A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Later, this is revisited and stated as follows:

Simply saying "no it isn't" is not a good way to convince anyone.

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.

This still means that all first blows occur because of justification, and that all justification is somehow made possible because of blame. There is nothing there to support this assertion.

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.

Thus - blame allows justification, which is what allows people to hurt others. Again there is nothing to support the assertion. It is not shown why it is necessary that without blame, we do not justify.

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

And I repeat - blame is posited as the sole cause of justification and therefor of harmful intent. Based on nothing but an assertion.

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

.

This, once more, is unsupported assertion. There is no difference between what we have now and what you advocate - it is not because of blame that we justify. It is because of a conflict between our interest and that of another.

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.

You have produced nothing but Lessans say-so that blame is what allows us to justify doing harmful things. I say that it is not so - so now you have just as much evidence for believing it as for disbelieving it.

Again - unsupported assertion, backed up by no evidence.

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

.

I didn't see any new stuff in there, just a practical application of what was already covered.

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

.

Again - assertion, without any backup. We have not shown that removing blame will remove justification.

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.

Again you blame the reader, not the material.

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.

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.

That is not what I am talking about at all. I am saying that there is nothing BUT sex being discussed in Lessans discussion of love and marriage. It is a very, very narrow view.

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.

And sex is equated with love.

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.

Again - you assert your belief, but do not back it up. If people disagree, this is because they do not understand.

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.

No, I think it is you who is misundestanding what I am trying to say. What I am pointing out is that you cannot accurately model human behaviour by breaking it down into a few principles, which is what Lessans is attempting.

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.

Again - you cannot accurately model human behaviour by breaking it down into a few simple principles, just like the simplification of the Deterministic Crystal Ball must necessarily either be too big, or too inaccurate.

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.

[/QUOTE]

Fine - then take away my objections by dealing with them! If Lessans is undeniably right, this should pose no significant challenge.

I repeat - there is a reason why the revolution never happened, and there is a reason that this book has remained obscure.

On what do you base your further assertion that the revolution will happen in the next 25 years?

[peacegirl]

I want to say to everyone that I appreciate the posts coming in, but I cannot physically answer all of them. I am not cherry picking. It's just impossible for one person to answer every single question. So I kind of close my eyes and choose the post that happens to be in front of me at that moment. If I don't answer your particular post, and you think it is really important, please let me know. Thanks.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Simply saying "no it isn't" is not a good way to convince anyone.

This still means that all first blows occur because of justification, and that all justification is somehow made possible because of blame. There is nothing there to support this assertion.

Thus - blame allows justification, which is what allows people to hurt others. Again there is nothing to support the assertion. It is not shown why it is necessary that without blame, we do not justify.

And I repeat - blame is posited as the sole cause of justification and therefor of harmful intent. Based on nothing but an assertion.

.

This, once more, is unsupported assertion. There is no difference between what we have now and what you advocate - it is not because of blame that we justify. It is because of a conflict between our interest and that of another.

You have produced nothing but Lessans say-so that blame is what allows us to justify doing harmful things. I say that it is not so - so now you have just as much evidence for believing it as for disbelieving it.

Again - unsupported assertion, backed up by no evidence.

.

I didn't see any new stuff in there, just a practical application of what was already covered.

.

Again - assertion, without any backup. We have not shown that removing blame will remove justification.

Again you blame the reader, not the material.

That is not what I am talking about at all. I am saying that there is nothing BUT sex being discussed in Lessans discussion of love and marriage. It is a very, very narrow view.

And sex is equated with love.

Again - you assert your belief, but do not back it up. If people disagree, this is because they do not understand.

No, I think it is you who is misundestanding what I am trying to say. What I am pointing out is that you cannot accurately model human behaviour by breaking it down into a few principles, which is what Lessans is attempting.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Fine - then take away my objections by dealing with them! If Lessans is undeniably right, this should pose no significant challenge.

I repeat - there is a reason why the revolution never happened, and there is a reason that this book has remained obscure.

You are misunderstanding the basic meaning of revolution. This is not about a true revolution, but a revolution in thought. Of course, I am talking to a brick wall.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

On what do you base your further assertion that the revolution will happen in the next 25 years?

It was based on his belief that these principles would have been thoroughly investigated. Vivisectus, I know I am ruffling your feathers like a lot of people in here. I do appreciate your interest but I cannot keep answering your questions when I know you don't understand the simplist aspect of this discovery. There are other people waiting to have their questions answered, so I have to give them a chance too. It's only fair. I'm really sorry about this, but I'm just one person, as Regis Philbin is famous for saying.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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?

If the word retard has a connotation of disrespect, then of course this word will not be used in conversational language. No one will want to use it, nor will they want to use any word that hurts someone like moron, cretin, or imbecile. They are free to use these words if they want to, but they won't want to under the changed conditions.

[ZEZOZE]

holy shit...53 pages and the thought keeps rolling.

told ya.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Some of us have, and beyond.

I really hope so, but from what I've seen far, all bets are off.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ

holy shit...53 pages and the thought keeps rolling.

told ya.

I know, isn't this crazy Itsozaz? But at least people are interested in searching for the truth, which gives me hope that one day this discovery will be recognized for its contribution to humanity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You asked me to explain this that I posted to Wildy. I was describing the difference between evangelizing from personal beliefs/experiences and apologetics.

Apologists argue that they have an objective and proveable truth applicable to all, so they do not use qualifies such as "I think", "I believe" or "In my opinion".

They even avoid subjective descriptors such as "beautiful" because the "in my opinion" or "to me" is understood when someone says "That is beautiful". You are aware of that are you not? That the subjective aspect is completely understood?

I get it. Thanks for making this more clear to me.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the word retard has a connotation of disrespect, then of course this word will not be used in conversational language. No one will want to use it, nor will they want to use any word that hurts someone like moron, cretin, or imbecile. They are free to use these words if they want to, but they won't want to under the changed conditions.

erimir's (and Demi's) whole point is the words moron, cretin, or imbecile were not originally hurtful, they were the clinical terms used to describe what has more recently been called mental retardation. They became hurtful due to them being used as insults.

Any word can be used to hurt provided enough people become aware of the evolving hurtful definitions. Languages change every day, words are co-opted and the meaning changed all the time

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, that's is exactly what I'm saying. If the eyes were a sense organ, a dog should be able to recognize his master (without the added help of his sense of smell or hearing), because the light is bringing the image to his eyes. If a dog is able to recognize a ball, a plush toy, or other objects, he should be able to identify his master's features when the word 'master' is used. But I'm not sure if a dog is capable of taking a photograph of a group of features (which is more complicated than one object) and associating them with a word, which would allow recognition to occur.

Originally Posted by erimir

But we already know that dogs can distinguish between otherwise identical objects by color alone. Not as many as humans because dogs only have dichromatic vision (essentially they are red-green color blind). You can design studies that would demonstrate that without the use of a command to "associate" those features with the red or blue ball (of course, in your version of things, how they know what features to associate with the word they learn if sight is not a sense is beyond me). You could for example give them two balls and whenever they pick a certain color, give them a treat. Which is probably how they've studied dog vision before.

If you don't understand how words are the critical element in an animal's training, then I am asking you to review the literature. A dog cannot distinguish any object from another unless a word is associated with it, unless, of course, he is able to use his sense of smell or hearing.

Originally Posted by erimir

Other problems are that dogs pay more attention to moving things than static images - but tv screens don't have a high enough frame rate for dogs (they distinguish movement better than humans). If you had a high frame rate video screen and a recording of sufficient frame rate, then a dog might react to a video of their master.

That is not proof that the dog recognizes his master. He sees some sort of movement, and yes, if his master has a unique gait, maybe the dog would recognize him, but not from sight alone.

Originally Posted by erimir

Also I ask again: should a deaf person with no sense of smell or taste be able to see?

He would be able to focus, but only if he received sense experience as a child in order to develop. Maybe the parents cuddled him, touched him, etc. Look at Helen Keller. She was able to live her life productively because of the stimulation of the sense of touch only. It doesn't take much for the brain to focus on what it is experiencing through the other senses. You can even see this in children in orphanages who have very limited sense experience, like those in Romania. They are left in cribs all day. They not only are thwarted physically as a result of this neglect, but mentally. They end up retarded, not because they have a genetic problem, but because they were never given the nurturing to allow their brain cells to grow. Unfortunately, they don't have enough employees to adequately care for these children. It's so sad because their development is thwarted all because of lack of sensory stimulation and unconditional love.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

erimir's (and Demi's) whole point is the words moron, cretin, or imbecile were not originally hurtful, they were the clinical terms used to describe what has more recently been called mental retardation. They became hurtful due to them being used as insults.

Any word can be used to hurt provided enough people become aware of the evolving hurtful definitions. Languages change every day, words are co-opted and the meaning changed all the time

That's true, but in the new world these words will not hold the derogatory meaning they did in the past. If they did, they will be avoided, just like the N word is avoided because there is too much emotional baggage attached to it.

[LadyShea]

A dog cannot distinguish any object from another unless a word is associated with it,

Of course they can distinguish things from each other without word associations, since they do not use words themselves. Their thought processes are alien to us though.

They can't describe their mental processes to us, or teach us how they distinguish between objects. They can learn some words so we can somewhat communicate with them is all, so we can see that they distinguish between objects.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you don't understand how words are the critical element in an animal's training, then I am asking you to review the literature. A dog cannot distinguish any object from another unless a word is associated with it, unless, of course, he is able to use his sense of smell or hearing.

That is not proof that the dog recognizes his master. He sees some sort of movement, and yes, if his master has a unique gait, maybe the dog would recognize him, but not from sight alone.

Are you aware that you can train a dog to respond to gestures alone? I'm guessing not. To reiterate: studies showing dogs identifying both objects and masters by sight alone have already been cited. All you have done in response is repeat your personal incredulity on the subject, much as you've done with the entire topic of sight, and as you have on the topic of free will.

You keep admitting that you have no empirical data but only Lessans' "astute observations." Let us set aside for the moment that observations are a form of empirical data. Other forms of empirical data on these topics has been presented to you, and you simply repeat your disbelief or repeat Lessans' observations, or both. Why do you keep repeating these things in the face of evidence that flatly contradicts them? You sound exactly like an evangelical apologist. If Lessans' work is worth defending, you shouldn't need to fall back to such obfuscating and dishonest tactics. If you find that you continually have to use such tactics, perhaps it is because the work is not worth what you think it is.

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know, isn't this crazy Itsozaz? But at least people are interested in searching for the truth, which gives me hope that one day this discovery will be recognized for its contribution to humanity.

i'm happy your circus is successful!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can even see this in children in orphanages who have very limited sense experience, like those in Romania. They are left in cribs all day. They not only are thwarted physically as a result of this neglect, but mentally. They end up retarded, not because they have a genetic problem, but because they were never given the nurturing to allow their brain cells to grow.

I understand that 1 is not much of a sample for research but the opposite of this can be true. My neighbors addopted a baby boy with Downs Syndrome, his birth parents were well educated but did not know how to deal with him. When he arrived he was quiet and inactive. My neighbors home was a bit noisey and very animated, and the boy responded to all the excitement. It was as if all the drama in the house 'woke him up', he became active, friendly, and much more involved in life. It was an amazing transformation, his brain cells were definately growing and developing.

[thedoc]

[quote=ITSOZAZ;933221][quote=peacegirl;933211]

Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ

holy shit...53 pages and the thought keeps rolling.

i'm happy your circus is successful!

Hello, ITSOZAZ, I thought I recognized your avatar, you haven't posted on DP for awhile. 53 pages of pure entertainment. When are you going to agree with everything so we can move on?

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by thedoc

When are you going to agree with everything so we can move on?

the problem is that i agree with everything and like to argue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

erimir's (and Demi's) whole point is the words moron, cretin, or imbecile were not originally hurtful, they were the clinical terms used to describe what has more recently been called mental retardation. They became hurtful due to them being used as insults.

Any word can be used to hurt provided enough people become aware of the evolving hurtful definitions. Languages change every day, words are co-opted and the meaning changed all the time

I understand that the meaning of words change through time, and some words that were not hurtful at one point ended up having a bad connotaion. But, I will repeat, no one in the new world will desire using a word that is intended to hurt. If a word already has a negative connotation, such as imbecile, people will not want to use it unless the word no longer brings up negative emotions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ

the problem is that i agree with everything and like to argue.

That's cool. But at least have something worthwhile to argue about and I'll be all ears.

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's cool. But at least have something worthwhile to argue about and I'll be all ears.

lol. i think you actually insulted yourself there. back to being quiet

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I understand that 1 is not much of a sample for research but the opposite of this can be true. My neighbors addopted a baby boy with Downs Syndrome, his birth parents were well educated but did not know how to deal with him. When he arrived he was quiet and inactive. My neighbors home was a bit noisey and very animated, and the boy responded to all the excitement. It was as if all the drama in the house 'woke him up', he became active, friendly, and much more involved in life. It was an amazing transformation, his brain cells were definately growing and developing.

The fact that the boy thrived on all the noise and commotion doesn't surprise me at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ

lol. i think you actually insulted yourself there. back to being quiet

No, it only shows that you haven't seen the worthwhile nature of my presentation. You better go back to your corner and take notes.

[ZEZOZE]

yes ma'am.

[LadyShea]

So why the big focus on "eliminating" specific words like beautiful, and on "lawmakers" deciding which words are harmful.

It has to be assumed that if nobody intends hurt, then the words they use cannot be meant to hurt, and the listener should not BE hurt since there was no intent.

Do you believe words in and of themselves can be hurtful, when there was no intent to hurt?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ

i'm happy your circus is successful!

If I wanted a circus, I'd train some lions, tigers, and bears. But circuses are cruel, according to many animal advocates, so that's out.