Free will versus determinism

Cliffy
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

THAT would just destroy any credibility you have.

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.
 
peacegirl
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

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.

I think you came into this thread late in the game. In the world of judgment, we can manipulate anything to suit our purposes. But this thread describes a new world based on a discovery; a world of no judgment, blame, or punishment. In this world we cannot lie to ourselves or others because we are not given the opportunity to do so. In this world, we are compelled to take full responsibility for our actions without any force whatsoever. If you are interested in learning more, you can go to the book which I posted online for free. All I ask is that you don't skip around. Please read the first three chapter, otherwise you will not understand the rest of the book.

Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado - The Agora (external - login to view) (Click on the first thread entitled: New Discovery



Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

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.

I just happened to read this post Cliff. I am not telling anyone to play by my rules. But I am demanding that I, as well as this author, be respected. I don't disrespect anyone, and I deserve the same respect in return. It's called being civil while discussing a controversial issue. If that bothers you then please don't post here, or you will be ignored as well.
Last edited by peacegirl; Aug 27th, 2010 at 09:27 AM..
 
s_lone
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

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: View Post
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.

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''.

*** for tat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

The author presents his own rule which is ''Thou shall not Blame''. It's interesting, but it's as much of a mathematical equation than the golden rule or ''*** for tat''. And from what I understand of mathematics, none of these moral guidelines come even close to being a true mathematical equation.

That being said, I'm off to read chapter 4.
 
karrie
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView 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.
 
JLM
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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.
 
Dexter Sinister
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

You're completely wrong. It just shows how confused a person can get when he doesn't understand.

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.
Quote:

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.

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.
 
karrie
#97
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

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.
 
JLM
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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.

Sorry Karrie, I didn't pick up on that. I usually pay attention to your posts but must have missed that one.
 
peacegirl
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by s_loneView Post

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.

All he meant by mathematical is undeniable.

For purposes of clarification please note that the words scientific and mathematical only mean undeniable, and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific. Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone... is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost.

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

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.

He was showing that there are two sides in this human equation. We are on one side and the world is on the other. It is definitely a two-sided equation [If you have a better name for it, then use it. He was not a stickler on these things. In fact, he asked people to come forward if they had a better way to explain the discovery].

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

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)

I like that. You are very creative.

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

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.
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''.

Quote has been trimmed
It is a mathematical equation in the sense that these principles cannot be denied, once they are understood. People can deny anything they want, but that doesn't mean their denial negates the truth, just as I can deny that 2+2=4, but that doesn't negate the truth of this equation. Please let's not get caught up in words. Let's try to understand the concept behind the words.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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.

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

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.

There is a difference between belittling and fair argument. I can accept someone's disagreement based on a rational evaluation, but I cannot tolerate disrespect and I'm sure you can't either. There is a philosophical name for people who attack the person rather of the argument. I forget what it is called.
 
karrie
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post


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.

It didn't fail any test.... the uncle still had no conscience. You can't say that just because one person, if raised perfectly, turns out okay, that everyone will be raised that way and people with no conscience will never exist ever again.
 
peacegirl
#101
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

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.

You can say anything you please but that doesn't make the author wrong. You can say Einstein was wrong, but you wouldn't, because he is already established as someone who was right. If he was an unknown, you could have said the same thing. Obviously, the proof is what counts, but you aren't giving him a chance. You are correct in that no author necessarily has a hold on the truth, unless it IS the truth. It just so happens that Lessans has a hold on the truth of determinism. This isn't meant to be prideful or boastful. It's just the truth. Eintstin knew he was right even before he got the stamp of approval by scientists in his field, and the same goes here.
 
karrie
#102
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.
 
peacegirl
#103
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

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.

What academy Dexter? No one gave him an audience. You talk about several centuries of philosophical debate. Sometimes someone comes up with something new because of this accumulation of knowledge. No one makes a discovery without learning from the past. He does have something original to offer, but you don't know because you don't know what it is, yet you think you do. I guarantee you that if someone you viewed as an expert recommended this book, you would have an entirely different attitude.
 
s_lone
#104
All right Peacegirl.

I understand what you mean by ''mathematical'' when you say something is ''undeniable''. But as you can see it can be very misleading... For the sake of our own discussion however, 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 can touch and hear however. It's no surprise that the sense of sight is poorly developed at birth. But that doesn't mean sight functions differently from the other senses beyond the mechanics of it (an eardrum being different than a retina).

It seems to me that the author is terribly confused when it comes to this.

When you watch TV, the image is brought to your brain almost instantly, because the speed of light travels so incredibly fast, but that doesn't mean there is no delay. It's just extremely small. And when it comes to celestial objects, the stars we see in the night sky are not the stars as they are in the present. All we see are the photons that traveled through great distances and have taken a certain amount of time to get to Earth. I think the closest star is something like 4 lightyears away. When we see that star, the photons have taken 4 earth years to reach our eyes. How can the author argue that we are seeing the star as it is in the present?

You just said Einstein knew he was right before he was accepted by the scientific community. How is Lessans right concerning his claims about light and sight?
Last edited by s_lone; Aug 27th, 2010 at 11:44 AM..
 
peacegirl
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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.

No Karrie, that's not true. There are no brilliant minds who have read this work in its entirety.

"Down through history, there has always been this skepticism before certain events were proven true. Who believed the first astronomer when he predicted an eclipse or Einstein when he revealed the potential of atomic energy? It is only natural to be skeptical, but this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific miracle. Now assuming for a moment that such a scientific discovery is available and that it could bring about a permanent end to every evil existing in human relations, it is quite obvious that this knowledge should be carefully analyzed because it benefits all mankind. You may reason that many people have been positive that they were right but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong because I am positive. The first astronomer who observed the mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that enabled him to predict an eclipse was positive and right, as well as the space scientist who foretold that one day man would land on the moon. Edison when he first discovered the electric bulb was positive and right. Einstein when he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive and right — and so were many other scientists — 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.
 
karrie
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

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.


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.
 
peacegirl
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by s_loneView Post

All right Peacegirl.
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...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
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.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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.

Right. There would need to be a change in the environment. A pardigm shift which this law brings.
 
karrie
#108
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

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.
 
peacegirl
#109
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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.

No Karrie, that's not true. We are living in a free will environment; an environment of judgment. Until this judgment is removed, we won't even come close to solving the world's problems. Yes, it will be difficult to get science to understand why man's will is not free, and why not blaming (under very specific conditions) can get a better result than blaming. We are obviously very far from this reality because it will take scientists to stamp this knowledge with the brevet of truth before it can be put into practice. And even then, the world leaders must know these principles first because they will be the first citizens of this new world. But it is now possible to create such a world; a world of peace and brotherhood between all men, whether you believe this is possible or not.
Last edited by peacegirl; Aug 27th, 2010 at 12:06 PM..
 
karrie
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

But it is possible only because the principles are undeniable, if understood.

The problem is, you are not speaking to inintelligent people, and we are telling you, it makes no sense. And when we tell you that what he's written makes no sense, your retort is to tell us that we haven't understood it.... which we already know, because it makes no sense. You will not reach any kind of understanding of the message you're trying to spread, with such a limited understanding of it yourself that you can't clarify beyond those two debate points.... 1) telling us we didn't understand and 2) pasting more of his words that make no sense.
 
peacegirl
#111
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.
 
talloola
#112
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.
 
karrie
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

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.

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.
 
s_lone
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

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.

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.
Last edited by s_lone; Aug 27th, 2010 at 12:29 PM..
 
peacegirl
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

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.

It's those very serial criminals who will be controlled by this natural law. You are being extremely near sighted and basing your conclusions on what is going on today. Your vision is limited.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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.
 
karrie
#116
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post


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.

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.
 
peacegirl
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by s_loneView Post

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.

No, but I just didn't think it was appropriate to start an new discussion on whether the eyes are a sense organ or not. I've been there and done that, and people are so turned off that they assume he has nothing to offer because they can't believe he is arguing about a topic that is looked upon as fact.

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

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.

He actually did, and he said it can be empirically tested.

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

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.

That's not what he said. In fact, he said that differences exist and what is attractive to someone is personal. It is subjective. The only thing he disproves is that there is standard of beauty that exists for all. Beauty is a value, and values don't exist in the external world. Value only has reference to the individual.

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

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.

But you can differentiate between those things that can be objectively measured, and those things that cannot because they are subjective.

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

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.

I am having a hard time s_lone. I don't like wasting so much time on people telling me he has nothing and he is wrong, when I know he is right. I am not saying people can't disagree, but when they don't read the book and I can see where the confusion lies, it's very frustrating to me. And I don't like people who are not friendly. I am sensitive and no matter how hard I try to ignore people, it hurts. If people will let me and you have a conversation, I might agree to this. I'm not sure if they will though.
Last edited by peacegirl; Aug 27th, 2010 at 12:51 PM..
 
s_lone
#118
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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''.
 
karrie
#119
Quote: Originally Posted by s_loneView Post

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. Enjoy your day guys.
 
peacegirl
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by s_loneView Post

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''.

Thank you. I think for lack of a better word, he used the word 'equation'. He was a mathematician in his own right, so I think he knew what he was saying, especially when he qualified the term in the introduction.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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. Enjoy your day guys.

Wishing you all the best karrie. Take care.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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 posted the two-sided equation. I don't know if you bowed out yet, but I did give it to you.
 

Similar Threads

2
V3 versus V3i
by trepex | Feb 17th, 2006
no new posts