Interesting, and ideosyncraric but so what??
SO tell me…
If normality is a miracle then why have both words?
I believe a number of my posts were lost, and thus became invisible, in the epic, more than 10-page long, off-topic storm brought on by Ecmandu, Meno and Ichthus77. As a consequence, I am going to repeat, I will have to repeat, those posts just in case peacegirl missed them.
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 5#p2857787
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 5#p2857790
On page 42, peacegirl also responded to an older post of mine even though she already addressed it earlier. My guess is she got confused by all the noise. That she got confused is definitely an unfortunate thing, though the fact that she re-addressed a post is totally fine with me. In fact, I’m going to do the same by re-addressing her response.
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 5#p2857902
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 5#p2857929
To reiterate:
Mr. Lessans’s claim is that people always make decisions that they think will lead to better consequences than all other decisions they took into consideration at the time. In other words, if someone chose to eat junk food, it’s because they thought, at that point in time, that eating junk food is better (i.e. that it leads to more preferable consequences) than everything else they considered doing. That this is truly the case – always, in every situation – is what he has to prove.
His friend attempted to prove Mr. Lessans wrong by conducting an experiment in which he chose an option that is less preferable to him [eating the red apple] compared to another option that he considered at the time [eating the yellow apple].
Mr. Lessans responded by saying that his friend failed to prove his point because the option his friend chose is not the less preferable one.
My question is: how does he know that? Based on what?
Mr. Lessans says that the option his friend chose was actually more preferable because it allowed him to prove his point; in other words, the option he chose had a not-so-apparent perceived positive (proving a point) that outweighed the obvious perceived negative (allergic reaction.) My question is: how does he know that this is the case? How does he know that the perceived positive outweighed the perceived negative?
If it all comes down to definitional logic, then it’s not much of a revelation. If he’s defining words in such a way that the phrase “what someone thinks is the best choice of all considered choices at the time” means the same exact thing as “what someone does”, then he’s not saying anything groundbreaking or otherwise interesting; if anything, he’s creating confusion by using words in a way that deviates from the way they are commonly used. It’s certainly not a proof of determinism.
It’s worse than that.
A child who has no clue electricity even exists may stick some metal object in a live electrical outlet thinking it’s the best choice. And that child dies not having fun. Once the connection is made, the child cannot resist the force of the current to pull their hand off the fork until it is dead.
What I’m trying to explain in simple terms here is that differences in understanding reality make this whole discussion absurd.
Even if I explained to an older child that electricity exists and that’s a bad idea, they may decide not to trust me and may test it anyways - thinking I’m lying or trying to trick them.
There are so many instances where someone knows something someone else doesn’t that this argument about best options is absurd.
As they say… hindsight is 20/20
The problem with PG is she thinks foresight is 20/20.
And that’s very easy to refute and disprove.
PG doesn’t take learning curves into account, and by that doesn’t take into account that most choices people make are completely idiotic.
Sculptor, I’m so sorry. I just noticed your last reply. Normal is to ground as miracle is to figure. Hope that helps.
No, of course not.
Articles like this talk about change detection. Fluid versus crystalized. We do the same thing with higher concepts that we do with extended objects (which of course usually get filed along with higher concept files). It’s why “spatial REASONing” is a thing.
Google stuff like figure/ground perception, visuospatial sketchpad, etc.
link.springer.com/article/10.37 … 19-01837-x
I apologize if this is not news to you, but you didn’t clarify what you didn’t understand. You prolly need to up the estrogen or something. Jk.
Oh. Maybe you need to read up on the Leibnizian cosmological argument. It doesn’t depend on the beginning. If there is definitely a beginning, then you need to just read up on the Kalam cosmological argument. Also try the ontological argument in its various forms. So that’s how you get the physical ground/normal miracle that makes change perception (miracle/figure detection) possible.
Sorry. I have this weird tic where I assume things are obvious to other people.
No.
There are no viable arguments for the proof of god.
They all say that there is something, which we already know since making an argument means that there is something to make the argument - i.e. the Arguer.
No serious philosophers take any of it seriously and snigger into their hands when looking at such “proofs”.
Spinoza’s “proof” is the best since he is already sniggering into his own hand.
And as a closet atheist cleverly avoids this “burning issue” but offering the most sound argument of any philosopher, “by the geometric method” and proves himself smarter than those the cast the herem upon him.
It’s getting old hearing dead philosophers claimed for either gnosticism or atheism, I just gotta say. Ironic tug of war, though.
We all know that atheists are the most wonderful people in the world and that they surpass all others in every way.
I didn’t know you’re from Ukraine, phyllo.
I’m not.
I greatly appreciate your love for us Slavs.
Have you consider painting your face like this? You just have to finish the painting with some yellow colors.
Dude, there are like 5 people on this forum. Who are you promoting your love of Mr. Zelenskyy’s high heels to?
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 5#p2857790
Peacegirl: What we will is the precursor of our actions.
Magnus Anderson: The body cannot kill someone unless someone or something instructs it to do so. And that someone or something need not be the mind that is attached to it. It can be an implanted device that is being controlled remotely. Moreover, the mind does not have to permit the device to take charge. The device can be installed regardless of whether or not the mind permits it. If you vaccinate everyone with vaccines that aren’t really vaccines, but nanotechnology, and if people accept it on the ground that these are your regular vaccines that are meant to help you gain immunity against various diseases, then how can you say that their minds permitted it? At what point did their minds go “Hell yeah, we want to be chipped and remotely controlled by Bill Gates”? And what mind actually desires to be rid of its memories?
[/quote]
Peacegirl: I’m not sure where this example of yours negates the fact that, barring a chip put in your brain, it is YOU making the choice.
Magnus Anderson: On page 42, peacegirl also responded to an older post of mine even though she already addressed it earlier. My guess is she got confused by all the noise. That she got confused is definitely an unfortunate thing, though the fact that she re-addressed a post is totally fine with me. In fact, I’m going to do the same by re-addressing her response.
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 5#p2857902
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 5#p2857929
Peacegirl: It was stronger than the option to eat the nonallergic apple for the reasons given. That’s what changed his choice in the direction of greater satisfaction, not toward dis satisfaction. He didn’t prove his case.
Magnus Anderson: To reiterate:
Mr. Lessans’s claim is that people always make decisions that they think will lead to better consequences than all other decisions they took into consideration at the time.
Peacegirl: Not necessarily. You are changing the definition.
Magnus Anderson: In other words, if someone chose to eat junk food, it’s because they thought, at that point in time, that eating junk food is better (i.e. that it leads to more preferable consequences) than everything else they considered doing. That this is truly the case – always, in every situation – is what he has to prove.
Peacegirl: That is not what he’s trying to prove.
Magnus Snderson: His friend attempted to prove Mr. Lessans wrong by conducting an experiment in which he chose an option that is less preferable to him [eating the red apple] compared to another option that he considered at the time [eating the yellow apple].
Mr. Lessans responded by saying that his friend failed to prove his point because the option his friend chose is not the less preferable one.
My question is: how does he know that? Based on what?
Peacegirl: Based on his choice. There is nothing more to prove other than preference is a one way street. We cannot prefer what we prefer less in any given situation. You’re making this harder than it is.
Magnus Anderson: Mr. Lessans says that the option his friend chose was actually more preferable because it allowed him to prove his point; in other words, the option he chose had a not-so-apparent perceived positive (proving a point) that outweighed the obvious perceived negative (allergic reaction.) My question is: how does he know that this is the case? How does he know that the perceived positive outweighed the perceived negative?
Peacegirl: Because that is where his preference led him. At that moment he got greater satisfaction trying to prove that he could move in the direction of dissatisfaction, which failed.
Magnus Anderson: If it all comes down to definitional logic, then it’s not much of a revelation. If he’s defining words in such a way that the phrase “what someone thinks is the best choice of all considered choices at the time” means the same exact thing as “what someone does”, then he’s not saying anything groundbreaking or otherwise interesting; if anything, he’s creating confusion by using words in a way that deviates from the way they are commonly used. It’s certainly not a proof of determinism.
Peacegirl: But that is the truth. From moment to moment our nature is always moving from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, which motion is life.
If it prompts only one person to think, then it is worthwhile.
He just on the bandwagon to the racist gulag.
What does this have to do with my thread Sculptor? All of you have done (as well as others I am not targeting you personally; I’m just frustrated) has been taken over without one actual question in regard to the subject matter of this thread. it’s now a dumping ground for anything anyone wants to dump. Such a waste of a thread that could have made a huge difference in understanding human nature and how to prevent the horrible crimes, war, and poverty that no one believes possible. 
I responded in my last post to Magnus Anderson. He is also confused. I hope he sees my response. I’m not looking for an argument. I just wanted to show him his flawed thinking. I answered him because I can see his sincere interest. I hope we can continue the conversation which is only possible if one lets down their guards. 
That’s right. If your body is unable to walk, but your will is to walk, you won’t walk. That’s an example of you doing something (being idle) that you did not will to do. You did not choose to be idle. You did not previously determine that being idle is more preferrable than walking. You actually wanted to walk.
And the same exact thing can happen entirely within your brain. For example, your brain may deduce that you should spend some time thinking about something, but instead of thinking about that something, you end up thinking about something else; amd not because you changed your mind, but because something or someone else modified the message that was sent from one part of your brain to another. You can’t then say that you thinking about that other thing is a consequence of you determining that it’s a better thing to do that than something else.
Well, if what you want doesn’t always come to pass, it logically follows that you do not always do what you wanted to do.
I’d say it’s the very reality we all live in. Not science fiction at all.
In order to prove that everyone acts in accordance with their will, you will have to eliminate all other possibilities which also includes this one; you have to prove that it isn’t taking place. Did Mr. Lessans do that? You can’t just say “It sounds like science fiction”.
There’s no need for a chip to be implanted in your head. You can just drink enough alcohol, for example; or eat enough bad food; or live in an environment that is sufficiently chaotic, unpredictable and stressful.
That’s what you have to prove. I don’t think it’s true. So if you want to convince me, you will have to demonstrate its truthfulness to me. That’s precisely the issue at hand.
But I’m asking you how do you know that? The reasons provided don’t answer that question and I explained why.
How exactly am I “changing the definition”? If I misunderstood something, you should clarify. I thought what he meant by his rather strange claim that “everyone moves in the direction of greater satisfication” is precisely the above.
So what exactly is he trying to prove?
I am asking a question. You are supposed to answer it. You didn’t answer it. You just restated your views and complained that I’m making things more difficult than they are. Convincing people that what you think is true can often be difficult, very difficult, so if you’re not prepared for it, you shouldn’t be doing it. On the other hand, if all you want to do is to proselytize, then I’m afraid that a philosophy forum isn’t the right place for that sort of thing (even though that’s what they are commonly used for.)
Then why are you exacerbating the problem. People should be allowed to have little digressions and asides.
If you’d not mentioned it , it would have have stayed forgetten.
There is nothing to stop him seeing your response This is an open forum.