’s life, the motive to hurt others, that is rampant today, will no longer be, because conscience will not permit it when the causes that give the justification to hurt others, or the risk of hurting others, is removed. That’s how conscience works.



Then I must be a permanent failure. There may be unconscious motivations that are not on the surface but this still goes back to someone having been hurt. How can someone be motivated consciously or unconsciously to strike back when his cheek has never been struck, giving him the justification to retaliate? And it is testable.

I shall try to get through to you that I am not making things up to spite you by quoting from Simon Blackburn's Ruling Passions. Note that normally what is described here as API is BDM to me (a term borrowed I think from Jerry Fodor):

"It is a 'constitutive' rule, or a principle that governs the very essence of mental states. It is not open to empirical rebuttal: it is a tautology, or principle that defines its subject-matter. Writing in a form on which we can focus, we have an a priori principle of interpretation (API):

• (API) It is analytic that creatures with beliefs, desires and other states of mind, behave in ways that (best) make sense (and not in ways that make no sense)m given those states of mind.

States of mind behave in ways that (best) make sense (and not in ways that make no sense) given those states of mind. And...?

The idea behind calling this a constitutive rule is that it tells us what it is to have beliefs and other states of mind. According to API, then, it is analytic that creatures conform to the normative order. A creature which appears not to do so is either a creature that we have misinterpreted, or a creature that has no mental states, but merely exhibits movements."

I can agree that creatures conform to the normative order which is a very strong motivator.

Constitutive rules and regulative rules are both types of rules that govern behavior within a specific context or social setting. Constitutive rules define the fundamental structure or framework of a system, setting the boundaries and parameters within which individuals can operate. In contrast, regulative rules dictate specific actions or behaviors that individuals must follow within that system.

An analytic proposition is one that is true by definition. This is in contrast to synthetic propositions, validation of which require more than an understanding of the meanings of the terms in use.

An analytic proposition may be true by definition, but definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. The meanings of the term must have reference to REALITY, otherwise definitions can be misleading... like the standard determinism of determinism.

An A Priori proposition is a statement that can be known to be true without needing any experience of the outside world. If we needed to do any investigating to find out that animals move from one place to another because it in some way conforms to their best efforts to attain their desires, that would make it an A Posteriori proposition.

Where do you think his claim came from? Outer space? I don't care what you call it, a or post priori, it came from his careful observations.

As I hope you can finally grasp, there is no market for a "discovery" that animals move from one place to another in pursuit of satisfaction, that is an a priori tautology that cannot be proven.

You are wrong FlashDangerpants. It is not a priori if his observations came from observation. It wasn't just a made-up definition that had no reference to the real world.

Any effort to prove it or discover it is redundant. Any effort to use a discovery of such a tautology as the basis for some other claim is unfounded.

You are completely off-base using the term "tautology" to mean "unimportant" or "redundant." It is not unimportant or redundant. Free will states we could have done otherwise. That is the basis for this worldview. You didn't have to kill that person, you had the free will to do otherwise, and now you're going to pay by going to jail. That is the cornerstone of our civilization. I don't think you read one word of what I posted. Not one.

Animals move when life pushes them to move, just like humans. That is the motion of life itself, otherwise, we're inanimate objects like rocks. Animals are obviously influenced by their tribe and where they fit into the established hierarchy. I'm not even disputing this. I am only trying to get across that if animals are content with what they are doing (such as a bird sitting on a branch or a dog eating his evening meal) they will not move away from what they are doing (e.g., eating dinner or sitting on a branch, etc.) until they have the urge to do something else, whether it be taking a nap, playing with a ball, or flying with a flock of birds to their next destination. I don't even see where your argument applies to what I'm talking about. It feels like a strawman.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am only saying that if animals are content where they are (such as a bird sitting on a branch or a dog eating his evening meal) they will not move away from what they are doing (e.g., eating dinner or sitting on a branch) until they have the urge to get off of that spot, much like humans. These movements are driven by life pushing them forward, whether it be taking a nap, playing with a ball, or flying with a flock of birds to their next destination.

That animals move when they have a desire to move is not a discovery that needs to be made. nobody was waiting for you to find that out for them. It is not the basis of anything.

What next? Will you "discover" that there's a thing in the middle of your face with two holes in it that "feels" funny when you put it close to a flower? What shall we call the resulting religion? I suggest Nosearianism.

[peacegirl]

I am only saying that if animals are content where they are (such as a bird sitting on a branch or a dog eating his evening meal) they will not move away from what they are doing (e.g., eating dinner or sitting on a branch) until they have the urge to get off of that spot, much like humans. These movements are driven by life pushing them forward, whether it be taking a nap, playing with a ball, or flying with a flock of birds to their next destination.

That animals move when they have a desire to move is not a discovery that needs to be made. nobody was waiting for you to find that out for them. It is not the basis of anything.

I only included animals in the definition because they are living creatures. All LIFE moves in this direction.

What next? Will you "discover" that there's a thing in the middle of your face with two holes in it that "feels" funny when you put it close to a flower? What shall we call the resulting religion? I suggest Nosearianism.

Sarcasm is often used as a distraction. The definition of determinism, according to Lessans, DESCRIBES accurately what is going on in reality. It is not a prescription and it is definitely NOT moot, circular, redundant, or unimportant. Until you understand this, you will reject that we don't have free will because you're a libertarian or a compatibilist. You are convinced that determinism is false, and you are unwilling to listen to anybody who argues otherwise.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am only saying that if animals are content where they are (such as a bird sitting on a branch or a dog eating his evening meal) they will not move away from what they are doing (e.g., eating dinner or sitting on a branch) until they have the urge to get off of that spot, much like humans. These movements are driven by life pushing them forward, whether it be taking a nap, playing with a ball, or flying with a flock of birds to their next destination.

That animals move when they have a desire to move is not a discovery that needs to be made. nobody was waiting for you to find that out for them. It is not the basis of anything.

I only included animals in the definition because they are living creatures. All LIFE moves in this direction.

Unimportant.

What next? Will you "discover" that there's a thing in the middle of your face with two holes in it that "feels" funny when you put it close to a flower? What shall we call the resulting religion? I suggest Nosearianism.

Sarcasm is often used as a distraction. The definition of determinism, according to Lessans, DESCRIBES accurately what is going on in reality. It is not a prescription and it is definitely NOT moot, circular, redundant, or unimportant. Until you understand this, you will reject that we don't have free will because you're a libertarian or a compatibilist. You are convinced that determinism is false, and you are unwilling to listen to anybody who argues otherwise.

I am objecting to your argument because it is a transparent effort to take the banal and pass it off as mystical and important.

You don't need to know or speculate whether I am a libertarian, compatibilist or just a better determinist than you. I am solely discussing your argument here in your thread. When somebody uses a bad argument to make a case I agree with, I still reject the bad argument.

[Atla]

It could be you just are an empathetic person, which makes it hard to say no. But when she fails to pay you back this time, you probably won't get taken the next time and you'll stick to your guns. Your example doesn't prove you are moving in the direction of dissatisfaction. You are finding satisfaction in helping her, even though you know it's a risky move. The author gave a similar example. I guess you don't remember.

No, I already reached the point by then where my dissatisfaction with losing an X amount of money outweighed my satisfaction with helping her. I don't think she really deserves much help anyway, I won't save her from her own bad decisions, I'm not a sucker like that.

Obviously, you did not reach the point where your dissatisfaction with losing an X amount of money outweighted your satisfaction with helping her, or you would not have made that decision. This does not prove what you think it does, not even a little bit.

As I said I broke your law, and told you how to do it. There's no meeting halfway. And this still has nothing to do with free will or determinism. Under determinism, I was simply determined to want to go against life's nature sometimes, that's possible.

Sorry Alta, it is not my law; it is the law of our nature. It was an observation that we cannot move against what gives us greater satisfaction when given the options at our disposal. Nothing you have said disproves the movement away from a position that is dissatisfying to a movement toward what is more satisfying, given the options you are dealing with.

As I said I reached that point, I broke your law. Your law doesn't exist. Your father was simply crazy and so are you, that's the big secret here.

[peacegirl]

That animals move when they have a desire to move is not a discovery that needs to be made. nobody was waiting for you to find that out for them. It is not the basis of anything.

I only included animals in the definition because they are living creatures. All LIFE moves in this direction.

Unimportant.

Whatever.

What next? Will you "discover" that there's a thing in the middle of your face with two holes in it that "feels" funny when you put it close to a flower? What shall we call the resulting religion? I suggest Nosearianism.

Sarcasm is often used as a distraction. The definition of determinism, according to Lessans, DESCRIBES accurately what is going on in reality. It is not a prescription and it is definitely NOT moot, circular, redundant, or unimportant. Until you understand this, you will reject that we don't have free will because you're a libertarian or a compatibilist. You are convinced that determinism is false, and you are unwilling to listen to anybody who argues otherwise.

I am objecting to your argument because it is a transparent effort to take the banal and pass it off as mystical and important.

You don't need to know or speculate whether I am a libertarian, compatibilist or just a better determinist than you. I am solely discussing your argument here in your thread. When somebody uses a bad argument to make a case I agree with, I still reject the bad argument.

What is the argument? You don't know why, given a new set of environmental conditions, human conduct does not remain the same. I really don't care what worldview you hold. What I do care about is that you are flat out wrong and saying his claim is just circular. Prove to anyone that you could have done otherwise, which is what free will says. Your logic is lacking, not his proof. No one called this knowledge mystical. That word has never been used except by you.

[peacegirl]

No, I already reached the point by then where my dissatisfaction with losing an X amount of money outweighed my satisfaction with helping her. I don't think she really deserves much help anyway, I won't save her from her own bad decisions, I'm not a sucker like that.

Obviously, you did not reach the point where your dissatisfaction with losing an X amount of money outweighted your satisfaction with helping her, or you would not have made that decision. This does not prove what you think it does, not even a little bit.

As I said I broke your law, and told you how to do it. There's no meeting halfway. And this still has nothing to do with free will or determinism. Under determinism, I was simply determined to want to go against life's nature sometimes, that's possible.

Sorry Alta, it is not my law; it is the law of our nature. It was an observation that we cannot move against what gives us greater satisfaction when given the options at our disposal. Nothing you have said disproves the movement away from a position that is dissatisfying to a movement toward what is more satisfying, given the options you are dealing with.

As I said I reached that point, I broke your law. Your law doesn't exist. Your father was simply crazy and so are you, that's the big secret here.

You did not break this invariable law. It was not his law or my law. You lent the money because you wanted to more than you didn’t want to after weighing it or simply because you wanted to help her hoping you made the right decision. You took the gamble because you wanted to. No one made you do it. This was your choice in the direction of what gave you satisfaction at that moment. Now you’ll be more likely to make a different choice if she ever asks again because you learned from your mistake. That’s how life works Atla.
I will refuse to engage with you if you talk s*^*t again.

[FlashDangerpants]

What I do care about is that you are flat out wrong and saying his claim is just circular.

Hmm, did I do that? Please show me where I said "circular". I don't normally do that by accident.

[Atla]

Obviously, you did not reach the point where your dissatisfaction with losing an X amount of money outweighted your satisfaction with helping her, or you would not have made that decision. This does not prove what you think it does, not even a little bit.



Sorry Alta, it is not my law; it is the law of our nature. It was an observation that we cannot move against what gives us greater satisfaction when given the options at our disposal. Nothing you have said disproves the movement away from a position that is dissatisfying to a movement toward what is more satisfying, given the options you are dealing with.

As I said I reached that point, I broke your law. Your law doesn't exist. Your father was simply crazy and so are you, that's the big secret here.

You did not break this invariable law. It was not his law or my law. You lent the money because you wanted to more than you didn’t want to after weighing it or simply because you wanted to help her hoping you made the right decision. You took the gamble because you wanted to. No one made you do it. This was your choice in the direction of what gave you satisfaction at that moment. Now you’ll be more likely to make a different choice if she ever asks again because you learned from your mistake. That’s how life works Atla.
I will refuse to engage with you if you talk s*^*t again.

It's your made-up law. Nature's "law" is that a sufficiently intelligent being with enough willpower can do pretty much anything he/she wants, even go against his/her satisfaction.

Why wouldn't I talk shit about you, you made your and your father's selfishness (chasing satisfaction) into a sacred law of nature. That's disgusting. And claim to save the world with it.