New Discovery

[Atla]

She's been at this for 20 years, will grandma peacegirl's masochism ever be satisfied? Maybe not.

[peacegirl]

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 8:00 pm

I don't know what FDP meant by a tautology, I didn't see any, but I like how obsessed you became with him.

For the record, I disagree with the tautology thing, but unlike you I think I can articulate why. There was this:

"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) 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."

I think the 'will' is a very real mental structure in humans that probably CAN sometimes go against its own best satisfaction, there is just no reason to do so. I think seeing the 'will' as a rather real mental thing is typically part of folk psychology (at least where I live).

You cannot prove it Atla. This isn't a choice. When you say there is no reason to do so, you're making it appear that a person has a choice to go against his nature. IOW, going against your own best satisfaction turns out to be going toward your least dissatisfaction. It's all the same. There are thousands of examples that prove this. Even addicts who know that they are going against what would satisfy them in the long run, find going against their own best satisfaction by taking the drug is actually not going against their own best satisfaction at all, but toward it.

What Blackburn says that the above constitutive rule isn't open to empirical rebuttal, isn't really true. It's not open to empirical rebuttal with today's technology and especially not with the technology of the 50s, but not in principle. If we could monitor someone's brain/mind to a high enough degree, we could tell whether or not they can will their lesser satisfaction.

No Atla, neuroscientists may be able to see certain areas of the brain light up when we make certain choices, but it cannot see free will or no free will when a person's will is not A THING that can be identified. Careful observation of human behavior counts, not monitoring someone's brain/mind that will not add to this debate.

As I already said multiple times, this would neither prove nor disprove determinism or free will, when using sensible definitions for them. Proving free will empirically would mean imo that we can show that we can use our will to break the laws of physics, change the world around us like a Q could, even if just a little.

You're going off the rails again by thinking quantum physics can prove free will.

I will now refute two common mechanisms proposed by free will advocates to allow for free will. Firstly, the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics is often cited as a means by which the universe can be considered non-deterministic. This is true, at least for very small systems. However, it is actually unimportant whether or not quantum mechanical fluctuations result in any appreciable uncertainty in macroscopic systems. This is because the argument is based on the notion that a lack of determinism would prove the existence of free will. However, more accurately an agent being non-deterministic is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for free will. This mechanism merely introduces randomization into the decisions and will of the agent, this is not the same thing as freedom of will or choice. In fact, this randomization could potentially infringe upon their freedom of choice. To make this idea clearer, consider a game of roulette.

cont. at: https://www.sciencesnail.com/philosophy ... ot-of-will

And again: in practice it doesn't matter if it's a tautology or not, because even if we can will our lesser satisfaction, no one wants to do that in practice. Maybe once in 10000 choices? Negligible.

No Atla, it is impossible to move against your very nature. This is an invariable law that has no exceptions.

So we could just as well throw out the first chapter. We can also throw out the stupid time asymmetry and this "the past doesn't exist" bs. The main claim of the book is in the second chapter: that no-blame will trigger the conscience of even the criminals in an utopistic world. And that's not just wrong but dangerous.

It will trigger the conscience of criminals in particular. They could never repeat their crimes under the changed conditions. But you can't see it yet because you don't understand the changes that must occur before conscience will work in humanity's favor. Remember, you are basing your ideas on this world, which makes it hard to even envision a world where people would not want to steal even an article of clothing let alone shoot someone because it would give him no satisfaction. If the authorities are concerned about letting the worst of the worst criminals out of jail, they won't have to, but the majority of petty or even hardened criminals, once they take the examination and are given their second chance at life, would never do the things they did before. You'll have to wait and see the reasons why because I cannot go through all of this in a post. To repeat: if the authorities are concerned that someone could repeat a crime because of the heinousness of it, they will stay in jail until the time comes when a new generation is born where these type crimes would never enter their minds.

Anytime a citizen would hurt somebody physically, or give a command to hurt others, we would know immediately that he is sick and would commit him to a hospital until he is able to resume his normal life. We would do the same if a dog were to bite somebody — take him off the streets. However, even though it is very unlikely that a citizen would become mentally sick under the changed conditions, we would be prepared for any eventuality. Should this be the case, his family would have to assume responsibility for him, but no one would blame or punish him in any way even if it was necessary to confine him to an institution for treatment. It is important to remember that when all the sources of hurt in society are permanently removed, mental illness will be virtually wiped from the face of the earth.

Ps. the tautology thing is also a question of personality types. In some types the 'will' should be more merged with other cognitive functions than in other types. There could be many psychological factors here.

Personality types might affect what a person wills to do, but this has nothing to do with types of will.

[peacegirl]

Second discovery: we see everything in real-time, Einstein sucks.

I once heard that small creatures actually perceive their surroundings in what we would call slow motion. This is how little song birds can fly through a tangle of branches at high speed without crashing. That would be an awesome superpower but it would require a lot of shrinkage. That sucking sound may have been Einstein sipping bitter tea through a sugar cube.

The claim seems to be that we see everything in real-time in the universe, I guess even distant stuff like galaxies, bypassing the speed of light, there is no speed of light. Or something like that. Lessans refuted 100 years of physics and astronomy and biology, it's pretty impressive.

You have no idea what he's even talking about, so please don't make yourself look brilliant by thinking you do know.

[peacegirl]

FlashDangerpants: Sort of. Peacegirl's theory attempts to do two things at once in a clumsy manoeuvre to "prove" determinism. On the one hand it tries to discover that there is some sort of "direction of life" (don't overthink that, it is misleading) which forces us to choose that which brings us greatest satisfaction. And then she offers as a proof that this is true her test - seen once more in the most recent of her postings - "If will was free, we could choose what gives us less satisfaction when something offering us greater satisfaction was available".

PEACEGIRL: There IS absolute direction in life and it's called GREATER SATISFACTION.

FD: Ranged against that, I pointed out that the usual assumption in all the works of philosophy out there is the common-sense view of human psychology. Normally I would refer to it as BDM (belief desire motivation), but I opted to provide a quote from Simon Blackburn, who calls it the API (a priori principle of interpretation) but it's exactly the same thing, namely folk-psychology:
Simon Blackburn - Ruling Passions wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 4:19 pm
"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) 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."

PEACEGIRL: But this does not only apply to humans. Every creature moves in a particular direction, which is life. Animals don't think the way humans do where their beliefs, desires, and motivations are based on thought. They act on instinct. Therefore, moving away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction is not just a constitutive rule. It goes beyond being a rule. It is a NATURAL LAW.

FD: If it is analytic and known in advance that we will be required to interpret the choices made by any thinking being as the result of their motivations to act based on their desires, and beliefs about what will fulfil best their desires.... it is redundant to discover that. It is a tautology already true by definition that we are going to make the actions fit the rule. If Atla lends money against his own better judgment to somebody he doesn't really want to lend money to, we're actually going to probably say that in the moment he evaluated the situation one way and that in a later moment he re-evaluated with regret. If not that, then we will say something else to bridge the gap. All else fails, his actions were caused by some sort of mild brain fart.

PEACEGIRL: You can call it a rule if you want. Lessans used the term "greater satisfaction" because this is something we do every single second, not just when making decisions. We don't have to be thinking about choosing one thing over another. We just move off of the spot we are on, which becomes dissatisfying, or we would never move. This push to move is life.

FD: So the big important principle that everything is supposed to hang off of is worthless if it only applies to all rational thinking beings, as in our case it is already analytic and a priori unless one is specifically dismissing folk-psychology, which is something many hard determinists would do, but not peacegirl. The talk of "direction of life" leads one to suppose my criticism there is bunk because she is surely applying this principle to all life, including non-thinking and non-rational life... but I asked that and she says no, it's just about humans. So that's really the end of the greatest satisfaction thing, it adds nothing at all to the already obvious tautology.

PEACEGIRL: This has nothing to do with rational beings. An irrational being may not be able to think things through with clarity, but this doesn't change THE DIRECTION. He may move toward doing something stupid because he thinks he can fly, but he is not disobeying this natural law if he then decides to jump off a building. He would be basing his decision on a false belief which is motivating him to do something that could kill him, but he would still be moving in the direction of greater satisfaction.

FD: This also undermines her "proof" or "test" or whatever it is: "If will was free, we could choose what gives us less satisfaction when something offering us greater satisfaction was available". If it is a priori that we can't then no, that proof is garbage, the test is broken. Free will is completely compatible with all our actions being guided by our best understanding of our desires at the given moment and what3ever we choose to do will be automatically interpreted as the cumulative result of our preferences... duh.

PEACEGIRL: Being guided by our preferences doesn't give us the free will to choose otherwise. That IS the definition of free will and it's nonexistent.

FD: But I don't find peacegirl really capable of this conversation. It was an interesting exercise to see if we could make progress, but it was predictable that we couldn't.

PEACEGIRL: Bull.

Greater satisfaction( see Peacegirl, above) is obtained from progressing along a given trajectory and also from choosing alternative trajectories. All choices are caused by causal chains through time, present causal circumstances, and nomic connections. Therefore it is not the case there is "absolute direction in life".

There isn't a predictable "absolute direction in life" because there are too many variables to ever know how each person will react in his particular life circumstances, but what can be predicted is the removal of the desire to hurt another. That is the discovery's only claim. You are incorrect when you say that choosing among alternative trajectories can, in actuality, produce those other alternative trajectories.

[peacegirl]

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING ABOUT HIS DISCOVERY ON DEATH; YOU'RE JUST GUESSING, SO PLEASE DON'T MAKE A FOOL OF YOURSELF!

Of course I realize that you and Atla may not agree with the meaning of what I have not read.

That's rather obvious.

However, Atla provided a quick, easy-to-respond-to summary, which is what I was responding to.

Why are you asking Atla about a summary when he knows very little about it?

If you offer your version then I may be inspired to not only respond to that, but read further. However, after a turning point I seem to have lost the need to read much more than how-to instructions for mechanical devices, although there was a time when I was a real page turner.



May I ask, why should I read what you suggest? Surely, it can't be to only stop invective and seek approval.

Can't you see that this has nothing to do with stopping invective and seeking approval. I have no idea why you can't take the time to read three chapters. That is your quick summary. I won't take this step-by-step proof out of sequence because it will ruin any chance for understanding. It will only create more questions and more confusion. Here it is again. I'm giving this to you on a silver platter. You will need to decide for yourself if it's worth your while. It is very interesting, I must say. I've read it over many times, and I still find it inspiring because of what it can accomplish.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... e718021725

[peacegirl]

She's been at this for 20 years, will grandma peacegirl's masochism ever be satisfied? Maybe not.

You can think whatever you want, but one day you may make an about-face... IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION. Now wouldn't that be a game changer'?

[Atla]

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 8:00 pm

I don't know what FDP meant by a tautology, I didn't see any, but I like how obsessed you became with him.

For the record, I disagree with the tautology thing, but unlike you I think I can articulate why. There was this:

"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) 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."

I think the 'will' is a very real mental structure in humans that probably CAN sometimes go against its own best satisfaction, there is just no reason to do so. I think seeing the 'will' as a rather real mental thing is typically part of folk psychology (at least where I live).

You cannot prove it Atla. This isn't a choice. When you say there is no reason to do so, you're making it appear that a person has a choice to go against his nature. IOW, going against your own best satisfaction turns out to be going toward your least dissatisfaction. It's all the same. There are thousands of examples that prove this. Even addicts who know that they are going against what would satisfy them in the long run, find going against their own best satisfaction by taking the drug is actually not going against their own best satisfaction at all, but toward it.

What Blackburn says that the above constitutive rule isn't open to empirical rebuttal, isn't really true. It's not open to empirical rebuttal with today's technology and especially not with the technology of the 50s, but not in principle. If we could monitor someone's brain/mind to a high enough degree, we could tell whether or not they can will their lesser satisfaction.

No Atla, neuroscientists may be able to see certain areas of the brain light up when we make certain choices, but it cannot see free will or no free will when a person's will is not A THING that can be identified. Careful observation of human behavior counts, not monitoring someone's brain/mind that will not add to this debate.

As I already said multiple times, this would neither prove nor disprove determinism or free will, when using sensible definitions for them. Proving free will empirically would mean imo that we can show that we can use our will to break the laws of physics, change the world around us like a Q could, even if just a little.

You're going off the rails again by thinking quantum physics can prove free will.

I will now refute two common mechanisms proposed by free will advocates to allow for free will. Firstly, the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics is often cited as a means by which the universe can be considered non-deterministic. This is true, at least for very small systems. However, it is actually unimportant whether or not quantum mechanical fluctuations result in any appreciable uncertainty in macroscopic systems. This is because the argument is based on the notion that a lack of determinism would prove the existence of free will. However, more accurately an agent being non-deterministic is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for free will. This mechanism merely introduces randomization into the decisions and will of the agent, this is not the same thing as freedom of will or choice. In fact, this randomization could potentially infringe upon their freedom of choice. To make this idea clearer, consider a game of roulette.

cont. at: https://www.sciencesnail.com/philosophy ... ot-of-will

And again: in practice it doesn't matter if it's a tautology or not, because even if we can will our lesser satisfaction, no one wants to do that in practice. Maybe once in 10000 choices? Negligible.

No Atla, it is impossible to move against your very nature. This is an invariable law that has no exceptions.

So we could just as well throw out the first chapter. We can also throw out the stupid time asymmetry and this "the past doesn't exist" bs. The main claim of the book is in the second chapter: that no-blame will trigger the conscience of even the criminals in an utopistic world. And that's not just wrong but dangerous.

It will trigger the conscience of criminals in particular. They could never repeat their crimes under the changed conditions. But you can't see it yet because you don't understand the changes that must occur before conscience will work in humanity's favor. Remember, you are basing your ideas on this world, which makes it hard to even envision a world where people would not want to steal even an article of clothing let alone shoot someone because it would give him no satisfaction. If the authorities are concerned about letting the worst of the worst criminals out of jail, they won't have to, but the majority of petty or even hardened criminals, once they take the examination and are given their second chance at life, would never do the things they did before. You'll have to wait and see the reasons why because I cannot go through all of this in a post. To repeat: if the authorities are concerned that someone could repeat a crime because of the heinousness of it, they will stay in jail until the time comes when a new generation is born where these type crimes would never enter their minds.

Anytime a citizen would hurt somebody physically, or give a command to hurt others, we would know immediately that he is sick and would commit him to a hospital until he is able to resume his normal life. We would do the same if a dog were to bite somebody — take him off the streets. However, even though it is very unlikely that a citizen would become mentally sick under the changed conditions, we would be prepared for any eventuality. Should this be the case, his family would have to assume responsibility for him, but no one would blame or punish him in any way even if it was necessary to confine him to an institution for treatment. It is important to remember that when all the sources of hurt in society are permanently removed, mental illness will be virtually wiped from the face of the earth.

Ps. the tautology thing is also a question of personality types. In some types the 'will' should be more merged with other cognitive functions than in other types. There could be many psychological factors here.

Personality types might affect what a person wills to do, but this has nothing to do with types of will.

No one cares about your pathetic lies, peacegirl. Your law is unprovable with today's technology. And many criminals have little to no conscience at all.

[peacegirl]

For the record, I disagree with the tautology thing, but unlike you I think I can articulate why. There was this:


I think the 'will' is a very real mental structure in humans that probably CAN sometimes go against its own best satisfaction, there is just no reason to do so. I think seeing the 'will' as a rather real mental thing is typically part of folk psychology (at least where I live).



What Blackburn says that the above constitutive rule isn't open to empirical rebuttal, isn't really true. It's not open to empirical rebuttal with today's technology and especially not with the technology of the 50s, but not in principle. If we could monitor someone's brain/mind to a high enough degree, we could tell whether or not they can will their lesser satisfaction.



As I already said multiple times, this would neither prove nor disprove determinism or free will, when using sensible definitions for them. Proving free will empirically would mean imo that we can show that we can use our will to break the laws of physics, change the world around us like a Q could, even if just a little.



And again: in practice it doesn't matter if it's a tautology or not, because even if we can will our lesser satisfaction, no one wants to do that in practice. Maybe once in 10000 choices? Negligible.



So we could just as well throw out the first chapter. We can also throw out the stupid time asymmetry and this "the past doesn't exist" bs. The main claim of the book is in the second chapter: that no-blame will trigger the conscience of even the criminals in an utopistic world. And that's not just wrong but dangerous.



Ps. the tautology thing is also a question of personality types. In some types the 'will' should be more merged with other cognitive functions than in other types. There could be many psychological factors here.

No one cares about your pathetic lies, peacegirl. Your law is unprovable with today's technology. And many criminals have little to no conscience at all.

You keep talking about the need for more technology. It doesn't require a new technology. In fact, technology cannot prove what you think it can. Why are you so antagonistic toward me when I'm only trying to help. Where am I lying? You're making shit up.

[Atla]

No one cares about your pathetic lies, peacegirl. Your law is unprovable with today's technology. And many criminals have little to no conscience at all.

You keep talking about the need for more technology. It doesn't require a new technology. In fact, technology cannot prove what you think it can. Why are you so antagonistic toward me when I'm only trying to help. Where am I lying? You're making shit up.

No one cares about your pathetic lies, peacegirl. Your law is unprovable with today's technology. And many criminals have little to no conscience at all.

[Walker]

I have no idea why you can't take the time to read three chapters.

DETERMINISM CANNOT CAUSE US TO DO ANYTHING, AS IF WE ARE AUTOMATONS.

Determination can probably cause us to do anything ... but then like alchemy the cost for all concerned may outweigh the gold.

[peacegirl]

No one cares about your pathetic lies, peacegirl. Your law is unprovable with today's technology. And many criminals have little to no conscience at all.

You keep talking about the need for more technology. It doesn't require a new technology. In fact, technology cannot prove what you think it can. Why are you so antagonistic toward me when I'm only trying to help. Where am I lying? You're making shit up.

No one cares about your pathetic lies, peacegirl. Your law is unprovable with today's technology. And many criminals have little to no conscience at all.

That is true but under these changed conditions (which you haven’t understood yet) conscience will not allow what they did before, but if, and only if, they cannot find any justification for it. Before they had the justification. You really should stop fighting me and carefully read what he wrote. You’re making light of how conscience works. Conscience will not allow one to take advantage or hurt others in any way if the circumstances don’t justify what this person may have been justified in doing at an earlier time. Why are you so angry at this truth. It's not my truth, so don’t blame the messenger!

[peacegirl]

I have no idea why you can't take the time to read three chapters.

DETERMINISM CANNOT CAUSE US TO DO ANYTHING, AS IF WE ARE AUTOMATONS.

Determination can probably cause us to do anything ... but then like alchemy the cost for all concerned may outweigh the gold.

Determinism has no power to make us do anything that would be against our will. That’s why people are so damn confused and are blaming the author for tweaking the definition so it’s more accurate. Do you see why there is no way for me to have a decent conversation with anyone if they’re not willing to let go of their prejudices and really take the time to hear this author out?

[Atla]

You keep talking about the need for more technology. It doesn't require a new technology. In fact, technology cannot prove what you think it can. Why are you so antagonistic toward me when I'm only trying to help. Where am I lying? You're making shit up.

No one cares about your pathetic lies, peacegirl. Your law is unprovable with today's technology. And many criminals have little to no conscience at all.

That is true but under these changes conditions (which you haven’t understood) conscience will not allow what they did before, but if, and only if, they cannot find any justification for it. Before they had the justification. You really should stop fighting me and carefully read what he wrote. You’re making light of how conscience works but it is powerful when it is put in circumstances that will not allow one to take advantage or hurt others in any way. Why are so mad at this amazing truth? It’s not my truth, so don’t blame the messenger!

No one cares about your pathetic lies, peacegirl. Your law is unprovable with today's technology. And many criminals have little to no conscience at all.

[peacegirl]

No one cares about your pathetic lies, peacegirl. Your law is unprovable with today's technology. And many criminals have little to no conscience at all.

That is true but under these changes conditions (which you haven’t understood) conscience will not allow what they did before, but if, and only if, they cannot find any justification for it. Before they had the justification. You really should stop fighting me and carefully read what he wrote. You’re making light of how conscience works but it is powerful when it is put in circumstances that will not allow one to take advantage or hurt others in any way. Why are so mad at this amazing truth? It’s not my truth, so don’t blame the messenger!

No one cares about your pathetic lies, peacegirl. Your law is unprovable with today's technology. And many criminals have little to no conscience at all.

I told you that hardened criminals that are mentally ill will stay institutionalized if the authorities feel the risk is too great, but you are assuming that criminals who are out in society, will take advantage of this law to get away with whatever they want. This is not true. It’s the opposite. This natural law (God’s law, not mine) is much more powerful than the manmade laws that threaten punishment. This law does not condone “wrongdoing,” it prevents it.

[Atla]

That is true but under these changes conditions (which you haven’t understood) conscience will not allow what they did before, but if, and only if, they cannot find any justification for it. Before they had the justification. You really should stop fighting me and carefully read what he wrote. You’re making light of how conscience works but it is powerful when it is put in circumstances that will not allow one to take advantage or hurt others in any way. Why are so mad at this amazing truth? It’s not my truth, so don’t blame the messenger!

No one cares about your pathetic lies, peacegirl. Your law is unprovable with today's technology. And many criminals have little to no conscience at all.

I told you that hardened criminals that are mentally ill will stay institutionalized if the authorities feel the risk is too great, but you are assuming that criminals who are out in society, will take advantage of this law to get away with whatever they want. This is not true. It’s the opposite. This natural law (God’s law, not mine) is much more powerful than the manmade laws that threaten punishment. This law does not condone “wrongdoing,” it prevents it.

How is it that in your say 70 years you've never met people before? Like at least a third of humanity has shitty conscience. Including you. What kind of idiot thinks that utopia will be enough to fix that?