A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you can't beat um, you might as well join um. I give up on trying to get a word in edgewise in regard to Lessans' discovery.

This is not a conversation where your words can be literally "drowned out".

You can post all the words you want. As often as you want.

You are not guaranteed an audience however.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And why the heck can't you [peacegirl] lay out his premises in a clear and intelligible fashion? Which, contrary to your claims, you have yet to do.

I will lay out the premises (which I already did in the other thread) only after people have actually read the first two chapters. If I jump ahead people will find loopholes because the proof will appear sketchy. This topic has been argued for centuries, so you can't expect me to narrow it down to a few sentences. It will not do this work justice and I don't want to jeopardize it. Can you blame me?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will lay out the premises (which I already did in the other thread) only after people have actually read the first two chapters. If I jump ahead people will find loopholes because the proof will appear sketchy. This topic has been argued for centuries, so you can't expect me to narrow it down to a few sentences. It will not do this work justice and I don't want to jeopardize it. Can you blame me?

That is not how it works!

The premises are independent of any argument. That is, the argument depends on the premises, not the other way around. You're trying to put the cart before the horse: at best, it's disingenuous; at worst, it's outright dishonest.


Until and unless you can clearly lay out the premises, so that they can be examined for validity, you have no argument whatsoever. That's how it works in the real world. First you lay out your premises, so that everyone has a common frame of reference to work from, then you develop your argument.


ETA: Of course, part of the problem is that you don't appear to have the slightest idea what "premises" are, nor how to construct an actual argument.

[peacegirl]

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 30-35

It is time to draw an infallible line of demarcation between what
is true and what is false and you are going to be amazed at how much
of what is false passed for what is true. However, everything was
necessary. As we begin to understand the knowledge of our true
nature what is revealed is something amazing to behold for it not only
gives ample proof that evil is no accident, but that it was part of the
harmonious operation called the mankind system and was compelled
to come into existence by the very nature of life itself as part of our
development. Once certain facts are understood it will also be no
accident that every form of evil will be compelled to take leave of this
earth.

Humanity has been gravitating at a mathematical rate, and in
an unconscious manner, toward this Golden Age when the seeds of
hatred and the domination of man over man will be a relic of our
collective memory. It never dawned on the theologians and
philosophers that man’s choice of what he considered better for
himself, even though it may have been evil when judged by others,
came about in direct obedience to his nature or the will of God who
had reasons we were not supposed to understand until now. Many
prophets foresaw the coming of this New World but didn’t know the
exact time frame, or from which direction, peace would finally make
its appearance although they were confident that when it arrived it
would change our world as we know it.

Now the prophesies,
conjectures, and philosophies are no longer necessary for this long
awaited Golden Age that we have been looking forward to with
prayers, hope, and great anticipation has arrived at last. This
discovery I will soon make known to you reveals the infinite wisdom
guiding this universe, which is not only that long sought standard and
touchstone of truth and reality, but also that elixir of alchemy for with
it the baser mettles of human nature are going to be magically
transmuted into the pure gold of genuine happiness for every
individual on this planet and for all generations to come. Please be
perfectly honest, who can object to relinquishing the belief in free will
when the key to the decline and fall of all misery and unhappiness lies
behind the door of determinism?

In the beginning of creation when man was in the early stages of
development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to
control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the
reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense
of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of
everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However,
in order to reach this stage of development so God could reveal
Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it
was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he
believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a
dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all
civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop.

The belief
in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil for not
only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate
crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his
problems without blame and punishment which required the
justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience.
Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did
because he was endowed with a special faculty which allowed him to
choose between good and evil. In other words, if you were called upon
to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you
do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way you
would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative
than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled
by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but
to think this way and that is why our civilization developed the
principle of an ‘eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and why my
discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this point
because if man’s will is not free it becomes absolutely impossible to
hold him responsible for anything he does.

Well, is it any wonder the
solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it
possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing
and the wholesale slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are
supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less
responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature?
Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough he
will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other
nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor
from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of
punishment?

The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart
of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a
problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since
time immemorial. Although free will has had a very long reign in the
history of civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and for all,
by first demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true. 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.

[The Lone Ranger]

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Doesn't it depend on how one is defining free will? Maybe we ought to do that.

Yes, I think these discussions often run aground because of different definition of terms.

I think free will would be the ability, at any given juncture, to freely choose among genuinely available options. But this is only very rough and neglects a lot of detail. For instance, there may be instances where I don't have genuinely available options or, alternatively, there may be times when I do, but for some reason my choice is constrained to one option. But these are outliers and in general, I would define free will as free choice among genuinely available options, even though this ability might not unconditionally hold at all times and in all circumstances.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will lay out the premises only after people have actually read the first two chapters.

So we're back to this, Read the Book, and prove that you have read the book by agreeing 100% with what was written in the book. Don't agree = don't understand = didn't read the book.

[LadyShea]

You might consider starting with the premise "Man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction". Isn't that a pretty logical first premise from the book, peacegirl?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You might consider starting with the premise "Man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction". Isn't that a pretty logical first premise from the book, peacegirl?

I would like to see someone offer some kind of proof for this, since Lessans and Peacegirl have failed to do so. It would be interesting to read a genuine proof of this idea. Might not agree with since I'm not sure that man always moves in that direction, too many variables and complications.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is not a conversation where your words can be literally "drowned out".

You can post all the words you want. As often as you want.

That's good to know.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are not guaranteed an audience however.

That's true. The only way I'll have an audience is if people find this topic interesting and get greater satisfaction being here than being somewhere else.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, why won't you present Lessans' first 'discovery' in your own words so that we can discuss it?

How can you still think that posting chapters of his book and demanding others read it will be an effective technique, when that has backfired on you at every single forum you have ever been to?

Why can't you post the premises his conclusions about conscience were based upon?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Most of us read blogs that address our fields of interest. You can also go to forums and link people to your blog for more information.

It sounds like a really good plan. Thanks for the suggestion!

[peacegirl]

Added to original post:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can give you the name of the chapters in the book which gives an overview of where the book is headed, but I cannot explain the first two chapters in this simple way. Too much is left out and then people will tell me he's wrong. Been there, done that.

Originally Posted by Kael

What, exactly, is left out?

A lot is left out and I am not going to make the same mistake again.

Originally Posted by Kael

The only reason the book is so long is that he spends pages and pages of needless verbosity expounding on just how right he is and having imaginary conversations with imaginary doubters whom he imaginarily convinces.

The conversations were meant to clarify his points, not to convince imaginary doubters not to doubt, as you put it, unless they actually stop doubting.

Originally Posted by Kael

If you can't see why all that is unnecessary for any 'discovery' with real evidence on its side (or perhaps realize that there is no real evidence and his 'discovery' cannot survive the light of day without all the smoke and mirrors?), we are truly wasting our time here.

Trust me, there are no smoke and mirrors. I put 7 of his books together. He was not verbose at all. He only used dialogue to help with understanding, and for no other reason. If you think you're wasting your time, you are free to go.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

peacegirl, I was being a dick, there are no moderators here.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

This is a free-speech forum and no one dictates the content here. If I had a teacher with the rank incompetence you show, I'd have no problems upsetting their lecture.

Now you're just trying to get back at me.

If anything in the Universe could be different, then of course the outcome would be different because the determinants leading up to someone's choice would be different. But we're talking about a Universe where we cannot go back in time and change the past. Being able to change the past is complete fantasy, and I'm discussing reality.

Originally Posted by Specious_reasons

It's called a thought experiment. Even the Holy Lessans indulged in them. You know, the whole "if God turned on the Sun at noon" fiasco? That's a thought experiment, a shitty, shitty thought experiment.

You're right that it was a thought experiment but it was grounded in reality.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right that it was a thought experiment but it was grounded in reality.

Except that it wasn't, as the moons of Jupiter example and dozens of others conclusively demonstrate.

And, as you yourself admitted that the moons of Jupiter example refuted Lessans, you admit Lessans was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've been having a bit of discussion in PM about this, because I am not seeing why the free will v. determinism issue is meaningful outside of theology. Isn't the heart of it about ethics and actions (morality and behavior?). If so, shouldn't we be discussing those things?

It has everything to do with behavior. I want to discuss these things because they are at the heart of why there will be no more war and crime. I realize you were responding to David. Are you all going to take over this thread and discuss ethics and morality, according to philosophy, or are you going to try to understand this book? Just wondering.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has everything to do with behavior. I want to discuss these things because they are at the heart of why there will be no more war and crime. I realize you were responding to David. Are you all going to take over this thread and discuss ethics and morality, according to philosophy, or are you going to try to understand this book? Just wondering.

We understand the book. That is why we are discussing more interesting topics in this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Except that it wasn't, as the moons of Jupiter example and dozens of others conclusively demonstrate.

And, as you yourself admitted that the moons of Jupiter example refuted Lessans, you admit Lessans was wrong.

No, all I said was that it was inconsistent with Lessans' observations. At least that's what I meant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

We understand the book. That is why we are discussing more interesting topics in this thread.

You do not understand the book David. All you know is rumpy pumpy and how to make a big joke out of a major work.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right that it was a thought experiment but it was grounded in reality.

Seriously? Seriously?

Oh, I see - Lessans has already spoken on the subject:

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.

Because it's "impossible" - totally unlike God turning on and off the Sun - it's not a valid thought experiment.



Lessans has so confused himself, he confidently rejects ideas which might benefit his argument.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, all I said was that it was inconsistent with Lessans' observations. At least that's what I meant.

And, given the fact that the observations we make of Jupiter's moons are in fact empirically and repeatedly inconsistent with Lessans' claims, then how can you rationally continue to insist that Lessans was right, when the moons of Jupiter and many other empirical observations made in the daily world are inconsistent with his claims?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The way this sentence is worded it reads that The Early Greeks were a separate group from the unconvinced men, as if the early Greeks were not also men.

I see what you mean. Do you have a better way of writing that sentence?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I told you Lessans was a terrible writer.

As long as he got his concept across, that's all that matters.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And lol at your interpretation that I am obsessed by gender pronouns...I don't give a shit and never have.

I misinterpreted your post.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That is not how it works!

The premises are independent of any argument. That is, the argument depends on the premises, not the other way around. You're trying to put the cart before the horse: at best, it's disingenuous; at worst, it's outright dishonest.


Until and unless you can clearly lay out the premises, so that they can be examined for validity, you have no argument whatsoever. That's how it works in the real world. First you lay out your premises, so that everyone has a common frame of reference to work from, then you develop your argument.


ETA: Of course, part of the problem is that you don't appear to have the slightest idea what "premises" are, nor how to construct an actual argument.

But the premises are being built inch by inch.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the premises are being built inch by inch.

Premises aren't "built". What on earth do you think a premise is?

And why are you still doing anything but explaining Lessan's first 'discovery'?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, why won't you present Lessans' first 'discovery' in your own words so that we can discuss it?

How can you still think that posting chapters of his book and demanding others read it will be an effective technique, when that has backfired on you at every single forum you have ever been to?

Why can't you post the premises his conclusions about conscience were based upon?

Because it won't work. I have done that Spacemonkey, but there is a lot of confusion. People are very incredulous (which adds to the problem), and if I make one misstep, this whole thread will have been meaningless because no one will take this discovery seriously. I have to do the best I can to show that his premises were correct, but to do that I have to share a little bit of the background so you can see that these premises did not come out of his hat. These were not mere assertions. We're only talking about two chapters, but they are the entire foundation for the rest of the book. Everything rests on Chapters One and Two. I am asking everyone to please let me do this my way. If I feel better posting these two chapters, then please allow me to do this without giving me slack. Trust that I know what I'm talking about. I don't want to have to argue with people who have a slight understanding, but not an entire understanding. In other words, it takes a lot of energy to be here, so I want the best bang for my buck.