Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 03-18-2011, 10:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCCXXVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Well this was a big one, because it is incorrect from a biology standpoint. That you don't want to discuss leads me to believe that you know it is invalid.

You addressed another major one, the assertion that it is impossible to fall in love with someone without sex organs, however you dropped it after providing the proof that it is an invalid statement yourself.
Absolutely wrong. I just believe that we are in the middle of discussing a very important concept and to abruptly change topics is not giving the present discussion the attention it deserves. Even though that topic is also important, this is even more important.
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 03-18-2011, 10:13 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

That's not a sticking point. That IS part and parcel of how we anticipate our next choice. For example, someone who is leaning toward stealing just for the sake of it might think twice because he knows he will be punished, if caught.
I was thinking more along the lines of "stealing food to feed a starving child", sacrificing A for the benefit of B, or other less worse/better between multiple piece of shit options and data/info heavy decisions. Much more complex than "just for the sake of it", we are adults not 12 year olds.

Acceptability of consequences is a huge part of the balance of our preferences.

Quote:
But what if we can prevent his desire to steal in the first place? That's what this law of our nature can accomplish.
You can't possibly predict, let alone prevent all possible circumstances that might lead to one preferring stealing over other options.
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 03-18-2011, 10:20 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCCXXVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

That's not a sticking point. That IS part and parcel of how we anticipate our next choice. For example, someone who is leaning toward stealing just for the sake of it might think twice because he knows he will be punished, if caught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I was thinking more along the lines of "stealing food to feed a starving child", sacrificing A for the benefit of B, or other less worse/better between multiple piece of shit options and data/info heavy decisions. Much more complex than "just for the sake of it", we are adults not 12 year olds.
I was giving a hypothetical situation; I was using a typical situation in my example. As for more serious reasons to steal, self-preservation justifies these acts. These are shit options and we are compelled, by our nature, to choose what we believe to be the least shitty option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Acceptability of consequences is a huge part of the balance of our preferences.
Yes, that's true.

Quote:
But what if we can prevent his desire to steal in the first place? That's what this law of our nature can accomplish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You can't possibly predict, let alone prevent all possible circumstances that might lead to one preferring stealing over other options.
Actually you can but only if stealing is not done to prevent yourself from becoming a loser, but only to gain at someone elses expense.
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 03-18-2011, 10:59 PM
Javaman's Avatar
Javaman Javaman is offline
Wildcard!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: A Plain(s) State
Gender: Male
Posts: MCCCXIV
Images: 4
Default Re: A revolution in thought

This all smacks of wishful thinking no matter how potentially-valid it might be. I can't get past that. If X then Y, sure. But if X approaches 0 as a probability, it is a pointless pursuit.

If everybody around me stopped driving like asshats, it would be great. If we just got everybody together and explained that the greater good could be achieved with us all acting with kindness behind the wheel, the world would be a better place. It really doesn't matter.

It might also be a better place if we were all Amish... :amish:
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Doctor X (03-19-2011), Stephen Maturin (03-19-2011), wildernesse (03-18-2011)
  #255  
Old 03-19-2011, 12:04 AM
wildernesse's Avatar
wildernesse wildernesse is offline
The cat that will listen
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Valley of the Sun
Gender: Female
Posts: MMMDCCCXXIX
Blog Entries: 6
Images: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I understand that it's hard to conceive of a world without manmade rules of conduct.
I don't think you do understand. You do not seem to have a very firm grasp of anything that relates to the biological world, based on what you have said about various biologically related topics in this thread. That leads me to believe that you have unrealistic expectations of humans.

Quote:
But what if the rules and consequent punishment --- if those rules are broken --- are actually causing the very thing they are trying to correct?
What do you think rules and punishment are trying to correct in society?

It is obvious that there can be great shifts in culture, and it is interesting to think about and discuss what brought that about. I found Karen Armstrong's book, The Battle for God, interesting because it talked about how different religions responded to cultural pressures, often in the name of reform. Reform-minded individuals and movements appear regularly in human history, so when cultures/schools of thought/etc. need revision in order to remain relevant. So, I have no problem believing that rules and punishment will change when the group that has formed them no longer feels they are appropriate. It happens time and time again.

I do not think that the book/idea you are promoting provides a strong argument for reform.

Quote:
The belief in free will was absolutely necessary because we were developing, but now we are able, through our intelligence, to create a new paradigm shift where authority over others will no longer be necessary.
This sentence is nonsense pretty much from start to finish. I don't even know how to address it. As other people have noted in this thread, a belief in free will has not been universal, even in Western culture. I do not even know how relevant an idea it is in non-Western culture.

I enjoy the thought of an egalitarian future, and the idea of equal respect and dignity for individuals. I do not pretend that this will prevent harm to humanity, even if perfectly implemented, or that we will not be social creatures who will no longer have biological natures. Also, I do not see how these ideas intersect with the free will/determinism argument. What does that have to do with these kind of ideas?

Quote:
Even though man is an animal, we are of a higher order and can create a better world for ourselves and all animal species.
Another nonsense sentence. Prove that we are of a higher order of animal than a walrus by using objective criteria. Prove that we can create a better world for ourselves and all animal species without eliminating river blindness.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
JoeP (03-19-2011), LadyShea (08-27-2012)
  #256  
Old 03-19-2011, 01:21 AM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But what if the rules and consequent punishment --- if those rules are broken --- are actually causing the very thing they are trying to correct?
Since they are not the question fails.

Or do you feel the proscription against unjustified homicide leads to unjustified homicide?

--J.D.
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 03-19-2011, 01:24 AM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Javaman View Post
This all smacks of wishful thinking no matter how potentially-valid it might be. I can't get past that. If X then Y, sure. But if X approaches 0 as a probability, it is a pointless pursuit.
Cloud Cuckoo Land indeed.


For some reason the assumptions from peacegirl remind me of:


--J. "One Great Smell-In!" D.
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 03-19-2011, 01:56 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Javaman View Post
If everybody around me stopped driving like asshats, it would be great.
Yes, and what if there were a true revolution in thought, a discovery so momentous that it leads inexorably to an alteration of environmental conditions, redefining what was possible at an earlier time and thereby rendering asshatted driving an impossibility? What about that, Mr. Smartypants?
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson

Last edited by Stephen Maturin; 03-19-2011 at 02:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (03-19-2011), Crumb (03-20-2011), Javaman (03-19-2011), Kael (03-19-2011), LadyShea (03-19-2011), Nullifidian (03-19-2011), wildernesse (03-19-2011), Ymir's blood (03-19-2011)
  #259  
Old 03-19-2011, 12:36 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCCXXVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Javaman View Post
This all smacks of wishful thinking no matter how potentially-valid it might be. I can't get past that. If X then Y, sure. But if X approaches 0 as a probability, it is a pointless pursuit.

If everybody around me stopped driving like asshats, it would be great. If we just got everybody together and explained that the greater good could be achieved with us all acting with kindness behind the wheel, the world would be a better place. It really doesn't matter.

It might also be a better place if we were all Amish... :amish:
This is not wishful thinking. This is not even about explaining that the greater good could be achieved if.... This also does not mean we have to go back to a more primitive lifestyle. This is about creating the conditions where it will be impossible to desire hurting another because it will give less satisfaction, not more. In fact, we will have no choice but to avoid the risks that could lead to a serious hurt. I know you don't understand this yet.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 03-19-2011, 12:48 PM
Javaman's Avatar
Javaman Javaman is offline
Wildcard!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: A Plain(s) State
Gender: Male
Posts: MCCCXIV
Images: 4
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javaman View Post
This all smacks of wishful thinking no matter how potentially-valid it might be. I can't get past that. If X then Y, sure. But if X approaches 0 as a probability, it is a pointless pursuit.

If everybody around me stopped driving like asshats, it would be great. If we just got everybody together and explained that the greater good could be achieved with us all acting with kindness behind the wheel, the world would be a better place. It really doesn't matter.

It might also be a better place if we were all Amish... :amish:
This is not wishful thinking. This is not even about explaining that the greater good could be achieved if.... This also does not mean we have to go back to a more primitive lifestyle. This is about creating the conditions where it will be impossible to desire hurting another because it will give less satisfaction, not more. In fact, we will have no choice but to avoid the risks that could lead to a serious hurt. I know you don't understand this yet.
"Understanding" is not the crux of the issue, though. It is apparent you don't understand that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 03-19-2011, 12:53 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCCXXVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=wildernesse;925908]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I understand that it's hard to conceive of a world without manmade rules of conduct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesses
I don't think you do understand. You do not seem to have a very firm grasp of anything that relates to the biological world, based on what you have said about various biologically related topics in this thread. That leads me to believe that you have unrealistic expectations of humans.
You'll need to be more specific.

Quote:
But what if the rules and consequent punishment --- if those rules are broken --- are actually causing the very thing they are trying to correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
What do you think rules and punishment are trying to correct in society?
Offenses that takes the rights away of others. Things like stealing, murder, etc. All kinds of human rights abuses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
It is obvious that there can be great shifts in culture, and it is interesting to think about and discuss what brought that about. I found Karen Armstrong's book, The Battle for God, interesting because it talked about how different religions responded to cultural pressures, often in the name of reform. Reform-minded individuals and movements appear regularly in human history, so when cultures/schools of thought/etc. need revision in order to remain relevant. So, I have no problem believing that rules and punishment will change when the group that has formed them no longer feels they are appropriate. It happens time and time again.
Man is constantly abandoning old ways of thinking and making room for the new. But change is still very slow, especially when a particular way of thinking is entrenched in a culture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse]I do not think that the book/idea you are promoting provides a strong argument for reform.[/quote]

You don't even know what it is that is being promoted, so how can you give an intelligent response?

Quote:
The belief in free will was absolutely necessary because we were developing, but now we are able, through our intelligence, to create a new paradigm shift where authority over others will no longer be necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by "wildernesse
This sentence is nonsense pretty much from start to finish. I don't even know how to address it. As other people have noted in this thread, a belief in free will has not been universal, even in Western culture. I do not even know how relevant an idea it is in non-Western culture.
It was not relevant even to this author either until something compelled him to look in this direction, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hold answers to our problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "wildernesse
I enjoy the thought of an egalitarian future, and the idea of equal respect and dignity for individuals. I do not pretend that this will prevent harm to humanity, even if perfectly implemented, or that we will not be social creatures who will no longer have biological natures. Also, I do not see how these ideas intersect with the free will/determinism argument. What does that have to do with these kind of ideas?
It has everything to do with the knowledge of determinism. And believe it or not, once it is perfectly implemented, our biological natures will still be present but our feelings of responsibility will be much stronger. Today our conscience level is at about a 7 on a scale from 1-10; in the new world it will be at a 10.

Quote:
Even though man is an animal, we are of a higher order and can create a better world for ourselves and all animal species.
[quote="wildernesse
Another nonsense sentence. Prove that we are of a higher order of animal than a walrus by using objective criteria. Prove that we can create a better world for ourselves and all animal species without eliminating river blindness.
All I meant by that statement is that we are reasoning human beings. We have the potential to create a better world. We also have the potential to create an unjust world. Can you agree that animals of a lower order cannot build cities, have philosophical discussions, think about the moral consequences of behavior, etc.? I think we're getting into semantics.
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 03-19-2011, 01:05 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCCXXVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But what if the rules and consequent punishment --- if those rules are broken --- are actually causing the very thing they are trying to correct?
Since they are not the question fails.

Or do you feel the proscription against unjustified homicide leads to unjustified homicide?

--J.D.
The proscription against unjustified homicide leads not only to the inability to kill, but also to lesser criminal acts.
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 03-19-2011, 01:27 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Maybe part of the problem is you, peacegirl haven't asked us what we believe is the cause of human behavior.

I don't accept hard determinism any more than I accept actual free will, nor do I think either term is all that terribly useful in describing human nature or behavior.

I think humans have a sort of perception that we are consciously making every decision, but that, like sense of self and consciousness in general, it is an emergent property of our brain, and that we are not conscious of everything our brain is doing wrt decision making. Our conscious processes certainly inform our unconscious, as does the input of our senses, and all of our experiences, and countless biological factors.

The actual decisions are determined by all that data, all that information, all that input being processed. Even thinking about something a few seconds longer adds additional data to the mix. We can never predict what any individual human will decide because we cannot possibly conceive of every data point, experience, memory, sensory perception, genetic predisposition, biological status, or cognitive function that comprise another mind. We can't even know it about ourselves.

You cannot manipulate the environment enough to ensure that all humans react the same to the same stimuli...even twins have different experiences in utero, such as receiving slightly different amounts of hormones or nutrients. Neuroscience has provided evidence that most times our brain has made the decision before we are consciously aware of it. You can certainly research it, even Wiki has an article about the neuroscience of free will

So, now you know what I think, and can move past your preconceptions of what "everyone" thinks or believes.

Last edited by LadyShea; 03-19-2011 at 01:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
wildernesse (03-19-2011)
  #264  
Old 03-19-2011, 01:37 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X View Post
Or do you feel the proscription against unjustified homicide leads to unjustified homicide?

--J.D.
The proscription against unjustified homicide leads not only to the inability to kill, but also to lesser criminal acts.

Please expand I don't understand what you mean peacegirl.

This sentence reads that you think societal laws/mores against murder leads to the inability to kill and to lesser criminal acts. That makes no sense.
Quote:
Today our conscience level is at about a 7 on a scale from 1-10; in the new world it will be at a 10.
Define "conscience level" and describe how you created the scale and determined a 7.

Last edited by LadyShea; 03-19-2011 at 04:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 03-19-2011, 02:02 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCCXXVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Maybe part of the problem is you, peacegirl haven't asked us what we believe is the cause of human behavior.

I don't accept hard determinism any more than I accept actual free will, nor do I think either term is all that terribly useful in describing human nature or behavior.
You don't think the term is useful because you have yet to understand how determinism, as part of the two-sided equation, can prevent the hurt in human relations that has caused so much misery. The author is not trying to change human nature, but using the truth about man's nature to our benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I think humans have a sort of perception that we are consciously making every decision, but that, like sense of self and consciousness in general, it is an emergent property of our brain, and that we are not conscious of everything our brain is doing wrt decision making. Our conscious processes certainly inform our unconscious, as does the input of our senses, and all of our experiences, and countless biological factors.
I don't disagree that our thought processes are a property of brain activity, and that these biological factors come into play. That is why, I believe, more and more scientists are coming to the understanding that our will is not free. I also agree with you that we are not often conscious of why we make certain decisions. But this unconsciousness in our decision making would never cause us to desire to hurt others when there would be no justification to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The actual decisions are determined by all that data, all that information, all that input being processed. Even thinking about something a few seconds longer adds additional data to the mix. We can never predict what any individual human will decide because we cannot possibly conceive of every data point, experience, memory, sensory perception, genetic predisposition, biological status, or cognitive function that compromise another mind. We can't even know it about ourselves.
You are correct there. People do act as a result of a mixture of their genes, their brain activity, and their experiences. The only thing being removed is the desire to strike a first blow, and there is only one condition that, when applied on a global scale, necessarily causes all of the changes in human conduct that have been referenced here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You cannot manipulate the environment enough to ensure that all humans react the same to the same stimuli...even twins have different experiences in utero, such as receiving slightly different amounts of hormones or nutrients. Neuroscience has provided evidence that most times our brain has made the decision before we are consciously aware of it. You can certainly research it, even Wiki has an article about the neuroscience of free will
I am in total agreement with you but, once again, all of these differences in the make up of individuals would never compel someone to hurt another once the conditions of the environment change. And you don't even know yet what these conditions are that cause these great changes. The one thing I don't agree with is that we have free will. It is because man's will is not free that we can accomplish what was never before possible, for if his will was free he could choose to hurt others regardless of the changes in the environment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So, now you know what I think, and can move past your preconceptions of what "everyone" thinks or believes.
I never had a preconception. I just know people are turned off to the thought of determinism, and I am trying to show why this is an inaccurate perception. You will see why determinism alone (not free will) is the key that will unlock fantastic changes in the mankind system.
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 03-19-2011, 02:19 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCCXXVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=LadyShea;926080]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X View Post
Or do you feel the proscription against unjustified homicide leads to unjustified homicide?

--J.D.
The proscription against unjustified homicide leads not only to the inability to kill, but also to lesser criminal acts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Please expand I don't understand what you mean peacegirl.

This sentence reads that you think societal laws/mores against murder leads to the inability to kill and to lesser criminal acts. That makes no sense.
I was saying that replacing societal laws (which man can break) with this higher law of man's nature, will prevent the very thing that societal laws could not accomplish.

Quote:
Today our conscience level is at about a 7 on a scale from 1-10; in the new world it will be at a 10.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Define "conscience level" and describe how created the scale and determined a 7.
I was just showing that blame and punishment allows conscience to be lowered because we can always find a way to justify our behavior. I was using the scale loosely so you could get an idea of why we are not getting the desired results.
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 03-19-2011, 02:38 PM
Javaman's Avatar
Javaman Javaman is offline
Wildcard!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: A Plain(s) State
Gender: Male
Posts: MCCCXIV
Images: 4
Default Re: A revolution in thought

The worldwide level for cat-herding is about a 4 (on a 1-10 scale) but, through my own efforts with our clan, I have achieved a 7! Can this effort be tied in to yours, peacegirl?
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (03-19-2011), wildernesse (03-19-2011)
  #268  
Old 03-19-2011, 03:21 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCCXXVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Javaman View Post
The worldwide level for cat-herding is about a 4 (on a 1-10 scale) but, through my own efforts with our clan, I have achieved a 7! Can this effort be tied in to yours, peacegirl?
You know what, if I'm not being taken seriously, I am going to leave. Even these side jokes that make fun of me are disgusting and I'm really not going to put myself through this. LadyShea, I appreciate your very throughtful questions, but if you want me to continue, I ask you to please tell these naysayers to back off, or I won't be able to continue. Thanks. P.S. I want to add that if this cannot be done because of the 'anything goes' policy, I hope to have a website where people can ask relevant questions. That way, I will have some control. It's just not fair to have these disruptions that take away from the seriousness of this discussion. And I cannot let that happen.

Last edited by peacegirl; 03-19-2011 at 03:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (10-02-2014), Naru (03-19-2011), wildernesse (03-19-2011)
  #269  
Old 03-19-2011, 04:03 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMCXXIV
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Dear newb -

We regret that your ideas are insufficiently robust to endure open discussion, and remind you that :ff: is not responsible for maintaining your inflated and unwarranted sense of self-importance. We thank you for the lulz you have contributed and wish you the best of luck in your internet endeavors, assuming you actually gtfo.

Sincerely,

ChuckF
Social Secretary, Newb Committee
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (03-19-2011), ceptimus (10-02-2014), chunksmediocrites (10-02-2014), Crumb (10-02-2014), davidm (03-19-2011), Ensign Steve (10-02-2014), erimir (03-20-2011), Goliath (04-19-2011), Javaman (03-19-2011), JoeP (03-19-2011), LadyShea (05-28-2014), Naru (03-19-2011), Nullifidian (03-20-2011), Pan Narrans (10-02-2014), Qingdai (03-19-2011), SharonDee (03-19-2011), Sock Puppet (03-22-2011), Spacemonkey (10-02-2014), Stephen Maturin (03-19-2011), Watser? (10-03-2014), wildernesse (03-19-2011)
  #270  
Old 03-19-2011, 04:05 PM
wildernesse's Avatar
wildernesse wildernesse is offline
The cat that will listen
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Valley of the Sun
Gender: Female
Posts: MMMDCCCXXIX
Blog Entries: 6
Images: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

** peacegirl's previous comments are in indigo. My previous responses are in green. Peacegirl, please consider using the preview post option to fix your quote tags in the future. Thanks.

Quote:
I understand that it's hard to conceive of a world without manmade rules of conduct.

I don't think you do understand. You do not seem to have a very firm grasp of anything that relates to the biological world, based on what you have said about various biologically related topics in this thread. That leads me to believe that you have unrealistic expectations of humans.

You'll need to be more specific.
About what? I think I was fairly specific in my previous post. I do not think that you can have humans, a social critter, without rules of conduct and consequences for those people who do not abide by those rules. Nothing you have posted, or what I have read of the book you are promoting, indicates an understanding of human (or other social animal) society.

Quote:
But what if the rules and consequent punishment --- if those rules are broken --- are actually causing the very thing they are trying to correct?

What do you think rules and punishment are trying to correct in society?

Offenses that takes the rights away of others. Things like stealing, murder, etc. All kinds of human rights abuses.
So, you think that rules against stealing cause stealing? Rules against human rights abuses cause human rights abuses?

If that is the case, why do legislators create new criminal laws to address things that have developed and are recognized as harmful? Without these laws, you must conclude that the harm doesn't exist.

Please provide an example of how rules and punishment meant to correct offenses create the very thing that they are trying to correct. A real life example.

Quote:
It is obvious that there can be great shifts in culture, and it is interesting to think about and discuss what brought that about. I found Karen Armstrong's book, The Battle for God, interesting because it talked about how different religions responded to cultural pressures, often in the name of reform. Reform-minded individuals and movements appear regularly in human history, so when cultures/schools of thought/etc. need revision in order to remain relevant. So, I have no problem believing that rules and punishment will change when the group that has formed them no longer feels they are appropriate. It happens time and time again.

Man is constantly abandoning old ways of thinking and making room for the new. But change is still very slow, especially when a particular way of thinking is entrenched in a culture.
Yes. You haven't shown us a compelling argument that there is a problem that this author's thinking corrects.

Quote:
I do not think that the book/idea you are promoting provides a strong argument for reform.

You don't even know what it is that is being promoted, so how can you give an intelligent response?
The main reason I don't know what is being promoted is because the book is written in an unintelligible manner and its proponent is not a good communicator. Even if I did understand what you are talking about and could follow it to its logical conclusions, that does not mean I would agree with you.

Quote:
The belief in free will was absolutely necessary because we were developing, but now we are able, through our intelligence, to create a new paradigm shift where authority over others will no longer be necessary.

This sentence is nonsense pretty much from start to finish. I don't even know how to address it. As other people have noted in this thread, a belief in free will has not been universal, even in Western culture. I do not even know how relevant an idea it is in non-Western culture.

It was not relevant even to this author either until something compelled him to look in this direction, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hold answers to our problems.
You have yet to identify any actual problems. You have yet to show that the author addresses these actual problems in a way that is useful.

Quote:
I enjoy the thought of an egalitarian future, and the idea of equal respect and dignity for individuals. I do not pretend that this will prevent harm to humanity, even if perfectly implemented, or that we will not be social creatures who will no longer have biological natures. Also, I do not see how these ideas intersect with the free will/determinism argument. What does that have to do with these kind of ideas?

It has everything to do with the knowledge of determinism. And believe it or not, once it is perfectly implemented, our biological natures will still be present but our feelings of responsibility will be much stronger. Today our conscience level is at about a 7 on a scale from 1-10; in the new world it will be at a 10.
Saying so doesn't make it so. I do not believe you and you have given me no reason to do so. There is no evidence that there is a universal conscience level in this thread, nor what level we are on. It is unsupported by your participation in this thread and sounds to me like woo-woo nonsense.

Quote:
Even though man is an animal, we are of a higher order and can create a better world for ourselves and all animal species.

Another nonsense sentence. Prove that we are of a higher order of animal than a walrus by using objective criteria. Prove that we can create a better world for ourselves and all animal species without eliminating river blindness.

All I meant by that statement is that we are reasoning human beings. We have the potential to create a better world. We also have the potential to create an unjust world. Can you agree that animals of a lower order cannot build cities, have philosophical discussions, think about the moral consequences of behavior, etc.? I think we're getting into semantics.
So you cannot prove that a human is objectively better than a walrus or that humans can create a better world for all animals without eliminating river blindness. No, I do not agree with anything about lower order animals. I am assuming that higher order animals = reasoning animals. You have not shown that the category "higher order animals" includes only humans, and I don't think you can. I know that you don't think that non-human animals can solve problems, because of an earlier response of yours on this thread. You are wrong about this. Many animals can solve problems: apes, dogs, ravens, dolphins, etc.. Also, you have not defined cities, and I am not inclined to define cities in a way that excludes ant hills and termite mounds.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Javaman (03-19-2011), LadyShea (03-19-2011)
  #271  
Old 03-19-2011, 04:17 PM
Javaman's Avatar
Javaman Javaman is offline
Wildcard!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: A Plain(s) State
Gender: Male
Posts: MCCCXIV
Images: 4
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javaman View Post
The worldwide level for cat-herding is about a 4 (on a 1-10 scale) but, through my own efforts with our clan, I have achieved a 7! Can this effort be tied in to yours, peacegirl?
You know what, if I'm not being taken seriously, I am going to leave. Even these side jokes that make fun of me are disgusting and I'm really not going to put myself through this. LadyShea, I appreciate your very throughtful questions, but if you want me to continue, I ask you to please tell these naysayers to back off, or I won't be able to continue. Thanks. P.S. I want to add that if this cannot be done because of the 'anything goes' policy, I hope to have a website where people can ask relevant questions. That way, I will have some control. It's just not fair to have these disruptions that take away from the seriousness of this discussion. And I cannot let that happen.
Believe it or not, I was conveying a very serious point through levity. Also, "disgusting"? Really??? :whysoserious:

EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I ask you to please tell these naysayers to back off, or I won't be able to continue.
Look, you are (sort of) proposing something that has inherent flaws. "Naysayers" are healthy to a discussion and should help you (assuming you apply the criticism to strengthening your case/argument).
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I want to add that if this cannot be done because of the 'anything goes' policy, I hope to have a website where people can ask relevant questions. That way, I will have some control. It's just not fair to have these disruptions that take away from the seriousness of this discussion. And I cannot let that happen.
This is a "forum" but, if you want to post an essay, there's a place for that as well.
__________________

Last edited by Javaman; 03-19-2011 at 04:29 PM. Reason: Adding more stuff instead of starting another post.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 03-19-2011, 04:28 PM
Javaman's Avatar
Javaman Javaman is offline
Wildcard!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: A Plain(s) State
Gender: Male
Posts: MCCCXIV
Images: 4
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse View Post
Many animals can solve problems: apes, dogs, ravens, dolphins, etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Naru (03-19-2011), wildernesse (03-20-2011)
  #273  
Old 03-19-2011, 04:48 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I guess I need to address this first before responding to the topical posts. It is important that you understand the :ff: and accept it for what it is, or that you leave if you cannot accept it. If you choose to leave I will not waste my time on the other posts.

Also, in case you choose to leave, I want to thank you for coming here. My post a few back, about what I think is going on in our decision making, is the first time I have tried to articulate my beliefs about the subject, and I am somewhat happy with the results...it's a start anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You know what, if I'm not being taken seriously, I am going to leave. Even these side jokes that make fun of me are disgusting and I'm really not going to put myself through this. LadyShea, I appreciate your very throughtful questions, but if you want me to continue, I ask you to please tell these naysayers to back off, or I won't be able to continue.
No. First of all, as much as it pains me to say so, I am not the boss of them. Also, I value freedom of speech and expression, and the free exchange of ideas, pretty much above all things except myself and my peeps.

You are free to ignore them, either through your own mental dismissal, or through the comprehensive forum tools available to help you tailor your experience here.

You are also free to tell them to fuck off.
You are free to respond to them and try to change their opinions.
And, of course, you are free to leave if that brings you the most satisfaction.
Quote:
Thanks. P.S. I want to add that if this cannot be done because of the 'anything goes' policy
How would an "anything goes" policy lead to something that "cannot be done"? Anyway, I am here at :ff: rather than all the other forums on this big Internetz thing, specifically because the policy is perfectly aligned with my own values system. I am not telling you no because of a policy, I am telling you no because complying with your request would be choosing against myself, which is impossible.

Quote:
I hope to have a website where people can ask relevant questions.
That's a great idea.
Quote:
That way, I will have some control.
You have control here and now, over yourself. You can choose to disregard those posts that bother you, right?

Anyway, I thought the discovery you try to live by somehow precluded desiring control over others, but here you are wanting some authority (first me and now yourself) to exercise control over others.

Quote:
It's just not fair to have these disruptions that take away from the seriousness of this discussion. And I cannot let that happen.
I've explained the myriad options you have for dealing with it. Your move
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (03-19-2011), Angakuk (03-20-2011), Javaman (03-19-2011), livius drusus (03-19-2011), Naru (03-19-2011), Qingdai (03-19-2011), wildernesse (03-20-2011)
  #274  
Old 03-19-2011, 05:23 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCCXXVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Dear newb -

We regret that your ideas are insufficiently robust to endure open discussion, and remind you that :ff: is not responsible for maintaining your inflated and unwarranted sense of self-importance. We thank you for the lulz you have contributed and wish you the best of luck in your internet endeavors, assuming you actually gtfo.

Sincerely,

ChuckF
Social Secretary, Newb Committee
FYI, I welcome open discussion after people know what the discussion is about. Obviously, you don't. Hecklers who pop in at any old time and have something nasty to say I do not accept. As far as an inflated and unwarranted sense of self-importance, it just confirms to me that you are one of those types who want to find some reason to hate me, and I really have nothing more to say to you.
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 03-19-2011, 05:26 PM
BrotherMan's Avatar
BrotherMan BrotherMan is offline
Higgledy Piggledy Benedictor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bortlandia
Gender: Male
Posts: XVLII
Blog Entries: 5
Images: 62
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
First of all, as much as it pains me to say so, I am not the boss of them.
Finally, some cathartic truth here at the Free Thought Talk and Chat Emporium. Now, maybe someone will link to us.
__________________
\V/_
I COVLD TEACh YOV BVT I MVST LEVY A FEE
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (03-19-2011), Naru (03-19-2011), Nullifidian (03-20-2011)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.56221 seconds with 14 queries