Revolution in Thought

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay, so you're denying the use of force. you aren't denying the reincarnation or whatever the author's stuff about eyes is. those are just things you choose not to discuss with people who haven't bought your book?

Is your whole thing just Scientology's cheap cousin?

The cynicism is becoming more and more outrageous.

You're very evasive when faced with direct questions aren't you?

[henry quirk]

PG (her dad actually) skewed the debate in her/his favor from the start with 'the individual is always compelled always to move toward greater satisfaction as the individual understands at it'. With that very clever construct she/he can claim any act (no matter how off-kilter or bug fuck crazy [or noble or just plain sane]) is just compelled (not free) and predictable (determined). Any one sayin' different just doesn't understand or is wrong or is lyin'. As Logik sez: it's all unfalsifiable...how can it be otherwise when the central tenet can mean just about any damn thing?

It's a goddamned merry-go-round: same ground, over and over and over.

[Logik]

PG (her dad actually) skewed the debate in her/his favor from the start with 'the individual is always compelled always to move toward greater satisfaction as the individual understands at it'. With that very clever construct she/he can claim any act (no matter how off-kilter or bug fuck crazy [or noble or just plain sane]) is just compelled (not free) and predictable (determined). Any one sayin' different just doesn't understand or is wrong or is lyin'. As Logik sez: it's all unfalsifiable...how can it be otherwise when the central tenet can mean just about any damn thing?

It's a goddamned merry-go-round: same ground, over and over and over.

That is exactly how confirmation bias works.

And exactly why falsification is mandatory.

[peacegirl]

PG (her dad actually) skewed the debate in her/his favor from the start with 'the individual is always compelled always to move toward greater satisfaction as the individual understands at it'. With that very clever construct she/he can claim any act (no matter how off-kilter or bug fuck crazy [or noble or just plain sane]) is just compelled (not free) and predictable (determined). Any one sayin' different just doesn't understand or is wrong or is lyin'. As Logik sez: it's all unfalsifiable...how can it be otherwise when the central tenet can mean just about any damn thing?

It's a goddamned merry-go-round: same ground, over and over and over.

Wow henry, you couldn't be more wrong. This was just an observation, not a judgment. This has nothing to do with allowing certain behaviors to go without being checked. It's the exact opposite. You are still thinking in terms of the old definition, where the idea that responsibility for one's actions is decreased. You're getting confused. And where in the world is this confirmation bias? Where's the bias? Where am I confirming a previously held belief? Once again, this was just an inference based on years of astute observation. Lastly, what did anything he wrote have to do with prediction other than the prediction that people will be unable to justify striking a first blow when the basic principle becomes a condition of the environment?

A confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias that involves favoring information that confirms your previously existing beliefs or biases. For example, imagine that a person holds a belief that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people.

[peacegirl]

PG (her dad actually) skewed the debate in her/his favor from the start with 'the individual is always compelled always to move toward greater satisfaction as the individual understands at it'. With that very clever construct she/he can claim any act (no matter how off-kilter or bug fuck crazy [or noble or just plain sane]) is just compelled (not free) and predictable (determined). Any one sayin' different just doesn't understand or is wrong or is lyin'. As Logik sez: it's all unfalsifiable...how can it be otherwise when the central tenet can mean just about any damn thing?

It's a goddamned merry-go-round: same ground, over and over and over.

That is exactly how confirmation bias works.

And exactly why falsification is mandatory.

There's nothing to falsify yet. The falsification will come when we see whether these principles work in real life. And it can be done empirically when these principles are put into effect, just like a solid bridge proves that the math that allowed the bridge to be created was correct. A simulation of this new world on a smaller scale could prove that these principles work. So stop saying it can't be falsified and keep an open mind. Geeeezzeee!!!!

[Logik]

PG (her dad actually) skewed the debate in her/his favor from the start with 'the individual is always compelled always to move toward greater satisfaction as the individual understands at it'. With that very clever construct she/he can claim any act (no matter how off-kilter or bug fuck crazy [or noble or just plain sane]) is just compelled (not free) and predictable (determined). Any one sayin' different just doesn't understand or is wrong or is lyin'. As Logik sez: it's all unfalsifiable...how can it be otherwise when the central tenet can mean just about any damn thing?

It's a goddamned merry-go-round: same ground, over and over and over.

That is exactly how confirmation bias works.

And exactly why falsification is mandatory.

There's nothing to falsify yet. The falsification will come when we see whether these principles work in real life. And it can be done empirically when these principles are put into effect, just like a solid bridge proves that the math that allowed the bridge to be created was correct. A simulation of this new world on a smaller scale could prove that these principles work. So stop saying it can't be falsified and keep an open mind. Geeeezzeee!!!!

You should keep an open mind, but not so open as to allow your brain to fall out.

You yourself stated that no experience would convince you that the principle is incorrect.

You yourself cannot imagine what a choice going against one’s satisfaction looks like.

So every choice will, naturally, confirm your hypothesis.

You have built yourself a great religion there.

It isn’t a revolution of thought. It is the same old errors in reasoning packaged in new language.

[FlashDangerpants]

A simulation of this new world on a smaller scale could prove that these principles work. So stop saying it can't be falsified and keep an open mind.

So the Amazon review of your full book, the one you described as lies and vendetta, was correct when it stated that "these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population". You just happen to think that you might somehow test against a subset representing the whole.

I imagine that's sort of true in a sense. If you ever manage to establish your cult, it will be full of the mentally unsound people who sign up for reincarnation with obvious charlatans like you on the regular. So it will certainly devolve into the usual cult vices of violence, imprisonment and rape quite rapidly. That is what happens every time those people get a secluded parcel of land on which to rebuild society in their own image, Kool-Aid optional.

But that would only be an unscientific, anecdotal falsification, and we know in advance, just because of the sort of person you are, that you would just blame the test subjects for letting you down. You cannot just simulate the whole world population in microcosm using a statistically insignificant, unrepresentative set of self selecting volunteers from your brain washing gang. So your experiment wouldn't count unless you kidnapped a large number of randomly selected people.

Obviously you don't agree with the above. So please explain how you think a smaller scale experiment could be used to legitimately (in your eyes) falsify your principle.

Also, I think we still deserve to know what this stuff about faster than light visual perception is. You don't seem to like being compared to Scientology, but you do seem to want to withhold important, crazy sounding details of your agenda, from those who have not yet paid the entry fee - which forces such comparisons to be made.

[Logik]

Obviously you don't agree with the above. So please explain how you think a smaller scale experiment could be used to legitimately (in your eyes) falsify your principle.

All she needs to do to meet this criterion is to provide an example of what she would deem to be a choice that goes against one's greater satisfaction.

To make it even simpler: she can even give us an example in her own behaviour and decision-making where she would consider one of her own choices to be a choice against her own "greatest satisfaction".

She openly admits she can't do that.

If you don't know how to falsify your own hypothesis, while at the same time you dismiss valid couter-examples you are basically doing everything in your power to defend your religion.

[peacegirl]

That is exactly how confirmation bias works.

And exactly why falsification is mandatory.

There's nothing to falsify yet. The falsification will come when we see whether these principles work in real life. And it can be done empirically when these principles are put into effect, just like a solid bridge proves that the math that allowed the bridge to be created was correct. A simulation of this new world on a smaller scale could prove that these principles work. So stop saying it can't be falsified and keep an open mind. Geeeezzeee!!!!

You should keep an open mind, but not so open as to allow your brain to fall out.

What does that even mean Logik?

You yourself stated that no experience would convince you that the principle is incorrect.

I never said that.

You yourself cannot imagine what a choice going against one’s satisfaction looks like.

That is true and none of your examples have proven this claim wrong.

So every choice will, naturally, confirm your hypothesis.

Let me correct you. This is not a hypothesis. He was not hypothesizing anything. He was making an inference based on years of reading history and literature and finding patterns in human behavior that led him to this inference.

You have built yourself a great religion there.

This is so sad that you have concluded such a mistaken notion. Maybe this is due to too much faulty logic. I dunno. Just makes me sad!

It isn’t a revolution of thought. It is the same old errors in reasoning packaged in new language.

There is no repackaging the same old ideas. This is truly a revolution in thought but it may be too big of a feat to get you to see it because of all the conflicting ideas that won’t allow you to see that this is not a theory.

[FlashDangerpants]

Obviously you don't agree with the above. So please explain how you think a smaller scale experiment could be used to legitimately (in your eyes) falsify your principle.

All she needs to do to meet this criterion is to provide an example of what she would deem to be a choice that goes against one's greater satisfaction.

To make it even simpler: she can even give us an example in her own behaviour and decision-making where she would consider one of her own choices to be a choice against her own "greatest satisfaction".

She openly admits she can't do that.

If you don't know how to falsify your own hypothesis, while at the same time you dismiss valid couter-examples you are basically doing everything in your power to defend your religion.

The 'falsifiable claim' she seems to be going with is the one where, by some alchemy (no doubt explained only in an expensive book until there is a large enough audience for one of those spaces where people sell pyramid schemes), once everyone in the world agrees with her personal belief on the matter of free will, they all become ultra-rational beings unable to inflict violence irrespective of addictions and mental impairments that previously might have moved them to irrational violence.

Obviously there is a whole bunch of omitted religion in what has been presented for those 3 chapters of the book. This is clearly a pile of cultist nonsense from start to finish.

Personally I will admit, I've never considered free will to be an exciting arena. I never got the point given that whether will is free or not, nothing changes other than that propositions along the lines of "I chose to eat that banana" potentially have a truth value which might make logical positivists happy. So for my purposes, the car wreck here is watching some doofus try to gain a massive global change in human behaviour from a small dispute over the status of the verb choose.

[Logik]

You yourself stated that no experience would convince you that the principle is incorrect.

I never said that.

Then I must have misunderstood you.

So lets try again.

Can you give us an example of a choice that you yourself might make, that would meet your own criteria for a choice that would be going against your own greater satisfaction?

If you can't provide such an example then what chance do I stand?

[henry quirk]

nah

[peacegirl]

A simulation of this new world on a smaller scale could prove that these principles work. So stop saying it can't be falsified and keep an open mind.

So the Amazon review of your full book, the one you described as lies and vendetta, was correct when it stated that "these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population". You just happen to think that you might somehow test against a subset representing the whole.

I know he was correct, but to satisfy everyone, a simulation would be the next best thing.

I imagine that's sort of true in a sense. If you ever manage to establish your cult, it will be full of the mentally unsound people who sign up for reincarnation with obvious charlatans like you on the regular. So it will certainly devolve into the usual cult vices of violence, imprisonment and rape quite rapidly. That is what happens every time those people get a secluded parcel of land on which to rebuild society in their own image, Kool-Aid optional.

This is not a cult. It's the opposite of a cult. No one is in charge of anyone. No one is trying to bribe anyone or persuade anyone to do anything. Your take is built on fabrication because you don't know what it's about yet you spout off as if you do.

But that would only be an unscientific, anecdotal falsification, and we know in advance, just because of the sort of person you are, that you would just blame the test subjects for letting you down. You cannot just simulate the whole world population in microcosm using a statistically insignificant, unrepresentative set of self selecting volunteers from your brain washing gang. So your experiment wouldn't count unless you kidnapped a large number of randomly selected people.

I agree that a small sample would not satisfy, but it could give a clue. I don't think anything short of implementing this knowledge to show it's validity will satisfy you, and I do understand. But just because you are not satisfied (because the empirical proof has yet to be shown), does not make this knowledge inaccurate.

Obviously you don't agree with the above. So please explain how you think a smaller scale experiment could be used to legitimately (in your eyes) falsify your principle

.

Any simulation is going to be a microcosm of the real thing, but it would help. That being said, it would be difficult to create a no blame environment on a small scale to mimic what this knowledge can do for the betterment of humankind.

Also, I think we still deserve to know what this stuff about faster than light visual perception is. You don't seem to like being compared to Scientology,

Because it has nothing to do with Scientology. It's a horrible comparison because this is the opposite of a cult. How can it be a cult when no one will ever tell you what to do. No one will ever judge you, or convince you to do something. How in the world could you come up with such a ridiculous comparison?

... but you do seem to want to withhold important, crazy sounding details of your agenda, from those who have not yet paid the entry fee - which forces such comparisons to be made.

What entry fee? I cannot share the entire book, sorry. I have to choose the subject that is the most important for the purposes of bringing this discovery to light. Once again, this is not my first rodeo and I'm not willing to change the subject just because you want me to, when I know where it will lead. Let it go Dangerpants.

[peacegirl]

You yourself stated that no experience would convince you that the principle is incorrect.

I never said that.

Then I must have misunderstood you.

So lets try again.

Can you give us an example of a choice that you yourself might make, that would meet your own criteria for a choice that would be going against your own greater satisfaction?

If you can't provide such an example then what chance do I stand?

At this moment, not coming back to this thread would be in the direction of dissatisfaction, which I cannot do. This doesn't mean I can't leave like I'm just a domino in a causal chain. Later today, when enough people insult me, the alternative to leave here may be my choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. Remember, each and every moment offers a different set of alternatives based on different options.

[Logik]

At this moment, not coming back to this thread would be in the direction of dissatisfaction, which I cannot do.

So you are an addict?

Log off, close your window and be done with it.

This doesn't mean I can't leave like I'm just a domino in a causal chain. Later today, when enough people insult me, the alternative to leave here may be my choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. Remember, each and every moment offers a different set of alternatives based on different options.

So what you are saying is that what is dissatisfactory now may be satisfactory later? And what is satisfactory now may be dissatisfactory later ?

Which would be a general and completely non-specific claim.