“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[Jarhyn]

You can make two choices in a given moment

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

I will also note that the ambiguity of what you mean by "moment" is also problematic.

It could be construed to apply to a specific reference frame in space and time, but there is also a sense of moment which could be applied to a moment of time *across* space, and in the moment of time across space, I exist in infinite number in infinite places exactly as I am now, but in myriad varying contexts, to make different decisions based on those differences in context, and so I make infinite choices in every given moment.

 

[peacegirl]

You can make two choices in a given mome

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

You can make two choices in a given moment

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

I was challenging that we can make two choices in a given moment. We can only make one choice in succession. I can absolutely be limited to a given moment because we live from moment to moment.

 

[peacegirl]

You can make two choices in a given moment

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

I will also note that the ambiguity of what you mean by "moment" is also problematic.

It could be construed to apply to a specific reference frame in space and time, but there is also a sense of moment which could be applied to a moment of time *across* space, and in the moment of time across space, I exist in infinite number in infinite places exactly as I am now, but in myriad varying contexts, to make different decisions based on those differences in context, and so I make infinite choices in every given moment.

This is turning into fantasy. Let's get down to reality—where we actually live. All this fantasizing about infinite numbers in infinite places in myriad varying contexts is not going to grant you free will in the here and now.

 

[Jarhyn]

You can make two choices in a given mome

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

You can make two choices in a given moment

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

I was challenging that we can make two choices in a given moment. We can only make one choice in succession.

And again with the modal error: as soon as you modally scope the subject with CAN, the subject becomes incompatible with the predicate. It is a syntax error.

"In a given moment" cannot address the subject of "can" because the subject of "can" necessarily exists independent of any given moment.

The "we" that can is not exactly the "we" that do, and any sentence that crosses the boundary of selection is invalid, just as any sentence that talks about itself is invalid.

And to be clear, I talk about self referential and circular sentence groups specifically to highlight a trivial example of invalid syntax that appears valid, so that you understand that this is a wide class of errors commonly made by the naive.

 

[DBT]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Then I can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

 

[peacegirl]

You can make two choices in a given moment

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

I was challenging that you can make two choices in a given moment. I thought that had a question mark. I must have accidentally left it out. I thought I said “you CAN’T make two choices in a given moment.”

 

[peacegirl]

You can make two choices in a given mome

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

You can make two choices in a given moment

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

I was challenging that we can make two choices in a given moment. We can only make one choice in succession.

And again with the modal error: as soon as you modally scope the subject with CAN, the subject becomes incompatible with the predicate. It is a syntax error.

"In a given moment" cannot address the subject of "can" because the subject of "can" necessarily exists independent of any given moment.

I said “I cannot” not “I can.”.

The "we" that can is not exactly the "we" that do, and any sentence that crosses the boundary of selection is invalid, just as any sentence that talks about itself is invalid.

And to be clear, I talk about self referential and circular sentence groups specifically to highlight a trivial example of invalid syntax that appears valid, so that you understand that this is a wide class of errors commonly made by the naive.

You are being condescending and it doesn’t become you.

 

[peacegirl]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Then I can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

I am not sure how I can answer you without using the book as a guide. This is why I gave the link to the first three chapters which is foundational and sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Making the claims he did are already suspect. I don’t want to add to everyone’s suspicion by sabotaging his demonstration, which has to be in the exact order it was written or people are going to get confused and tell me was wrong only because it was not explained clearly.

 

[Jarhyn]

you can make two choices in a given moment

And again you fail with a modal violation!

How... Do you seriously not see it?

It's like a broken record, or maybe that scene from Guardians of the Galaxy where Drax has something to right over his head in the most ironic way possible, regardless of how fast his reflexes are.

This construction is syntactically invalid. There is no universe where this series of words makes sense any more than the series of words "this sentence is false".

Even trying to ask the question means you are thinking about something that is pure nonsense, trying to incorrectly use language.

You cannot validly restrict the subject of "can" to a single place in space and time. The subject of can operates in a modal scope definitionally not bound to any single place or time.

 

[DBT]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Then I can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

I am not sure how I can answer you without using the book as a guide. This is why I gave the link to the first three chapters which is foundational and sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Making the claims he did are already suspect. I don’t want to add to everyone’s suspicion by sabotaging his demonstration, which has to be in the exact order it was written or people are going to get confused and tell me was wrong only because it was not explained clearly.

You can use the book as a guide. Your explanation of the authors discoveries should be based on what is written in the book, just in the form of a clear summary of his key elements for transforming human behaviour.

 

[peacegirl]

you can make two choices in a given moment

And again you fail with a modal violation!

How... Do you seriously not see it?

It's like a broken record, or maybe that scene from Guardians of the Galaxy where Drax has something to right over his head in the most ironic way possible, regardless of how fast his reflexes are.

This construction is syntactically invalid. There is no universe where this series of words makes sense any more than the series of words "this sentence is false".

Even trying to ask the question means you are thinking about something that is pure nonsense, trying to incorrectly use language.

You cannot validly restrict the subject of "can" to a single place in space and time. The subject of can operates in a modal scope definitionally not bound to any single place or time.

You can't be serious. Are you saying that we can be at two places at once or that the rules change because we are at a different moment from a second ago (I hope you're not telling me that moments don't exist that tell us whether it is morning, afternoon, or night), or even that a different frame of reference on earth gives us free will to choose otherwise? I am not saying that we don't have options to consider, but that in no way means that the options we are considering are anything more than a passing thought. Just because they are possibilities while we are considering them does not put them into the realm of reality once we throw them out as considerations. We live in the here and now, not up in the clouds or in a different universe where gravity goes up, where pink elephants fly, and where we can make free choices because we are not constrained by our heredity and environment and therefore can make alternate choices regardless of the antecedents that brought us to where we are at this moment. That's complete science fiction, don't you see that? I guess anything is possible with modal logic, but modal logic does not bring what is possible down to what is actual. Let's bring this discussion down to earth; how's that for an idea?

 

[peacegirl]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Then I can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

I am not sure how I can answer you without using the book as a guide. This is why I gave the link to the first three chapters which is foundational and sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Making the claims he did are already suspect. I don’t want to add to everyone’s suspicion by sabotaging his demonstration, which has to be in the exact order it was written or people are going to get confused and tell me was wrong only because it was not explained clearly.

You can use the book as a guide. Your explanation of the authors discoveries should be based on what is written in the book, just in the form of a clear summary of his key elements for transforming human behaviour.

I’m trying but I cannot leave gaps just because you demand a shortened summary. I will not risk it for fear that this discovery will be thrown out for no other reason that it was not explained correctly due to your requirements. Mind you, we are in agreement overall so let’s not ruin it for what we agree on.