A revolution in thought

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Adam, I hardly talked to you. You had nothing substantial to say, so I have nothing substantial to say back.

Do you actually understand anything in those magical 13 pages? Why the odd reluctance to discuss the idea that you yourself are advocating?

[Naru]

Originally Posted by Adam

Do you actually understand anything in those magical 13 pages? Why the odd reluctance to discuss the idea that you yourself are advocating?

I think Adam's got it. She's been searching internet forums all these years to find someone who can actually understand all this bullshit, so they can explain it to her.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Adam

Yah,I read that. The author's claim that free will does not exist rests, first, on the trivial observation that whatever a person chooses is, by definition, what they wanted to choose and, second, on an idiosyncratic definition of free will under which one must be able to choose something that one does not want to choose in order for will to be free. It's dressed up a bit with flowery talk about the "motion of life" and some Randian nonsense about how since life is not death, yadda yadda yadda, and by using "mathematical" as a random adjective, but in essence it's just the idiosyncratic definition and the trivial observation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Categorically wrong!!! This phoney academia that you are displaying is exactly what this author had to deal with all his life (you know, the 'quasi intellectual' who skims text and acts like he is now an expert on the subject) and you should definitely not be reading this book. I'm not saying this as a form of reverse psychology. Pleeeasssse don't go any further. I wish I had the power to ban you!

Accusing people of "phony academia" rather than addressing their points is just more deflection and blaming the reader for the failings of the author.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Adam;925247]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Adam, I hardly talked to you. You had nothing substantial to say, so I have nothing substantial to say back.

I told people why. The more I try to condense it, the more confusing it gets which causes people to tell me the author is wrong.

Originally Posted by adam

Do you actually understand anything in those magical 13 pages? Why the odd reluctance to discuss the idea that you yourself are advocating?

Yes I do Adam, and you would get something from it as well, if you gave it half a chance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Naru

I think Adam's got it. She's been searching internet forums all these years to find someone who can actually understand all this bullshit, so they can explain it to her.

That's really hysterical! I needed a laugh.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Accusing people of "phony academia" rather than addressing their points is just more deflection and blaming the reader for the failings of the author.

I am deflecting nothing. I have answered all the questions people have asked, but they still refuse to read the most important sections of the book, so I give up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't open the book at random. I told you I have read a significant portion of it, then I skimmed for testable claims, since it is posited as a scientific work.

If you read the book, then why is man's will not free, according to the author, and what is the two-sided equation. Please don't go searching for the answer now because that would be cheating.

Originally Posted by LadyShea"I am doing this to demonstrate WHY people have a problem with the book .[/quote]

Because you can't find testable claims? I told everyone that this knowledge came from astute observation and sound reasoning. Not every scientific fact comes from empiricism. And believe me, I love empirical proof when it is called for.

[quote="LadyShea

Why are you unable to post a defense, explanation or reasoned argument?

A defense against what? No one has offered the main premises because they don't even know what they are, so there is nothing to defend.

Since you already posted this, I guess I have to defend it. Anyone can tell you that for the most part female/male sexual attraction is what brings two people together. If one person knew that the other had no sex organs, most people would not be happy with this set up. There may be exceptions. I know a girl who was paralyzed from the neck down and her boyfriend married her anyway. But for the most part, men and women marry to have a family and sex is part of that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If there are exceptions, that means it is possible. Therefore the word impossible should not have been used.

It doesn't change what the chapter is about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

So LadyShea, Adam and I are lying?

I have no idea if anybody read any of it, but from what I have observed, either people skimmed it, read it and didn't grasp it, or did not read it. Either way, not one person has come forward to actually have an intelligent conversation as to why man's will is not free, according to THIS author.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Watch out, Adam, she might be obsessed.

I'm interested in how this idea can prevent crime, war, hatred and at the same time the promoter(s) hold rather hateful ideas about people with mental illness. Such as the fact that people who experience mental illness must be constantly supervised or watched and are destined to ruin OTHER people's lives.

Watch out, it's the woo-woo train!

Don't worry, I define woo-woo in a way that is mathematically different from the way it has been used on this thread to date.

There is not a mean word or thought in this book, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by BrotherMan

Well, so much for this blameless world.

You can't apply these principles to this world. Anyway, I have a right to retaliate if I've been hurt.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Oh what the hell:

Why would a "law" have to become a permanent "condition of the environment?"

Rather like eschatology: it is always just going to happen . . . and everyone will agree with us . . . who are not on fire . . . REAL soon.

--J.D.

Because once the law becomes permanent, and the transition is complete, then there will be no chance of war to begin, or terrorism to continue.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea if anybody read any of it, but from what I have observed, either people skimmed it, read it and didn't grasp it, or did not read it. Either way, not one person has come forward to actually have an intelligent conversation as to why man's will is not free, according to THIS author.

Assuming you're referring to pages 46-59, I believe that's what I was doing here:

Originally Posted by Adam

Yah,I read that. The author's claim that free will does not exist rests, first, on the trivial observation that whatever a person chooses is, by definition, what they wanted to choose and, second, on an idiosyncratic definition of free will under which one must be able to choose something that one does not want to choose in order for will to be free. It's dressed up a bit with flowery talk about the "motion of life" and some Randian nonsense about how since life is not death, yadda yadda yadda, and by using "mathematical" as a random adjective, but in essence it's just the idiosyncratic definition and the trivial observation.

Do you need more detail?

THIS author begins by defining "free will" as "a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity". THIS author proceeds to equivocate between different definitions of "good and evil" such that the definition THIS author actually ends up working with is something more like (paraphrase) "the ability to choose my preference or not". That's not typically what people mean when they say "free will", which is why I called it an idiosyncratic definition.

THIS author devotes quite a few words to talking about what THIS author calls "the motion of life", which simply ends up being an unnecessarily flowery way of saying that whatever one chooses is, by definition, one's preference.

Having chosen to define "free will" such that the ability to choose something other than one's own preference is key to it, and subsequently demonstrating that is it tautologically impossible to choose other than one's own preference, THIS author reaches the trivial conclusion that "free will" in this particular sense does not exist.

If this is "[c]ategorically wrong!!!", then I would appreciate your taking the time to point out where I have misconstrued THIS author's arguments.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one read any of it, period.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea if anybody read any of it . . . .

Oy gevalt.

[erimir]

As a preface to my statements, I would like it to be known that I do not believe in libertarian free will either.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason I am so sure is because the environmenal changes that take place effect the formative years. That is when personality is developing. Without the combination of genetics with environment, the sociopathic and psychopathic behavior cannot form. This is different from being born with a genetic mutation that causes physical deformities.

How are you so sure that mental illnesses (including socio/psychopathy) are not like physical deformities?

We know of many genetic defects that lead to both physical deformities and mental impairments of varying severity - for example, Down's syndrome or Williams syndrome.

Why are you so sure that mental abnormalities that are not associated with low intelligence do not have genetic components and/or could be eliminated purely through environmental (non-pharmaceutical, I'm assuming) changes?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forums are limited unless they have read someone's work and can discuss it. I will guarantee you that the people who discuss the famous philosophers have read their works. How else could they offer an objective opinion?

When someone I've encountered has claimed to read and understand a philosopher (in my philosophy classes, for example) they have been at the very least able to proffer a summary of the philosophy, even if they got it wrong. The ones who definitely did understand it almost always have been able to summarize it, even if it was with difficulty (they may have needed to use examples or multiple analogies).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Have you ever been asked by a philosohy teacher to critique a philosopher's ideas without having read his or her work? I doubt it very much.

Yes.

In one of my philosophy classes, instead of directly reading Kant for our discussion of Kantian ethics (Kant's prose is notoriously dense), we read another philosopher's summary of his main ideas. We then discussed those in our class.

Also, have you considered presenting your ideas here: http://www.newageforum.net/?

Originally Posted by ChuckF

lol irimir

show spoiler

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because once the law becomes permanent, and the transition is complete, then there will be no chance of war to begin, or terrorism to continue.

If it develops--as you state--it is not a "law."

Methinks you search for Cloud Cuckoo Land.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Adam;925380]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea if anybody read any of it, but from what I have observed, either people skimmed it, read it and didn't grasp it, or did not read it. Either way, not one person has come forward to actually have an intelligent conversation as to why man's will is not free, according to THIS author.

Originally Posted by Adam

Assuming you're referring to pages 46-59, I believe that's what I was doing here:

Yah,I read that. The author's claim that free will does not exist rests, first, on the trivial observation that whatever a person chooses is, by definition, what they wanted to choose and, second, on an idiosyncratic definition of free will under which one must be able to choose something that one does not want to choose in order for will to be free. It's dressed up a bit with flowery talk about the "motion of life" and some Randian nonsense about how since life is not death, yadda yadda yadda, and by using "mathematical" as a random adjective, but in essence it's just the idiosyncratic definition and the trivial observation.

Wrong. Yes, whatever a person chooses they wanted to choose, but why? They were under a compulsion to choose that which was most preferable in their eyes. I have no idea what you're talking about when you say it's dressed up a bit. And where is the nonsense? He is showing that life must move in a certain direction, or else you would never leave the spot called 'here' and move to 'there'. You really need to consider what he is saying more carefully, before concluding he is wrong, and the only way you can do this is to remove your attitude so that you get what he's saying. You are so ready to pounce that you are missing the reasoning.

Originally Posted by Adam

Do you need more detail?

THIS author begins by defining "free will" as "a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity". THIS author proceeds to equivocate between different definitions of "good and evil" such that the definition THIS author actually ends up working with is something more like (paraphrase) "the ability to choose my preference or not". That's not typically what people mean when they say "free will", which is why I called it an idiosyncratic definition.

It is not idiosyncratic. If you really understood what he meant by that you would have understood why the ability to choose what one prefers does not make will free. You will see how this definition leaves intact our ability to contemplate alternatives. It actually reconciles both camps, so to speak. You have a lot to learn before you will be able to give an objective analysis.

Originally Posted by Adam

THIS author devotes quite a few words to talking about what THIS author calls "the motion of life", which simply ends up being an unnecessarily flowery way of saying that whatever one chooses is, by definition, one's preference.

Having chosen to define "free will" such that the ability to choose something other than one's own preference is key to it, and subsequently demonstrating that is it tautologically impossible to choose other than one's own preference, THIS author reaches the trivial conclusion that "free will" in this particular sense does not exist.

Wrong again. The fact is you cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction, which means you must choose that which gives you GREATER satisfaction. This is not a tautology and it opens a door that was closed off from further investigation. If you want more help with this, I'm here for a little while longer. At least you offered something substantive as far as reading these pages. At last!! Now I can show you where you have misunderstood, hopefully.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this is "[c]ategorically wrong!!!", then I would appreciate your taking the time to point out where I have misconstrued THIS author's arguments.

As I said, I hope you stick with me because you are understanding some, but not all, and this could prevent you from reading further. The premises he puts forth are undeniable, so I hope you give him a chance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

If it develops--as you state--it is not a "law."

Methinks you search for Cloud Cuckoo Land.

--J.D.

Wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

As a preface to my statements, I would like it to be known that I do not believe in libertarian free will either.

How are you so sure that mental illnesses (including socio/psychopathy) are not like physical deformities?

We know of many genetic defects that lead to both physical deformities and mental impairments of varying severity - for example, Down's syndrome or Williams syndrome.

Why are you so sure that mental abnormalities that are not associated with low intelligence do not have genetic components and/or could be eliminated purely through environmental (non-pharmaceutical, I'm assuming) changes?

If someone is born with a genetic difficulty, yes, they may have both physical and mental impairments that are both genetic and could also lead to emotional problems in life. Often though it is difficult to separate the environmental factors with the genetic factors that cause someone to become mentally ill. I believe, in the majority of cases, mental illness (depression, bipolar, ADD, etc.) comes from a predisposition combined with environmental factors.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forums are limited unless they have read someone's work and can discuss it. I will guarantee you that the people who discuss the famous philosophers have read their works. How else could they offer an objective opinion?

Originally Posted by irimir

When someone I've encountered has claimed to read and understand a philosopher (in my philosophy classes, for example) they have been at the very least able to proffer a summary of the philosophy, even if they got it wrong. The ones who definitely did understand it almost always have been able to summarize it, even if it was with difficulty (they may have needed to use examples or multiple analogies).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Have you ever been asked by a philosohy teacher to critique a philosopher's ideas without having read his or her work? I doubt it very much.

Originally Posted by irimir

Yes.

In one of my philosophy classes, instead of directly reading Kant for our discussion of Kantian ethics (Kant's prose is notoriously dense), we read another philosopher's summary of his main ideas. We then discussed those in our class.

The only difference is that Kant's work is famous and part of the philosophy curriculum. On the other hand, I have to be extremely careful not to confuse anyone because I am representing this author and the last thing I want to do is have people hear a condensed version that confuses people more.

Originally Posted by erimir

Also, have you considered presenting your ideas here: NewAgeForum.net • Index page?

show spoiler

No, I haven't. Thank you for the suggestion. But I want to say that this is not new age. It is not crystals or anything metaphysical. The good news is that these people seem to be open-minded so it might be worth giving it a try.

[LadyShea]

You seem to put a weight on the words "preferable" and "satisfaction" that would not be found in the standard definitions or common use of those words. Can you offer your definition of those words? I think one of the main reasons my understanding was similar to Adams is that I felt the author had that same "weight" difference you are now displaying.

And the other side of the coin, is that we cannot be made to do what we do not want to do. Again, not seeing the huge import.

[peacegirl]

I really need to ask this question: Do you think there is the slightest possibility that this author MAY have something of significance? I just want to know who the people are I'm talking to. Could the administers set up a vote?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You seem to put a weight on the words "preferable" and "satisfaction" that would not be found in the standard definitions or common use of those words. Can you offer your definition of those words? I think one of the main reasons my understanding was similar to Adams is that I felt the author had that same "weight" difference you are now displaying.

And the other side of the coin, is that we cannot be made to do what we do not want to do. Again, not seeing the huge import.

I'm sorry LadyShea, that goes back to people who want to be spoon fed this knowledge without any effort on their part. I know you mean well, but this question would open a can of worms and make the author immediately wrong, without any serious investigation. In other words, itt would be an easy cop out to reject the book.

[LadyShea]

Dude, you and the author use words in a weird way. I, as the reader and discussion participant, am asking for clarification of the intended meaning of those words, because nobody can understand anything if they don't understand the meaning of the words.

Quit blaming the reader for your failings of clarity. Quit with the conspiracy theory crap because I am not trying to set you up. I asked for your definitions of two very common words that seemed to be used in an uncommon way, not the meaning of life. What exactly is wrong with you?

this question would open a can of worms and make the author immediately wrong,

What does this even mean?

[LadyShea]

FFS you and the author admit that he used "mathematical" and "scientific" to mean "undeniable". That's not what those words mean to most people. If you're going to redefine words we need to know what those definitions are.

[LadyShea]

you would have understood why the ability to choose what one prefers does not make will free.

Adam didn't say that it makes will free. Are you unable to comprehend what Adam is saying?

[Adam]

OK, peacegirl, I have to ask.

Do you know what "idiosyncratic" means?

If you do understand what "idiosyncratic" means, then can you provide some examples of other writers who define "free will" similarly to your author here? If not, then how is his definition not idiosyncratic?

How about "tautology"?