New Discovery

[FlashDangerpants]

Call it a priori or whatever you want. Bottom line: If you can agree that we can only move in one direction (which is away from that which dissatisfies to that which offers greater satisfaction than the position we are now standing), as we move through life from moment to moment —- which is the reason will is not free —- we can move forward, otherwise we we are basically done.

You're always threatening to be done with people, you clearly don't mean it, you need the eyeballs on your work, why bother with the empty threat?

We can only choose (regardless of metaphysics of causation) to act in accord with our desires and our beliefs that some desire is best attained by some certain action. I never had any issue with that principle which I heave described many times now as self-evident. So threatening me for not agreeing to it is really just a weird choice.

The passage remains problematic, the question of whether he intends his reasoning to be scientific, mathematic or incontrovertible is unclear because really he seemingly cannot tell the difference. The other issues remain with the other passages that I have highlighted and you have ignored. But sure, whatever you mean by "going forward" ... you may proceed. Does it involve successfully answering any questions or helpfully explaining any misconceptions at some point?

I never threatened to be done before, but telling me that he was confused because he didn’t know the difference between these three words is an absolute joke. You seem to be looking for flaws that do not exist and more importantly do not negate the truth of this discovery. If you want other questions answered, please ask one at a time. I don’t know what you asked that I did not respond to and I’m not scrolling back.

You've told me at least twice that you are done talking to me. The last time round you even wrote ...

Don't waste your sales pitch on me. Your theory doesn't become better just by getting watery-eyed about a future that you are not going to bring about with this crap.

Goodbye FlashDangerpants.

Here's the same link again to the same post containing the questions you are avoiding. I look forward to your next excuse instead of addressing them.

Click this blue arrow to be taken to the questions you ignored...

The flaws clearly do exist. Those three words do not at all mean the same thing and in context the most important thing to note is that they represent three very different types of reasoning so conflating them all to describe your reasoning is slovenly and misleading.

You have to get over this infatuation with your dad and realise that his writing is not great. If you think his ideas are superior - as you clearly do - then you will have to do something about that if you actually want those ideas to survive. You have been notably unsuccessful for a very long time it seems, so there is something you are doing that is not working, you are responsible for that not me.

[peacegirl]

Everyone already understands the difference between opinion or belief and demonstrated fact, as well as the deductively sound, which appears to be what your dads confused with "mathematical". The problem now is that because of the imprecision of this confusion between scientific, mathematical, and undeniable (three distinct things of differing meaning) it is hard to parse the claim made in the passage:

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.

I have already explained many times that there is no need to find out that we act in accord with our beliefs and desires, as we know this a priori, in advance, tautologically, so there is neither need nor a method to check. In fact, we cannot know such a thing scientifically, we know it by definition. And we cannot learn it mathematically, because there is no maths involved. We can however know it undeniably, because we already did, as soon as we defined the concepts of belief and desire and action.

So the question I asked really never got a satisfactory answer.

But at least you made an effort that one time. You ignored all the others entirely.

Call it a priori or whatever you want. Bottom line: If you can agree that we can only move in one direction (which is away from that which dissatisfies to that which offers greater satisfaction than the position we are now standing), as we move through life from moment to moment —- which is the reason will is not free —- we can move forward, otherwise we are basically done.

You're always threatening to be done with people, you clearly don't mean it, you need the eyeballs on your work, why bother with the empty threat?

I only need eyeballs on this work to bring it to light, not to criticize words that he highlighted to make sure people didn't split hairs. That's exactly what you're doing to discredit him. This is a real triviality but you're making it into a mountain.

We can only choose (regardless of metaphysics of causation) to act in accord with our desires and our beliefs that some desire is best attained by some certain action. I never had any issue with that principle which I heave described many times now as self-evident. So threatening me for not agreeing to it is really just a weird choice.

You are comparing "greater satisfaction" with choosing in accord with our desires and beliefs. But you are failing to understand that moving from here to there, or any movement at all, does not always involve a motivation or a desire to reach a goal. There is a difference between the definition you have given and one Lessans gave. I can be sad, have no goals, no desires, and nothing to reach for, yet still be moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. This observation isn't always obvious because it feels like we are moving in the direction of dissatisfaction, which is why the meaning of this phrase can be difficult to grasp right off the bat. People are getting confused and I'm trying to help them. I still don't understand why you can't accept that if we are compelled to move in this direction (which is a law of our nature with no exceptions), we cannot have free will that states we can choose A or B equally. This is impossible when there are meaningful differences from which to choose. Tell me how it is possible to have no free will and free will without contradiction?

The passage remains problematic, the question of whether he intends his reasoning to be scientific, mathematic or incontrovertible is unclear because really he seemingly cannot tell the difference. The other issues remain with the other passages that I have highlighted and you have ignored. But sure, whatever you mean by "going forward" ... you may proceed. Does it involve successfully answering any questions or helpfully explaining any misconceptions at some point?

You won't accept his clarification that in the context of his writing, these words are synonymous and don't require dissecting them in an effort to disagree because they don't fit the standard definition. Whether you don't like that what he did this is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with confusion on his part.

[FlashDangerpants]

The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will.

If I understood your previous claims correctly, this passage is key to your whole spiel about Lessans redefining the free will debate. It is nothing but hair splitting.

You have some nerve to accuse me of splitting hairs when I point out that scientific reasoning is absolutely not undeniable; that disputing and testing and re-testing everything is the whole point of science; and you yourself are denying the findings of the sciences of optics and vision in this very thread. Get your shit together.

[peacegirl]

The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will.

If I understood your previous claims correctly, this passage is key to your whole spiel about Lessans redefining the free will debate. It is nothing but hair splitting.

Of course it does. This is your comeback, as if his definitions between these three words ruins his proof.

You have some nerve to accuse me of splitting hairs when I point out that scientific reasoning is absolutely not undeniable; that disputing and testing and re-testing everything is the whole point of science; and you yourself are denying the findings of the sciences of optics and vision in this very thread. Get your shit together.

Stop with your umbrage. Your anger is all bluster. It doesn't fly my friend. Sorry. The only hope with this thread is that we stay calm.

[FlashDangerpants]

The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will.

If I understood your previous claims correctly, this passage is key to your whole spiel about Lessans redefining the free will debate. It is nothing but hair splitting.

Of course it does. This is your comeback, as if his definitions between these three words ruins his proof.

Don't be absurd, I asked you to disambiguate the passage because its language makes it entirely unclear what sort of argument is being attempted. Still this question remains unclear.

But if you think hair splitting is a sufficient reason to dismiss out of hand (as you clearly hope to do) then we must accept that sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. In that case your claim that Lessans did something very important by redifining the free will debate must go also, as clearly the whole implication insinuated at is nothing but hair splitting.

You have some nerve to accuse me of splitting hairs when I point out that scientific reasoning is absolutely not undeniable; that disputing and testing and re-testing everything is the whole point of science; and you yourself are denying the findings of the sciences of optics and vision in this very thread. Get your shit together.

Stop with your umbrage. Your anger is all bluster. It doesn't fly my friend. Sorry. The only hope with this thread is that we stay calm.

You are dismissing legitimate questions as hair splitting. You do have some nerve on you, I have explained in that passage you quoted why the term scientific doesn't belong where it is being used. This is real. You do need to address this. You are doing terribly.

Is this crusade to spread the word and bring about world peace some sort of life's mission for you? If it were mine, I would want to be less bad at it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Imagine what would ever happen to this shit if peacegirl were to get it in front of a real philosopher and then tried to defend it as she does here. It's probably an act of kindness to interpret her scheme as a money-making cult startup rather than imagine she is so inebriated as to genuinely think this garbage is the height of rational inquiry.

[peacegirl]

If I understood your previous claims correctly, this passage is key to your whole spiel about Lessans redefining the free will debate. It is nothing but hair splitting.

Of course it does. This is your comeback, as if his definitions between these three words ruins his proof.

Don't be absurd, I asked you to disambiguate the passage because its language makes it entirely unclear what sort of argument is being attempted. Still this question remains unclear.

But if you think hair splitting is a sufficient reason to dismiss out of hand (as you clearly hope to do) then we must accept that sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. In that case your claim that Lessans did something very important by redifining the free will debate must go also, as clearly the whole implication insinuated at is nothing but hair splitting.

It becomes hair splitting after he explained IN THIS CONTEXT to use these words synonymously. You won’t accept that and are splitting hairs unnecessarily!

You have some nerve to accuse me of splitting hairs when I point out that scientific reasoning is absolutely not undeniable; that disputing and testing and re-testing everything is the whole point of science; and you yourself are denying the findings of the sciences of optics and vision in this very thread. Get your shit together.

No I am not denying the findings of science. I am denying the interpretation of what is actually going on. That is what science is all about. How ironic!

Your anger is all bluster. It doesn't fly my friend. Sorry. The only hope with this thread is that we stay calm.

You are dismissing legitimate questions as hair splitting.

That’s exactly what it is when he already explained that these words in his book meant the same thing. He was quite capable of understanding mathematics. He figured out problems math professors couldn’t. Don’t you think he understood what these words meant?

You do have some nerve on you, I have explained in that passage you quoted why the term scientific doesn't belong where it is being used. This is real. You do need to address this. You are doing terribly.

I’m done with this excerpt. It’s a waste of time to beleaguer the same point over and over when it was already explained. It’s like focusing attention on a single tree when the entire forest is on fire!

[FlashDangerpants]

I don’t know what you asked that I did not respond to and I’m not scrolling back.

Here's the same link again to the same post containing the questions you are avoiding. I look forward to your next excuse instead of addressing them.

Click this blue arrow to be taken to the questions you ignored...

[peacegirl]

Imagine what would ever happen to this shit if peacegirl were to get it in front of a real philosopher and then tried to defend it as she does here. It's probably an act of kindness to interpret her scheme as a money-making cult startup rather than imagine she is so inebriated as to genuinely think this garbage is the height of rational inquiry.

This just shows me your inability to decipher between what is garbage and what is treasure. This just shows me how jumping to premature conclusions that this is garbage (after a cursory glance) is the ruination of any serious discussion.

“Do you honestly believe that crime will cease when the police are removed? I think the crooks would have a ball.”

“You must bear in mind that you also thought removing blame and punishment would allow people to take advantage, but this is not true, so you must not jump to conclusions. We are working the problem backwards, and until other facts are revealed, certain things might appear ridiculous.
To render these evils impossibilities, it is first necessary (this is only the beginning of the solution) to remove the forces that try to prevent war and crime through threats of retaliation, because this kind of effort unconsciously motivates and justifies the very things these forces are trying to prevent. Now how was it possible for government to ever find the solution when the very first step required the dismissal of all forms of government?”

“Say, is this supposed to satisfy our politicians? Do you expect them to calmly sit back while you take away their jobs?”

“Well let me show you that every person who gets displaced, regardless of who he is or what is his income, will be completely satisfied. I shall ask all our politicians a very serious question. ‘Gentlemen, would you have any objection to my removing every possibility of war and crime, which would render your services absolutely useless, provided the income you are now receiving would never decrease or stop as long as you live, although it could be increased?’ Well, I kind of surprised you with that question, didn’t I?”

“You sure did. You mean that every person who gets displaced will never have his income stopped or decreased no matter how much he is earning?”

“That isn’t all. I mean that every person who is employed at the time the transition gets under way — this includes all those who will be displaced — will be guaranteed their accustomed income for the rest of their lives, less taxes, of course. This not only includes the largest but also the smallest incomes, such as those from unemployment compensation, welfare, and relief.”

“Be honest with me? Does this scheme have anything to do with socialism or communism?”

“Of course not, first because competition will still exist, and second because it is impossible to dictate to another what to do without blaming him for not doing it, which would be required under communism or socialism.”

“But how is it possible to guarantee a businessman that his income will never decrease when competition can very easily do the job?”

“At the moment let’s not be concerned with how I’m going to accomplish this, but with everyone’s reaction to my doing it. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful feeling to know that your income is secure, that it will never be stopped or decreased, only increased?”

“I’m satisfied, but I can think of plenty of people who would not be, like the insurance companies who make their living on the insecurity that exists, and the taxpayers whose jobs are secure without this security but who might feel they will be overburdened with increased taxation.”

“But supposing the insurance companies, instead of making less money, make more than they ever dreamed possible; and supposing the taxpayers, instead of paying more, end up paying less, what would you say then, my fine-feathered friend?”

“By the way, does this hold true for all other countries? Will they also be guaranteed their income never to stop or decrease just as long as each individual shall live?”

“Naturally. Aren’t we all God’s children?”

[peacegirl]

I don’t know what you asked that I did not respond to and I’m not scrolling back.

Here's the same link again to the same post containing the questions you are avoiding. I look forward to your next excuse instead of addressing them.

Click this blue arrow to be taken to the questions you ignored...

I don't see any question of yours. Spit it out FlashDangerpants, so we can either move on, or not. It can't be that hard.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don’t know what you asked that I did not respond to and I’m not scrolling back.

Here's the same link again to the same post containing the questions you are avoiding. I look forward to your next excuse instead of addressing them.

Click this blue arrow to be taken to the questions you ignored...

I don't see any question of yours. Spit it out FlashDangerpants, so we can either move on, or not. It can't be that hard.

OK, I'll just paste them again for you.....

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.

Please expand on the claim in this paragraph that mathematical reasoning is required. You are the one who gets it, please explain it.

It is very clear, even a child can get it. It says exactly what it means. Every move we make is away from a spot that has become dissatisfying or uncomfortable in some way, or we wouldn't make any move at all. Movement is life itself otherwise we would be dead. We cannot move against what gives us greater satisfaction when we are confronted with options. Moving in this direction does not always involve contemplation. We move in this direction all day, every day. I just changed position because my arm fell asleep. This movement is part of our everyday life. This observation is more than a tautology, but if you are bent on calling it that, then at least admit that tautologies can be informative and add to our knowledge.

That doesn't answer the question I asked you. It doesn't even acknowledge the question I asked you. Do better.

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://steve-patterson.com/tautologies ... dismissed/

Why did you put that text there? What has it got to do with the question?

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.

Please explain the phrase "life is never satisfied". Is it intended to reify life as some sort of force or something that exists, or is the author merely noticing the banal fact that living things move and the more mobile ones move towards things they desire and so on?

He was establishing a point that life IS movement, and movement always involves dissatisfaction with the present position. It is what propels us forward.

Again, nothing to do with the question. I asked: Please explain the phrase "life is never satisfied". Is it intended to reify life as some sort of force or something that exists, or is the author merely noticing the banal fact that living things move and the more mobile ones move towards things they desire and so on?

“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.

And here... why are we doing this at all? Why are we defining life, and why are we defining it as this movement? This isn't stuff that we typically need to do, so just doing it out of the blue to support the argument you want to make is called begging the question.

It is not begging the question. It is not circular. He was trying to establish the fact that satisfaction is the only direction life can take. It cannot move against itself by moving in the direction of dissatisfaction, which Atla thought he proved. This is important as it forms the basis of one side of the two-sided equation.

But what is the basis for all of this? The basis please. I am not asking for your delight at the conclusion, I am asking for the basis of the reasoning. Basis. Please. Why are we defining life at all? Why are we defining it as movement? What is mathematical about any of this? Why do we need to do this step? I don't mean why does the argument need the step, I mean why do people who aren't pushing the argument need to do it? The whole thing seem gratuitous.

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 ...

Please explain this move. Are we deliberately anthropomorphising sunflowers that point at the sun, or are we at risk of doing so by accident, or is this talk of satisfaction that is somehow inherent to just movement and life all a bit of a hyperbolic overstatement? You are the only one who knows how to read, so tell us how to read please.

It is not hyperbolic overstatement. It is important to establish that we cannot choose what we like less than what we like more is available. It is not an equal playing field. You cannot choose B if you like A better or vice versa, because anytime there are meaningful differences, you are compelled, by your nature, to pick the one that offers you greater satisfaction, not less. You will see why this important as time goes on, if I stick around.

You are talking about what you want on behalf of your argument. I am not asking that. I am asking what aspect of logic compels us to see things int he way that suits you here? It is again gratuitous. I see no reason to describe an unthinking object as pursuing satisfaction. Why do I need to anthropomorphise a daisy just to help your argument? Why would I do that, or more importantly, why would I be mistaken not to attach human emotional drivers to brainless plants? There is no persuasive power to this argument, it's mystical.

...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 and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances.

Yeah, that law isn't really needed though is it? So where is it proven to be the case that it is a real thing rather than just a convoluted way of referring to beliefs and desires which motivate sentient creatures to move, and an anthropomorphic extension of that to flowers?

That may be true but as you try to understand the reason he makes a point of this, you will see its significance.

Significance? That is just a way of telling me that you are relying on this thing for your argument. I might care later, but right now there is the open question of why I am wrong not to buy this argument. It being useful to you later is a shit reason. Give me a good reason please.

[Atla]

Of course I didn't miss the "first discovery", I already said of it.... (on page 4 of this now 37 page thread)

The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great.

Her father's work has nothing to do with determinism. The 'first discovery' is the discovery of a parapsychological law embedded in the universe that makes it impossible for anyone to choose a less satisfying option. This law is actually a refutation of determinism, but they call this law determinism anyway, and then add hard determinist woo to it.

[Atla]

CHAPTER FOUR: WORDS, NOT REALITY

Our problem of hurting each other is very deep-rooted and begins with words through which we have not been allowed to see reality for what it really is. Supposing I stood up in one of our universities and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to prove that man does not have five senses, which has nothing to do with a sixth sense,” wouldn’t all the professors laugh and say, “Are you serious or are you being funny? You can’t be serious because everybody knows man has five senses. This is an established fact.” The definition of epistemology is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity. For the modern empiricist, the only way knowledge becomes ‘stamped’ onto the human conscience is through internal and external sensations, or through sense experience. But there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle, and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that the eyes functioned like the other senses, so he included them in the definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange, and potato five fruit. The names given to these foods describe differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly cannot call them five fruit since this word excludes the potato, which is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit.

Believe it or not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were classified in a category to which they did not belong. We cannot name the organs with which we communicate with the outside world — the five senses, when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this. His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost unanimous agreement. To disagree was so presumptuous that nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is not a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this comment, as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change what we are. Whether we call them five senses, or four senses and a pair of eyes, is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them.

Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear, any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth.

Another false 'discovery' huh. The only main difference between blind people and sighted people are visuals.

Do we even want to know at this point what his "surprising evidence" is supposed to be? This is from ILP




I'm talking about the eyes only, not the other sense organs. Of course we learn from sense experience, but this does not explain how the eyes are different than the other senses. The past does not cause the present. This is a big problem with the definition of determinism, which is causing an inability to reconcile "of one's own accord" with the fact that will is not free. All we ever have is the present. We remember the past and use these memories to help us make decisions and to make sense of our life experiences, but that's very different than saying the past causes...



We remember all that happens and store those memories in our memory bank. The visual cortex may reconstruct the impulses coming from the optic nerve, but to say this image that is formed in our brain is what we see is exactly what is being challenged.



All we have is the present. We can't start from the past Atla, and we can't start from the future. You are making time a dimension, which it isn't.



You are doing the very thing you are accusing me of doing. The first right thing you have said since being here is that there is only the eternal now. If he is right, we see in real time and the impulses from the retina are transduced to the visual cortex. Where scientists got it wrong is when they came to the conclusion that because light travels at a finite speed and is reflected off the object bringing the wavelength to the eye, it follows that the image is seen in the brain rather than the brain using the eyes as a window to look out at the external world. This remains a logical theory only.

As I said, you incorrectly mix the two different takes. You don't have the intellect to be able to sort this out.

[FlashDangerpants]

Of course I didn't miss the "first discovery", I already said of it.... (on page 4 of this now 37 page thread)

The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great.

Her father's work has nothing to do with determinism. The 'first discovery' is the discovery of a parapsychological law embedded in the universe that makes it impossible for anyone to choose a less satisfying option. This law is actually a refutation of determinism, but they call this law determinism anyway, and then add hard determinist woo to it.

Quite so, I mean I genuinely can't tell what half the argument is really meant to be, which is mostly because neither generation of Lessans actually understands how to relate premises to conclusions, and half the argument is randomly asserted on no particular basis. But this is certainly not determinism done well.

[Atla]

Of course I didn't miss the "first discovery", I already said of it.... (on page 4 of this now 37 page thread)

The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great.

Her father's work has nothing to do with determinism. The 'first discovery' is the discovery of a parapsychological law embedded in the universe that makes it impossible for anyone to choose a less satisfying option. This law is actually a refutation of determinism, but they call this law determinism anyway, and then add hard determinist woo to it.

Quite so, I mean I genuinely can't tell what half the argument is really meant to be, which is mostly because neither generation of Lessans actually understands how to relate premises to conclusions, and half the argument is randomly asserted on no particular basis. But this is certainly not determinism done well.

Imo it's not just determinism done badly, it literally has nothing to do with determinism. It's a supernatural influence, some kind of divine decree, that overrides the deterministic laws known by physics.