New Discovery

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: New Discovery

Postby promethean75 » Thu May 02, 2019 1:42 am

For me the wave function collapses at the decision point, but before that, it is not determined.


that's correct, but what you mean, which is 'it is not caused', is incorrect. remember that in quantum physics, probability does not denote 'uncaused', but only an inability to know in advance what event will happen. this is a problem of observation, not causality. people make this mistake all the time... especially this new age philosophy that believes the uncertainty principle proves freewill. and right along side of this error is the metaphysical misuse of the concept of chaos. this word 'chaos' does not describe natural systems... but, again, an observational problem with being unable to predict a future state due to complex initial conditions. this has nothing to do with 'order' or 'causality'. or rather it doesn't mean the two are absent.


so quantum physics will not save your freewill argument... and i can't believe you folks are still going at it after all this time. i've tried to explain the problem in very simple terms. maybe you missed it... or maybe you saw it and didn't get it. the problem with freewill is that is would require an ontologically different substance from that substance which constitutes the things that can exist. if you can imagine everything existing in space/time as being under the seamless influence of a single set of natural laws, then you'd have to ask why, and how, could something else exist that wasn't also under such influence. so for example, when you 'choose' to stand up, there would have to be a spontaneous suspension of the natural laws and an immediate initiation of a different set of laws to direct the course of events that followed.

natural laws are working > ecmandu decides to stand up > natural laws suddenly halt and agent causality kicks in > ecmandu stands up > natural laws kick in again and continue operating until ecmandu makes another decision > repeat, etc.

so at that point when the decision is made, you can't say that the same laws are still working... since if you did, you'd be saying those laws caused the choice. you don't want to say that, so you have to demonstrate how another causality can not only neutralize natural causality (stop it), but also interact with everything else that is operating under natural causality. i.e., how can your choice 'affect' your brain? how does it touch it? descartes claimed this contact was made in the pituitary gland.

that there is no freewill... not even 'kinda' or 'a little bit'... is the last bitter drop you must swallow (N), ecman. there isn't a metaphysical or logical argument under the sun that supports it, and there never will be. the thrust of the argument for freewill has always been moral, although philosophers like to believe they've devised some rational or empirical proof for it and that it merely has moral 'implications' after the fact. no sir; the entire thing is grounded in a particular kind of moral attitude toward the world. one is either wanting of pride or for placing blame... one is either searching for praise (look what i did, everybody!, etc.) or looking to blame someone/something (that sonofabitch!, etc.).

now you'll note that the stoa, for instance - who had this thing figured out - couldn't actually live as fatalists... because that's literally impossible. one would never get out of bed in the morning. rather what they had was a different moral attitude toward the world... were far more patient, tolerating and understanding. i'd put peacegirl as a stoic, in fact. these are the good stoa... the one's who's understanding that there is no freewill gives them greater tolerance.

i, on the other hand, am an evil stoic. and what this means is that while i no longer blame the individual, i blame the whole fucking thing instead... all the way back to the first cause (if there be), or the oscillating model (if it be). and i pass the judgement 'this is dumb'. or maybe that's unfair. i should say 'clumsy', instead. i'm absolutely convinced that the element of stupidity at least triples the quantity of carbon in the universe.

but the big difference between the good and evil stoa is that we couldn't give a shit less that you're not to blame. that doesn't make you any less of an idiot. not you you. i mean whoever in general. in fact, that makes everything far worse; if i can't blame you, i've got to blame everything inexplicably bound up in the chain of causality itself... which means, it's the whole universe's fault when you fuck up.

now the evil stoa still attack, mind you, but we don't resent, see. our conscience is clean... no bad feelings... no hatred. maybe a little contempt or disgust, but never hatred. and we're all about some consent violation. we're some of the most consent violating fucks you'll ever find. find me some consent, and i'll sure as shit violate it.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1027
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Thu May 02, 2019 2:04 am

Promethean,

That was a compelling read.

My limit argument disproves it.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8482
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu May 02, 2019 2:18 pm

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Of course it comes from nature, even your sly way of answering.


"Sly" however is the sort of thing you would expect from the free will folks. They would accuse someone of trying to be sly because they are convinced that this choice was something they did have control over. They chose to be sly when they could have chosen not to be. Whereas in a determined universe I "chose" to be sly only because nature compelled me to.


Pointing out someone's way of responding has nothing to do with the belief that they answered that way of their own free will.

iambiguous wrote:You want it both ways. But in a manner I am still unable to grasp. You want to make a distinction between a domino not choosing to topple over and John choosing to set it up to topple over. While at the same time acknowledging that both the domino and John do only that which nature compells them to do.


The only difference iambiguous is that a domino is being pushed by an external force. There is no external force pushing you, for example, to be here in this thread. You are here because it gives you greater satisfaction over the option not to be here.

iambiguous wrote:How anything is used is normal. Why? Because it can only have ever been used as it in fact was used.

Right?


peacegirl wrote:That's your escape hatch every time we talk.


iambiguous wrote:No, that's the hatch that nature compels me to "choose" to escape down. Just as nature compels us to "choose" to post these words in our exchange only as they ever could have been posted. What you want is to escape down the hatch that revolves around the meaning that you were of necessity compelled to give to "choose".


Again, this pointing out is not faulting you. It is just pointing out why we can't move forward.

iambiguous wrote:It really comes down to how you connect the dots between the things you want to do and the things that nature compels you to want to do. As though there actually is a distinction to be made in a world where all matter [including the human brain] is inherently connected to all of the dots that comprise nature itself.


Ultimately, we are part of nature and we are inherently connected to the dots that comprise nature itself, but you seem to be stuck with the idea that you are a walking robot. This is the confusion surrounding this discussion due to the fact that having choice is not inconsistent with the truth of determinism IF it is defined correctly.

peacegirl wrote: I gave two undeniable principles that lead to the two-sided equation (which you have no knowledge about.) There are no unknowns that stand between the soundness of these principles. You do not know what you're talking about iambiguous.


iambiguous wrote:So what? "In your head" that makes the unknown unknowns go away. As though that need be as far as it goes. As though that actually does make them go away!


peacegirl wrote:There are many unknowns in the universe. This is not a prerequisite to understanding what can be known. It's not that in my head it makes the unknowns go away. It's just not something I need to know about in order to explain this discovery.


iambiguous wrote:This is simply preposterous to me. You admit that what you think you know is necessarily embedded in all that you do not know...and then simply shrug that off. Why? Because you need to do this in order to sustain the belief that what you think you do know is somehow in sync with what the author thinks that he knows in discovering this wholly subjective progressive future


Stop making insinuations about the author that this discovery cannot be true because he only thinks that he knows. He knows, trust me. He didn't have to discover this wholly progressive future. How can anyone know everything that is going to occur before it occurs. It isn't necessary. All he needed to know is how we can prevent the desire to hurt one another when given a better option. You are creating an argument that has no place.

iambiguous wrote:It's all neatly contained in the internal logic that revolves entirely around what you think you do know about that 5% of the universe that physicists themselves admit is applicable only to the matter that they are grappling to understand given all the unknown unknowns contained in the other 95%.


Once again, I don't have to know everything about the universe in order to understand that man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. What gives him greater satisfaction is not something anyone can know ahead of time (which is not necessary to bring about the Golden Age of man) except how to prevent this desire to hurt to others by making it less satisfying than not to hurt others, and it can be done.

iambiguous wrote:What you can't ever own up to [in my view] is how crucial the authors "discovery" is to sustaining the psychological comfort and consolation that believing in all his assumptions provides you.


Stop with the analysis please. You are way off.

iambiguous wrote: It's your own equivalent of God and religion from my frame of mind.


The word God is used throughout the book but it is qualified to mean "the laws of nature that govern us".

iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, given the manner in which I construe a determined universe, my own speculations here about your "comfort zone" are no less compelled by nature. As though what either of us believe "is possible" is taken into consideration by nature as she makes her way inexorably into a future that can only be given the laws of matter that comprises nature.


You can speculate all you want and I can also come back at you with justified anger because you are telling me what I'm doing when this is not what I'm doing. When someone strikes a first blow (which you are doing), it is a normal reaction to strike back, which is what I'm doing.

peacegirl wrote:I was hoping there would be more interest. I'm not expecting anything from you because if you don't find this interesting that's also beyond your control. I'm trying to whet your appetite but I think it's a lost cause.


iambiguous wrote:See, you acknowledge that my interest in this is entirely embedded in that which nature compels me to be interested in, but that somehow nature, in compelling you to "choose" to whet my appetite here, might somehow herself be compelled to be more in sync with you.


You're not making sense now. We are both in sync with our nature and our way of responding, which could not have been otherwise. I'm trying to get through to you that when you use the term "nature", you seem to distancing yourself from the fact that nature is YOU. Nature as a distinct entity cannot make you choose anything if YOU don't desire it. Please stop using the excuse that nature made you do something. You did something because you simply wanted to do it. You answered me a certain way simply because you wanted to answer me that way. Nature did nothing you yourself didn't want.

iambiguous wrote:As though the things that we think we need to do are not in turn only the things that nature compels us to think that we need to do. You want to make our "choices" the exception to the rule somehow. But I'm simply unable to understand why and how you think you accomplish this -- can accomplish this -- in a determined unviverse.


peacegirl wrote:I never said there is an exception to the rule that man's will is not free. I have said over and over that it's an invariable law.


iambiguous wrote:Then someone else is going to have to be more successful in reconfiguring your words here into something that makes sense to me. There are no exceptions to nature's rules. But the manner in which you "choose" to point this out here sure seems like an exception to me.


If life itself is a movement away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction, which can only be in one direction, how can there be any exceptions to nature's law? :-k

iambiguous wrote:Again, I am not arguing that you are wrong here, only that, given my own understanding of determinism, your argument seems entirely bizarre to me. Over and again you seem to agree with me about things that, from my point of view, refute your point of view.


Well maybe you need to reconfigure your definition of determinism, and then it won't be so bizarre to you. :) Nothing I said refutes my own point of view if you follow me carefully.

iambiguous wrote:This part:

I'm off the beaten path only because nature put me there. I call myself a nihilist only because at this point in time nature compels me to. Instead, my assessment of moral nihilism in ILP revolves around the assumption that I am in fact [up to a point] autonomous. I am able of my own volition to conclude that moral and political values are rooted existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And embedded out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.


Having autonomy is not equivalent with free will OF ANY KIND. Yes, we have volition. Volition = being able to make choices that comes from within, not from without. Being able to make choices is part of human nature that we have been given. Making choices does not mean they are FREE choices, for we can only move in one direction when comparing meaningful differences. If we could choose what is less preferable when a more preferable option is available, you could say we have free will, but this is impossible.

peacegirl wrote:You can be autonomous, but you cannot separate yourself from the laws of nature that created you.


iambiguous wrote:Then I cannot be autonomous as those who champion some measure of free will describe it. Instead you concoct your own description of it. A description that seems to admit that nature compelled you to describe only as you must but that somehow your "choosing" to describe it as you do makes it all different.


I'm just trying to help you see that the schism you have created by how these words are defined are not in sync with reality. The problem here is not with my description; it's with the way determinism has been defined down through the ages. I think you are having a hard time trying to understand that having a choice does not automatically grant us the free will that libertarians and compatibilists have taken for granted we have.

peacegirl wrote:Just because nature causes you to choose certain things based on your desires does not mean you can't think for yourself, do for yourself and be independent...yet still be working within the framework of determinism.


iambiguous wrote:This is a flat out contradiction in terms given my own understanding of determinism. To be compelled to think for myself such that I think only that which is wholly in sync with the laws of matter makes "thinking for myself" basically an illusion that matter has somehow evolved into when becoming a human mind.


You are using two different definitions here. Thinking for ourselves in a world where everything we do is in sync with the laws of matter could not be any different, therefore the independence in this sense is illusory...but we can say using definition 2 that we were able to think through a problem without any immediate outside interference. It's the same thing as saying evil is not evil when seen in total perspective, but we can use the term evil when we are identifying someone who has caused a heinous crime.

iambiguous wrote:And that the behaviors you deem to be a prerequisite for "peace and prosperity" are precisely the behaviors that others hold in contempt.


peacegirl wrote:I don't know of anyone who would rather be poor than rich, have war rather than peace, or hold these values in contempt. What they hold in contempt is exploitation.


iambiguous wrote:But I know any number of folks right here at ILP who argue the road to prosperity for all revolves either around capitalism or socialism. Which one then is more in sync with the author's "progressive" future?

And what of those nihilists who own and operate the military industrial complex who crave the sort of wars that keep them grinning all the way to the banks?

Somehow they will all be compelled to come into contact with the author's "discovery" and usher in this "progressive future". Right?


No, it won't happen necessarily like that, but let me try to get you to think more expansively here. What if government itself is no longer needed? What if conflict can be avoided and everyone benefits in the process? What then?

peacegirl wrote: You said in a determined world there are no victims. I said yes there are. I get what you're saying when looked at in total perspective, but who in the world can see it this way when they have been attacked and left for dead?


iambiguous wrote:My point is that in a determined universe as I understand it here and now those who are left for dead and those who leave them for dead are like the characters and the guests in West World.The characters are wholly programmed to think and feel and say and do only what they must. While the guests presume that they are free to do these things autonomously. The show then explores what happens when the two worlds begin to intertwine.

But: in a determined universe [again, as I understand it] there is no distinction between the characters and the guests. They are all compelled to think and feel and say and do things as nature commands given the immutable laws of matter.


peacegirl wrote:I agree that the guest and the characters are both doing what they are compelled to do. The only thing I have an issue with is your using the term "programmed" which indicates that you can't make a choice because it's already made. This is where there is a lot of confusion as I've already expressed.


iambiguous wrote:Okay, nature compels both the automatons and the guests to do only as they were ever able to "choose" to do. But that's not the same as nature "programming" them?


The word "program" is problematic because, once again, the wording implies that it's the program causing you to do what you do, which is false. Please try to get this because it is the key to what follows. Nothing, not nature, not a program, not your heredity or environment can CAUSE you to do what you do unless you want to do it. This keeps the responsibility on YOU, where it belongs, not in a blameworthy way but just to assign whose responsibility it is for making a choice.

iambiguous wrote:And, yes, I agree in the sense that nature is differentiated from God. The laws of nature are [until we know otherwise] just the reflection of the brute facticity that is existence itself. No teleological component at all.


That being said, the fact that will is not free and we are progressing toward a world where there will be no more war, hatred, crime, or poverty indicates that there is some kind of design, not in a personal God way, but in a way that points to order out of chaos.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Thu May 02, 2019 3:34 pm

Funny that you say that, I was going to accuse you of being a theist about three pages back.

You are defining EVERYTHING as good and consensual (AT LEAST we ALWAYS CHOOSE the BETTER of our CHOICES no matter what we choose!) Because god only creates perfection, and we are creations of a perfect god.

Theists have been arguing this for thousands of years to people while abusing them mercilessly as they preach this to them.

Like I stated earlier in the thread, your conclusion about everyone consenting to everything is very disturbing (that they should consent to everything no matter what, because it's ultimately ALL POSITIVE, and that, that is the GOOD NEWS!!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8482
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu May 02, 2019 3:54 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Funny that you say that, I was going to accuse you of being a theist about three pages back.

You are defining EVERYTHING as good and consensual (AT LEAST we ALWAYS CHOOSE the BETTER of our CHOICES no matter what we choose!) Because god only creates perfection, and we are creations of a perfect god.

That's not what I'm doing Ecmandu. You seem to be finding anything you can to bolster your fake proof. It doesn't fly.

Ecmandu wrote:Theists have been arguing this for thousands of years to people while abusing them mercilessly as they preach this to them.


I said explicitly that the word God is used only to indicate the laws that govern us. Stop putting something on me that I didn't say or subscribe to.

Ecmandu wrote:Like I stated earlier in the thread, your conclusion about everyone consenting to everything is very disturbing (that they should consent to everything no matter what, because it's ultimately ALL POSITIVE, and that, that is the GOOD NEWS!!


WTF are you talking about? This has nothing to do with "you should consent". How can that be when there are no shoulds? Do you see the danger of jumping to conclusions? =;
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Thu May 02, 2019 5:11 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Funny that you say that, I was going to accuse you of being a theist about three pages back.

You are defining EVERYTHING as good and consensual (AT LEAST we ALWAYS CHOOSE the BETTER of our CHOICES no matter what we choose!) Because god only creates perfection, and we are creations of a perfect god.

That's not what I'm doing Ecmandu. You seem to be finding anything you can to bolster your fake proof. It doesn't fly.

Ecmandu wrote:Theists have been arguing this for thousands of years to people while abusing them mercilessly as they preach this to them.


I said explicitly that the word God is used only to indicate the laws that govern us. Stop putting something on me that I didn't say or subscribe to.

Ecmandu wrote:Like I stated earlier in the thread, your conclusion about everyone consenting to everything is very disturbing (that they should consent to everything no matter what, because it's ultimately ALL POSITIVE, and that, that is the GOOD NEWS!!


WTF are you talking about? This has nothing to do with "you should consent". How can that be when there are no shoulds? Do you see the danger of jumping to conclusions? =;


I'm not jumping to conclusions, you have stated very clearly that not only do people always choose what they think is the best option, by natural law, they all individually choose what the best option is.

I'm not mischatacterizing your argument, and I'm not misdefining determinism either on your own terms or anyone else's :

viewtopic.php?p=2727559#p2727559

You are a very confused person.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8482
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu May 02, 2019 5:44 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Funny that you say that, I was going to accuse you of being a theist about three pages back.

You are defining EVERYTHING as good and consensual (AT LEAST we ALWAYS CHOOSE the BETTER of our CHOICES no matter what we choose!) Because god only creates perfection, and we are creations of a perfect god.

That's not what I'm doing Ecmandu. You seem to be finding anything you can to bolster your fake proof. It doesn't fly.

Ecmandu wrote:Theists have been arguing this for thousands of years to people while abusing them mercilessly as they preach this to them.


I said explicitly that the word God is used only to indicate the laws that govern us. Stop putting something on me that I didn't say or subscribe to.

Ecmandu wrote:Like I stated earlier in the thread, your conclusion about everyone consenting to everything is very disturbing (that they should consent to everything no matter what, because it's ultimately ALL POSITIVE, and that, that is the GOOD NEWS!!


WTF are you talking about? This has nothing to do with "you should consent". How can that be when there are no shoulds? Do you see the danger of jumping to conclusions? =;


I'm not jumping to conclusions, you have stated very clearly that not only do people always choose what they think is the best option, by natural law, they all individually choose what the best option is.


That is true. People choose, according to their particular circumstances, not those of others, what they believe is the best option of the available alternatives. That doesn't mean it's the healthiest option, or even the best option according to what others would do in the same situation. This only refers to what gives them greater satisfaction. For example, they may know cigarette smoking isn't good for them but the need for the nicotine fix is greater than the desire to stop. Later on, they may have the strength to stop in favor of continuing to smoke. Each moment offers a new set of alternatives that affects choice. You're just dying for me to be wrong which is not allowing you to be a little bit curious. You're just in confrontation mode.

Ecmandu wrote:I'm not mischatacterizing your argument, and I'm not misdefining determinism either on your own terms or anyone else's :

viewtopic.php?p=2727559#p2727559

You are a very confused person.

No, you're the confused one by not understanding that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless they reflect what is actually going on in reality. It doesn't matter how long the definition has been used, if it's misleading it's misleading. This has nothing to do with misdefining determinism on my own terms. You just can't accept that your proof is no proof at all and there is no way to make determinism compatible with free will which would be a complete contradiction. Compatibilism does nothing more than retain the status quo by trying desperately to avoid cognitive/dissonance. They're not doing a good job of it.
Last edited by peacegirl on Thu May 02, 2019 6:10 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Thu May 02, 2019 5:47 pm

Peacegirl, you haven't been debate supporting arguments for quite a while now - you've just been asserting with no substance.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8482
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu May 02, 2019 6:07 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl, you haven't been debate supporting arguments for quite a while now - you've just been asserting with no substance.


I'm sorry to inform you but the movement away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction is not theoretical. That doesn't mean I can predict what will give you greater satisfaction but that isn't necessary to prove that this knowledge, when extended, can do what it claims. I offered the first three chapters. You didn't read it. What more can I do? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. :icon-rolleyes:
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Thu May 02, 2019 6:26 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl, you haven't been debate supporting arguments for quite a while now - you've just been asserting with no substance.


I'm sorry to inform you but the movement away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction is not theoretical. That doesn't mean I can predict what will give you greater satisfaction but that isn't necessary to prove that this knowledge, when extended, can do what it claims. I offered the first three chapters. You didn't read it. What more can I do? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. :icon-rolleyes:


I already gave you a very obvious counter example to your "proof" about satisfaction :

Gamblers with the gambling disease.

They have ZERO evidence that gambling is the best choice, and 100% evidence that the longer they do it, the more money they will lose.

They will destroy their families, their homes, their jobs, their friends, destroy it all, ruining not only their life but the lives of countless others, before they even come close to hitting bottom, and they know all this for a fact; there is no evidence in what people tell them or their own personal experience, that gambling is the better option, but they do it anyways.

All I need is one counter example to disprove your entire law, and I just did that.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8482
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu May 02, 2019 7:20 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl, you haven't been debate supporting arguments for quite a while now - you've just been asserting with no substance.


I'm sorry to inform you but the movement away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction is not theoretical. That doesn't mean I can predict what will give you greater satisfaction but that isn't necessary to prove that this knowledge, when extended, can do what it claims. I offered the first three chapters. You didn't read it. What more can I do? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. :icon-rolleyes:


Ecmandu wrote:I already gave you a very obvious counter example to your "proof" about satisfaction :

Gamblers with the gambling disease.

They have ZERO evidence that gambling is the best choice, and 100% evidence that the longer they do it, the more money they will lose.

They will destroy their families, their homes, their jobs, their friends, destroy it all, ruining not only their life but the lives of countless others, before they even come close to hitting bottom, and they know all this for a fact; there is no evidence in what people tell them or their own personal experience, that gambling is the better option, but they do it anyways.

All I need is one counter example to disprove your entire law, and I just did that.


You did not disprove this law. People with addictions have a strong physical and emotional compulsion toward their addiction. Many addictions are so strong that the person feels there is no way out because the addiction seems to have a life of its own even to the point of destroying everything that gives meaning to life. This just shows how strong an addiction can be, but this doesn't mean an addiction can't be overcome and it doesn't mean an addicted person doesn't have the ability (like the compatibilists claim) to stop. As I said earlier, if someone threatened to kill his child (whom he loved dearly) if he took one more hit of heroin, the desire to stop (however difficult it may be) would override his desire to continue because he couldn't bear to see his child get hurt. A gambler may try to justify his behavior by saying to himself that he will win the money back which gets him caught up in a downward spiral. Unfortunately, it may take a person to hit rock bottom, when taking that one cigarette or gambling his mortgage payment becomes less satisfying (now that he has COPD, or he is on the verge of losing his home) that finally he has the determination to say no more, or to get help in avoiding temptation (in the direction of greater satisfaction). That is when his greatest chance of overcoming a powerful addiction can occur. All an addiction is is a powerful attachment to a behavior that satisfies a physical or an emotional need. But attachments can be broken given enough drive to do so.
Last edited by peacegirl on Thu May 02, 2019 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Thu May 02, 2019 7:32 pm

Oh sure, addiction satisfies physical and emotional needs, no argument from me there... so does eating live babies as a satanist ...

That not what I put forth...

What I put forth, is do they know for a fact that it's the worst possible decision, but they do it anyways?

The answer is yes, they do know that.

To keep with the gambling analogy. In the state I live in, we have video poker. We're not talking million dollar jackpots here... maybe a few grand at most now, and that happens on full bet, one out of 40 million times, the machines are programmed to never have a streak that can bankrupt the system, even though by random odds, that's actually possible.

Everyone who plays these games knows this, yet some people drop three grand per day on these machines ... they have 100% proof that it will NEVER work, but they still do it.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8482
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu May 02, 2019 7:42 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Oh sure, addiction satisfies physical and emotional needs, no argument from me there... so does eating live babies as a satanist ...

That not what I put forth...

What I put forth, is do they know for a fact that it's the worst possible decision, but they do it anyways?


It is what satisfies them at the moment. They move in the direction of greater satisfaction to gamble and get immediate gratification rather than the work that is involved in making a commitment to stopping. They don't have enough drive. They do it anyways, yes because there is a certain amount of satisfaction to be gotten knowing that down the line they may pay a hefty price.

Ecmandu wrote:The answer is yes, they do know that.

To keep with the gambling analogy. In the state I live in, we have video poker. We're not talking million dollar jackpots here... maybe a few grand at most now, and that happens on full bet, one out of 40 million times, the machines are programmed to never have a streak that can bankrupt the system, even though by random odds, that's actually possible.

Everyone who plays these games knows this, yet some people drop three grand per day on these machines ... they have 100% proof that it will NEVER work, but they still do it.


They probably believe they can beat the odds. How many people pay money for these powerball jackpots knowing the odds are one in 292 million? Maybe they are struggling financially and hope to score eventually. Whatever the reason, they are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. The difference in the new world is that people will not do anything that could hurt their families financially. They will limit themselves to a certain amount of gambling money that is not earmarked for other expenses, and no more. You don't think this is possible? It is. :)
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Thu May 02, 2019 7:47 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Oh sure, addiction satisfies physical and emotional needs, no argument from me there... so does eating live babies as a satanist ...

That not what I put forth...

What I put forth, is do they know for a fact that it's the worst possible decision, but they do it anyways?


It is what satisfies them at the moment. They move in the direction of greater satisfaction to gamble and get immediate gratification rather than the work that is involved in making a commitment to stopping. They don't have enough drive. They do it anyways, yes because there is a certain amount of satisfaction to be gotten knowing that down the line they may pay a hefty price.

Ecmandu wrote:The answer is yes, they do know that.

To keep with the gambling analogy. In the state I live in, we have video poker. We're not talking million dollar jackpots here... maybe a few grand at most now, and that happens on full bet, one out of 40 million times, the machines are programmed to never have a streak that can bankrupt the system, even though by random odds, that's actually possible.

Everyone who plays these games knows this, yet some people drop three grand per day on these machines ... they have 100% proof that it will NEVER work, but they still do it.


They probably believe they can beat the odds. How many people pay money for these powerball jackpots knowing the odds are one in 292 million? Maybe they are struggling financially and hope to score eventually. Whatever the reason, they are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. The difference in the new world is that people will not do anything that could hurt their families financially. They will limit themselves to a certain amount of gambling money that is not earmarked for other expenses, and no more. You don't think this is possible? It is. :)


People who don't destroy their families with gambling addiction are like people who can drink a half a glass of wine a month, or people who smoke one cigarette every week. These people don't have the disease.

Your comparing apples and oranges here ... yes, they are both fruits, but the similarities pretty much stop there.

I reiterate, you're making sweeping claims that demonstrate that you have very little experience with a very full breadth of life.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8482
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu May 02, 2019 7:58 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Oh sure, addiction satisfies physical and emotional needs, no argument from me there... so does eating live babies as a satanist ...

That not what I put forth...

What I put forth, is do they know for a fact that it's the worst possible decision, but they do it anyways?


It is what satisfies them at the moment. They move in the direction of greater satisfaction to gamble and get immediate gratification rather than the work that is involved in making a commitment to stopping. They don't have enough drive. They do it anyways, yes because there is a certain amount of satisfaction to be gotten knowing that down the line they may pay a hefty price.

Ecmandu wrote:The answer is yes, they do know that.

To keep with the gambling analogy. In the state I live in, we have video poker. We're not talking million dollar jackpots here... maybe a few grand at most now, and that happens on full bet, one out of 40 million times, the machines are programmed to never have a streak that can bankrupt the system, even though by random odds, that's actually possible.

Everyone who plays these games knows this, yet some people drop three grand per day on these machines ... they have 100% proof that it will NEVER work, but they still do it.


They probably believe they can beat the odds. How many people pay money for these powerball jackpots knowing the odds are one in 292 million? Maybe they are struggling financially and hope to score eventually. Whatever the reason, they are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. The difference in the new world is that people will not do anything that could hurt their families financially. They will limit themselves to a certain amount of gambling money that is not earmarked for other expenses, and no more. You don't think this is possible? It is. :)


People who don't destroy their families with gambling addiction are like people who can drink a half a glass of wine a month, or people who smoke one cigarette every week. These people don't have the disease.

Your comparing apples and oranges here ... yes, they are both fruits, but the similarities pretty much stop there.

I reiterate, you're making sweeping claims that demonstrate that you have very little experience with a very full breadth of life.


I will say one last time that if someone's loved one were being threatened if they take one more drink, guess what? They would stop cold turkey. Most people are not threatened this way; and because the drug's physical and psychological effect is so powerful, it's hard to stop when the motivation isn't as strong as the motivation to take the drug (e.g., to get the high or to reduce the pain of unresolved conflict)... but that doesn't mean it can't be done. The only difference between a heavy and a light drinker (for example) is the quantity imbibed, not the quality. We are still comparing oranges to oranges, IOW but just on a different scale.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Thu May 02, 2019 11:53 pm

Again, you show a very sheltered life by stating that the quality but not the quantity is not different.

Gamblers are addicted by the quality, which determines quantity.

Again, showing your naivity, you think hardcore addicts loved one is not just the addiction, gamblers will be assassinated by casinos mobsters before they quit, the assassination of their family members is only an afterthought ...

You're wrong about your proof, you're wrong about "everybody"

Your proof is false and you are so naive about life that you can't see how blatantly false it is.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8482
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Fri May 03, 2019 1:45 am

Ecmandu: Again, you show a very sheltered life by stating that the quality but not the quantity is not different.

Gamblers are addicted by the quality, which determines quantity.

Peacegirl: But the quantity doesn’t change the apple to an orange. It’s not qualitatively different except by degree. Once again you’re using the definition of quality which is not what I meant.

Ecmandu: Again, showing your naivity, you think hardcore addicts loved one is not just the addiction, gamblers will be assassinated by casinos mobsters before they quit, the assassination of their family members is only an afterthought ...

Peacegirl: You're jumping the gun. Without understanding how powerful this law is to change the landscape of our world, let me just say that when all drugs are as easy to buy as going to the drugstore (how can there be casino mobsters which indicate there is a market for what they have), along with the causes that lead to addiction that are no more, no one will desire to take drugs not because they aren't available but because they will be high on life. This is not seeing through rose colored glasses.

Ecmandu: You're wrong about your proof, you're wrong about "everybody".

Peacegirl: I’m not wrong Ecumandu and you’re saying I’m wrong 100 more times does not make it so.

Ecmandu: Your proof is false and you are so naive about life that you can't see how blatantly false it is.

Peacegirl: An addict could change if and only if something more important to him was a motivating factor. For example, the position he is in is so painful that it's less painful to stop as the lesser of two evils than to continue the way he has which is the greater evil. This IS an invariable law which means there ARE no exceptions.
Last edited by peacegirl on Fri May 03, 2019 1:58 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Fri May 03, 2019 2:12 am

Peacegirl,

You mean, if you torture someone enough they'll change.

I already told you that this was this implication of your argument ... remember? (You're a sadist to sadists)

If you torture anyone enough, especially using 21st century advancements in torture, you can make them do anything under duress... however, the moment the immediate duress stops, they just revert .

Besides, I only need one counterexample in all of human history to prove your law false, and I did already in this thread .
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8482
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Fri May 03, 2019 2:06 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

You mean, if you torture someone enough they'll change.


I'm trying to make a point and you're not getting it because you're blocked. I'm saying that we only choose options that we consider to be the best choice, under our particular circumstances. To someone looking from the outside, especially if he believes in free will, he can't understand why that person could make such a choice, but we're not talking about other people. We're talking about the individual who is walking in shoes that no one can totally understand unless they're in his shoes.

Ecmandu wrote:I already told you that this was this implication of your argument ... remember? (You're a sadist to sadists)

If you torture anyone enough, especially using 21st century advancements in torture, you can make them do anything under duress... however, the moment the immediate duress stops, they just revert .

Besides, I only need one counterexample in all of human history to prove your law false, and I did already in this thread .

You haven't proven ANYTHING! Amazing to me that you think you have. I am not saying that torture is right. I'm just saying that a person with an addiction could change IF HE WANTED TO. He is not compelled, against his will, to stay addicted. In other words, he has a choice (but not a free one) although it feels like he doesn't because the pain of withdrawal and the pain of leaving a lifestyle that is filling a physical or emotional need takes an enormous amount of strength. But that doesn't separate him as compatibilists do by saying he is not free because he is under a compulsion that a person who is not under this duress is not under. This is where they are creating a semantic shift and a big blunder because no one has a free choice, not the person who has a greater compulsion to move in a particular direction, or a person who is choosing what to eat for breakfast. Both have NO FREE WILL.

Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Fri May 03, 2019 3:30 pm

Peacegirl,

This is another religious argument that you're making.

There are two ways that this argument is made by religious people:

1.) consent violation is an illusion because we all "contracted" our souls for this, even though you think it's a consent violation, it's really not.

2.) all consent violations by law are for the greater good, so again, it is an illusion or misperception of reality as a whole and as the truth, that your consent is every truly being violated. If you think your consent is being violated, you are delusional, or just incorrect.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8482
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Fri May 03, 2019 3:39 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

This is another religious argument that you're making.

There are two ways that this argument is made by religious people:

1.) consent violation is an illusion because we all "contracted" our souls for this, even though you think it's a consent violation, it's really not.

2.) all consent violations by law are for the greater good, so again, it is an illusion or misperception of reality as a whole and as the truth, that your consent is every truly being violated. If you think your consent is being violated, you are delusional, or just incorrect.


Additionally peacegirl,

This is actually how some people really are !!

Some people will read this book, and if it actually matters (which it doesn't) but it actually becomes a cultural phenomenon - there will emerge a group of anti satifactionists just for the sake of proving it false, they will, always choose the worst possible choice they have available to them.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8482
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Fri May 03, 2019 4:26 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

This is another religious argument that you're making.

There are two ways that this argument is made by religious people:

1.) consent violation is an illusion because we all "contracted" our souls for this, even though you think it's a consent violation, it's really not.

2.) all consent violations by law are for the greater good, so again, it is an illusion or misperception of reality as a whole and as the truth, that your consent is every truly being violated. If you think your consent is being violated, you are delusional, or just incorrect.


Additionally peacegirl,

This is actually how some people really are !!

Some people will read this book, and if it actually matters (which it doesn't) but it actually becomes a cultural phenomenon - there will emerge a group of anti satifactionists just for the sake of proving it false, they will, always choose the worst possible choice they have available to them.


I forgot to explain why they'll do this!

Because all of their satisfaction depends on freewill existing.

I assume you're not good at self referential arguments, which is why you're in this hole in the first place.

I'm not beholden to the hole you dig for yourself because I define ethics by consent, you have an ethics that has no consent. Consent is a structure of compatibalism.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8482
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Fri May 03, 2019 4:47 pm

Again , if I may briefly interject:
A seminal shift in understanding this conceptual difficulty lies with the important and noteworthy event that accompanies this topic, particularly in the years following the American and the French Revolutions.

The semantic shift is only the patent manifestation infestation with which we are struggling the dynamic element consisting of the will, yes, but the shift or the change exhibited thereby can not be a sufficient description of what is happenong, in our minds , that does correspond, even if not as a contability
issue with the primary objective consideration.

Particularly notable is the famous will to power. Here the will and the power are related, bringing this up with a Nietzsche-en scholar who has not posted for a while, the reverse : the power to will.

Here the will to power can be interpreted as a multi dimensional representation, a sort of totality where the will is dependent on it's interiorization, it is quantified, and the power to will becomes the other side of sustaining meaning through equalization with qualifying it.

A diminishing power, can not sustain a very strong will to make the most useful and desirable choices, just as an uncertain will, not sensing what is best or useful, not only in reference inter , but intra alia, could not possibly interpret the facts as they are.

Free will is not a singular effect, but can be sensed as an affect, for sure, and the self referentiality counterpositions the objective dynamic.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5052
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Fri May 03, 2019 6:44 pm

Meno_ wrote:Again , if I may briefly interject:
A seminal shift in understanding this conceptual difficulty lies with the important and noteworthy event that accompanies this topic, particularly in the years following the American and the French Revolutions.

The semantic shift is only the patent manifestation infestation with which we are struggling the dynamic element consisting of the will, yes, but the shift or the change exhibited thereby can not be a sufficient description of what is happenong, in our minds , that does correspond, even if not as a contability
issue with the primary objective consideration.

Particularly notable is the famous will to power. Here the will and the power are related, bringing this up with a Nietzsche-en scholar who has not posted for a while, the reverse : the power to will.

Here the will to power can be interpreted as a multi dimensional representation, a sort of totality where the will is dependent on it's interiorization, it is quantified, and the power to will becomes the other side of sustaining meaning through equalization with qualifying it.

A diminishing power, can not sustain a very strong will to make the most useful and desirable choices, just as an uncertain will, not sensing what is best or useful, not only in reference inter , but intra alia, could not possibly interpret the facts as they are.

Free will is not a singular effect, but can be sensed as an affect, for sure, and the self referentiality counterpositions the objective dynamic.


Free will does not exist (this has been proven) but the feeling that we have free will continues to exist. Superficially a person says "I am free to choose this or that. I think that's what you mean by affect. What is most important for the purposes of this thread is not why people will to power or have the power to will because this is not about dissecting motive. Regardless of what the motive is for any behavior, that behavior is not free in the sense that the person had the free will to make a different choice. The reason this is so important is because the foundation of our justice system is based on the belief that a person who did wrongly didn't have to do what he did because he had a choice. This justifies the blame and punishment that often follows. The other observation that nothing can make a person do what he makes up his mind not to do, is also factual. These two principles lead to the two-sided equation, which is the discovery itself. I think people are just interested in retaining their own beliefs, not in understanding new knowledge. I know this is a debate forum and I'm here to share something, not debate, so this type venue is not the right one which I've known for quite some time. Unfortunately when you are not in the university system, you're invisible. The author couldn't get his foot in the door because he was not a member of a leading university. Fifty years later the same thing is happening.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Fri May 03, 2019 6:54 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

This is another religious argument that you're making.

There are two ways that this argument is made by religious people:

1.) consent violation is an illusion because we all "contracted" our souls for this, even though you think it's a consent violation, it's really not.


How in the world did you conclude that this is a religious argument. Who is violating your consent here?

Ecmandu wrote:2.) all consent violations by law are for the greater good, so again, it is an illusion or misperception of reality as a whole and as the truth, that your consent is every truly being violated. If you think your consent is being violated, you are delusional, or just incorrect.


Again, where does anything I have said expect people to consent to something they don't want to consent to? You have come up with the idea that people will have to consent for the greater good which would be a consent violation. You're so off track I don't know if it's possible for this train to get back on. :(
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]