A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ

btw...i stated it earlier, but there is no revolution in thought except that they tend to be circular. thought is just a rearrangement of words and concepts and that's like moving the furniture around in your prison cell.

Yes, certain things are just rearranging the furniture, and it means nothing. But this is not the case. I hope you eventually see that this is no sleight of hand technique that is meant to fool you in any way.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can say it this way, but without the word free. He does not choose freely at all. In other words, if it is impossible to choose B because it offers less satisfaction under the circumstances, one is not free to choose A.

But of course it is possible to choose B; one will choose A, all things being equal, if and only if one calculates that choosing A will be better for him or her somehow.

You cannot validly infer from the fact that all or most of the time we choose what we think will be good for us, to the conclusion that we could not have chosen otherwise. Absent an argument, this claim, as a premise for an argument, is question begging and therefore logically fallacious.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it would require isolating a small community where the children grow up with these principles. It would give us a microscopic view of what could easy be applied on a global scale.

You grew up with these principals, yet you blame others for your own frustrations constantly- they are being unfair, they don't understand, they hate you, etc.- throughout the discussions here and the discussions I read elsewhere.

You also make it very personal to you, for examples that bit about "You hate me" and at another forum you were very happy and gushy about people liking you when they made your thread a sticky.

Add to that the grandiose claims in the book itself, which if I recall correctly you added during your compilation and writing the introduction such "Most important discovery ever", "Most fantastic book ever written" and you, and by extension the book, are coming off as both narcissistic and histrionic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For the purposes of this discussion, it is not necessary to make distinctions between the different types of hard determinism. It is common knowledge that one of the big problems with hard determinism is that everyone would be free of responsibility because they are caused by previous determinants to do what they do.

It is highly recommended, when trying to convince someone of something, to start any discussion from wherever your discussion partners are already. Otherwise you lose them from word 1, because you are arguing against a definition they do not use or adhere to, which makes it seem you are actually discussing with someone other than the person you are discussing with. That's very offputting.

There are 6 billion people in the world. If you can't communicate well, and take the advice and criticism of a mere handful, how to you expect to make any headway whatsoever?

Again, you are a poor communicator if you don't care anything about who you are communicating with, and how they feel and what they think. You haven't shown you are even slightly interested in their ideas too, before you started beating them over the head with yours.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are being unfair now. For years I didn't let anyone know he was my father because I was afraid of the reaction I would get. Now I know why I did what I did. You are the one who is biased because you automatically believe that I am not being objective. Yes, I am emotional, that is true. Yes, I have more investment in this knowledge than if it was given to me from someone I didn't know. Yes, I would like to see this world come about in my lifetime, but that does not incriminate this man as having nothing significant to offer the world.

As I said I knew there was a relationship within a few posts and after I read the intro to the book. Others saw that there was relationship as well, even when you chose not to reveal it, as I read it multiple times.

There is no way you can present it as you have without there being a close relationship to the work. Since you didn't claim it as your own, a person close to you is likely. This is apparent to most people.

I haven't said anything about the author having nothing significant to offer, what I am saying is that your lack of objectivity and close relationship to the work is hampering your presentation of it and your communicating its import.

If your goal is to spread this info, to get people talking about it and passing it on to others, then there is a lot you should do to divorce yourself emotionally from it.

Have you found even a single non-family member who found the info important and/or enlightening enough to want to help promote it? Do you have any adherents who aren't so emotionally invested in it that can more objectively present it and communicate about it?

More confidant in what, exactly? It hasn't enhanced your ability to communicate it. You are unable to even write a synopsis to make the work more accessible. Right now, you appear to be nothing more than a True Believer indoctrinated from childhood who has no idea how to persuade others that your ideas are worth examining.

You might take some cues from religious apologists, or even New Age writers. I knew an aeronautical engineer, who worked for NASA, who quit to write a book regarding his lifelong sleep paralysis and hypnopompic experiences, which he truly believed was actual astral travel and he presented it as such. The book was a bestseller and he had a long career giving talks and interviews. Now, how do you suppose he persuaded hundreds of thousands of people that he was able to leave his body and travel around the Universe?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't let that blind you to the knowledge. That's all I'm asking.

I won't, I am trying to get you to see why people are so reluctant to read the book and listen to you. The book may have a lot worthwhile to offer it, but unfortunately YOU are hampering it getting examined.

Please consider my critiques carefully and consider how you might better communicate with people.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't anticipate that certain people are going to hold a different definition than the one that has been discussed since time immemorial.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Are you reading the words I am typing here?

Of course you can't anticipate it, which is why I suggested you ask people what they think before you start discussing it as if they think something else entirely. If you don't want to take the time to treat people like people, then you shouldn't be discussing it with people at all. Make your eBook, put it on a website, and hope for the best.

Does anyone here disagree that according to the conventional definition of hard determinism one of the stumbling blocks is that moral responsibility will be negatively impacted?

I am going to venture a guess that nobody here disagrees that there are conventional definitions and ideas about determinism.

That is completely unrelated to the point I am making. If nobody you are talking with adheres to those conventions, then why are you talking about it as if it's important to them?


I understand you are trying to champion the author's life's work because you can't contemplate that it might have been a waste of time, but you do not have the communication or people skills to do it effectively, right now I am afraid. You may want to study the methods of those that have gotten unconventional ideas accepted by large numbers of people, like Scientology or Mormonism or as I mentioned New Age writers (The Celestine Prophecy is a good example) and see what they did that worked.

[ZEZOZE]

[quote=peacegirl;926444]

Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ

I can't do this alone. What do you think I'm doing?

why can't you do it alone? fix what you can. feel free to share examples of how you do that, not how you might accomplish it.

what are some concrete examples of how this philosophy has made change in strangers around you?

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, certain things are just rearranging the furniture, and it means nothing. But this is not the case. I hope you eventually see that this is no sleight of hand technique that is meant to fool you in any way.

i don't think that at all. i just think the couch is over there now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

But of course it is possible to choose B; one will choose A, all things being equal, if and only if one calculates that choosing A will be better for him or her somehow.

You cannot validly infer from the fact that all or most of the time we choose what we think will be good for us, to the conclusion that we could not have chosen otherwise. Absent an argument, this claim, as a premise for an argument, is question begging and therefore logically fallacious.

It is not fallacious at all. It is not possible to choose B if A was chosen in the direction of greater satisfaction. All of your logistics will never discredit this fact. Of course choosing A is due to the calculation that it would be better for him or her somehow? Where does this go wrong in your reasoning?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ

i don't think that at all. i just think the couch is over there now.

Unfortunately, your metaphor does nothing to either credit or discredit this knowledge.

[peacegirl]

[quote=ITSOZAZ;926462]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

why can't you do it alone? fix what you can. feel free to share examples of how you do that, not how you might accomplish it.

what are some concrete examples of how this philosophy has made change in strangers around you?

This is not about changing behavior in the framework of a free will environment. You are asking the impossible.

[LadyShea]

Is the excerpt below a pretty succinct presentation of the effect of the changed conditions? It seemed to be to me, but perhaps you have a better passage

If he has no one to drive his car but himself, and he feels that drinking might cause an accident for which he knows well in advance there will be no blame, he cannot afford the risk of placing himself in a position from which his conscience will torture him the rest of his life. People know they are not compelled to drink and drive, not compelled to pass on a curve or hill, not compelled to recklessly show off and race unless they want to, for over this they have mathematical control, and when it fully dawns on them that should they hurt others with their carelessness they will not be blamed or punished because everyone knows they were compelled to do what they did — WHEN THEY KNOW THEY WERE NOT COMPELLED — they are given no alternative but to do everything in their power to prevent a situation from arising that gives them absolutely no satisfaction.

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are asking the impossible.

if you say so.

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately, your metaphor does nothing to either credit or discredit this knowledge.

but it sounded cool.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say you have to be someone special; why are you twisting my words? You should at least know me a little bit to come to your conclusions.

I do, from your posts here; but you would do well to understand that what I said was an observation and not a condemnation.

And even if I'm wrong in my assessment, let that be my loss.

I think you're right. I feel a sense of urgency not only because it can prevent war, but because I want it to be in my lifetime. That is ego, for sure. I should not be attached to that outcome.

It's more than just that. You want people to be reasonable, which is an unreasonable expectation under these circumstances.

[LadyShea]

Man is compelled by his nature to move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction and when he is blamed for hurting others through carelessness he is permitted to find satisfaction in one of three ways. He can apologize; shift his responsibility to something or someone else as the cause for what he knows he has done, or if there is no way he can shift his responsibility, he can pay a price for the hurt he knows he caused. However, when he knows well in advance that all mankind are compelled to excuse everything he does because it is now known that his will is not free, while he knows that he doesn’t have to hurt anybody unless he wants to (for over this he knows he has mathematical control), he is given no choice but to do everything in his power to prevent a situation from which he cannot find any satisfaction. How is it possible for him to find satisfaction in carelessly hurting others when he is denied an opportunity to apologize, to shift his responsibility, or to pay a price of atonement for what he did? Since this will eat at his conscience, and since he knows this well in advance, he is given no choice but to prefer the alternative that offers greater satisfaction and in this case the only avenue open is for him to prevent such a situation from arising.

What about people who desire power, control, who derive pleasure from hurting others, etc. etc.?

According to this every individual has the same personality, the same emotional reactions. That is not the case, and cannot be the case.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is the excerpt below a pretty succinct presentation of the effect of the changed conditions? It seemed to be to me, but perhaps you have a better passage

Yes, when it comes to carelessness. This passage does not answer the problem of war, failed marriages, medical mistakes, or the best way to raise children.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What about people who desire power, control, who derive pleasure from hurting others, etc. etc.?

According to this every individual has the same personality, the same emotional reactions. That is not the case, and cannot be the case.

The desire to control has seen its last days, as well as finding any kind of pleasure from hurting others. As you will see, all authority (including government) and control are coming to an end.

Only in those cases where someone is, or could be, hurt will there be the same reaction. We are only talking about hurting others with a first blow. Other than this, our reactions would be as different as always because this does not change people's personalities.

When driving under the changed conditions, there is only one reaction possible and that is to do everything you can to avoid a situation where someone is hurt by your carelessness or negligence. How can someone get satisfaction from even getting close to a situation like this when one knows in advance that no one would blame him, although he knows it would be his responsibility? He would have to go through life with this person's injury or death on his conscience. In this world, he could pay a price for what he did, which would ease his conscience. In the new world, there is no price to be paid because he is already excused.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can someone get satisfaction from even getting close to a situation like this when he knows in advance that no one would blame him, although he knows it would be his responsibility? He would have to go through life with this person's injury or death on his conscience.

And if he/she gains satisfaction from hurting people? And if that person's conscience is such that he/she has no problem going through life with a death on his conscience?

[peacegirl]

[quote=yguy;926488]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say you have to be someone special; why are you twisting my words? You should at least know me a little bit to come to your conclusions.

I do, from your posts here; but you would do well to understand that what I said was an observation and not a condemnation.

Whether it was an observation or a condemnation, it was incorrect and it bothers me because your observation may give people (who trust your judgment) a false impression.

Originally Posted by Yguy

And even if I'm wrong in my assessment, let that be my loss.

Okay.

I think you're right. I feel a sense of urgency not only because it can prevent war, but because I want it to be in my lifetime. That is ego, for sure. I should not be attached to that outcome.

Originally Posted by Yguy

It's more than just that. You want people to be reasonable, which is an unreasonable expectation under these circumstances.

It's okay to be skeptical. I reacted this way because I am worried that people will be so unreasonable that they will take this thread as a joke.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And if he/she gains satisfaction from hurting people? And if that person's conscience is such that he/she has no problem going through life with a death on his conscience?

To hurt someone by being careless would be the worst form of torture knowing that one is excused for doing what one cannot justify. No one would want to be in a situation like this. Once again, you are trying to apply these principles to our present environment. It is true, in this world there are some who could easily live with what they did, but not in the new world, which prevents the accident from occurring.

[peacegirl]

I don't know who to address this question to: Someone on another thread tried to register on this forum, and she was denied by the administrators. Should she try again?

[LadyShea]

Whether it was an observation or a condemnation, it was incorrect and it bothers me because your observation may give people (who trust your judgment) a false impression.

I am not sure it matters, but few people here trust yguy's judgment most of the time. He is occasionally astute though. Take it or leave it for what it is, not how it may or may not affect others.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To hurt someone by being careless would be the worst form of torture knowing that one is excused for doing what one cannot justify. No one would want to be in a situation like this.

Unsupported assertion. Not everyone is the same, so you can't say "no one" nor can you assume it would be "the worst sort of torture" for everyone. There are too many uncontrollable factors that comprise an individual human mind for you to make such generalizations.

With a nod and a apology to Lois Lowry; there will always be someone who sees red when the vast majority see a distinctive shade of gray.

Once again, you are trying to apply these principles to our present environment. It is true, in this world there are some who could easily live with what they did, but not in the new world, which prevents the accident from occurring.

You can't get to the new world without starting with the present one.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know who to address this question to: Someone on another thread tried to register on this forum, and she was denied by the administrators. Should she try again?

That would addressed to the administrators in the Administration section
Forum Administration - Freethought Forum

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unsupported assertion. Not everyone is the same, so you can't say "no one" nor can you assume it would be "the worst sort of torture" for everyone. There are too many uncontrollable factors that comprise an individual human mind for you to make such generalizations.[/quoet]

This is supported if you understand why hurting someone in any way without justification would be very difficult to live with, especially if someone was badly injured by your carelessness that could have been prevented had you not been careless.

With a nod and a apology to Lois Lowry; there will always be someone who sees red when the vast majority see a distinctive shade of gray.

You can't get to the new world without starting with the present one.

I'm trying to show you why it's difficult to envision a world where these type of situations would not come up. I do understand that we can't get to the new world without starting with the present, but it is important to know that there is no comparison. You need to realize that man's conscience is lukewarm in a free will environment, where in the new world conscience will reach the enormous temperature necessary to melt our desire to even take the risk of striking a first blow.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The desire to control has seen its last days

Really? You have demonstrated that you have a desire for control multiple times throughout this thread. Being an example of the principles in action is not a bad idea, why have you argued against that as a possibility?

[livius drusus]

We don't "deny" registration. The only way for a registration to fail is if the birthday they input at the first screen indicates they are 13 or younger. Perhaps she did not receive the activation email? What username did she register under?