A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

[QUOTE=davidm;1392565]@ seebs,

We always move in the direction of gereater satisfaction so we have no free will not to do so.

No free will not to do what? This debate has been going on for centuries. Do you think this sentence will satisfy even the staunchest determinists let alone libertarians?

However, the flip side is no one can make us do what we don’t want to do, since doing what we don’t want to do would provide less satisfaction.

That is true, but that's not the flip side. The flip side is that determinism cannot force us to do anything, which is how the standard definition is interpreted, and why people are up in arms for good reason. The truth is nothing on this earth can force us to do what we make up our mind not to do, or against our will. This is the other side of the equation, so please remember it because it's a central component.

Right now, since no one realizes the forgoing, we strike first blows all the time, and retaliate against those who strike a first blow against us.

Yes, that's called an eye for an eye, or just desert.

However, when everyone understands that we have no free will because we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, no one will blame us for anything we do.

That is true, but we can't just stop blaming people until science confirms this truth. Not blaming people without a gradual transition from a world of free will, blame, and punishment to a world of no free will, no blame, and no punishment would invite every thief to take what he wants without any consequence. Don't you see the problem with your reductionist synopsis?

When no one blames us, we will have no justification for striking a first blow, and so we won’t, because conscience won’t permit doing so, and hence striking a first blow will provide less satisfaction than not striking a first blow.

When no one blames us, we would still have justification to strike (the first form of first blow) by stealing or other means, if our economic needs are not met.

Preventing war and crime by removing all advance blame does not necessarily remove the factors that made, in the world of free will, those evils the preferable alternative, so there are other factors to consider. In our present world innumerable wars, revolutions, and crimes were a reaction to various forms of hurt that did not allow any alternative but to retaliate as a reaction to injustices inflicted on them. In other words, when those about to fight back discover that they will no more be retaliated upon, it is also necessary for them to realize that the factors responsible for this consideration of war must also be removed; and are they given any choice but to remove these factors when they know that the people they have been hurting will never blame them for this? For example, if the United States was tacitly blaming another nation through some economic restriction, then disarming would be as effective as the announcement of a tyrant that he is not going to judge what is right for his people while starving them. Under these conditions the principles in this book can have no effect.

The only way no one can stop blaming is when the hurt done to them is no more. This involves removing all the hurt in society that has caused a desire to retaliate or to take chances to get what one wants, knowing full well that if caught, the penalty will be jail time.

And, if we won’t strike a first blow, there will be no retaliation, since there will be nothing to retaliate against. That’s the whole fucking thing in a paragraph. Now she will whine that it’s not right, but it IS right, it’s the whole argument, and moreover, she herself will NEVER give a summary of the discovery, even while hypocritically demanding that others do so. Go figure.

I've given as much as I can without making it so simplified that it will lose the entire meaning.

[peacegirl]

Please don’t listen to the noise. Please, for the sake of progress. reject the status quo! 🙏

[peacegirl]

Does anyone here see a problem with our world? It’s a constant attack and counterattack. There is anger and feelings of justification for the attacks. Does anyone want to eliminate the cause that would then eliminate the attacks and make our world a safer place to live? How sad that that there are solutions but because they lie beyond the framework of our present thinking, they are dismissed out of hand without a true investigation as to how peace is actually possible across the world.

[seebs]

Just over two weeks, impressive! Just get back on the wagon. You can do it!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

Just over two weeks, impressive! Just get back on the wagon. You can do it!

Why the sarcasm seebs?

[peacegirl]

Can dogs recognize by sight alone? This video doesn’t seem to support it.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/mqseLAz1TMkDmHBN/?

[specious_reasons]

19 months separated.

Dogs are so much more reliant on scent than we are, it's only natural that the dog wouldn't be sure until she got a good smell.

Besides, we all know that real science has dogs pulling levers.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can dogs recognize by sight alone? This video doesn’t seem to support it.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/mqseLAz1TMkDmHBN/?

I've never known a dog who could absolutely identify a person purely by site. Though a neighbor's Greyhounds were close. They would see her coming way out, and be pretty damned sure it was her, but they still needed that final sniff at the gate to be sure.

[Ari]

Doggies must think our eyes a super power like we think their nose.

*Human grabs "green" ball among green grass*
Doggy, "How the fuck? But it's invisible!"

[seebs]

wow, that was two and a half months this time. you can do it!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

19 months separated.

Dogs are so much more reliant on scent than we are, it's only natural that the dog wouldn't be sure until she got a good smell.

Besides, we all know that real science has dogs pulling levers.

That’s just the point specious. Observation shows us very clearly that if the eyes were a sense organ, dogs would easily recognize their masters before smell. Please don’t joke about this because it’s important.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

I've never known a dog who could absolutely identify a person purely by site. Though a neighbor's Greyhounds were close. They would see her coming way out, and be pretty damned sure it was her, but they still needed that final sniff at the gate to be sure.

That’s not what people here keep insisting. They say that through experiments with levers (which specious was trying to goof on), it proves dogs can recognize familiar faces by sight alone. Could something be amiss using these experiments which try to confirm what conflicts with observation? Moreover, the dog you mentioned may have responded to his owner due to time of day that the dog anticipates the owner coming home or the sound of the car. One’s gait also could have played a part in recognition. Even shape of an object can cause a reaction. The fact that his smell was needed to confirm his owners identity tells us that sight alone is not enough for true recognition.

[ChuckF]

(the levers are imaginary)

[ChuckF]

(the levers are imaginary)

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That’s just the point specious. Observation shows us very clearly that if the eyes were a sense organ, dogs would easily recognize their masters before smell.

Oh, is that what it shows, peacegirl? And what about humans — by your own logic, observation shows us very clearly that if the nose were a sense organ, humans would easily smell their dogs before seeing them. Do you even understand what you write, and how stupid it is?

[specious_reasons]

I'm sorry peacegirl, I couldn't resist teasing you.

Scientists don't use levers to determine how dogs use their eyes, they use hundreds of years of chemical, biological and anatomical research along with tens of thousands of years of animal husbandry to determine how dogs see. My dogs are considered "sight" breeds - they were bred to be more reliant on sight than the average dogs. It's still not their strongest sense, but I have daily observations of dogs using their eyes to see. I literally *just* silently gestured at my dog to get his attention.

"The eyes are not a sense organ" is an intensely stupid idea.

I'd encourage you to read Ed Yong's "An Immense World" but since that book directly contradicts your father's ideas, I doubt you will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, is that what it shows, peacegirl? And what about humans — by your own logic, observation shows us very clearly that if the nose were a sense organ, humans would easily smell their dogs before seeing them. Do you even understand what you write, and how stupid it is?

Your logic is off David. Seeing would always come first regardless of afferent or efferent vision. You just can’t bear the thought that Lessans could be right.

[seebs]

we have a deaf cat who regularly watches us from across the room to decide about things since she can't hear us anymore.

i do think it's fascinating that we're to believe that the eyes are not a sense organ, but like, ears and nose? totally sense organs.

[-FX-]

As a non judgmental curious observer, I have no idea what the fuck you idiots are even arguing about now

[-FX-]

The eyes are not a sense organ? Is that the claim?


Please tell me that's not a claim.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

we have a deaf cat who regularly watches us from across the room to decide about things since she can't hear us anymore.

I never said animals can't see. They can follow objects, etc., but that's a far cry from being able to identify their master's features by sight alone, without any other cues.

Originally Posted by seebs

i do think it's fascinating that we're to believe that the eyes are not a sense organ, but like, ears and nose? totally sense organs.

They are different which the author explains. You don't say broccoli is a fruit because they are grown differently. He also said the fact that the eyes were classified as a sense organ is unimportant. What is important is what we believe we see with our eyes as a result of believing the eyes are a sense organ.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by -FX-

The eyes are not a sense organ? Is that the claim?


Please tell me that's not a claim.

I know it's shocking, but yes, one of his claims is that the eyes don't function like the other four, therefore they can't be called a sense organ.

[Crumb]

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That’s not what people here keep insisting. They say that through experiments with levers (which specious was trying to goof on), it proves dogs can recognize familiar faces by sight alone. Could something be amiss using these experiments which try to confirm what conflicts with observation? Moreover, the dog you mentioned may have responded to his owner due to time of day that the dog anticipates the owner coming home or the sound of the car. One’s gait also could have played a part in recognition. Even shape of an object can cause a reaction. The fact that his smell was needed to confirm his owners identity tells us that sight alone is not enough for true recognition.

Our vet says that Dogs see much differently than people do.
And people can look very different to a dog every day. Their color vision is far less capable than ours, and we wear all sorts of different clothes, all the time.
Cats are much better at site recognition than dogs.

It is very easy to confuse a dog based on site alone.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your logic is off David. Seeing would always come first regardless of afferent or efferent vision. You just can’t bear the thought that Lessans could be right.

Can you not even understand what you write? Since I easily recognize dogs by sight, and never by smell — in fact, I don’t smell dogs at all — then by YOUR OWN “logic,” we should conclude that the nose is not a sense organ.

And, no, peacegirl, seeing does NOT “always come first.” Some species don’t even HAVE eyes. A great many species have VASTLY better vision than humans, including all birds. Sight is primary for some, not primary for others. As usual, you have zero idea of what you’re babbling about.