Free will versus determinism

Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because you don't like Lessans' conclusions based on his observations does not entitle you to use foul language. I'm not your girlfriend and I am not taking it.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrie

So should he exercise some free will and take a more responsible path?

And why does foul language apparently rank worse than lying about who you are?

Quote: Originally Posted by karrie

If the entire chain has to remain in alphabetical order then it is not possible to get 35 distinct 3 letter combinations with no letter being in a grouping with another letter twice.

Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not degrade anyone, but having someone degrade me by throwing foul language around is hurtful.



I don't think I was clear. It starts out in alphabetical order and then you have to figure out how to get 35 distinct 3 letter combinations so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter, just like he stated. In other words, it doesn't matter what combination the letters are in, just so they aren't with the same letter twice.

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

What are you going to do about it? Blame me?

Quote: Originally Posted by karrie

Well that's a simple logic problem, not mathematical at all.

Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I am retaliating. Do you think I'm going to turn the other cheek? We're not in the new world because if we were you would not have used this demeaning language toward me and therefore I would not need to strike back. I hope you realize that you did strike the first blow s_lone, and now you want to be excused. And you actually think you understand this knowledge?

Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirl

...having someone degrade me by throwing foul language around is hurtful. He would have never hurt me if we were in the new world knowing that I would be compelled to turn the other cheek. No, he does not have free will...

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

You might try to set the example. You claim to have this knowledge, why doesn't it NOW compel you to turn the other cheek? You've claimed from the beginning that once people have this knowledge that's how they'll behave, but it's not how you behave. Do you not see that this shows Lessans' view of human nature is hopelessly naive? It's simply not reasonable to believe that in the new world people will never get frustrated or exasperated or angry or hurt enough to lash out at anyone, you can't even do it in this virtual world.
There's no way to resolve this discussion. All we can do is stop, no other resolution is possible. A key part of Lessan's thesis is that anyone who understands it will be compelled to agree with it. Peacegirl thinks that's true. Nobody else does, so according to the book--and peacegirl of course--that means we don't understand it. If we did, we'd agree. Either we accept his thesis, or we don't understand it, there are no other options, and in particular there's no possibility he could be wrong. Once we do understand it, all our criticisms of it will go away. That's what the book says, and that's really all peacegirl keeps saying. Over and over and over and over... No defence or further explanation is necessary, all that's required is repetition, until we finally get it.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post:

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss

So, basically, it's Roman Catholicism.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

You might try to set the example. You claim to have this knowledge, why doesn't it NOW compel you to turn the other cheek? You've claimed from the beginning that once people have this knowledge that's how they'll behave, but it's not how you behave. Do you not see that this shows Lessans' view of human nature is hopelessly naive? It's simply not reasonable to believe that in the new world people will never get frustrated or exasperated or angry or hurt enough to lash out at anyone, you can't even do it in this virtual world.

There's no way to resolve this discussion. All we can do is stop, no other resolution is possible. A key part of Lessan's thesis is that anyone who understands it will be compelled to agree with it. Peacegirl thinks that's true. Nobody else does, so according to the book--and peacegirl of course--that means we don't understand it. If we did, we'd agree. Either we accept his thesis, or we don't understand it, there are no other options, and in particular there's no possibility he could be wrong. Once we do understand it, all our criticisms of it will go away. That's what the book says, and that's really all peacegirl keeps saying. Over and over and over and over... No defence or further explanation is necessary, all that's required is repetition, until we finally get it.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrie

you've been saying that for 20 pages. lol.

You said it yourself, it is in our nature to strike back when hurt. It is also in human nature to have expectations of others, and to be hurt when people don't meet those expectations. That is why his theory goes COMPLETELY against human nature, and would never happen. Because for it to take effect, someone would have to first turn their cheek and accept the blow without blame, without anger, without frustration, without resentment. And if you can buy into his theory so 100%, and still not see that, not live that, then why would people who don't agree with it EVER end up living it?

Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wouldn't be responding if you weren't posting.

Your pics don't make it plainer. One can be threatened by words. Words on a screen have meanings, and they affect people differently.

You're right, but if people are so antagonistic about this comment that they won't read the book, then I have to rethink if it is absolutely necessary to include it, especially when it doesn't take away from his observations regarding the eyes.

It was a rhetorical question. No, I don't need your comments because they add nothing to the debate.

Thanks for the entertainment. Your pics were great, but once is enough. Next time you're on ignore. I am not taking anymore abuse from you.

Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I am retaliating. Do you think I'm going to turn the other cheek? We're not in the new world because if we were you would not have used this demeaning language toward me and therefore I would not need to strike back. I hope you realize that you did strike the first blow s_lone, and now you want to be excused. And you actually think you understand this knowledge?

Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirl

... it's our nature to strike back when hurt.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrie

Uh-huh.... this is my point. Until you could convince EVERYONE (which will never happen, humanity is too diverse for that), that his baseless plan would bring about peace, it would be unworkable.

It boils down to one simple thing... all utopian ideals require that everyone think the same, and humanity doesn't.

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

I don't want to be excused. I don't regret saying what I honestly think.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

That's right, and that simple statement gives the lie to Lessans' thesis. There's nothing in his utopian world that guarantees nobody will ever be hurt.

Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the hurt is removed that is driving us to act out our anger (especially in the economic world), and then when this principle is put into effect, you will see that a peaceful world is actually very attainable, even though at first glance it sounds like a fairy tale. But that's only because your thinking is based on the world as it exists today.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss

Let's forget the fallacies for now.. Rather, let's look at this practically in today's society and see what kind of solutions it can provide.

How do you think representative groups - like governments or religious entities - would act differently regarding these sorts of matters if they were acting in compliance with the ideology that you are proposing? For instance, foreign policy - terrorism and the mandate for war in the middle east. Or how about in the territory itself - the ground zero mosque and the tenacity between religious factions?

What could be done differently by these groups that one might deem more appropriate behaviour and in line with the deterministic principles you are suggesting?

Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirl

...which you will see as you read how these principles work as they are extended into every area of human relation; that is, if you ever get that far...

Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't have to regret what you said. I just want you to know that I did not come here to frustrate you, but that does not give you permission to talk to me in such a manner. I am not a dog to be treated like garbage just because you don't like something Lessans said. I thought these forums were about free expression. I came here to explain a discovery whether you believe it is genuine or not. For you to demand that I side with you on the issue of the eyes is wrong, but I do forgive you. I must be hitting a nerve and you are taking it out on me. I have respected you throughout this long discussion, and I would hope you would do the same.

Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirl

...these artificial divisions between people will gradually disappear when no one is hurt with a first blow.

Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirl

For example, government will not be run in the same way. in fact, most government will be displaced. Religion (you need to think long term) will gradually disappear because the very reason religion came into being was to pray to God for our deliverance from all evil. Once we are delivered, the desire to keep these institutions alive will gradually disappear. As far as foreign policy, the entire tax structure will include everyone, therefore if one country is not meeting its standard of living, the world will pitch in to cover the remaining cost. But no one will take advantage of this, which will give the needed taxes to cover these costs. He gets into depth about how this will work, but if you don't read it, then you won't get an accurate picture of how this can take place.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

If you could try arguing from a position other than "you'll agree once you understand" you might get a little more traction. Understanding does not imply agreement, and your comment about human nature demonstrates that you know one side of Lessans' equation doesn't work, whether you realize it or not. If you understood that, you'd see that Lessans has nothing to offer.

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

As you say, these forums are about free expression. I do have the right to tell you honestly what I think and never did I suggest you don't have the right to post here. I did suggest you are wasting your time though. But you are free to do what you want (even though you disagree on being free).

If you are hurt about my opinion, that's your issue. I didn't treat you like a dog, (I don't treat dogs like garbage by the way), I treated you like a human being for this whole thread and I did show you respect all along by telling you my honest opinion.

I told you in a very blunt way that I think you are mentally intoxicated by Lessans.

You have lost your capacity to analyze his claims critically and you take every single thing he's written for cash, the ''sight'' example is just a very revealing example of how your critical mind has taken a very wrong turn.

You're no better than creationists who insist on believing the world has been created 6000 years ago despite the overwhelming evidence that it hasn't.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Perhaps, but it's not possible to prevent that first blow. An example: you've mentioned having children and your surname is not Lessans, from which I assume you are, or at least were at one time, married. If you're paying attention in an intimate relationship like that, you'll soon learn that it's very easy to hurt someone quite badly without being aware of it. That first blow does not need to be intentional, human nature being what it is it'll happen regardless. Lessans' utopian world assumes people have a great deal more information about and understanding of the choices before them than they can ever really have.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss

Can you give me the coles notes version please? I think it would be interesting how these principles would apply specifically to these issues at present.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLM

Peacegirl- Why do you keep saying the same things over and over and over and over? You sound like a child in grocery store asking for a lolly pop.

Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dexter, you need to at least give Lessans a chance, even if you don't believe he is right. I know how difficult it is to believe that peace is possible. It sounds not only impossible, but absolutely insane. If someone would say that to me, I would think he was a quack, so I know where you are coming from. But please give this knowledge a chance, and if you still think he has nothing to offer, you will have all the time in the world to reject his findings.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

I've given him all the chances he needs. I've read four and a bit of the chapters in his book and read a lot of comments from others whose judgment I respect who've read more. I think that's enough to decide whether or not he's blowing smoke. And I *have* decided, he's blowing smoke. This has nothing to do with whether peace is possible or not. I believe it is, but he hasn't found the way to it. What he's got in his first four chapters is an excessively wordy, heavily redundant, badly written, error-prone, self-congratulatory analysis that goes nowhere and proves nothing. There's every reason to think the other chapters will be the same. He can't even state the terms of a simple logic puzzle with clarity and without redundancy, which is a bit hard to take from someone billed as an accomplished mathematician.

Consider, for instance: "...arrange 105 alphabetical squares divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter." First, it takes a bit of thought to realize he wants them arranged in 7 rows of 5 triplets each, which is irrelevant to the problem. Second, the condition for "15 different letters on a line" is redundant, if it's true of all 35 triplets, it'll be true of any subset of them. Third, does "never be twice" mean exactly once or any number of times other than twice? A real mathematician would have expressed the problem much more succinctly.

Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirl

... I don't see anything redundant with the way he described his math (logic) question.