Free will versus determinism

[s_lone]

That's what a life of morals is like, plain and simple.

Lessans' utopian view might work if all people possessed empathy, a conscience, and the entirety of humanity was perfrectly healthy. In other words, it might work in theory. Reality is completely different.

I had one friend who went into a complete funk after a series of prophetic dreams he'd had since childhood came true. He was furious, and felt cheated, because he'd done everything he could to avoid what his dreams were telling him would happen, and still he ended up at the time and place where he always dreamt he would nearly die. And it all played out the way he'd always dreamt. Now... the validity of what he experienced aside, the impact was HUGE, because to his mind, that meant that nothing he chose in his life made a difference. He was destroyed, furious. If we can't change our path, or at least our experience upon that path, then what point was there to living? He was never the same. He was defeated.

That must indeed be a traumatic experience. I can't imagine the shock of having dreams actually fulfilled. Of course, one can always extrapolate how the unconscious could find a way to find a way for the dream to actually become reality. As I'm sure you already know, the unconscious is extremely hard to figure out.


I just had this thought about Lessans' view. I already said that I do think there is potential for a truly inspiring vision of a peaceful humanity. The problem is that the way he presents his ideas is so repulsive that anything good is wasted.

Imagine a science fiction novel in which we come in contact with a very advanced extraterrestrial civilization. The aliens have a social and ethical model similar to what Lessans presents. The story could unfold around the clash between our two different standards of ethics and morality... Blame vs. no blame... That would be a very interesting way to present Lessans' model without claiming it to be a mathematical impossibility. It would rather be a more humble way of saying ''what if?'' Could it be possible that we evolve into something like Lessans' model? What would need to change? Is it realistic? Are there any important differences between the aliens and we humans that would make this impossible for us?

In other words, it would be presented as a reflection and not as undeniable truth.

The problem most of us have I think with Lessans' view is that we view it as being simply unrealistic or utopian. It seems too far away from what we are as human beings.

 

[JLM]

I just googled the book and found the following- book is rate as 1 star (out of 5)
Book has had one review that reads as follows-

"The book is presented in an awkward style where the author presents imaginary conversations he's having with people that he readily gets the best of. The other person then gushes enthusiastically about the authors reasoning. The prose and self glorification aren't the only problems with the text though.

Lessan likes to present even his philosophical ideas as scientific validated theories.

However not all of them are even testable hypothesis, and the ones that are testable he never bothered to try testing, or apparently reading any research in the field that was available even at the time the book was written.

His first discovery regarding free will he claims will lead to a world in which no one can hurt another person. The caveat is that these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population. This last part even requires a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of.

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

These are without a doubt one of the most poorly reasoned proofs I've ever seen collected in one book. Save your money. "

I'm rather curious about who Janis Rafael is. :smile:

 

[talloola]

And, I repeat what I said long ago, if his idea did become reality, only a percentage of the population
would buy into it, some would refuse just because, and the rest would be elated because they can
continue on with their brutal, horrible life of crime, and get away with everything, and those, who
are the 'serial criminals', have no guilt, and won't be dissapointed when no one pays any attention
to their crime.

The part of the world who is living in peace and tranquility, with a 'no blame' society, will have
to live with it, constantly, as it won't go away, time will not make those serial type people change,
they will reproduce and raise others who are the same, and many who grow up in the 'no blame' society
will join them, and some of the serial criminal's children will grow up and opt out of crime, but
the crime and violence will continue. Crime was apparant for the human to survive to begin with, the
human has an inborn ability to care for himself and those around, in many different ways, that is the
path of the past, and will continue into the future.

Part of the human's spirit and ability to survive is successfull because they have the ability to
show others, they do have a mean 'side', and will use it if pushed too far, that ability, when
tempered and controlled, as we must do, will demand respect from others. We all must learn about
ourselves, and what we have inside to survive this world, and I don't want to depend on a society
that takes that ability away, or I should say, the need for that ability. We love each other for
the spirit we can show, and we respect each other for the ability to fit that spirit into society
without hurting others.
Our society 'now', needs to strive to end the wars, and believe it or not, I believe that is slowly
moving in the right direction, but with 'religion', and 'sick head' leaders, it is an uphill climb
that will take thousands of years to achieve, and I don't mean to condemn religion, but those
groups who are so rigid in this world, must become more flexible and accept everyone, irrespective
of their belief or non belief, then some gain will be made.

We have our own ability to do this, in a world with 'free will', and the spirit to survive, and
help others to survive as well, without 'not blaming' anyone for anything, that will not work,
as those who are guilty must be brought forward and shown the error of their ways, and there will
always be those who are guilty, the concept that being blameless will make that go away, is false.

 

[JLM]

And, I repeat what I said long ago, if his idea did become reality, only a percentage of the population
would buy into it, some would refuse just because, and the rest would be elated because they can
continue on with their brutal, horrible life of crime, and get away with everything, and those, who
are the 'serial criminals', have no guilt, and won't be dissapointed when no one pays any attention
to their crime.

The part of the world who is living in peace and tranquility, with a 'no blame' society, will have
to live with it, constantly, as it won't go away, time will not make those serial type people change,
they will reproduce and raise others who are the same, and many who grow up in the 'no blame' society
will join them, and some of the serial criminal's children will grow up and opt out of crime, but
the crime and violence will continue. Crime was apparant for the human to survive to begin with, the
human has an inborn ability to care for himself and those around, in many different ways, that is the
path of the past, and will continue into the future.

Part of the human's spirit and ability to survive is successfull because they have the ability to
show others, they do have a mean 'side', and will use it if pushed too far, that ability, when
tempered and controlled, as we must do, will demand respect from others. We all must learn about
ourselves, and what we have inside to survive this world, and I don't want to depend on a society
that takes that ability away, or I should say, the need for that ability. We love each other for
the spirit we can show, and we respect each other for the ability to fit that spirit into society
without hurting others.
Our society 'now', needs to strive to end the wars, and believe it or not, I believe that is slowly
moving in the right direction, but with 'religion', and 'sick head' leaders, it is an uphill climb
that will take thousands of years to achieve, and I don't mean to condemn religion, but those
groups who are so rigid in this world, must become more flexible and accept everyone, irrespective
of their belief or non belief, then some gain will be made.

We have our own ability to do this, in a world with 'free will', and the spirit to survive, and
help others to survive as well, without 'not blaming' anyone for anything, that will not work,
as those who are guilty must be brought forward and shown the error of their ways, and there will
always be those who are guilty, the concept that being blameless will make that go away, is false.

Well written post Talloola. I'm beginning to wonder if this thread qualifies as "spam". :smile:

 

[peacegirl]

Accurate observation of what? The world Lessans proposes is a hypothetical world. He can't observe it! except in his own imagination.




NO. I don't agree with that because in that context choice is just a very elaborate illusion.

Here's a good example to explain the problem I have with what you're saying.

It's as if a robot car was traveling down a road and programmed to always turn left every time there's an intersection. The fact that there are intersections along the road does not mean there is a choice because the car is programmed to always turn left. The car doesn't choose anything. It's trajectory is already settled.

The same applies to our will if you go along the statement that it's part of the deterministic process and that it's ''programmed'' by natural selection to always take the path of greater satisfaction.

If no one can blame the car for always turning left, then it follows that the car can't blame itself also. And if you go down that road (pardon the pun!) the whole notion of responsibility is flushed down the drain.




If God is responsible than it is possible for the conscience to find an excuse for the action. The rapist can very well say his sexual instincts (nature) is responsible for what he did even though nobody is blaming him for what he did. Lessans takes for granted that a blameless environment leads people not to hurt people but he's not basing this on ''accurate observation'' because a blameless world has never come to be. It's a huge assumption which fails to convince anybody but you and Lessans. There's nothing mathematical or undeniable about it. An assumption is not a statement about reality.





As I already said, it's more than easy to shift responsibility when God is your accomplice!



Yes you can use God. If you feel guilty about what you did, you can use God. And if you don't well there is no problem. Nobody blames you... not even yourself! Everybody is happy in that case.




BLA BLA freakin' BLA!!! It's the same old repetitive thing all over again. You either don't feel guilty for what you did, which solves the issue. Or you do feel guilty and you can justify your action in the comforting thought that you could not have done otherwise, that God compelled you to do it because your will is not free, that it's part of the deterministic process and that it's programmed to do whatever it does according to what brings most satisfaction. The fact that nobody blames you for anything amounts to nothing if you have no power over what does bring you satisfaction.



The problem with this part is that some people do take responsibility for their actions in the world we live in. Not everybody tries to find excuses for their wrongs.



Do you really think that when a guy is contemplating the option of raping a woman, he is asking himself how he could justify the action if he chooses to do it? No he's too busy wondering if he can get away with it.




So why not blame the conditions of our life, which are beyond our power for the actions we do... Even if we are in blameless environment?





The only thing he's observing is his own hypothetical construct.





I won't keep reading for the reasons I already mentioned. The further I went in the book, the sillier it got.

I read the last sentence of this post. I'm not going to read the rest. It's not worth my time. Let's end this on a happy note s_lone. I like you as a person and I wish you the best, but I won't accept the attacks on this book just because you have failed in your understanding. Good luck to you!

Is anyone truly interested in this discovery, or do they just want to have fun laughing? I can be gone in a heartbeat if you really want me gone.

I just googled the book and found the following- book is rate as 1 star (out of 5)
Book has had one review that reads as follows-

"The book is presented in an awkward style where the author presents imaginary conversations he's having with people that he readily gets the best of. The other person then gushes enthusiastically about the authors reasoning. The prose and self glorification aren't the only problems with the text though.

Lessan likes to present even his philosophical ideas as scientific validated theories.

However not all of them are even testable hypothesis, and the ones that are testable he never bothered to try testing, or apparently reading any research in the field that was available even at the time the book was written.

His first discovery regarding free will he claims will lead to a world in which no one can hurt another person. The caveat is that these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population. This last part even requires a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of.

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

These are without a doubt one of the most poorly reasoned proofs I've ever seen collected in one book. Save your money. "

I'm rather curious about who Janis Rafael is. :smile:

Oh my goddddddd. I told you that this review was given by Green, who resented Lessans. There is nothing in the book that talks about force, so where this guy was coming from was beyond me. So you are now going to accept his review over me? Well, go ahead, but he is wrong and you will be wrong as well.

 

[karrie]

s_lone you have not failed in your understanding, I hope you know that.

 

[peacegirl]

And, I repeat what I said long ago, if his idea did become reality, only a percentage of the population
would buy into it, some would refuse just because, and the rest would be elated because they can
continue on with their brutal, horrible life of crime, and get away with everything, and those, who
are the 'serial criminals', have no guilt, and won't be dissapointed when no one pays any attention
to their crime.

Again, I am trying to control myself because I am very upset. How can serial criminals have no guilt and get away with their crimes, when in order to do this, they have to sign a contract that they will never blame again. You are all so confused, it's no wonder this knowledge took this long to come to the surface, let alone be recognized. I am not blaming anyone though, as hard as this is, because you are stepping on your own feet, and it hurts me to see this.

The part of the world who is living in peace and tranquility, with a 'no blame' society, will have
to live with it, constantly, as it won't go away, time will not make those serial type people change,
they will reproduce and raise others who are the same, and many who grow up in the 'no blame' society
will join them, and some of the serial criminal's children will grow up and opt out of crime, but
the crime and violence will continue. Crime was apparant for the human to survive to begin with, the
human has an inborn ability to care for himself and those around, in many different ways, that is the
path of the past, and will continue into the future.

With all due respect talloola, you have no idea what you are talking about. People will not continue when they can't find justification to continue. Of course, you don't have an inkling of what I am talking about, yet you come off like some kind of expert. It literally makes me feel ill inside.

Part of the human's spirit and ability to survive is successfull because they have the ability to
show others, they do have a mean 'side', and will use it if pushed too far, that ability, when
tempered and controlled, as we must do, will demand respect from others. We all must learn about
ourselves, and what we have inside to survive this world, and I don't want to depend on a society
that takes that ability away, or I should say, the need for that ability. We love each other for
the spirit we can show, and we respect each other for the ability to fit that spirit into society
without hurting others.

This is insane. If you knew that there was a way to prevent war by not showing your mean side, and you want to continue to show your mean side, you are not sincerely interested in helping the world.

Our society 'now', needs to strive to end the wars, and believe it or not, I believe that is slowly
moving in the right direction, but with 'religion', and 'sick head' leaders, it is an uphill climb
that will take thousands of years to achieve, and I don't mean to condemn religion, but those
groups who are so rigid in this world, must become more flexible and accept everyone, irrespective
of their belief or non belief, then some gain will be made.

But you don't realize that you are just as rigid talloola. It's so unfortunate because you are acting as if you are more compassionate than others, and you are not. You say you will accept others, but only under your conditions. You are no different than the rest except in appearances. I may be banned for this comment, but this is how I feel.

We have our own ability to do this, in a world with 'free will', and the spirit to survive, and
help others to survive as well, without 'not blaming' anyone for anything, that will not work,
as those who are guilty must be brought forward and shown the error of their ways, and there will
always be those who are guilty, the concept that being blameless will make that go away, is false.

I will repeat again, how can someone show another the error of their ways when they showed no error? Tell me.

s_lone you have not failed in your understanding, I hope you know that.

I hate to do this karrie, but I am on the verge of putting you on ignore if there is a button to do this. You are a fly on the wall that has no impact on this discussion. I ask again, why are you here? What makes you tick? I really don't want to know. I just feel sad for you that you can't sit quietly and listen to the conversation. You have to insert your opinion prematurely. That speaks of your weakness, not mine.

 

[JLM]

I read the last sentence of this post. I'm not going to read the rest. It's not worth my time. Let's end this on a happy note s_lone. I like you as a person and I wish you the best, but I won't accept the attacks on this book just because you have failed in your understanding. Good luck to you!

Is anyone truly interested in this discovery, or do they just want to have fun laughing? I can be gone in a heartbeat if you really want me gone.



Oh my goddddddd. I told you that this review was given by Green, who resented Lessans. There is nothing in the book that talks about force, so where this guy was coming from was beyond me. So you are now going to accept his review over me? Well, go ahead, but he is wrong and you will be wrong as well.

So there is two reviews written on a book that was written 20+ years ago. :smile:

 

[karrie]

peacegirl, I read enough of your put downs of intelligent, cogent posters, here in this thread, that I ceased to take your feelings on my participation seriously, and thus, will post to who I please, when I please. Feel ill over talloola's take on it, feel angry over Dexter's opinion, get pissed because I had the nerve to talk, all you darn well please. We have all been highly civil and patient for days while you've been condescending and evasive. I see no reason to continue catering to your delusions. I will not stoop to insulting you any further than my observations incidentally have, but I also won't be bullied out of a conversation by your insults. If you need to put me on ignore because you can't face contradictory opinions, by all means do.

 

[JLM]

With all due respect talloola, you have no idea what you are talking about. People will not continue when they can't find justification to continue. Of course, you don't have an inkling of what I am talking about, yet you come off like some kind of expert. It literally makes me feel ill inside.



This is insane. If you knew that there was a way to prevent war by not showing your mean side, and you want to continue to show your mean side, you are not sincerely interested in helping the world.



But you don't realize that you are just as rigid talloola. It's so unfortunate because you are acting as if you are more compassionate than others, and you are not. You say you will accept others, but only under your conditions. You are no different than the rest except in appearances. I may be banned for this comment, but this is how I feel.



I will repeat again, how can someone show another the error of their ways when they showed no error? Tell me.



I hate to do this karrie, but I am on the verge of putting you on ignore if there is a button to do this. You are a fly on the wall that has no impact on this discussion. I ask again, why are you here? What makes you tick? I really don't want to know. I just feel sad for you that you can't sit quietly and listen to the conversation. You have to insert your opinion prematurely. That speaks of your weakness, not mine.

Your credibility is waning with every post. If defending this book means denigrating basic, sensible, down to earth people- then I suggest there is something radically wrong with both the book and anyone who defends it. :smile:

You are a fly on the wall that has no impact on this discussion[/B].

If that is the case why is she getting you so upset? :smile:

peacegirl, I read enough of your put downs of intelligent, cogent posters, here in this thread, that I ceased to take your feelings on my participation seriously, and thus, will post to who I please, when I please. Feel ill over talloola's take on it, feel angry over Dexter's opinion, get pissed because I had the nerve to talk, all you darn well please. We have all been highly civil and patient for days while you've been condescending and evasive. I see no reason to continue catering to your delusions. I will not stoop to insulting you any further than my observations incidentally have, but I also won't be bullied out of a conversation by your insults. If you need to put me on ignore because you can't face contradictory opinions, by all means do.

One of the main acid tests of credibility is the ability to stand constructive criticism.

 

[talloola]

Again, I am trying to control myself because I am very upset. How can serial criminals have no guilt and get away with their crimes, when in order to do this, they have to sign a contract that they will never blame again. You are all so confused, it's no wonder this knowledge took this long to come to the surface, let alone be recognized. I am not blaming anyone though, as hard as this is, because you are stepping on your own feet, and it hurts me to see this.



With all due respect talloola, you have no idea what you are talking about. People will not continue when they can't find justification to continue. Of course, you don't have an inkling of what I am talking about, yet you come off like some kind of expert. It literally makes me feel ill inside.



This is insane. If you knew that there was a way to prevent war by not showing your mean side, and you want to continue to show your mean side, you are not sincerely interested in helping the world.



But you don't realize that you are just as rigid talloola. It's so unfortunate because you are acting as if you are more compassionate than others, and you are not. You say you will accept others, but only under your conditions. You are no different than the rest except in appearances. I may be banned for this comment, but this is how I feel.



I will repeat again, how can someone show another the error of their ways when they showed no error? Tell me.



I hate to do this karrie, but I am on the verge of putting you on ignore if there is a button to do this. You are a fly on the wall that has no impact on this discussion. I ask again, why are you here? What makes you tick? I really don't want to know. I just feel sad for you that you can't sit quietly and listen to the conversation. You have to insert your opinion prematurely. That speaks of your weakness, not mine.

I don't feel ill, or upset, or wanting to put you on ignore, or any of the things you describe about
yourself, there is one thing you must learn in this life, just accept the fact that others will not
agree with your theories or books or whatever 'all' the time, just as others don't agree with me all
the time, that's life, I accept that, just move on, no hard feelings at all, take a big breath, and
smile, the sun will come up tomorrow, and life will go on.

 

[s_lone]

I read the last sentence of this post. I'm not going to read the rest. It's not worth my time. Let's end this on a happy note s_lone. I like you as a person and I wish you the best, but I won't accept the attacks on this book just because you have failed in your understanding. Good luck to you!

Is anyone truly interested in this discovery, or do they just want to have fun laughing? I can be gone in a heartbeat if you really want me gone.

Too bad you just read the last sentence. I thought we were getting to the crux of the matter. I explained very clearly what I don't agree with in what Lessans has to say. You are convinced that the reason I don't agree is because I don't understand but I demonstrated quite clearly that I do in the summary I did in an earlier post.

If you're interested in keeping our discussion going then respond to what I have to say in my last post. If not well good luck to you. I did enjoy our exchange and wish you the best.

Nobody is asking you to leave. You came in here wanting to discuss Lessans and that is what you got.

If you don't like it, leave.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I can be gone in a heartbeat if you really want me gone.

That's your choice, unless you do something worthy of banning. Since all you seem able to do in defence of Lessans' inane book is tell us we're wrong, we're insane, we don't understand, we make you ill, we make you angry, etc., you might reconsider whether YOU want to be here. You've offered exactly nothing of substance of your own, insulted everybody who's tried to engage you, tried to make people stop engaging you when you don't like what they say, offered us pity for our failures to agree with Lessans, and wallowed in self-pity. That's exactly what's happened at every other discussion board I've seen you at. You convince nobody and insult everybody, and you learn nothing from the way people react to you and Lessan's ideas. Whatever it is you're trying to do, you're doing it very badly.

 

[JLM]

That's your choice, unless you do something worthy of banning. Since all you seem able to do in defence of Lessans' inane book is tell us we're wrong, we're insane, we don't understand, we make you ill, we make you angry, etc., you might reconsider whether YOU want to be here. You've offered exactly nothing of substance of your own, insulted everybody who's tried to engage you, tried to make people stop engaging you when you don't like what they say, offered us pity for our failures to agree with Lessans, and wallowed in self-pity. That's exactly what's happened at every other discussion board I've seen you at. You convince nobody and insult everybody, and you learn nothing from the way people react to you and Lessan's ideas. Whatever it is you're trying to do, you're doing it very badly.

There's a name for that type of behaviour.........................neuroticism. :smile:

Again, I am trying to control myself because I am very upset. How can serial criminals have no guilt and get away with their crimes, when in order to do this, they have to sign a contract that they will never blame again. .

Come on, every time you open your mouth, your naivity comes through loud and clear- I honestly find it hard to believe an adult is writing this drivel. While contracts may be binding and have meaning in the legal realm, in the real world they amount to exactly the same thing as signing your name in a bucket of water.

 

[peacegirl]

That's your choice, unless you do something worthy of banning. Since all you seem able to do in defence of Lessans' inane book is tell us we're wrong, we're insane, we don't understand, we make you ill, we make you angry, etc., you might reconsider whether YOU want to be here. You've offered exactly nothing of substance of your own, insulted everybody who's tried to engage you, tried to make people stop engaging you when you don't like what they say, offered us pity for our failures to agree with Lessans, and wallowed in self-pity. That's exactly what's happened at every other discussion board I've seen you at. You convince nobody and insult everybody, and you learn nothing from the way people react to you and Lessan's ideas. Whatever it is you're trying to do, you're doing it very badly.

First of all, I never said you make me ill. I said I have an illness. Please don't twist what I say. You called this author arrogant and hurled false accusations at him, and then you expect me to just sit there and say nothing? I can't turn the other cheek, not when you struck the first blow. You have never asked one question, not one, yet you are positive the author is wrong. The danger is that everyone else follows the leader. So if I respond negatively, it's because you put me on the defensive. BTW, I am not wallowing in self-pity. I realize that this knowledge will take somene who can put aside their long held beliefs (at least temporarily) in order to analyze this knowledge objectively. If not, the cognitive dissonance will be too great, and any of Lessans' ideas will be rejected immediately. I am not going to psychoanalyze you like everyone is trying to do to me, but I believe you resent this man because he did not come out of any leading universities, so you have no respect to even hear what he has to say.

There's a name for that type of behaviour.........................neuroticism. :smile:



Come on, every time you open your mouth, your naivity comes through loud and clear- I honestly find it hard to believe an adult is writing this drivel. While contracts may be binding and have meaning in the legal realm, in the real world they amount to exactly the same thing as signing your name in a bucket of water.

Again, this was a soundbite. You are right; it sounds crazy. But the question I was asked about criminals, which usually is the first thing people want to know about, was extremely premature. In order to envision the entire process of how this transition to a new way of life comes about, you need to see how this principle is extended into all areas of human relation, because they are intertwined. When the causes that lead to crime are prevented, these principles will work. This has so much to do with how children will be raised, and how the economic system prevent the frustration that now leads to so much criminal behavior. Nobody has done that; not one person. Yet you all know that he is wrong. You really have misconstrued this knowledge. I said early on that if someone is a hardened criminal whose conscience has been severed, he would be treated like any sick person and be taken off the streets. He would be treated humanely because his will is not free, but the public would need to be protected. But when the conditions of the environment change, mental illness will be virtually non-existent. You are talking about a small segment of society without understanding the whole, and then laughing because it sounds ridiculous. Do you see what you're doing?

 

[s_lone]

The danger is that everyone else follows the leader.

Oh please...

While Dexter is a respected member of this forum, there are no leaders and followers here. We all come here with our point of views and they often do clash. A simple look around other threads will be enough for you to see that we all have had lengthy debates amongst ourselves. In other words, we all disagree on a myriad of issues.

 

[peacegirl]

Oh please...

While Dexter is a respected member of this forum, there are no leaders and followers here. We all come here with our point of views and they often do clash. A simple look around other threads will be enough for you to see that we all have had lengthy debates amongst ourselves. In other words, we all disagree on a myriad of issues.

I understand this, but there is definitely a psychological dynamic at work which I don't believe can be totally avoided. If one person who is respected on the forum says something is good, then everyone perks up and listens more carefully. If someone who is respected calls something garbage, or not worth reading, or what have you, no one is going to take it seriously. It's just human nature.

 

[L Gilbert]

Is anyone interested in this topic? I would like to present a different definition of determinism, which can change our understanding of human nature, and change our world for the better.

Determinism: the philosophy that everything is the result of a cause. Is there another definition as simply stated?

 

[s_lone]

I understand this, but there is definitely a psychological dynamic at work which I don't believe can be totally avoided. If one person who is respected on the forum says something is good, then everyone perks up and listens more carefully. If someone who is respected calls something garbage, or not worth reading, or what have you, no one is going to take it seriously. It's just human nature.

Well yes, when someone I do respect speaks, I tend to listen. But that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them. Dexter for example is far more trained in science than I am, so in that respect, I always do take the time to read what he has to say and am careful to try to meet his standards of rigorous thinking when I debate him, and I haven't always succeeded in doing so. Dexter has repeatedly designated stuff as mystical nonsense or garbage that I find worthy of investigation.

Perhaps the fact that I went through most of the details so extensively with you is proof enough that I did take Lessans seriously enough? I wouldn't have done it if I thought it was nonsense.

Karrie to take another example, is a mother and I'd be foolish not to take her opinion seriously in anything concerning education and childhood issues. We recently had a heated debate on how the issue of religion and ethics should or shouldn't be tackled in public schools. We disagreed significantly. I have my views but I take hers seriously because she has consistently demonstrated that what she has to say is well thought out and valuable.

The point here is that we all come here with our different experiences and point of views. Sometimes they clash, sometimes they don't, but most of us manage to make it all happen under respectfulness which is one of the reasons we keep coming back here.

Are you honestly surprised that none of us here agree with Lessans? Considering the experience you had at other forums, can you really say that none of us agree because of gang mentality?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

First of all, I never said you make me ill. I said I have an illness. Please don't twist what I say.

Please try to remember what you say, it's hard to take people seriously who don't. In your response to Talloola in post #267 you said she made you feel ill.