New Discovery

[ThinkOfOne]

Your father's work was sufficiently refuted in this thread, and it already received more attention than it deserves. Deal with it.

Absolutely not Atla. You can't even tell me what his discovery is. Other than FlashDangerpants positing that he must be wrong because his proof of determinism is a tautology, this ended any further discussion because, in his mind, everything else that follows must be false. This is poor reasoning even if it came from King Flashdangerpants himself.

I refuted all 3 of his discoveries easily. You already forgot this because you're senile and also have a total lack of intellect so have no chance of understanding the refutations.

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

I don't know what FDP meant by a tautology, I didn't see any

From what I gather, people ALWAYS choose what is most satisfactory to themselves - therefore it is a tautology (see below).

From Merriam-Webster:
tautology
noun
2) logic : a statement that is true by virtue of its logical form alone

Let's take a specific example: A multiple choice test says to choose the best answer. The individual then CHOOSEs what they think is the best answer. To say that the individual had no choice but to choose what they think is the best answer, whereby demonstrating that their answer was determined is absurd. The individual DETERMINED the best answer and CHOSE based on their own determination.

[FlashDangerpants]

Absolutely not Atla. You can't even tell me what his discovery is. Other than FlashDangerpants positing that he must be wrong because his proof of determinism is a tautology, this ended any further discussion because, in his mind, everything else that follows must be false. This is poor reasoning even if it came from King Flashdangerpants himself.

I refuted all 3 of his discoveries easily. You already forgot this because you're senile and also have a total lack of intellect so have no chance of understanding the refutations.

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

I don't know what FDP meant by a tautology, I didn't see any

From what I gather, people ALWAYS choose what is most satisfactory to themselves - therefore it is a tautology (see below).

From Merriam-Webster:
tautology
noun
2) logic : a statement that is true by virtue of its logical form alone

Let's take a specific example: A multiple choice test says to choose the best answer. The individual then CHOOSEs what they think is the best answer. To say that the individual had no choice but to choose what they think is the best answer, whereby demonstrating that their answer was determined is absurd. The individual DETERMINED the best answer and CHOSE based on their own determination.

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".

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:

"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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

She has has been doing the exact same conversation as this one for decades. I was intrigued by why the Baltimore Sun wrote an obituary for Seymour Lessans, and even more intrigued about why it mentioned he was a pool champion but politely ignored his immense contribution to philosophy, or the cult he tried to start. So I Googled, and found the text of the obit repeated at this site, where peacegirl forces her audience to read through her pasted chapters before she will discuss the interesting stuff, and then withholds the interesting stuff until somebody buys it from her...
https://talkrational.org/archive//showt ... ?p=2421639
That thread is from 2014, and in it somebody calls her out for having pulled this exact same stunt years before.

None of this matters, this is all just peacegirl trying to turn a buck off her dad's horribly written book.

[Atla]

What is wrong with you Atla? Do you think I'm going to ignore your insults? If you cannot talk to me like a normal human being, then forget it.

Actually I'm being factual while you think you and your father are smarter than everyone else.

This is the most juvenile thing I've heard yet. I read that you think that no one can outwit you in a discussion because you're the most intelligent. This is turning into twilight zone, not a philosophy forum.

Just not in a discussion about fundamental issues in philosophy, and just not on the two philosophy forums I've been on. I'm always looking for people who can open my eyes to better insights, it just hasn't happened yet here.

[Atla]

Absolutely not Atla. You can't even tell me what his discovery is. Other than FlashDangerpants positing that he must be wrong because his proof of determinism is a tautology, this ended any further discussion because, in his mind, everything else that follows must be false. This is poor reasoning even if it came from King Flashdangerpants himself.

I refuted all 3 of his discoveries easily. You already forgot this because you're senile and also have a total lack of intellect so have no chance of understanding the refutations.

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

I don't know what FDP meant by a tautology, I didn't see any

From what I gather, people ALWAYS choose what is most satisfactory to themselves - therefore it is a tautology (see below).

From Merriam-Webster:
tautology
noun
2) logic : a statement that is true by virtue of its logical form alone

Let's take a specific example: A multiple choice test says to choose the best answer. The individual then CHOOSEs what they think is the best answer. To say that the individual had no choice but to choose what they think is the best answer, whereby demonstrating that their answer was determined is absurd. The individual DETERMINED the best answer and CHOSE based on their own determination.

Yeah but I don't see that as a tautology, but as the Lessans parapsychological law of God. There is nothing in the determinism I know preventing someone from choosing something less satisfactory every now and then.

Imo a tautology would give no new information, the Lessans law however gives the information that we are bound by an universal parapsychological force. That we are bound by some kind of weird paradeterminism, so we lack a certain free will.

Even if the law was true, it would be unprovable with today's technology, but apparently this guy has already proven it 60-70 years ago by having a few neat conversations with real or imagined people.

[Atla]

"The ball is in his court"

The ball is in the court of that which compels Atla Shruggs to find greater satisfaction in whatever he ends up deciding to do, you mean.

Exactly my point. If he does not want to come back and have a friendly give and take, then he is getting greater satisfaction in not coming back. Why this matters is that under changed environmental conditions, greater satisfaction takes on a different meaning altogether when it comes to "evil" or "hurt" in human relations. Due to a paradigm shift of a free will environment of blame and punishment to an environment where we know IN ADVANCE that we will not be blamed or punished, regardless of what is done; that there will be no authority or control telling us what we must do or else, along with the removal of all hurt done to us that would justify retaliation, the world is compelled to do a complete about face.

IOW, retaliation is a normal reaction to hurt that has been done to us, but when all hurt is removed from the environment (too many changes to list here), there can be no retaliation to it. To hurt someone under these new conditions would be a first blow, not a retaliatory blow, which cannot be justified. Our conscience will not permit it. Conscience has never reached the temperature necessary to prevent what we don't want. If you don't want to be part of this new world, you don't have to. The reason he was so confident that these principles work is that this is an invariable law (whether people here see it or not) and when not hurting someone becomes the most preferable choice, or hurting someone becomes the least preferable choice (remember: many changes must take place which are in Chapter Six: The New Economic System before this law can effectively operate), our problem is solved because striking a first blow when there is no possible justification will give us less satisfaction, not more.

If will was free, we could choose what gives us less satisfaction when something offering us greater satisfaction was available (the invariable law referred to), which would mean that we could hurt others regardless of the conditions that prevail, but this would be impossible when we are forced to obey it. This proves conclusively that man’s will is not free. God knew what he was doing.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... ff36712d13

See, you CAN give a quick summary of the book, which mistakenly claims that future changes in the environment are enough to let conscience reach necessary levels. If your father and you had met enough real people, you would know how untrue that is and the book collapses.

[peacegirl]

"The ball is in his court"

The ball is in the court of that which compels Atla Shruggs to find greater satisfaction in whatever he ends up deciding to do, you mean.

Exactly my point. If he does not want to come back and have a friendly give and take, then he is getting greater satisfaction in not coming back. Why this matters is that under changed environmental conditions, greater satisfaction takes on a different meaning altogether when it comes to "evil" or "hurt" in human relations. Due to a paradigm shift of a free will environment of blame and punishment to an environment where we know IN ADVANCE that we will not be blamed or punished, regardless of what is done; that there will be no authority or control telling us what we must do or else, along with the removal of all hurt done to us that would justify retaliation, the world is compelled to do a complete about face.

IOW, retaliation is a normal reaction to hurt that has been done to us, but when all hurt is removed from the environment (too many changes to list here), there can be no retaliation to it. To hurt someone under these new conditions would be a first blow, not a retaliatory blow, which cannot be justified. Our conscience will not permit it. Conscience has never reached the temperature necessary to prevent what we don't want. If you don't want to be part of this new world, you don't have to. The reason he was so confident that these principles work is that this is an invariable law (whether people here see it or not) and when not hurting someone becomes the most preferable choice, or hurting someone becomes the least preferable choice (remember: many changes must take place which are in Chapter Six: The New Economic System before this law can effectively operate), our problem is solved because striking a first blow when there is no possible justification will give us less satisfaction, not more.

If will was free, we could choose what gives us less satisfaction when something offering us greater satisfaction was available (the invariable law referred to), which would mean that we could hurt others regardless of the conditions that prevail, but this would be impossible when we are forced to obey it. This proves conclusively that man’s will is not free. God knew what he was doing.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... ff36712d13

See, you CAN give a quick summary of the book, which mistakenly claims that future changes in the environment are enough to let conscience reach necessary levels. If your father and you had met enough real people, you would know how untrue that is and the book collapses.

I’ve given that summary many times. This has nothing to do with having met enough real people to know how untrue that conscience can work in the way described. You are not in the position at this point to know how powerful this law is. For now, you’ll just have to wait and see how this kind of environment can prevent even the most hardened criminals from repeating their criminal acts. I know how hard this is to imagine but do yourself a favor and try to understand before making premature judgments that this is impossible.

[Belinda]

Peacegirl wrote;

If will was free, we could choose what gives us less satisfaction when something offering us greater satisfaction was available (the invariable law referred to), which would mean that we could hurt others regardless of the conditions that prevail, but this would be impossible when we are forced to obey it. This proves conclusively that man’s will is not free. God knew what he was doing.

Not only is there no such entity as so-called 'Free Will', neither is there such an entity as 'will'.
Choosing is an activity that all waking and aware animals do. I observe my dog choosing . Unlike most humans my dog does not have language to express what he is doing, but nevertheless he chooses.

The activities humans do that don't involve choosing are reflex reactions (e.g. eye blink, and knee jerk), modes of consciousness such as non-REM sleep, and autonomic activities such as digesting and breathing. Any Idiot can choose.

Activities that involve choosing are voluntary activities. Animals with central nervous systems not only choose but know that what they choose that affects them with pleasure. it's popular misconception that there exists an add -on physiological or supernatural activity called 'will'. This misconception is called 'reification'.

What Peacegirl refers to is the high numbers of variables that form the circumstances of our human choices . Reasoning is a much -lauded variable that quite possibly Homo Sapiens is the only known example of. Not so-called 'will' , but reasoning/evaluating,/judging is what allows Homo Sapiens to choose a course of action that defers immediate pleasure.

Homo Sapiens is free to choose only insofar as reason and power enables him to choose.

Take the education of children to illustrate human freedom : We educate children so as to empower them with more freedom of choice than if they were uneducated. Men's freedom is relative to men's circumstances . Some circumstances correlate with more freedom /some circumstances corelate with less freedom.

Men's freedom is not all=or-nothing but relates to their circumstances.

I

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl wrote;

If will was free, we could choose what gives us less satisfaction when something offering us greater satisfaction was available (the invariable law referred to), which would mean that we could hurt others regardless of the conditions that prevail, but this would be impossible when we are forced to obey it. This proves conclusively that man’s will is not free. God knew what he was doing.

Not only is there no such entity as so-called 'Free Will', neither is there such an entity as 'will'.
Choosing is an activity that all waking and aware animals do. I observe my dog choosing . Unlike most humans my dog does not have language to express what he is doing, but nevertheless he chooses.

Of course, you're dog chooses between ice cream or steak but it relates to his sense of smell, not words, that humans need in order to communicate.

The activities humans do that don't involve choosing are reflex reactions (e.g. eye blink, and knee jerk), modes of consciousness such as non-REM sleep, and autonomic activities such as digesting and breathing. Any Idiot can choose.

What do you mean "any idiot can choose?" We all choose, so I guess we're all idiots. Reflex actions are not what we're talking about. We know that these movements are beyond our control, but so are our choices. That is what he was trying to get across.

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.’

Activities that involve choosing are voluntary activities. Animals with central nervous systems not only choose but know that what they choose that affects them with pleasure. it's popular misconception that there exists an add -on physiological or supernatural activity called 'will'. This misconception is called 'reification'.

There is no supernatural activity called "will" other than it is the "will" or "desire" to act on one's choice. My decision to do something or refrain from doing it is what prompts me to make a decision or not. It's not a thing but is something we're born with. Carrying through with a decision is the execution of my will in action, or what I want based on my circumstances, limited or not.

What Peacegirl refers to is the high numbers of variables that form the circumstances of our human choices . Reasoning is a much -lauded variable that quite possibly Homo Sapiens is the only known example of. Not so-called 'will' , but reasoning/evaluating,/judging is what allows Homo Sapiens to choose a course of action that defers immediate pleasure.

There is only one variable, and that is what gives us the justification to hurt others. It's really not that difficult to see, just like many illnesses have one root cause. What do you think reasoning entails? It entails going over the many options available, and to many, deferring immediate pleasure gives them greater satisfaction after realizing that the pleasure of waiting outweighs the immediate pleasure of getting what they want at this moment because they will get much more in the long run. Where does any of this negate what Lessans was saying?

Homo Sapiens is free to choose only insofar as reason and power enables him to choose.

This is not just about choosing. We move in the direction of greater satisfaction all day every day. If you're writing right now, you have moved from one spot to another because whatever spot you were on, stopped being satisfying. If you can't get this, the rest of this book will seem like a fairy tale.

Take the education of children to illustrate human freedom : We educate children so as to empower them with more freedom of choice than if they were uneducated. Men's freedom is relative to men's circumstances . Some circumstances correlate with more freedom /some circumstances corelate with less freedom.

This freedom you're talking about has nothing to do with the fact that we are always moving in one direction. Now it's becoming bait and switch. Stick with the definition and please don't talk about freedom as having more options. We know that having more options gives us more opportunity, but it is not what is under discussion.

Men's freedom is not all=or-nothing but relates to their circumstances.

No one is denying that a person’s circumstances gives them more or less freedom depending on what options are available. We know this is not all or nothing. But, to repeat, this is NOT what is under discussion.

[Atla]

I’ve given that summary many times. This has nothing to do with having met enough real people to know how untrue that conscience can work in the way described. You are not in the position at this point to know how powerful this law is. For now, you’ll just have to wait and see how this kind of environment can prevent even the most hardened criminals from repeating their criminal acts. I know how hard this is to imagine but do yourself a favor and try to understand before making premature judgments that this is impossible.

And have you considered the possibility that most criminals really don't care about blame? Which seems to be the case everywhere and always.

[peacegirl]

Absolutely not Atla. You can't even tell me what his discovery is. Other than FlashDangerpants positing that he must be wrong because his proof of determinism is a tautology, this ended any further discussion because, in his mind, everything else that follows must be false. This is poor reasoning even if it came from King Flashdangerpants himself.

I refuted all 3 of his discoveries easily. You already forgot this because you're senile and also have a total lack of intellect so have no chance of understanding the refutations.

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

I don't know what FDP meant by a tautology, I didn't see any

From what I gather, people ALWAYS choose what is most satisfactory to themselves - therefore it is a tautology (see below).

From Merriam-Webster:
tautology
noun
2) logic : a statement that is true by virtue of its logical form alone

That may be true, but a tautology does not make it empty and meaningless. I gave Steve Patterson's refutation. Did you even read it? Here is a shortened version.

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.

Let's take a specific example: A multiple choice test says to choose the best answer. The individual then CHOOSEs what they think is the best answer. To say that the individual had no choice but to choose what they think is the best answer, whereby demonstrating that their answer was determined is absurd.

It is absurd but that's not what determinism means.

The individual DETERMINED the best answer and CHOSE based on their own determination.

That is true. Determinism does not mean that the individual HAD TO CHOOSE something in advance of them choosing it. That's a modal fallacy. Determinism has been misunderstood because it implies that what someone chose had to be chosen NECESSARILY by this thing called determinism, leaving out the agent entirely.

[Belinda]

Peacegirl wrote;

If will was free, we could choose what gives us less satisfaction when something offering us greater satisfaction was available (the invariable law referred to), which would mean that we could hurt others regardless of the conditions that prevail, but this would be impossible when we are forced to obey it. This proves conclusively that man’s will is not free. God knew what he was doing.

Not only is there no such entity as so-called 'Free Will', neither is there such an entity as 'will'.
Choosing is an activity that all waking and aware animals do. I observe my dog choosing . Unlike most humans my dog does not have language to express what he is doing, but nevertheless he chooses.

Of course, you're dog chooses between ice cream or steak but it relates to his sense of smell, not words, that humans need in order to communicate.

The activities humans do that don't involve choosing are reflex reactions (e.g. eye blink, and knee jerk), modes of consciousness such as non-REM sleep, and autonomic activities such as digesting and breathing. Any Idiot can choose.

What do you mean "any idiot can choose?" We all choose, so I guess we're all idiots. Reflex actions are not what we're talking about. We know that these movements are beyond our control, but so are our choices. That is what he was trying to get across.

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.’

Activities that involve choosing are voluntary activities. Animals with central nervous systems not only choose but know that what they choose that affects them with pleasure. it's popular misconception that there exists an add -on physiological or supernatural activity called 'will'. This misconception is called 'reification'.

There is no supernatural activity called "will" other than it is the "will" or "desire" to act on one's choice. My decision to do something or refrain from doing it is what prompts me to make a decision or not. It's not a thing but is something we're born with. Carrying through with a decision is the execution of my will in action, or what I want based on my circumstances, limited or not.

What Peacegirl refers to is the high numbers of variables that form the circumstances of our human choices . Reasoning is a much -lauded variable that quite possibly Homo Sapiens is the only known example of. Not so-called 'will' , but reasoning/evaluating,/judging is what allows Homo Sapiens to choose a course of action that defers immediate pleasure.

There is only one variable, and that is what gives us the justification to hurt others. It's really not that difficult to see, just like many illnesses have one root cause. What do you think reasoning entails? It entails going over the many options available, and to many, deferring immediate pleasure gives them greater satisfaction after realizing that the pleasure of waiting outweighs the immediate pleasure of getting what they want at this moment because they will get much more in the long run. Where does any of this negate what Lessans was saying?

Homo Sapiens is free to choose only insofar as reason and power enables him to choose.

This is not just about choosing. We move in the direction of greater satisfaction all day every day. If you're writing right now, you have moved from one spot to another because whatever spot you were on, stopped being satisfying. If you can't get this, the rest of this book will seem like a fairy tale.

Take the education of children to illustrate human freedom : We educate children so as to empower them with more freedom of choice than if they were uneducated. Men's freedom is relative to men's circumstances . Some circumstances correlate with more freedom /some circumstances corelate with less freedom.

This freedom you're talking about has nothing to do with the fact that we are always moving in one direction. Now it's becoming bait and switch. Stick with the definition and please don't talk about freedom as having more options. We know that having more options gives us more opportunity, but it is not what is under discussion.

Men's freedom is not all=or-nothing but relates to their circumstances.

No one is denying that a person’s circumstances gives them more or less freedom depending on what options are available. We know this is not all or nothing. But, to repeat, this is NOT what is under discussion.

It seems we disagree. I wish I could say I have learned something from you. But I can't. I feel like I have been debating with a cushion.

You are not even logical ; I wrote "even idiots can choose" You countered by equivocating I'd said "only idiots can choose". You are not clever enough to be dishonest. You are simply illogical.

[peacegirl]

I refuted all 3 of his discoveries easily. You already forgot this because you're senile and also have a total lack of intellect so have no chance of understanding the refutations.

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

I don't know what FDP meant by a tautology, I didn't see any

From what I gather, people ALWAYS choose what is most satisfactory to themselves - therefore it is a tautology (see below).

From Merriam-Webster:
tautology
noun
2) logic : a statement that is true by virtue of its logical form alone

Let's take a specific example: A multiple choice test says to choose the best answer. The individual then CHOOSEs what they think is the best answer. To say that the individual had no choice but to choose what they think is the best answer, whereby demonstrating that their answer was determined is absurd. The individual DETERMINED the best answer and CHOSE based on their own determination.

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".

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:

"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."

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.

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.

It does apply to all of life in general because movement is in one direction, but this discovery pertains to the improvement of HUMAN RELATIONS. I am not disagreeing that desires and motives form the basis of what we do. That's not the point. He was trying to show that this new environmental condition will drive us (or motivate us) never to take chances that could hurt another. That is the only correction it makes. It does not tell people what they should be motivated by. The only objective standard is this hurting of others that will be prevented. How can you not want this, even if you're not sure? Why can't you take the time to really sink your teeth into this book before passing judgment?

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 whatever we choose to do will be automatically interpreted as the cumulative result of our preferences... duh.

That doesn't give us free will, not even close.

I just want to mention that it gave you less satisfaction to stay away than to come back, rendering the choice to stay away from this thread an impossibility. That could change in the next instant, but now that you did come back, you could not have done otherwise. You're off base here. This is not garbage. We have no free will and FYI free will and determinism ARE NOT COMPATIBLE. We can't have freedom of the will and no freedom of the will at the same time. It is a fundamental contradiction unless you change the definition of "free", which is slight of hand trickery.

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.

She has has been doing the exact same conversation as this one for decades. I was intrigued by why the Baltimore Sun wrote an obituary for Seymour Lessans, and even more intrigued about why it mentioned he was a pool champion but politely ignored his immense contribution to philosophy, or the cult he tried to start. So I Googled, and found the text of the obit repeated at this site, where peacegirl forces her audience to read through her pasted chapters before she will discuss the interesting stuff, and then withholds the interesting stuff until somebody buys it from her...
https://talkrational.org/archive//showt ... ?p=2421639
That thread is from 2014, and in it somebody calls her out for having pulled this exact same stunt years before.

None of this matters, this is all just peacegirl trying to turn a buck off her dad's horribly written book.

Whatever you say FD. Yes, I have been doing this a long time. You have misconstrued my motives entirely. Why am I not surprised? He was an unknown and I felt compelled to share this knowledge with forums because I couldn't reach any well-known philosopher who could have helped bring this knowledge to light, so I was stuck. For me to leave out so much of the book because people are too lazy to read the first three chapters at the very least, has been tough for me because gaps are left out and then people will laugh, like you, and say he had nothing. He urged people to read carefully chapter by chapter, and no one is doing that. They are doing exactly what he urged people not to do. You want to believe it's garbage, so go right ahead. Your proof (which is ridiculous) is that I've been doing this for years, therefore it's wrong. This is syllogistic reasoning at its worst.

[FlashDangerpants]

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 whatever we choose to do will be automatically interpreted as the cumulative result of our preferences... duh.

That doesn't give us free will, not even close.

I never said it did that. That is not what the argument there is for and that is not even a conclusion I would waste effort arguing towards.

Your inability to understand the basics of what an argument is attempting to establish is just tragic. You are not clever enough for what you are trying to do. You aren't capable of finding the flaws in my arguments because you never understand a word of it. You aren't capable of finding flaws in your own argument because you just don't understand how argument works at all. And you aren't capable of seeing the gaping holes in your dad's argument either. You really are just out of your depth altogether.

[Atla]

More third discovery please, how do you show that we never really die?

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl wrote;




Not only is there no such entity as so-called 'Free Will', neither is there such an entity as 'will'.
Choosing is an activity that all waking and aware animals do. I observe my dog choosing . Unlike most humans my dog does not have language to express what he is doing, but nevertheless he chooses.

Of course, you're dog chooses between ice cream or steak but it relates to his sense of smell, not words, that humans need in order to communicate.

The activities humans do that don't involve choosing are reflex reactions (e.g. eye blink, and knee jerk), modes of consciousness such as non-REM sleep, and autonomic activities such as digesting and breathing. Any Idiot can choose.

What do you mean "any idiot can choose?" We all choose, so I guess we're all idiots. Reflex actions are not what we're talking about. We know that these movements are beyond our control, but so are our choices. That is what he was trying to get across.

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.’

Activities that involve choosing are voluntary activities. Animals with central nervous systems not only choose but know that what they choose that affects them with pleasure. it's popular misconception that there exists an add -on physiological or supernatural activity called 'will'. This misconception is called 'reification'.

There is no supernatural activity called "will" other than it is the "will" or "desire" to act on one's choice. My decision to do something or refrain from doing it is what prompts me to make a decision or not. It's not a thing but is something we're born with. Carrying through with a decision is the execution of my will in action, or what I want based on my circumstances, limited or not.

What Peacegirl refers to is the high numbers of variables that form the circumstances of our human choices . Reasoning is a much -lauded variable that quite possibly Homo Sapiens is the only known example of. Not so-called 'will' , but reasoning/evaluating,/judging is what allows Homo Sapiens to choose a course of action that defers immediate pleasure.

There is only one variable, and that is what gives us the justification to hurt others. It's really not that difficult to see, just like many illnesses have one root cause. What do you think reasoning entails? It entails going over the many options available, and to many, deferring immediate pleasure gives them greater satisfaction after realizing that the pleasure of waiting outweighs the immediate pleasure of getting what they want at this moment because they will get much more in the long run. Where does any of this negate what Lessans was saying?

Homo Sapiens is free to choose only insofar as reason and power enables him to choose.

This is not just about choosing. We move in the direction of greater satisfaction all day every day. If you're writing right now, you have moved from one spot to another because whatever spot you were on, stopped being satisfying. If you can't get this, the rest of this book will seem like a fairy tale.

Take the education of children to illustrate human freedom : We educate children so as to empower them with more freedom of choice than if they were uneducated. Men's freedom is relative to men's circumstances . Some circumstances correlate with more freedom /some circumstances corelate with less freedom.

This freedom you're talking about has nothing to do with the fact that we are always moving in one direction. Now it's becoming bait and switch. Stick with the definition and please don't talk about freedom as having more options. We know that having more options gives us more opportunity, but it is not what is under discussion.

Men's freedom is not all=or-nothing but relates to their circumstances.

No one is denying that a person’s circumstances gives them more or less freedom depending on what options are available. We know this is not all or nothing. But, to repeat, this is NOT what is under discussion.

It seems we disagree. I wish I could say I have learned something from you. But I can't. I feel like I have been debating with a cushion.

You are not even logical ; I wrote "even idiots can choose" You countered by equivocating I'd said "only idiots can choose". You are not clever enough to be dishonest. You are simply illogical.

Where am I illogical? I never thought about dishonesty equated with cleverness, but if you say so, I guess I'm not clever. If you feel like you're debating with a cushion, then find another thread. I don't stay places I am not getting anything out of.

FYI, you did not write "even idiots can choose" and I did not write "only idiots can choose."

The activities humans do that don't involve choosing are reflex reactions (e.g. eye blink, and knee jerk), modes of consciousness such as non-REM sleep, and autonomic activities such as digesting and breathing. Any Idiot can choose.

What do you mean "any idiot can choose?" I HAD NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEANT BY "ANY IDIOT CAN CHOOSE." I WAS JOKING HERE BUT IT FLOPPED: We all choose, so I guess we're all idiots. Reflex actions are not what we're talking about. We know that these movements are beyond our control, but so are our choices. That is what he was trying to get across.