peacegirl wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:14 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:36 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:48 pm
You are the one that said it's unfalsifiable because anything short of large scale proof (not just a small simulation) would mean nothing.
And you stated that a small scale test, which you can't even describe in any detail, would only give a 'clue'. So you agree with me.
I understand your belief regarding small samples, but I didn't even mention what size sample it would be. You immediately said it would tell us nothing.
Let me remind you what you have claimed so that you can stop misrepresenting it. Here you are stating a small experiment would fix the falsification problem...
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:51 pm
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!!!!
And here you are getting out of your depth on that same claim...
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:14 pm
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.
Now you are trying to reverse ferret yet again, nobody is fooled by this, stop being silly. If you want to claim that a small scale experiment can confirm your hypothesis that once people believe your thing they will automatically become pacifists... define your experiment. Include details necessary for a real experiment such as how you would select the participants and ensure that you had a fully representative sample, plus what you would recognize as proof you were wrong.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:14 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:Now, what's this crazy nonsense about perception that you are so desperate not to discuss.
Because this is more important. I never got to explain why this "truism" matters yet you immediately think it will tell us nothing. You're dead wrong.
You're having that discussion with Logik more than me. Although he is right. Nothing at all hinges on the question of free will, it makes no difference to life or our understanding of life. It only could make any difference if there were some way to turn back time and make the same choice a second time, in which case it either would or would not be possible to select differently from the available options. Unless you are the inventor of a time machine, you are wasting your life on the least important available controversy. It is of greater benefit to science and mankind to argue about whether a hotdog is a sandwich or not.
Irrespective, you are hiding something from us. It seems to be something you feel we would laugh at. You might as well rip off the band aid.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:14 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Obviously the guy writing that Amazon review knows something you don't want anyone here to know.
That's not it at all. I'm upset that he lied and now his review gives a false impression that the material is without merit. It's difficult to get people who would have the capacity to understand what is written to read the book and give a fair and balanced commentary, because, like you (who has the capacity) jumps to all kinds of premature conclusions. I paid one time (like $50) to have a person in a book group to read the book, and the girl didn't understand it at all. It was a waste of money. It will probably take people who already believe in determinism to want to learn more. I can't make headway with people who believe that they have free will. They refuse to listen because it upsets their worldview too much and they can't handle it. I tried to explain that the accurate definition of determinism does not remove the agent, nor does it take away the kind of freedom that everyone wants to have. The only thing it takes away is the belief that people do what they do, achieve what they achieve, etc., of their own free will. This knowledge allows for a new type of world where the justification to hurt another will no longer be a preferable choice when the hurt to them is removed. That's it in a nutshell.
I sort of feel sympathy that you paid somebody to read your book. But let's face it, if she did read and analyse it as a philosopher would, you would have still asserted that she didn't understand it. that is your default claim for everybody who doesn't share your enthusiasm. You are too far gone to consider that there are errors in your work. That is a much sadder state of affairs than the 50 wasted bucks.
Your problem is much worse than people who want to believe in free will not taking on your message. People like me who get the stuff about agency and freedom aren't going to buy your schtick exactly because we understand better than you. There is no way for you to move from non free will that doesn't alter anything substantive, to some magical world where mere realisation of the fact makes everybody an altruistic pacifist. It's literally an incoherent claim, a self basting turkey of an argument.