THAT would just destroy any credibility you have.
One man's truth is another man's BS. The truth is only what a person is willing to believe. Facts can be manipulated, just like the bible, to say whatever a person wants it to say (that is why Christianity has 2500 different sects). There are no absolutes except in the mind of a believer. Belief is not truth, it is just a mind game.
Actually, I think her statement did. Anybody who is so full of themselves as to say to someone (basically) "play by my rules or I will ignore you" hasn't got a foot to stand on. I have seen nothing here to change my mind about free will, just a bunch of mental masturbation.
You're completely wrong. It just shows how confused a person can get when he doesn't understand. When you know that no one will hold you to account because the world knows that your will is not free, the negative consequences don't come from blame and punishment, it comes from the consequence of not being held responsible for something you know you did, which cannot be justified under the changed conditions. This is the worst possible punishment society can offer. How is it possible for someone to shift that which is his responsibility when no one holds him responsible? You don't even understand the two-sided equation, which is the core of this discovery, for even though the world knows you are not to blame, YOU KNOW YOU ARE TO BLAME. It's not that there's no motive for wanting to shift the blame because you are already innocent from all wrongdoing, you can't shift it, and your conscience cannot accept knowing that you did something to hurt someone without one ounce of justification. The mind needs justification when it comes to hurting another. That's what conscience IS CREATED FOR. Under these conditions, conscience does not grow weaker, it grows much much stronger. I am asking you to stop belitting this author, or I will ignore you next time you post, even if you have something worthwhile to say.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
That's what conscience IS CREATED FOR. Under these conditions, conscience does not grow weaker, it grows much much stronger. I am asking you to stop belitting this author, or I will ignore you next time you post, even if you have something worthwhile to say.
The major flaw in his theory is that science has proven that not everyone HAS a conscience. You can't develop what's not there.
You're completely wrong. It just shows how confused a person can get when he doesn't understand.
I am asking you to stop belitting this author, or I will ignore you next time you post, even if you have something worthwhile to say.
And there is one more serious flaw- the poster demanding that the author quit being belittled (criticised). We as readers can take ANY author any way we please. No author necessarily has a hold on the truth or even on sanity for that matter.
No, but, decency on forums tends to dictate not insulting people's family members. I've pointed out before, this author is most likely a father, grandfather, beloved uncle.... insulting him, rather than his premise, is not likely to be taken well by peacegirl.
I will not speak for Dexter Sinister. He can do it better than anybody else. But I do know this about him, he is a man of science, and while he and I have different views on many issues, I certainly can't blame him for saying this is bull**** in the sense that the author does claim that he is being scientific and mathematical.
From my own point of view, the two sided equation must be understood in metaphorical or symbolical terms. I don't have any problem with the expression he chose (two-sided equation) as long as it's clear that's it's simply a figure of speech to describe the double-bind one finds himself into in his explanation of determinism vs. free will.
I'm pretty good at thinking metaphorically so I don't have a problem with the concept of calling it an equation. But there is indeed a problem if the author states it is truly a mathematical equation in the literal sense of the word.
How can you represent the ''two-sided equation'' mathematically?
Like this?
The whole world cannot blame me = I know I am to blame
nah... I don't think so...
Or like this... I think this would be better:
Absence of outside blame = Fullness of inside blame
This isn't bad I think. It demonstrates the author's idea that once you evacuate all possibility of blame by others, all that blame is interiorized inside the soul or heart of the one that caused the ''evil''. The more blame there is on the outside, the less there is on the inside. (At least in theory... I don't see how this is remotely true in real life)
It's an interesting concept. It's a thought provoking reflection on ethics and morality. But is it a mathematical equation? I don't think so because blame and guilt can't be measured in any way. The best we can do is to say we feel guilty, or very guilty, or so terribly guilty we are close to committing suicide.
Quote has been trimmed
Blame and guilt are sometimes expressed numerically when a criminal is condemned to x number of years in prison. But that is arbitrary. A different judge could have given the criminal x+y number of years. And with a different jury, the criminal could have been declared innocent!
Now I understand there would be no justice system in the author's No Blame Land, but that doesn't change the fact the morality and math are an uneasy blend.
I think moral concepts come relatively close to mathematical realities in things like the golden rule. With the golden rule, it is true that x number of people are more likely to get along and cooperate if none of them break the rule.
Another interesting rule is ''*** for Tat'', which has at its fundamental guideline that unless provoked, you shall always cooperate. If provoked, you retaliate. But once retaliation has been done, forgiveness is immediate. It's a sort of civilized ''eye for an eye''.
The major flaw in his theory is that science has proven that not everyone HAS a conscience. You can't develop what's not there.
And there is one more serious flaw- the poster demanding that the author quit being belittled (criticised). We as readers can take ANY author any way we please. No author necessarily has a hold on the truth or even on sanity for that matter.
Yes, it is founded on this concept. Just yesterday there was a t.v. show about criminals errant brain chemistry. But it failed the test when someone who had the same brain chemistry as his uncle (who was a killer) grew up to be a very loving human being. He credited this to being brought up with loving parents, something his uncle did not receive.
And there is one more serious flaw- the poster demanding that the author quit being belittled (criticised). We as readers can take ANY author any way we please. No author necessarily has a hold on the truth or even on sanity for that matter.
I'm not the one who's confused here. Not being held responsible for something you did means it has no negative consequences for you.
This guy is obviously more to you than simply a writer whose book you edited. Suit yourself, makes no difference to me, I'll say what I like. He obviously is unaware of the several centuries worth of philosophical debate on this issue by hundreds of better informed and smarter minds than his (without resolution, I might add), he has nothing original to add to it, and has an extremely naive view of human nature. That's why the academy rejected him: he's wrong.
peacegirl, Lessans is relying on people thinking he's wrong being a proof that he's right. That makes no sense. Einstein was found right because he WAS right. Scientists reviewed his work and realized that it made sense. You're talking to people on university forums, etc., who are brilliant minds, and no, none of them are seeing the 'truth' in Lessans work, not because he's so beyond his time, but because he's flat out flawed.
but they proved that they were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am doing. If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then only am I wrong."
And yes, conscience does exist in a baby. It's been shown over and over again that even children as young as two have a conscience. What is surprising to many is that even hardened criminals had a conscience at one time, but it was lost due to environmental factors that triggered their loss of empathy.
All right Peacegirl.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
I understand what you mean by ''mathematical'' when you say something is ''undeniable''. As you can see it can be very misleading, but for the sake of our own discussion, we can get that out of the way.
But oh my... I've just read chapter 4 and it is... surprising... to be polite. In my view, chapter 4 conforms without a doubt why the author can't be considered serious by academia. He states loud and clear that sight is not a sense and that if the sun exploded, we would see the visual results instantly, and not 8 minutes later as science teaches.
I would very much like for you to demonstrate this because after re-reading that part, I simply can't see the author's reasoning. He argues that sight is different from hearing for example. It obviously is in the sense that 2 very different mediums are being used. Sight is based on photons entering the eye. While hearing is based on air vibrations that make our eardrum vibrate and so on...
But sight and hearing are senses that function the same way, despite what the author says. Outside stimuli reaches our body, is transmitted to the brain and is then interpreted as such by the brain. He speaks about how newborn babies don't react much to the stimuli of moving objects in front of them. Did it occur to him that the only thing the baby can possibly see in the womb is a very dim and probably reddish ambiant light? While in the womb, the baby...
well peacgirl, his demonstration isn't proving him right, and his own words state, that it is because he is wrong.
And who cares when or why a conscience ends? The fact is that everyone doesn't make it to adulthood with an intact healthy brain that thinks the way this utopian ideal would need.
s_lone, I don't know if you read my post to you, but I did not want you to bring his second discovery up when the first one has not been clarified. If you believe that science is right, then stick with it. The anger that has been shown from this chapter alone is overwhelming. Therefore, I don't want to get into a debate about this. I do hope you read the rest of the book because words, not reality, have hurt so many people. That was the whole point of this chapter.
Right. There would need to be a change in the environment. A pardigm shift which this law brings.
peacegirl, I can list a hundred different solutions to the world's problems if only the whole of humanity will change. Everyone can. But it's not realistic. If it doesn't exist in our current abilities, under our current environment, then it is a wish, not a scientific law.
But it is possible only because the principles are undeniable, if understood.
Since no one is reading the book, and all anyone can say is that he makes no sense, I think it's time for me to bow out. If there are any other questions before I leave, please ask now. S_lone, you are the only one here that at least read some of the book and had some decent questions. I hope you continue reading. You won't be sorry.
s_lone, I don't know if you read my post to you, but I did not want you to bring his second discovery up when the first one has not been clarified. If you believe that science is right, then stick with it. The anger that has been shown from this chapter alone is overwhelming. Therefore, I don't want to get into a debate about this. I do hope you read the rest of the book because words, not reality, have hurt so many people. That was the whole point of this chapter.
there are many many people in this world who would be thrilled with that theory of life, if put into
actual practice, then they could go about their dirty deeds without any consequence at all, as they have
no concience, don't care about anyone but themselves.
human nature does not fit into your cubicle, only a portion of them, and the rest will go their own
way, and many will thrive because they don't have to be accountable at all and can go about their
merry way, stealing, killing and doing whatever they want 'against' others, gathering wealth and
power. I believe they are called 'serial' criminals, in whatever department of crime they love.
it is a joke to say that those people will not be successful because they are not being approached
because of their crimes, they will be ecstatic.
most of us want peace in the world, many thrive and work hard to achieve just that, but have
to fight against heavy odds.
your system would work perfectly in a world of robots, but even then something would be controlling
the robots, oh yeah, it's those serial criminals again, just can't shake them can we.
I've read what you asked us to read, and not carried on, as you asked, because you don't want us to 'get into that' without us first agreeing to the initial chapters.
Karrie, if you read it, then what is the two-sided equation. Tell me in your own words. I understand that you don't believe everyone has a consience at birth, and this is something you will need to accept if you are going to move forward with this book.
That words hurt people is not the issue Peacegirl. He does have a point about this. And if you ask me, I think it's sad that his message is being lost in the facts that he's getting wrong. But you can't ask me to accept his logic when it simply goes against mine. It would be totally understandable for me to stop reading at this point because I feel chapter 4 is where he definitely shot himself in the foot. But I will keep on reading because I'm interested in seeing the whole picture. And while someone can be wrong about many things, that doesn't mean they can't be right about some things...
Despite you asking me not to talk about chapter 4, I will. You can't ask me to criticize only what suits you.
He clearly states that we shouldn't consider eye sight as being a sense in the same way that hearing and smell are. And he goes even further in suggesting that science is absolutely wrong about everything that has to do with propagation of light. I have no high training in science but that doesn't mean I can't think! And so far, I simply can't accept what the author has to say about sight and light because he can't even back up his view with the slightest form of substantial reasoning.
That being said, not all of chapter 4 is totally beyond my understanding . He elaborates on beauty and how subjective it all is. That is all good and partly true, in my view...
Where I disagree is when he says beauty has no ground in reality. I think he makes the fundamental mistake of dismissing subjective experience by implying it's not part of real reality. That goes against my own philosophical views. I consider subjective experience as being as real and important as objective concrete ''out there'' reality.
Subjective and objective reality are two sides of the same coin and you can't have one without the other. It's important however to be able to differentiate one from the other and in that sense, I think the author is on to something.
Peacegirl, if you think I am the only one with decent questions, then I think you could at least keep this discussion going with me. You are always free to ignore anyone you want.
But I do think that, being the one who is presenting this book, you should be up to the challenge of defending it.
You understand that how exactly? Frankly, you're just making that up, extrapolating my argument into something I never said. I said not everyone has a conscience, I never said at what point they do or do not. This idea of his relies on the implementation of adults, so at what point there is/isn't a conscience is beside the point, the point is that there are adults who don't.
As for what the two sided equation is, he never presents an equation. I've asked you to spell it out numerous times, and even YOU can't.
I think it's rather clear that it's not an equation in the mathematical sense. As Peacegirl said, he presents his ''two-way'' concept as an equation because he considers it undeniable. Mathematical equations tend to be undeniable right?. Whether you agree or not with the undeniability of the two sided ''equation'' is your business. But if you want to go on debating what he has to say, I think you have to accept that it's simply not a mathematical equation even if uses the word ''equation''.
Enjoy your day guys.I think it's rather clear that it's not an equation in the mathematical sense. As Peacegirl said, he presents his ''two-way'' concept as an equation because he considers it undeniable. Mathematical equations tend to be undeniable right?. Whether you agree or not with the undeniability of the two sided ''equation'' is your business. But if you want to go on debating what he has to say, I think you have to accept that it's simply not a mathematical equation even if uses the word ''equation''.
sure... but even you s_lone, who are so kindly discussing it, can't say what exactly he means that 'equation' to be. You seem to have to guess at it and fill in the gaps in explanation yourself.
That being said, I will bow out and leave peacegirl with only her sensitive debator.
You understand that how exactly? Frankly, you're just making that up, extrapolating my argument into something I never said. I said not everyone has a conscience, I never said at what point they do or do not. This idea of his relies on the implementation of adults, so at what point there is/isn't a conscience is beside the point, the point is that there are adults who don't.
As for what the two sided equation is, he never presents an equation. I've asked you to spell it out numerous times, and even YOU can't.