Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old 03-16-2011, 09:46 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCLXXXII
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Thanks Viv
Quote:
There is a lot of talk that rejecting his ideas mean that you have a closed mind
That's one of the hallmarks of woo right there.
To me, an open mind is not trying to interject one's ideas into what one is reading, but reading to understand what the author is saying. It is not an easy subject to begin with, so it was necessary to preface this work this way.
See! If you don't believe it, Lady Shea, that means you won't read it like you believe it already, and may end up not believing, and this is bad and shows you have the wrong kind of mind. It is not the idea that is at fault, it is your brain.

Doesn't sound to me like Shea is the one dismissing a possibility out of hand, actually.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-28-2014), Naru (03-16-2011), Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (01-31-2016)
  #77  
Old 03-16-2011, 09:54 AM
ZEZOZE's Avatar
ZEZOZE ZEZOZE is offline
you're next
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Gender: Bender
Posts: VMMCLXI
Images: 147
Default Re: A revolution in thought

revolution of thought has always been the problem.
__________________
paranoid fringe dweller
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 03-16-2011, 01:03 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Feel free to copy and paste selections as well. You do own the rights, and other than copyright violations :ff: doesn't care how much of a piece you post here.

Preferably you will only quote enough to clarify things or get your point across.
I dislike doing this but if this is the only way people will pay attention, I guess there is no other way, unless I move on.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good
and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of
one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the
definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible,
blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil
since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other
words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than he
does, if he wants to, and therefore can be held responsible for
doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the
fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception:
Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or
considers right, better or good for himself under his particular set
of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or
evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise
had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note.
Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not
desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what
then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part
of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis,
nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born,
growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it
is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the
normal compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his
family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the
United States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the
consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t
get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc., what is he
supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the
law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he
didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing
is evil, that he could have chosen an option which was good; in this
case almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But
supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered
this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for
charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment,
that this was the better choice of the three that were available to
him — so does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did
not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is
also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish
him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they
did under the circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life
during every moment of our existence and have no say in this
matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and
are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or
commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to
prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire
because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to
employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it
is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the
same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to
desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless
of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing
and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex
action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates
that life is never satisfied to remain in one position for always like
an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall
now call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of
clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now
standing on this present moment of time and space called here and
you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either
move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without
moving a hairs breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer...” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you
started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment
makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position,
which is death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there,
which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is
any motion from here to there is a movement away from that
which dissatisfies, otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here
or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the
motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is
an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must
obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction.
It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot
called here is determined by a law over which we have no control
because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what
gives us greater satisfaction, otherwise, we would not kill
ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment
the motion of man is not free for all life obeys this invariable law.
He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices,
decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are available during
his lifetime that which he considers better for himself and his set
of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery
like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to
candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being
alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction.
During every moment of man’s progress he always did what he had
to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration
proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be
accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate...
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 03-16-2011, 01:06 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Supposing you wanted very much of two alternatives A, which
we shall designate something considered evil by society, instead of
B, the humdrum of your regular routine; could you possibly pick
B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better
alternative when nothing could sway you from your decision, not
even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two
alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something
considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it
be possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is
available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B
in this comparison, are they not compelled by their very nature to
prefer A; and how can they be free when the favorable difference
between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion
of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free,
according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer
of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t
want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he
doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative
is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction.

To give you a more familiar example, let us imagine that a
woman has a special business meeting to attend and must quickly
choose between two dresses because she is running late. If both
dresses are undesirable, she is compelled to select the dress that is
the least undesirable of the two, therefore her final choice in this
comparison is the better alternative. Obviously, she has other
options; she could leave both dresses and wear something from
home, continue to shop and call in late, etc. This is a hypothetical
situation for the purpose of showing that once she decides to buy
a dress as a solution to her problem, she is compelled to prefer the
one that gives every indication of being the best possible choice.
It is true that her choice will be influenced by many variables such
as price, quality, color, etc., but regardless of the factors that
contribute to her final decision she is compelled, by her very
nature, to pick the dress that is the most preferable after weighing
the pros and cons. For instance, if cost is an important
consideration she may desire to buy the less expensive dress
because it is within her price range and though she would be
happier with the more expensive dress, she moves in the direction
of greater satisfaction by picking the dress that appeals to her the
least. This is where people get confused. Moving toward greater
satisfaction does not mean that we are always satisfied. It just
means that when comparing the options that are available to us, we
are choosing [what we believe to be] the best alternative under our
particular circumstances. [Note: This does not mean that we have
considered all possible options; only those that have come to mind
or have been brought to our attention at any given moment in time.
Nor does it mean that our choices are unlimited, for the availability
of choices depends on a myriad of cultural, economic, and social
factors]. After coming home and trying on the dress, she may have
a change of heart and wish she had splurged on the more expensive
dress. She may decide to go to the store to make an exchange, or
she may decide to just keep the dress even though she isn’t that
happy with her choice. Each moment offers a new set of options
but always in the direction of greater satisfaction. I will now put
the conclusive proof that man’s will is not free to a mathematical
test.

Imagine that you were taken prisoner in war time for espionage
and condemned to death, but mercifully given a choice between
two exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death
by having your head held under water. The letters A and B,
representing small or large differences, are compared. The
comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable.
The difference which is considered favorable, regardless of the
reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to
take which makes one of them an impossible choice in this
comparison simply because it gives less satisfaction under the
circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice,
man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly possible, providing no
other conditions are introduced to affect your decision, to prefer
exit B if A is offered as an alternative?
“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in
any way.”
“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could
you prefer the other alternative?”
“No I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t
given me any choice.”
“You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free,
you should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well
as B. In other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this
comparison of alternatives, one is compelled completely beyond
control to prefer A. It is impossible for B to be selected in this
comparison (although it could be chosen to something still worse)
as long as A is available as an alternative. Consequently, since B
is an impossible choice, you are not free to choose A for your
preference is a natural compulsion of the direction of life over
which you have absolutely no control.”

The definition of free will states that good or evil can be
chosen without compulsion or necessity despite the obvious fact
that there is a tremendous amount of compulsion. The word
‘choice’ itself indicates there are preferable differences otherwise
there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The
reason you are confused is because the word ‘choice’ is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities,
but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always
moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of
differences what he considers better for himself and when two or
more alternatives are presented he is compelled, by his very nature,
to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives
every indication of being better for the particular set of
circumstances involved. Choosing, or the comparison of
differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but, to repeat, he is
compelled to prefer of alternatives the one he considers better for
himself, and even though he chooses various things all through the
course of his life he is never given any choice at all. Although the
definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil
without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of
man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of
compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and
every moment of time?
“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”
“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in
value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to
decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more
careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which
moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present
position offers. What one person judges good or bad for himself
doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is remembered that
a juxtaposition of differences in each case present alternatives that
affect choice.” My friend, still believing he could prove that man
can move in the direction of dissatisfaction, offered the following
example.

“Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer
the yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red, consequently
my taste lies in the direction of the latter which gives me greater
satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes
me feel sick. Yet in spite of this I am going to eat it to demonstrate
that even though I am dissatisfied — and prefer the yellow apple
— I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.”
“Do you honestly think this proves freedom of the will? Isn’t
it obvious that regardless of the reason you decided to eat the red
apple, and even though it would be distasteful in comparison, this
choice at that moment of time gave you greater satisfaction
otherwise you would have definitely selected and eaten the yellow?
The normal circumstances under which you frequently ate the
yellow apple in preference were changed by your desire to prove
a point, therefore it gave you greater satisfaction to eat what you
did not normally eat in an effort to prove that life can be made to
move in the direction of dissatisfaction. Consequently, since B
(eating the yellow apple) was an impossible choice at that moment,
you were not free to choose A.”
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 03-16-2011, 02:17 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 didn't mean for you to copy and paste it for people to read, but to clarify your answers to our questions or to highlight specific passages during discussion.

We want you to discuss the piece. Make an argument based on your reading and interpretation and answer questions. This is what they wanted at Philosophy forums too and ended up locking the thread.

The writing doesn't stand on its own as well as you seem to think it does (the dialog with imaginary persons is very distracting for one thing), so you may be called upon to present the info in another way, explain things etc.

Are you willing to do that?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (03-17-2011)
  #81  
Old 03-16-2011, 02:29 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I didn't mean for you to copy and paste it for people to read, but to clarify your answers to our questions or to highlight specific passages during discussion.

We want you to discuss the piece. Make an argument based on your reading and interpretation and answer questions. This is what they wanted at Philosophy forums too and ended up locking the thread.

The writing doesn't stand on its own as well as you seem to think it does (the dialog with imaginary persons is very distracting for one thing), so you may be called upon to present the info in another way, explain things etc.

Are you willing to do that?
I can't seem to satisfy the people in here. They make it so difficult. I gave away the book for free. I put it online after 30 years of an author's hard work, and all you have to say is that two pages is too much for you to handle, and this thread will be locked? Well, so be it.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 03-16-2011, 02:32 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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
What is so revolutionary is the fact that this law of our nature has the power to prevent war, crime, and hatred between men when applied on a global scale.
If it has to be understood and applied, is it really a "law of our nature"? How would one go about "applying" it to others? What if someone doesn't want to apply it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I read the pages you suggested peacegirl. So, now can we discuss your thoughts on it? Obviously you are seeing something really profound, to have spent so much time compiling and editing and promoting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
None, because this discovery has not been studied by scientists that could confirm its validity.
I did not find any testable hypotheses in the first 2 chapters. It's very much a philosophical, and somewhat theological, piece, not a scientific one.

What kind of tests are you imagining could be done?
Please answer these questions to the best of your ability from your understanding of the principles.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (03-17-2011)
  #83  
Old 03-16-2011, 02:34 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 LadyShea View Post
I didn't mean for you to copy and paste it for people to read, but to clarify your answers to our questions or to highlight specific passages during discussion.

We want you to discuss the piece. Make an argument based on your reading and interpretation and answer questions. This is what they wanted at Philosophy forums too and ended up locking the thread.

The writing doesn't stand on its own as well as you seem to think it does (the dialog with imaginary persons is very distracting for one thing), so you may be called upon to present the info in another way, explain things etc.

Are you willing to do that?
I can't seem to satisfy the people in here. They make it so difficult. I gave away the book for free. I put it online after 30 years of an author's hard work, and all you have to say is that two pages is too much for you to handle, and this thread will be locked? Well, so be it.
Um, no, I didn't say that at all. We don't lock threads here at :ff:

Please re-read what I said without all the defensiveness.

You had this discussion at another forum, the Philosophy forum, I linked to it upthread. They got frustrated at your unwillingness or inability to defend the principles from your own understanding, or to answer their questions in your own words and THEY locked the thread over it.

Here at :ff: we are also looking for that kind of discussion, though we won't lock the thread or ban you or whatever. Are you willing to discuss it and answer questions about it? If not, move on.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (03-17-2011)
  #84  
Old 03-16-2011, 02:37 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCLXXXII
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Nope. I read the first two chapters - and more! And raised a few objections to which you did not choose to respond. LadyShea asked you to explain contents in an executive synopsis kind of style so we could have some debate. No-one said they would lock the thread - the only mention of locking was regarding a philosophy thread.

All that is happening is that people are critical of your claims about this book, and are not necessarily willing to invest a lot of time in reading it unless you can show what is interesting about it.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (03-17-2011)
  #85  
Old 03-16-2011, 02:44 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I didn't mean for you to copy and paste it for people to read, but to clarify your answers to our questions or to highlight specific passages during discussion.

We want you to discuss the piece. Make an argument based on your reading and interpretation and answer questions. This is what they wanted at Philosophy forums too and ended up locking the thread.

The writing doesn't stand on its own as well as you seem to think it does (the dialog with imaginary persons is very distracting for one thing), so you may be called upon to present the info in another way, explain things etc.

Are you willing to do that?
I can't seem to satisfy the people in here. They make it so difficult. I gave away the book for free. I put it online after 30 years of an author's hard work, and all you have to say is that two pages is too much for you to handle, and this thread will be locked? Well, so be it.
In other words, people who are merely following this law of human nature to prefer what is best for them (through no fault of their own) has led to your unhappiness?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
JoeP (03-16-2011), Naru (03-16-2011), Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (03-17-2011)
  #86  
Old 03-16-2011, 03:09 PM
Miss Shelby's Avatar
Miss Shelby Miss Shelby is offline
angry white woman
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: MMCCCXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=Vivisectus;924480][quote=peacegirl;924234]
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Thanks Viv
Quote:
There is a lot of talk that rejecting his ideas mean that you have a closed mind
That's one of the hallmarks of woo right there.
personally, i like reading things that I don't agree with. it grounds me further in my own beliefs. just thought i'd throw that in there-- since i love being the center of attention and peacegirl is stealing my sunshine.
__________________
When God gives you AIDS, make lemonaids. --Sarah Silverman
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 03-16-2011, 03:20 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

peacegirl, you want to present info that can change the world but can't seem to defend or explain the info. You seem to have a tendency to assume things not in evidence, such as that we are easily confused (you stated your posting a definition of determinism would be confusing), that we have closed minds (explaining the woo red flags as necessary), and that we are fearful of new ideas (you stated skepticism is a protective mechanism).

I have read the chapters. I want to know exactly what stands out to you as so profoundly new and different so we can have a discussion.

The material is poorly written in my opinion, especially the distracting imaginary dialog, the self aggrandizement, and the inappropriate comparisons to mathematical proof. Within that I see a pretty vanilla philosophical presentation of determinism vs. free will with some situational ethics used for illustrative purposes.

What is it you feel I am missing?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (03-17-2011)
  #88  
Old 03-16-2011, 03:30 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=LadyShea;924537]
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
What is so revolutionary is the fact that this law of our nature has the power to prevent war, crime, and hatred between men when applied on a global scale.
If it has to be understood and applied, is it really a "law of our nature"? How would one go about "applying" it to others? What if someone doesn't want to apply it?
Yes, it is a law of our nature.

This natural law, which
reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully
behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that no wonder it wasn’t
found until now. But by demonstrating its power a catalyst, so to
speak, is introduced which compels this fantastic change in the
direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be
called miracles though they do not transcend the laws of nature.
The same nature that allowed Hitler to slaughter six million Jews,
that permits the most heinous crimes and all the other evils of
human relation is going to veer so sharply in a different direction
that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their
subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such
a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. Laugh if you
will but your smile of incredulity will be wiped from your face
once you begin to read the text chapter by chapter of which the first
two are most fundamental.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I read the pages you suggested peacegirl. So, now can we discuss your thoughts on it? Obviously you are seeing something really profound, to have spent so much time compiling and editing and promoting.
Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
None, because this discovery has not been studied by scientists that could confirm its validity.
I did not find any testable hypotheses in the first 2 chapters. It's very much a philosophical, and somewhat theological, piece, not a scientific one.
Wrong. It is not empirically based but based on accurate reasoning and astute observation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What kind of tests are you imagining could be done?

Please answer these questions to the best of your ability from your understanding of the principles.
By applying the principles because they do work. You will see why if you understand why man's will is not free and why conscience works in a very predictable way --- which can be duplicated.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 03-16-2011, 03:35 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
peacegirl, you want to present info that can change the world but can't seem to defend or explain the info. You seem to have a tendency to assume things not in evidence, such as that we are easily confused (you stated your posting a definition of determinism would be confusing), that we have closed minds (explaining the woo red flags as necessary), and that we are fearful of new ideas (you stated skepticism is a protective mechanism).
I did not say you were easily confused. I said the standard determinism is not completely accurate in the way it is defined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I have read the chapters. I want to know exactly what stands out to you as so profoundly new and different so we can have a discussion.
If you read the first two chapters, you would know. I'm not calling you a liar, but if you did read these chapters you would at least be able to identify what the discovery is, and please don't tell me it's that man's will is not free, and therefore we should not blame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The material is poorly written in my opinion, especially the distracting imaginary dialog, the self aggrandizement, and the inappropriate comparisons to mathematical proof. Within that I see a pretty vanilla philosophical presentation of determinism vs. free will with some situational ethics used for illustrative purposes.

What is it you feel I am missing?
You are entitled to your opinion, but the dialogue was a way to get people to undertand this very difficult work. If you don't like the way it was written, blame it on me, not the author. What you are missing is your understanding of why man's will is not free, what the two sides of the equation are, what will happen as a consequence of applying this law of our nature, and how it will benefit our world. LadyShea, I actually welcome your questions because they seem sincere.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 03-16-2011, 03:41 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
Wrong. It is not empirically based but based on accurate reasoning and astute observation.
That does not make it a scientific hypothesis. What kinds of tests could be set up to produce replicable results?

Quote:
By applying the principles because they do work. You will see why if you understand why man's will is not free and why conscience works in a very predictable way --- which can be duplicated.
This is an assertion based on little more than belief, not possible test parameters.

How would a scientist set up a controlled and time limited method of applying the principals and how would they track and compare the results? What exact hypothesis would they be testing?

If the hypothesis is "Humans do not have free will", what kind of experiment could that lead to?

Last edited by LadyShea; 03-16-2011 at 04:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (03-17-2011)
  #91  
Old 03-16-2011, 03:55 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

I did not say you were easily confused. I said the standard determinism is not completely accurate in the way it is defined.
Then offer your more accurate definition, even if you think it might be confusing.

Understood and agreed upon definitions are the basis of any discussion.
Quote:
If you read the first two chapters, you would know. I'm not calling you a liar, but if you did read these chapters you would at least be able to identify what the discovery is, and please don't tell me it's that man's will is not free, and therefore we should not blame.
So since the revolutionary idea is so apparent to you, you assume it must be apparent to everyone? Whatever it is, it is not apparent to me, and others also seem to have missed the essence of the discovery.

Perhaps that is the fault of the reader, or perhaps it is your and the authors failure to concisely convey the idea.

So please, tell me what the discovery is, in your words.

Quote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but the dialogue was a way to get people to undertand this very difficult work.
It fails because it is distracting and confusing. You are again blaming the reader.

Quote:
If you don't like the way it was written, blame it on me, not the author.
Wait what? Don't blame poor writing on the writer?

Quote:
What you are missing is your understanding of why man's will is not free, what the two sides of the equation are, what will happen as a consequence of applying this law of our nature, and how it will benefit our world.
So help me understand. I am not seeing what it is you are seeing, so please explain.

I will even help you meet me where I am by telling you I do not accept or adhere to the concept of free will to begin with.

Quote:
LadyShea, I actually welcome your questions because they seem sincere.
And I welcome your concise answers, should they be forthcoming
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (03-17-2011)
  #92  
Old 03-16-2011, 04:10 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

And to give you more to work with, I agree with this
Quote:
He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices,
decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are available during
his lifetime that which he considers better for himself and his set
of circumstances.
I believe our decision making (or "will" if you prefer) is constrained by a great many things including physical laws and our unique individual consciousness, comprised as it is by our experiences and inferences, as well as varying circumstances.

Last edited by LadyShea; 03-16-2011 at 04:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (03-17-2011)
  #93  
Old 03-16-2011, 04:14 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Nope. I read the first two chapters - and more! And raised a few objections to which you did not choose to respond. LadyShea asked you to explain contents in an executive synopsis kind of style so we could have some debate. No-one said they would lock the thread - the only mention of locking was regarding a philosophy thread.

All that is happening is that people are critical of your claims about this book, and are not necessarily willing to invest a lot of time in reading it unless you can show what is interesting about it.
I'm trying because there is a lot to be interested in!! I just hope you give it a fair chance.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 03-16-2011, 04:29 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

I did not say you were easily confused. I said the standard determinism is not completely accurate in the way it is defined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Then offer your more accurate definition, even if you think it might be confusing.
I did. Did you not read the two pages of excerpt I painstakingly posted? If you read that, you will have some idea of why man's will is not free. You will see immediately that this does not fit into the standard definition which implies everything is fixed and we are all basically programmed to do what we do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Understood and agreed upon definitions are the basis of any discussion.
Quote:
If you read the first two chapters, you would know. I'm not calling you a liar, but if you did read these chapters you would at least be able to identify what the discovery is, and please don't tell me it's that man's will is not free, and therefore we should not blame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So since the revolutionary idea is so apparent to you, you assume it must be apparent to everyone? Whatever it is, it is not apparent to me, and others also seem to have missed the essence of the discovery.
Maybe because you were looking for empirical data, but that doesn't change the scientific nature of this work. The two-sided equation was explained repeatedly. If you had read this chapter, you couldn't have missed it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Perhaps that is the fault of the reader, or perhaps it is your and the authors failure to concisely convey the idea.
I doubt it. It has taken me 8 years to compile this work. I made absolutely sure the two-sided equation was spelled out in one paragraph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So please, tell me what the discovery is, in your words.
It is the fact that under certain conditions man is prevented from desiring to strike a first blow of hurt when all justification to do so has been removed.

Quote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but the dialogue was a way to get people to undertand this very difficult work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It fails because it is distracting and confusing. You are again blaming the reader.
I'm not blaming the reader at all. I know this is not easy reading because everyone is stuck on the conventional definition of determinism, therefore there we have no basis of communication. As long as you are truly sincere in your desire to understand, I will make the effort to explain it to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you don't like the way it was written, blame it on me, not the author.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Wait what? Don't blame poor writing on the writer?
I don't think it was written poorly. Besides, I did my absolute best. The author said at the end of the book that if anyone can explain this knowledge better, please come forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
What you are missing is your understanding of why man's will is not free, what the two sides of the equation are, what will happen as a consequence of applying this law of our nature, and how it will benefit our world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So help me understand. I am not seeing what it is you are seeing, so please explain.
Don't you see that I'm trying? I need you to first understand why man's will is not free. Instead of reinventing the wheel, please read what I posted this morning. Then we can move onto the other principle that comprises the two-sided equation, which IS the very core of this discovery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I will even help you meet me where I am by telling you I do not accept or adhere to the concept of free will to begin with.
Then at least we won't be stuck on the very first principle. People who believe man's will is free won't let me continue because they believe the very first premise is wrong. Science is beginning to take this view, but the author has his own reasons which are important to understand, not that these principles wouldn't work regardless, but it makes it much easier to follow the rest of the book.

Quote:
LadyShea, I actually welcome your questions because they seem sincere.
And I welcome your concise answers, should they be forthcoming
As I said, I cannot reduce these principles to such a degree that the concept will be diluted. Then people will tell me that the author was unclear. Not only would it be a discredit to this discovery (which I'm not willing to do), but it would confuse the reader more than they are already.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 03-16-2011, 04:43 PM
Miss Shelby's Avatar
Miss Shelby Miss Shelby is offline
angry white woman
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: MMCCCXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I believe our decision making (or "will" if you prefer) is constrained by a great many things including physical laws and our unique individual consciousness, comprised as it is by our experiences and inferences.
your will is the only thing you have that belongs to you. In surrendering it to God -- or your higher power, ( a door knob--anything outside of yourself)--is what sets you free. That'll be .05cents.
Attached Files
File Type: htm imgres.htm (3.2 KB, 4 views)
__________________
When God gives you AIDS, make lemonaids. --Sarah Silverman

Last edited by Miss Shelby; 03-16-2011 at 04:44 PM. Reason: the attachment is lucy from peanuts. i can't get it to show.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 03-16-2011, 04:59 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

As I said, I cannot reduce these principles to such a degree that the concept will be diluted. Then people will tell me that the author was unclear. Not only would it be a discredit to this discovery (which I'm not willing to do), but it would confuse the reader more than they are already.
If it is so clear, then why are people confused and why would explaining your interpretation of the concept dilute it?

In your what, 4-5 years, of presenting and discussing this online, how many people have stated they felt the concepts or your arguments were compelling?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (03-17-2011)
  #97  
Old 03-16-2011, 05:18 PM
JoeP's Avatar
JoeP JoeP is offline
[thanks] whisperer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: England/Miisaland
Gender: Male
Posts: XXMMDXCIV
Images: 18
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
As I said, I cannot reduce these principles to such a degree that the concept will be diluted.
Then I put it to you that there isn't any concept there.
__________________

:roadrun:
Free thought! Please take one!

:unitedkingdom:   :southafrica:   :unitedkingdom::finland:       :eur::sadcheer: "Strong and stable"
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (03-19-2011)
  #98  
Old 03-16-2011, 05:30 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I didn't mean for you to copy and paste it for people to read, but to clarify your answers to our questions or to highlight specific passages during discussion.

We want you to discuss the piece. Make an argument based on your reading and interpretation and answer questions. This is what they wanted at Philosophy forums too and ended up locking the thread.

The writing doesn't stand on its own as well as you seem to think it does (the dialog with imaginary persons is very distracting for one thing), so you may be called upon to present the info in another way, explain things etc.

Are you willing to do that?
I can't seem to satisfy the people in here. They make it so difficult. I gave away the book for free. I put it online after 30 years of an author's hard work, and all you have to say is that two pages is too much for you to handle, and this thread will be locked? Well, so be it.
In other words, people who are merely following this law of human nature to prefer what is best for them (through no fault of their own) has led to your unhappiness?
No, the belief in free will and the concomitant blame and punishment, have led to OUR unhappiness as a species (warfare, hatred, crime, etc.), even though we had to go through the necessary steps as part of our development.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 03-16-2011, 05:31 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
As I said, I cannot reduce these principles to such a degree that the concept will be diluted.
Then I put it to you that there isn't any concept there.
That's your preogative.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 03-16-2011, 05:37 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

As I said, I cannot reduce these principles to such a degree that the concept will be diluted. Then people will tell me that the author was unclear. Not only would it be a discredit to this discovery (which I'm not willing to do), but it would confuse the reader more than they are already.
If it is so clear, then why are people confused and why would explaining your interpretation of the concept dilute it?

In your what, 4-5 years, of presenting and discussing this online, how many people have stated they felt the concepts or your arguments were compelling?
Some people will only accept empirical proof, and therefore they discredit the book from the very outset. Others, as I said, argue that man has free will and never understood the author's definition of determnism which reconciles the two opposing ideologies. Some philosophers, especially of the Nietzschian persuation, believe conscience is heritable and therefore can be excluded as the basis for further discussion. For every person I talked to, there was a definite reason why the conversation ended, but that does not mean this knowledge is flawed.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (0 members and 7 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 05:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.59496 seconds with 14 queries