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.
Free will versus determinism
- Thread starter peacegirl
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
s_lone said:
He actually did, and he said it can be empirically tested.
s_lone said:
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.
s_lone said:
But you can differentiate between those things that can be objectively measured, and those things that cannot because they are subjective.
s_lone said:
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:
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.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.
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.
Wishing you all the best karrie. Take care.
I posted the two-sided equation. I don't know if you bowed out yet, but I did give it to you.
- Status