A revolution in thought

[Doctor X]

I think the problem she has with accepting the truth about visual pathways is when she gazes into that mirror she sees:



--J.D.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I concede. I'm getting in over my head.
[...] I am not going to get into areas that are not my expertise. If you don't think he has proof, then continue to believe the eyes are a sense organ. I'm not forcing you to believe anything that doesn't make absolute sense to you.

If you're "conceding" and saying that this area is out of your area of expertise, then why do you apparently still believe in this? Shouldn't you at least say that you don't really know? Shouldn't you want to be investigating the biology of eyesight and linguistics (specifically language acquisition and psycho/neurolinguistics)?

If you don't know much about those subjects, how can you possibly say that you're presenting a true "theory", since you don't have the knowledge necessary to evaluate the claims Lessans makes about vision and linguistics?

I said before the way he came to these conclusions had more to do with how the brain learns words (which indirectly led him to his findings). If his findings regarding words are wrong; then he was wrong.

I don't feel the need to go searching through that book for the claims about that, but judging by the quality of scientific claims revealed so far, I'm guessing that your dad doesn't know much about linguistics either.

But guess what! I do! If someone wants to find wherever these claims are, I can probably give some insight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Another fairly obvious problem with Lessans' notion of vision is that if it were true, there's no apparent reason why there should be blind spots in our visual field. Of course, each eye does have a blind spot ... and the reason why is very well-understood.

I don't know why blind spots would be proof that we can't see efferently. We are viewing the world by means of the same structures and the same mechanisms, just reverse. After reading the definition below, I don't see where this contradicts any of his observations. If there is no light present, one won't be able to see.

The blind spot is a result of the optic nerve connecting with the back of your eyeball. Everything you see is the result of light falling on your retina, which is a layer of light sensors (called photoreceptors) lining the inside of your eyeball. There is a gap in the retina right where the optic nerve connects, so any light that falls there doesn't hit any photoreceptors and so isn't "seen" by that eye. Since the blind spot lies in a different part of the visual field for each eye, usually the information not sensed by one eye can be "filled in" with information from the other eye.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wow, who are all these fragile people that develop inferiority complexes because the word beautiful is in our vocabulary?

Nanny state, no thanks

Huh? You have to be kidding LadyShea. Here is the definition of nanny state:

Nanny state is a pejorative used to reference a state of protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies (of economic, social or other nature), and the perception that these policies are becoming institutionalized as common practice. Opponents of such policies use the term in their advocacy against what they consider as uninvited and damaging state intervention.

There is no regulation whatsoever in the new world except for letting people know (if they want to know) what is considered a concrete hurt. If you don't know something is an actual hurt, you wouldn't mind doing it, but if you know that it is, you wouldn't want to do it. No one is going to arrest you if you use these words. How could they? There will be no more police, no government and no state intervention that control what people do. As Martin Luther King said so eloquently: Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! The only thing that will stop you from striking a first blow is the knowledge of what is and what is not a true hurt. If you still get greater satisfaction out of using these words even while knowing that by using them you are hurting someone indirectly, no one will blame you because the world knows your will is not free. Knowing in advance that those who are hurt by your actions or words will be compelled to turn the other cheek, prevents you from deriving any satisfaction whatsoever from hurting someone this way. That's what you are failing to understand because we haven't gotten to Chapter Two.

[Demimonde]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Those are the kinds of challenges that would need to be addressed by lawmakers (not lawyers; they are going to be displaced) who will determine what words and actions are first blows. Obviously, we wouldn't want to hurt anyone under the changed conditions (I realize that most of us wouldn't want to hurt anyone even now), and if using these qualifiers indirectly cause harm, then we wouldn't want to use them.

I feel compelled to tell you that for a system that is inherently blameless, there seems to be a great deal of blame places on language in this case. I suppose one could argue that the blame is not on the speaker or on the listener, however that ignores that words and signs are arbitrary. People give them power. Thus removing all offensive language or even subjective language is impossible. A lawmaker could try to ban the word, but others would take their place. If I decide to use "Bunny" as a pejorative and you understand my meaning as intending offense, "Bunny" becomes a slur in this instance.

Ignoring that I don't think that one can legislate away offense, how do you suggest preventing people from striking this lingustic "first blow?"

[erimir]

It's like those attempts to get people to stop using the word "retard" and calling people with mental retardation something else.

You know what they used to call them, scientifically? Morons, cretins, imbeciles.

Mental retardation was the new scientific euphemism. I wonder what's going to happen to the new term?

[Demimonde]

Handi-capable is the new black.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what you are failing to understand because we haven't gotten to Chapter Two.

Some of us have, and beyond.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? You have to be kidding LadyShea. Here is the definition of nanny state:

Nanny state is a pejorative used to reference a state of protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies (of economic, social or other nature), and the perception that these policies are becoming institutionalized as common practice. Opponents of such policies use the term in their advocacy against what they consider as uninvited and damaging state intervention.

There is no regulation whatsoever in the new world except for letting people know (if they want to know) what is considered a concrete hurt. If you don't know something is an actual hurt, you wouldn't mind doing it, but if you know that it is, you wouldn't want to do it. No one is going to arrest you if you use these words. How could they? There will be no more police, no government and no state intervention that control what people do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Those are the kinds of challenges that would need to be addressed by lawmakers (not lawyers; they are going to be displaced) who will determine what words and actions are first blows.

People determining which words are naughty and hurtful for other people sounds just like a Nanny or Mommie protectionism to me. "Lawmakers" also sure sounds like some kind of functionary of authority or institution.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

knowledge of what is and what is not a true hurt

There is no such thing as a "true" hurt with words, at the very least (one can argue against all kinds of hurts being objectively identifiable I imagine). People have such unique sensitivities that what one finds extremely hurtful another might not even notice. This gives us an opportunity to get to know people, and respond accordingly if that individual says "I find that hurtful", but I don't see how uninvolved "lawmakers" could make that determination for all people.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are aware that light is electromagnetic radiation, correct? You are aware the brain is an electromagnetic system, correct?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what are you implying?

I am implying nothing, I am stating that light is electromagnetic radiation, and the brain uses electromagnetic signals to run so why do you believe

Originally Posted by peacegirl

there is nothing in the light that sends signals to the brain to be interpreted.

Are the electromagnetic impulses in light "nothing"?

[Vivisectus]

If the eyes do not record light, then what do they record?

And if what is happening is us projecting a word (more likely, an idea) onto a screen, then how come that when I look at a daffodil, I see an individual flower, and not an instance of the photograph that I have taken when I was introduced to the concept of daffodil?

In this system, we would not be able to distinguish between individual daffodils - we would simply project our stock image. How do you account for individuals?

Also, if the eye is not a sense organ, then how come that I can have a simple experiment where I project different colors of light - nothing more, just light - unto someone's eye and have them accurately respond with the proper colors when I change the wavelength of the rays of light?

[Vivisectus]

I am taking the time to read the book and make notes. I have a few objections. Apologies for the enormous post.

Substituting "Mathematical" and "Scientific" when you mean "Undeniable" - a better word would be self-evident - is disingenuous. It attempts to make arguments sound more authoritative.

A further attack on the scientific community follows on page 7. Apparently the lack of rapport from scientific circles stung somewhat. Considerable time is devoted to spuriously accusing the scientific community of dogmatism and closed-mindedness. One cannot help but wonder what undeniable truth needs such extensive fore-arming against disbelief? It goes on for about 20 pages!

We then arrive – at last! – to the first time we hear of the central issue. Is man’s will free? According to Lessans, it is not, and for the following reason:

Once a decision has been made, there is no way to go back and then see if, under identical circumstances, a person would have chosen otherwise. Since it is impossible to prove that will is free, the opposite must be true.

This is actually a fallacy. We cannot prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. The opposite – the existence of the IPU – is not automatically true. This is not the “mathematical, scientific” proof Lessans thinks it is.

Later, this is revisited and stated as follows:

All decisions must be meant to lead to the choice that yields the most satisfaction. However, the only measure of what it was that led to the most satisfaction is the fact that the person chose it – so really he is only re-stating the same proof that was there before: what was chosen had to be chosen because it was chosen.

So far we have a wordy and prosy exposition of determinism – but what follows is a great leap that is not warranted or supported by anything. What is causing all harmful intent is blame, because blame leads to justification. Blame does not allow us to say “I hurt that person because I felt like it” and instead makes us invent a justification for harming without provocation – a “first blow”. All harm that is not justified is retaliation, a reaction to a first blow.

So if we removed blame, then there would be no justification, so no-one would want to have harmful intents – the first blows are eliminated. If we consider will not free, then retaliation becomes useless as well.

There is a flaw here that Lessans seems unaware of. Blame, as well as justification (or rather, rationalization) happen after the fact. Someone who is trying to rationalize having done something harmful did not rationalize before acting, but does so after the fact. It is not part of the decision-making process. What is a part of the decision making process is a desire to do something and a weighing of the results. How far we look into the possible range of results could be taken as a measure of how careful we are about that decision. When a driver gets into a car while drunk, he does so because he wants to go home in his car, and not spend money on a taxi and waste time in the morning. He does so because probably, no accident will happen, even though he has increased the likelihood of one. He is already aware of this, and he is already aware that he is doing so because he wants to. He already knows there is no valid justification for doing it – yet he does so anyway.

This is not the result of blame. This is the result of someone prioritizing their own comfort over an increased likelihood of harm. It is not justified, as a drunk driver knows perfectly well that they are increasing the risk of accidents.

Not only is increased awareness of consequences not necessary as a result of Lessans ideas, there is also a limit to what we can predict. Our actions may have unforeseen consequences, and what we can predict is limited by what we know – and while we may or may not live in a deterministic universe, we certainly do not live in a determined universe. Lessans does not account for this, and implicitly treats all consequences as predictable. They are not – there are simply too many factors for us to envision all of them when we make decisions.

All of chapter 3 is restating the claim that the removal of blame would also mean the removal of all carelessness - no new evidence for this is presented, however.

Lessans fancies himself an old-school philosopher. He loves Spinoza for a reason – Spinoza was a system-builder. He, like Lessans, started with a single principle, and then attempted to expand that principle to cover all possible knowledge. There were merits to Spinoza’s thinking but his system was not the answer he thought it was.

The same is true of Lessans – although he is no Spinoza. Parts of his thinking have something to it, but he tries to extend his ideas to some sort of all-encompassing truth that simply is not there. There is no reason to assume that all harmful intent is caused by the ability to justify your actions. While we could say that all life moves from A to B because they always follow the path of maximum satisfaction, we cannot say that we have analysed and identified all sources of satisfaction and can now predict how they will move.

If you need an example of how the point is stretched, look at chapter 5. Love and sex are practically made synonymous, and there is a further assertion that one cannot fall in love with someone that would never allow you to kiss or touch her or him, or with someone who cannot give or receive sexual gratification. This is stated simply as a fact with nothing to back it up.

Also, it is assumed that you can make a decision to marry someone very early on, and then predict with absolute certainty how they are going to develop. Lessans world seems to be filling up with easily predictable drones at this stage. There is no possibility for people to meet young, fall madly in love, marry, develop along different paths (grow apart) and ending up leaving one another. Once again, Lessans assumes not only that we live in a determined universe, but that he has analysed all possible factors and can now predict exactly how things will go.

This seems to be because in Lessans world, love is but a sexual habit. The rather annoying habit of applying the word "Mathematical" to everything persists.

Lessans once again has a point but makes the mistake of creating a world-encompassing system out of simple observations. You can indeed grow used to someone and develop a perfectly satisfying relationship, even with a more or less random person. I personally know people who live in arranged marriages that are happy - they say it places more emphasis on making a relationship work, and reduces the expectation for everything about your partner to be perfect.

But again a leap is made that is not warranted by the observation. Lessans approach to love and sex is just that - his personal approach. There is nothing to back up the idea that love is a habit of sexuality for everyone. He once again takes a simple observation and proceeds to elevate it to the level of gospel, without anything to back up his assertions. A quick referral back to the assumed increased carefulness that is to come out of the removal of justification is all he feels it requires to make his predictions absolute fact. As we have already seen, they are not, and they cannot be.

I cannot help but feel that what Lessans is trying to do is build the Deterministic Time Machine. The idea is this: if our universe is deterministic, then it should theoretically be possible to build a model that depicts all particles in the universe with the proper direction, speed and position.

This model would then be able to accurately predict all of the future, as it would work exactly like ours. However, since you would need something that consists of at least 1 particle to represent each particle, this would mean that the smallest version of that machine is an exact replica of our universe. In other words, this is forever impractical.

However, one could simplify - represent groups of particles as units. This means you can make your future-predicting device smaller, at the cost of accuracy.

This is what Lessans is attempting to do. He simplifies the whole gamut of human experience into units, and then tries to predict the future with it. it doesn't work, because it is an oversimplification.

I am not even going to go into the rather murky theory of sight, which I have already dealt with in other posts.

I will have a look at the rest of the book if I have more time later today.

[Doctor X]

I mean, heck, how can we have red-green color-blindness since, you know, the eye is not a sense organ?

--J.D.

[DaveT]

Giant eye: "Luke Skywalker, I can sense your presence!"

Luke: "But, you're an eye! It's impossible that you can sense anything! It's impossible! NOOOOOOOOOOO!"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Those are the kinds of challenges that would need to be addressed by lawmakers (not lawyers; they are going to be displaced) who will determine what words and actions are first blows. Obviously, we wouldn't want to hurt anyone under the changed conditions (I realize that most of us wouldn't want to hurt anyone even now), and if using these qualifiers indirectly cause harm, then we wouldn't want to use them.

Originally Posted by Demimonde

I feel compelled to tell you that for a system that is inherently blameless, there seems to be a great deal of blame places on language in this case. I suppose one could argue that the blame is not on the speaker or on the listener, however that ignores that words and signs are arbitrary. People give them power. Thus removing all offensive language or even subjective language is impossible. A lawmaker could try to ban the word, but others would take their place. If I decide to use "Bunny" as a pejorative and you understand my meaning as intending offense, "Bunny" becomes a slur in this instance.

We're only talking about words that do not symbolize reality. It is true that any word could be used with an offensive intent. But due to the changes in the environment where there is no prejudice or rage due to hurts done to children growing up, there would be no reason to interpret the word bunny as a slur. No one would intend to hurt another in this way, where today we can easily take things the wrong way, because people do intend to hurt with their words.

Originally Posted by Demimonde

Ignoring that I don't think that one can legislate away offense, how do you suggest preventing people from striking this lingustic "first blow?"

He used the term lawmakers for lack of a better term. There will be only a few people left in government and these lawmakers (who do not represent any kind of authority or control over its citizenry) will have a different role which is to determine what is and is not a concrete hurt. There will be no more laws that would punish people if they are broken; just information where people can find out if what they are doing presents a possible hurt to another.

[peacegirl]

I was thinking about the Jupiter experiment. Even if we can't see an object until the light reaches us, and Lessans was wrong by saying that if the sun exploded we would see it immediately, it still doesn't negate his discovery that the brain is looking through the eyes to see the external world. It also doesn't mean that we would be seeing Columbus discovering America if we were on the star Rigel. I hope this helps because I don't want people to think that I am rigidly sticking to Lessans observations in the face of contrary evidence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

I mean, heck, how can we have red-green color-blindness since, you know, the eye is not a sense organ?

--J.D.

He explained that. Color blindness results from an absence or malfunction of certain color - sensitive cells in the retina. If that's the case then a person is truly color blind. But if he was not taught words correctly, then when that color is mentioned, his brain will have associated that word with a different shade (whichever shade was presented while he was learning colors) than what other people see that were taught correctly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am taking the time to read the book and make notes. I have a few objections. Apologies for the enormous post.

Substituting "Mathematical" and "Scientific" when you mean "Undeniable" - a better word would be self-evident - is disingenuous. It attempts to make arguments sound more authoritative.

No Vivisectus, these principles are scientific, but maybe that word upsets people because they expect to see empirical data. Once again, it all depends on how you are defining the term.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

A further attack on the scientific community follows on page 7. Apparently the lack of rapport from scientific circles stung somewhat. Considerable time is devoted to spuriously accusing the scientific community of dogmatism and closed-mindedness. One cannot help but wonder what undeniable truth needs such extensive fore-arming against disbelief? It goes on for about 20 pages!

That objection is well taken. I was the one who combined his books and took out what I thought was compelling. He did not have 20 pages of accusations in all of his books. Maybe I shouldn't have done that. I just know what he went through in getting any kind of audience because he was not a member of a leading university. It frustrated him to no end.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We then arrive – at last! – to the first time we hear of the central issue. Is man’s will free? According to Lessans, it is not, and for the following reason:

Once a decision has been made, there is no way to go back and then see if, under identical circumstances, a person would have chosen otherwise. Since it is impossible to prove that will is free, the opposite must be true. This is actually a fallacy. We cannot prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. The opposite – the existence of the IPU – is not automatically true. This is not the “mathematical, scientific” proof Lessans thinks it is.

He did not say that. He is only showing that we can't prove free will true and why, but there is still a possibility that we can prove determinism true. He hasn't proved determinism true in this excerpt. How in the world could you have come to that conclusion? I will give everyone this excerpt and let them decide for themselves.

A friend
shared a story with me to show you how difficult it is to get
through this established dogma.

“The other day when I was in Temple a rabbi, during the course
of his sermon, made it very clear that man has free will.
Professors, doctors, lawyers, and just about everybody I know,
agree that man’s will is free. If this is a theory you would never
know it by talking to them. Well, is it a theory, or is this
established knowledge?”

“Of course it is a theory,” I answered, “otherwise there would
be no believers in determinism. Is it possible for a person to
believe that the earth is flat now that we have mathematical proof
of its circular shape? The only reason we still have opinions on
both sides of this subject is because we don’t know for a
mathematical fact whether the will of man is or is not free.”

“But these theologians don’t agree with you; they say that
man’s will is definitely free. Look, here comes a rabbi; ask him if
man’s will is free just for the heck of it, and you will see for
yourself how dogmatic he responds.”

“Rabbi, we have been discussing a subject and would
appreciate your opinion. Is it true, false, or just a theory that man’s
will is free?”

“It is absolutely true that man’s will is free because nothing
compels an individual to choose evil instead of good; he prefers
this only because he wants to partake of this evil, not because
something is forcing him.”

“Do you mean, Rabbi, that every person has two or more
alternatives when making a choice?”

“Absolutely; that bank robber last week didn’t have to rob the
bank, he wanted to do it.”

“But assuming that what you say is true, how is it possible to
prove that which cannot be proven? Let me illustrate what I
mean.”

“Is it possible for me not to do what has already
been done?”

“No, it is not possible for me not to do what has already been
done, because I have already done it.”

“This is a mathematical or undeniable relation and is
equivalent to asking is it possible for anyone not to understand four
as an answer to two plus two. Now if what has been done was the
choosing of B instead of A, is it possible not to choose B which
has already been chosen?”

“It is impossible, naturally.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible (this is the reasoning of
mathematics, not logic, which gives rise to opinions) not to choose
B instead of A once B has been selected, how is it possible to
choose A in this comparison of possibilities when in order to make
this choice you must not choose B, which has already been
chosen?”

“Again I must admit it is something impossible to do.”

“Yet in order to prove free will true, it must do just that — the
impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what
has already been done, and then show that A — with the conditions
being exactly the same — could have been chosen instead of B.
Since it is utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which is
absolutely necessary for mathematical proof, free will must always
remain a theory. The most you can say is that you believe the bank
robber had a choice, but there is absolutely no way this can be
proven.”

“I may be unable to prove that he was not compelled to rob that
bank and kill the teller, but it is my opinion that he didn’t have to
do what he did.”

“I’m not in the mood to argue that point, but at least we have
arrived at a bit of knowledge that is absolutely undeniable for we
have just learned that it is mathematically impossible for any
person to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the will of man is
free, yet a moment ago you made the dogmatic statement that
man’s will is definitely free.”

“My apology, dear sir; what I meant to say was that it is the
consensus of opinion that the will of man is free.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the
following. If it is mathematically impossible to prove something
true, whatever that something is, is it possible to prove the opposite
of that something false?”

“Yes, it is possible.”

“No, Rabbi, it is not possible.”

“That my friend is your opinion, not mine.”

“Let me show you it is not an opinion. If you could prove that
determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the
opposite of determinism, true; and didn’t we just prove that it is
mathematically impossible to prove free will true, which means
that it is absolutely impossible to prove determinism false?”

“I see what you mean and again I apologize for thinking this
was a matter of opinion.”

“This means that we have arrived at another bit of
mathematical knowledge and that is — although we can never
prove free will true or determinism false, there still exists a
possibility of proving determinism true, or free will false. Now tell
me, Rabbi, supposing your belief in free will absolutely prevents
the discovery of knowledge that, when released, can remove the
very things you would like to rid the world of, things you preach
against, such as war, crime, sin, hate, discrimination, etc., what
would you say then?”

“If this is true and you can prove it, all I can say is that God’s
ways are mysterious and surpass my understanding. I enjoyed
talking with you son, and perhaps I shall live to see the day when
all evil will be driven from our lives.”

“Even if you don’t live to see it, please rest assured the day is
not far away and that it must come about the very moment certain
facts pertaining to the nature of man are brought to light, because
it is God’s will.”

“I must leave now but thank you for sharing your insights with
me.”

After the rabbi left, our conversation continued...

“Hey, I didn’t know you could reason and think like that; you
almost sound like old Socrates himself. Boy, that was really
something to see. Just imagine, you actually got the rabbi to admit
that free will is nothing other than an opinion. But you weren’t
serious about getting rid of all the evil in the world, were you?”

“I was never more serious in all my life.”

“But how is it possible for you, just with your reasoning,
nothing else, to put an end to all war, crime, sin, hate, etc.? If I
must say so, this sounds completely contrary to reason.”

“Are you asking if it is possible, or telling me that you know it
is impossible?”

“After what you just demonstrated to the rabbi I certainly
would never tell you it is impossible when I don’t know if it is, but
it seems so incredible to hear someone say he is going to remove
all evil from the entire earth, that I cannot help but be in disbelief.
Well what is your first step? How do you go about making a
start?”

“The first step is to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of
doubt and regardless of any opinions to the contrary, that the will
of man is not free.”

“But if you plan to use the knowledge that man’s will is not
free as a point from which to start your chain of reasoning,
couldn’t you get the same results without demonstrating that man’s
will is not free, simply by showing what must follow as a
consequence?”

“Yes I could, and that was a very sharp question; but my
purpose in proving that man’s will is not free is not so much to
have a sound basis from which to reason, but to show exactly why
the will of man is not free.”

“I am still trying to understand your reasoning as to why free
will cannot be proven true.”

“Once again, let me show you why this is a mathematical
impossibility by repeating the same question I asked the rabbi.
Take your time with this.”

“Is it possible not to do what has already been done?”

“Naturally, it is impossible for me not to do what has already
been done...because I have already done it.”

“Now if what has just been done was the choosing of B instead
of A, is it possible not to choose B, which has already been
chosen?”

“No, it is not possible.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible not to choose B instead of A,
once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A in this
comparison of possibilities when in order to make this choice you
must not choose B, which has already been chosen? Yet in order
to prove free will true, it must do just that — the impossible. It
must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has already
been done and then show that A, with the conditions being exactly
the same, could have been chosen instead of B. Such reasoning is
not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is
mathematical; scientific; undeniable and, as I stated earlier, it is not
necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in
order to be exact and scientific.” Let me rephrase this in still
another way.

“If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true,
whatever it is, is it possible to prove this something true?”

“Obviously the answer is no.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the
following. If it is mathematically impossible to prove something
true, whatever that something is, is it possible to prove the opposite
of that something false? Obviously the answer must be no, it is not
possible unless the person asked does not understand the question.
In other words, if it is mathematically impossible to prove free will
true, how is it possible to prove the opposite of this, false? Isn’t it
obvious that if determinism (in this context the opposite of free
will) was proven false, this would automatically prove free will
true, and didn’t we just demonstrate that this is impossible unless
we can turn back the clock?

How is it possible to prove free will
true when this requires doing something that is mathematically
impossible? We can never undo what has already been done.
Therefore, whatever your reasons for believing free will true
cannot be accurate because it is impossible to prove this theory
since proof requires going back in time, so to speak, and
demonstrating that man could have chosen otherwise. Since it is
utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which is absolutely
necessary for mathematical proof, the most we can do is assume
that he didn’t have to do what he did.”

To show you how confused the mind can get when
mathematical relations are not perceived, Will Durant, a well
known philosopher of the 20th century, wrote on page 103 in the
Mansions of Philosophy, “For even while we talked determinism
we knew it was false; we are men, not machines.” After opening
the door to the vestibule of determinism, and taking a step inside,
he turned back because he could not get past the implications.
Now let us understand why the implications of believing that
man’s will is not free turned Durant and many others away.

Remember, most people know nothing about the implications of
this position; they just accept as true what has been taught to them
by leading authorities. If determinism was true, he reasoned, then
man doesn’t have a free choice; consequently, he cannot be blamed
for what he does. Faced with this apparent impasse he asked
himself, “How can we not blame and punish people for hurting
others? If someone hurts us, we must believe he didn’t have to,
that his will was free, in order to blame and punish him for what he
did.

And how is it possible to turn the other cheek and not fight
back from this intentional hurt to us?” He was trying to say in this
sentence that philosophies of free will would never stop returning
just as long as our nature commands us to fight back when hurt,
‘an eye for an eye.’ This is undeniable and he was one hundred
percent correct, but this is not what he actually said. He, as well as
many philosophers, helped the cause of free will by unconsciously
using syllogistic reasoning which is logical, though completely
fallacious.

He accomplished this by setting up an understandable
assumption for a major premise: “If there is an almost eternal
recurrence of philosophies of freedom it is because direct
perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation
with reasoning.” Can you not see how mathematically impossible
is his observation? If you know for a fact that four equals two plus
two, do you need to prove it syllogistically? Obviously not,
because then it would sound something like this: “If there is an
almost eternal recurrence of four equaling two plus two, it is
because two equals one plus one, and one plus one plus one plus
one totals four.” Using this same type of syllogistic reasoning he
tried to prove freedom of the will by demonstrating, in the same
manner, that determinism could never prove it false.

Because Durant starts off with a false premise, his conclusion
is equally false. Durant begins with the assumption that direct
perception (which are words that symbolize what he cannot
possibly understand) is superior to reasoning in understanding the
truth which made a syllogistic equation necessary to prove the
validity of an inaccurate perception. Thusly, he reasons in his
minor premise: “Free will is not a matter of reasoning, like
determinism, but is the result of direct perception, therefore...” and
here is his fallacious conclusion, “since philosophies of free will
employ direct perception which cannot be beaten down by the
reasoning of determinism, the belief in free will must eternally
recur.”

He knew that free will was a theory, but as long as proof
was not necessary when it could be seen with the direct perception
of our common sense that it was impossible to turn the other cheek
(the corollary thrown up by determinism), he was compelled to
write — “Let the determinist honestly envisage the implications of
his philosophy.” This indicates that all his reasoning in favor of
free will was the result of inferences derived from the inability to
accept the implications.

Durant is anything but a scientist and an
accurate thinker. According to his reasoning he assumes that free
will is true because, in his mind, determinism is false, and the
reason he thinks determinism is false is because man is not a
machine. Then, not realizing how mathematically impossible is
his next statement he claims that philosophies of freedom (free
will) eternally recur because reasoning and formulas cannot beat
down the obvious truth of direct perception.

Take a look at that
last statement very carefully and see if you can’t tell why it is
mathematically impossible. If free will was finally proven to be
that which is non-existent (and let’s take for granted that you know
this for a fact) and accepted as such by our scientific world at large
because the proof cannot be denied by anyone anywhere, would it
be possible according to Durant’s statement for ‘philosophies of
freedom’ to recur anymore?

Isn’t it obvious that the recurrence of
the belief in free will is a mathematical impossibility once freedom
of the will is proven to be a figment of the imagination or, to
phrase it differently, a realistic mirage? Is it humanly possible for
the belief that the world is flat to eternally recur when we have
mathematical knowledge that it is round? Consequently, the
continued return of the belief in free will can only be due to the
fact that it is still a logical theory or plausible conception that has
never been analyzed properly, allowing the belief and its
philosophies to persist.

[LadyShea]

Rigel is 700-900 light years away, so no we wouldn't see Columbus discovering America which was only 500 years ago, we would see whatever was happening 700-900 years in the past at the time we are looking at Earth. What we woukd see would change depending on when we were looking. The whole Columbus thing was both a red herring and a strawman.

[LadyShea]

No Vivisectus, these principles are scientific, but maybe that word upsets people because they expect to see empirical data. Once again, it all depends on how you are defining the term.

How about the standard definition? Why don't we go with that?

Scientific: Of, relating to, or employing the methodology of science.

Scientific method: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

The book is a philosophical work using his personal ideas of psychology.

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, try this: enter the chat room here. Your only available sense organ, with respect to the other people in chat, are your eyes. Hey, whee! Look! You see the names of the other people, and you chat with them. How's that possible, if the eye is not a sense organ?

[LadyShea]

I finally understand what Lessan's was getting at with the whole eye and "projection thing", in part thanks to Vivisectus (and I am left with similar questions as Viv wrt how we see individual differences)

Anyway you have to imagine a slide projector full of slides. If you do not shine light through a slide you can't see the image. So the projector uses light to display the image on the screen.

According to Lessans the brain creates slides of the external world using the input of the other senses, and more importantly the words we've learned to label things, and when we "see" we are seeing the image created in our mind, a slide projected onto the actual objects that comprise external reality. Light allows us to see this image. Apparently the eyes are just the lens of the projector

Therefore he contends that if we do not teach/use subjective descriptors such as beautiful of ugly, we can't "see" anything as beautiful or ugly because those words wouldn't be projected onto our image.

Tell me if I am close peacegirl before I continue

[peacegirl]

cont...

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Later, this is revisited and stated as follows:

All decisions must be meant to lead to the choice that yields the most satisfaction. However, the only measure of what it was that led to the most satisfaction is the fact that the person chose it – so really he is only re-stating the same proof that was there before: what was chosen had to be chosen because it was chosen.

No, you are doing the same thing davidm did. This is not a tautology and until you see why it isn't, you will keep calling it circular reasoning, which it is not.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So far we have a wordy and prosy exposition of determinism – but what follows is a great leap that is not warranted or supported by anything. What is causing all harmful intent is blame, because blame leads to justification. Blame does not allow us to say “I hurt that person because I felt like it” and instead makes us invent a justification for harming without provocation – a “first blow”. All harm that is not justified is retaliation, a reaction to a first blow.

He didn't say what is causing all harmful intent is blame although knowing that one would be blamed for his wrong actions is one of the justifications he can use in order to act on his desires. We see this all the time. The minute the authorities question a person, they come up with a million excuses. These excuses are meant to shift one's responsibility to some other extraneous cause. We are able to justify hurting others with a first blow because of the knowledge that if we are caught, we will get punished. This eases our conscience.

People retaliate against any harm done to them, which is a natural reaction, so the only way we can prevent this retaliation in response to being hurt, is to prevent the first blow in the first place. That's the point of this entire book. If a person isn't being hurt in any way, is there a need to retaliate? The definition of retaliation is striking back at someone because of a perceived or real hurt.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So if we removed blame, then there would be no justification, so no-one would want to have harmful intents – the first blows are eliminated. If we consider will not free, then retaliation becomes useless as well.

I will repeat: The only time a person retaliates is if he believes he was hurt and he wants to strike back.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is a flaw here that Lessans seems unaware of. Blame, as well as justification (or rather, rationalization) happen after the fact. Someone who is trying to rationalize having done something harmful did not rationalize before acting, but does so after the fact. It is not part of the decision-making process. What is a part of the decision making process is a desire to do something and a weighing of the results. How far we look into the possible range of results could be taken as a measure of how careful we are about that decision. When a driver gets into a car while drunk, he does so because he wants to go home in his car, and not spend money on a taxi and waste time in the morning. He does so because probably, no accident will happen, even though he has increased the likelihood of one. He is already aware of this, and he is already aware that he is doing so because he wants to. He already knows there is no valid justification for doing it – yet he does so anyway.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is not the result of blame. This is the result of someone prioritizing their own comfort over an increased likelihood of harm. It is not justified, as a drunk driver knows perfectly well that they are increasing the risk of accidents.

In the Golden Age, the mere thought of killing someone will be a thousand times worse, therefore people will want to follow all the do's and don'ts of safe driving. Put yourself in this position. Would you want to live with the consequences of your carelessness if you took someone's life knowing you were responsible? If someone should kill another because of negligence, he would want to be punished because this eases his conscience. At least he could pay a price for what he did. But when he knows there is no price that can be paid since no no one is blaming him --- because the world knows he couldn't help himself --- when he knows before he gets into the car that he could help himself, he will be compelled to be extremely careful before getting into the kind of situation that would haunt him for the rest of his life. This prevents the accident. He could not move in this direction for satisfaction, which is why will is not free. If will was free he could do this anyway, take his chances, and if he hurt someone in the process, he could rationalize it away. But a person is not able to rationalize his behavior when he is not being blamed.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not only is increased awareness of consequences not necessary as a result of Lessans ideas, there is also a limit to what we can predict. Our actions may have unforeseen consequences, and what we can predict is limited by what we know – and while we may or may not live in a deterministic universe, we certainly do not live in a determined universe. Lessans does not account for this, and implicitly treats all consequences as predictable. They are not – there are simply too many factors for us to envision all of them when we make decisions.

Why did you say that not only is increased awareness of consequences not necessary as a result of Lessans ideas? It is true that there are unforeseen factors that won't allow us to make safe choices. And if something happens that we were unaware of, who is blaming us? The fact is that before we do something that we know present risks, we will try to learn what the possible risks are so we can prevent them. We know, for example, that one increases the risks of injuring or killing someone when he drinks and drives. If he doesn't want to heed these warnings, and he kills someone, he will have to live with the consequences of his behavior, because there will be no way to rid himself of this feeling of remorse. But this is hypothetical because it's the knowledge that he won't be blamed no matter what he does that prevents his desire to take any chances.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All of chapter 3 is restating the claim that the removal of blame would also mean the removal of all carelessness - no new evidence for this is presented, however.

Yes there is. Waving your arms as if he has nothing shows me your intent to prove him wrong. I have gone over these principles for over 50 years; you for one day. I can easily see your confusion even though I know you're trying.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lessans fancies himself an old-school philosopher. He loves Spinoza for a reason – Spinoza was a system-builder. He, like Lessans, started with a single principle, and then attempted to expand that principle to cover all possible knowledge. There were merits to Spinoza’s thinking but his system was not the answer he thought it was.

The same is true of Lessans – although he is no Spinoza. Parts of his thinking have something to it, but he tries to extend his ideas to some sort of all-encompassing truth that simply is not there. There is no reason to assume that all harmful intent is caused by the ability to justify your actions. While we could say that all life moves from A to B because they always follow the path of maximum satisfaction, we cannot say that we have analysed and identified all sources of satisfaction and can now predict how they will move.

No we can't, but we can remove the justification that would give someone the satisfaction necessary to choose hurting someone as a possible option.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you need an example of how the point is stretched, look at chapter 5. Love and sex are practically made synonymous, and there is a further assertion that one cannot fall in love with someone that would never allow you to kiss or touch her or him, or with someone who cannot give or receive sexual gratification. This is stated simply as a fact with nothing to back it up.

The confusion in this chapter alarms me. You are going way ahead of yourself. Until you understand Chapter Two (which you only partially understand and that can get you into major trouble), I cannot jump to Chapter Five.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, it is assumed that you can make a decision to marry someone very early on, and then predict with absolute certainty how they are going to develop. Lessans world seems to be filling up with easily predictable drones at this stage. There is no possibility for people to meet young, fall madly in love, marry, develop along different paths (grow apart) and ending up leaving one another. Once again, Lessans assumes not only that we live in a determined universe, but that he has analysed all possible factors and can now predict exactly how things will go.

He is predicting that when all the little hurts that exists in relationships are removed, the desire to leave another will not even be considered. If there is still a desire to leave someone, no one will be stopping them. Remember, we are free to do whatever we want in the new world.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This seems to be because in Lessans world, love is but a sexual habit. The rather annoying habit of applying the word "Mathematical" to everything persists.

The glue that keeps lovers together is sex. Yes, people can stay together after sexual desire has reached its lowest ebb, but these couples are not the happiest.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lessans once again has a point but makes the mistake of creating a world-encompassing system out of simple observations. You can indeed grow used to someone and develop a perfectly satisfying relationship, even with a more or less random person. I personally know people who live in arranged marriages that are happy - they say it places more emphasis on making a relationship work, and reduces the expectation for everything about your partner to be perfect.

Yes you can grow used to someone and develop a satisfying relationship. What Lessans is saying, once again, when the factors that cause resentment are removed, sexual satisfaction goes up and the chances of a person desiring to leave will not even enter their minds because they are extremely satisfied with what they have.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But again a leap is made that is not warranted by the observation. Lessans approach to love and sex is just that - his personal approach. There is nothing to back up the idea that love is a habit of sexuality for everyone. He once again takes a simple observation and proceeds to elevate it to the level of gospel, without anything to back up his assertions. A quick referral back to the assumed increased carefulness that is to come out of the removal of justification is all he feels it requires to make his predictions absolute fact. As we have already seen, they are not, and they cannot be.

But they can be. Conscience works in a very predictable way. Human beings need a justification anytime they hurt another. Conscience is built into us for a reason. If we are not given the opportunity to justify our behavior because no questions will be asked, we can no longer rationalize our behavior. It becomes a scary proposition to know that we could jeapordize someone's life by our carelessness, or even kill someone, and no one, not even the family of the person you killed, would blame us even though their hearts are broken. This scares me to no end to ever be in a position like this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I cannot help but feel that what Lessans is trying to do is build the Deterministic Time Machine. The idea is this: if our universe is deterministic, then it should theoretically be possible to build a model that depicts all particles in the universe with the proper direction, speed and position.

That's not the system Lessans is building. Obviously, you don't understand the other half of the two-sided equation. With all of your reading, you have never mentioned the core of his discovery, which makes me realize that your skimming has not served you well.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This model would then be able to accurately predict all of the future, as it would work exactly like ours. However, since you would need something that consists of at least 1 particle to represent each particle, this would mean that the smallest version of that machine is an exact replica of our universe. In other words, this is forever impractical.

However, one could simplify - represent groups of particles as units. This means you can make your future-predicting device smaller, at the cost of accuracy.

This is what Lessans is attempting to do. He simplifies the whole gamut of human experience into units, and then tries to predict the future with it. it doesn't work, because it is an oversimplification.

I am not even going to go into the rather murky theory of sight, which I have already dealt with in other posts.

I am not even going to attempt to answer these last few posts because you obviously were not here early on, or you did not understand, Lessans' definition AT ALL. It boggles my mind that we are back to square one.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I will have a look at the rest of the book if I have more time later today.

Noooo!!!!! How many times do I have to ask people not to do this? You will come up with all kinds of strange interpretations because of your misunderstanding the principles in Chapter Two. I am asking everyone to first get through these first two chapters, and if there are questions, I'll be here to try to clarify things. But please don't act like you now understand these principles Vivisectus, because you don't.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I finally understand what Lessan's was getting at with the whole eye and "projection thing", in part thanks to Vivisectus (and I am left with similar questions as Viv wrt how we see individual differences)

Anyway you have to imagine a slide projector full of slides. If you do not shine light through a slide you can't see the image. So the projector uses light to display the image on the screen.

According to Lessans the brain creates slides of the external world using the input of the other senses, and more importantly the words we've learned to label things, and when we "see" we are seeing the image created in our mind, a slide projected onto the actual objects that comprise external reality. Light allows us to see this image. Apparently the eyes are just the lens of the projector

Yes, I already pretty much guessed this some pages back, after wading through some of the author's bilge. And some pages back, I asked, how, then, do we see distant stars? We can't taste them. We can't smell them. We can't hear them. What then? Well, we can feel them, because their photons are falling on us. So the only way we could build a picture of them would be through the sense of touch (under this lunatic hypothesis). And when I simply pointed out that even if this was true, it would still mean that we were "seeing" the stars as they were in the distant past, via the sense of touch (since the photons that reach our skin travel at finite velocity c) peacegirl replied that I was "confusing touch with sight." And yet, I was doing no such thing, if I was correctly interpreting what the author wrote.

It is almost impossible to understand anything that he writes, given the turgid prose, the refusal to define terms, the use of common terms in uncommon ways, and the inability or the unwillingness of the author to present any empirical/experimental support for his cockamamie outpourings.

Say, peacegirl, if Lady Shea and I have pretty much guessed at the author's meaning, I again invite you to enter the chat room, where you have never been before. There will be names listed there, and the chats that people post. How do you see them? After all, the eye is not a sense organ. And you can't build a "slide" of the names and the posts, since you cannot smell them, taste them, feel them or hear them!

In fact, forget about the chat room. How are you able to participate in this message board at all? You can't smell, taste, touch or hear any of the people you are discussing this matter with. So you can't build up slides of them. And the eye can't see them, sez you. So, peacgirl, how is it that you are able to participate here at all?

[LadyShea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We then arrive – at last! – to the first time we hear of the central issue. Is man’s will free? According to Lessans, it is not, and for the following reason:

Once a decision has been made, there is no way to go back and then see if, under identical circumstances, a person would have chosen otherwise. Since it is impossible to prove that will is free, the opposite must be true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not say that. He is only showing that we can't prove free will true and why, but there is still a possibility that we can prove determinism true. He hasn't proved determinism true in this excerpt. How in the world could you have come to that conclusion? I will give everyone this excerpt and let them decide for themselves.

The passage below is what led to Viv's conclusion, and I read it the same way.

Originally Posted by Lessans

Isn’t it obvious that if determinism (in this context the opposite of free will) was proven false, this would automatically prove free will true, and didn’t we just demonstrate that this is impossible unless we can turn back the clock?

I parse the bolded above as:

If determinism is false, then free will is true
He has "proven" free will is NOT TRUE
Therefore determinism must be NOT FALSE

How do you parse it?