Free will versus determinism

[mentalfloss]

Peacegirl, you're flip-flopping again. Once you gave up on responsibility being a 'moot point', you reverted to responsibility being mandated by determinism. Nevermind the fact that you contradicted yourself again earlier - 'We cannot hold man responsible if his will is not free.'

In addition to that, you staunchly refused to acknowledge the proof brought forward that logically shows determinism and responsibility cannot be compatible. That proof has been accepted by both determinists and libertarians alike because it actually sticks to the faculty of critical thinking and formal logic.

At this point, I think I'm just going to call it quits and let you gloss over the countless times you've repeated a broken line. Feel free to consider this my escape from your winning argument. I'll feel free to know better.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Believe me, this invariable law of our nature does work for the very reason that it is an invariable law. It it wasn't, then all bets would be off.

No, I don't believe you. That's an entirely circular argument. An invariable law works because it's an invariable law? I can't take that seriously. Lessans needs to prove it's an invariable law, and hasn't done so.

 

[peacegirl]

That strikes me as completely illogical. Knowing you'll be blamed doesn't give you the opportunity to shift responsibility, it just creates a motive to try. If you won't be blamed, there are no consequences for whatever wrong things you do, you can deny all responsibility. Suppose I choose to poison all the cats in my neighbourhood, for instance (and I hope we can agree that would be a wrong thing to do), because they kill the birds I like to attract to my yard, dig up my flower beds, and crap in my garden. If doing so has no negative consequences for me, and I would derive great personal satisfaction from seeing an end to the damage they do, what would prevent me from doing it? Lessans' lessons seem to me a recipe for extreme solipsism, not a better world.

No Dexter, it would be the exact opposite. I feel that after all this discussion either no one was reading my posts carefully, or no one grasps what I'm talking about. If you can't understand why 'no consequence' is a consequence that is worse than any punishment could offer, then you had better reread chapters one and two. Then, I suggest you read the rest of the book because it will absolutely give you a better understanding of how the basic principle (Thou Shall Not Blame) plays out in real life. Right now, it seems impossible that a world of no blame could bring peace and brotherhood, but it does just that.

As far as the cats, first you would need to know who they belonged to, or if they were wild cats. Obviously, you would have the right to keep them out of your yard but you are assuming that people would get satisfaction out of poisoning them. You really have to envision this new world because so much that happens today won't even be a factor in the new world. When one is not blamed or criticized for what he wants to do in his life, he will be much more inclined to respond kindly to these cats and either get them to a humane society, or find the owners. Afterall, they are just following their kitty cat nature. The fact that the owners would not be blamed for allowing their cats to get into your garden and cause so much damage, would compel them to find a solution because these are their cats and they would feel responsible.

Evidently what you perceive as astute observation and sound reasoning look to me like anecdote and speculation.

Anecdote doesn't even enter into the two-sided equation at all. Speculation is nothing more than an assertion, which is not grounded in anything more than a guess. And this is far from a guess.

No, I don't believe you. That's an entirely circular argument. An invariable law works because it's an invariable law? I can't take that seriously. Lessans needs to prove it's an invariable law, and hasn't done so.

You keep saying that but you have given no refutation whatsoever, so I have no idea what you understand and what you don't. At least MentalFloss is giving me something to work with.

Peacegirl, you're flip-flopping again. Once you gave up on responsibility being a 'moot point', you reverted to responsibility being mandated by determinism. Nevermind the fact that you contradicted yourself again earlier - 'We cannot hold man responsible if his will is not free.'

I said responsibility is a moot point when it does not involve behavior that hurts another. The only time responsibility plays a part in this equation is when one knows that he has crossed the line and now feels responsible.

In addition to that, you staunchly refused to acknowledge the proof brought forward that logically shows determinism and responsibility cannot be compatible. That proof has been accepted by both determinists and libertarians alike because it actually sticks to the faculty of critical thinking and formal logic.

And you've completely gotten lost with words and definitions that have no meaning in reality, and therefore you are not following the two-sided equation at all. I can't do anything about that unfortunately.

At this point, I think I'm just going to call it quits and let you gloss over the countless times you've repeated a broken line. Feel free to consider this my escape from your winning argument. I'll feel free to know better.

No problem. You don't even need a reason to escape; all you need to do is go. If you ever feel the urge to read the rest of the book, I think it would clarify a lot of things. Even if you don't agree with the premises, it's still a very interesting read that can add a lot to your worldview.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Lessans is essentially arguing that if we stop holding people responsible for behaving badly they'll stop behaving badly. There's no evidence that's true.

 

[talloola]

What is the plan for those who 'do not' conform to the plan, after it in place, and most seem
to be following along peacefully.

 

[JLM]

Lessans is essentially arguing that if we stop holding people responsible for behaving badly they'll stop behaving badly. There's no evidence that's true.

That would be great, we could get rid of all policeman, judges, lawyers, prison guards and the world would be a Utopia.

 

[peacegirl]

Lessans is essentially arguing that if we stop holding people responsible for behaving badly they'll stop behaving badly. There's no evidence that's true.

No, that's not what he is saying. You are making him sound like a crackpot. He never said we should all just stop blaming people and they will all be on good behavior. That is absurd and you know it. This is such a problem because people are taking things out of context. He said that if we suddenly stopped blaming, people would have a field day taking everything that was not nailed down. That is why you need to understand what conditions have to be in place for this principle to work.

What is the plan for those who 'do not' conform to the plan, after it in place, and most seem
to be following along peacefully.

There is no penalty. This world is coming about voluntarily and the only way that this can actually occur is if people see the benefits. If they don't, they can continue living in the world they live in and the police will be in full force in just proportion.

That would be great, we could get rid of all policeman, judges, lawyers, prison guards and the world would be a Utopia.

He never used the word 'Utopia' because people tend to use the word to mean a kind of earthly, unattainable paradise. These are mathematical laws that make this world attainable, even though at first it seems impossible. In fact, in order for this world to come about, it is imperative that we remove all forms of blame. Lessans writes:

"In spite of the fact that many people will not be happy about losing their profession, they will be forced to look for something else because their services will no longer be needed. Soon to be displaced are judges, juries, lawyers, the entire penalsystem, crime investigators, intelligence agencies, liability insurance, every kind of license granting permission to do something, all printed forms to check on your honesty, credit cards (all but the IBM), travelers checks, money orders, the banks as a place to safeguard money, and all tax adjusters. The unions will be displaced not only because they blame employers for not paying enough wages, but also because they try to prevent abuses to employees using force. Also displaced are all collection and credit investigating agencies. The first blames someone for not paying his bills and the second checks him in advance to see if he will. When a creditor tries to get his money by sending collection notices, he blames his debtors and gives them unconscious justification to shirk this responsibility. The debtors will be permitted to hurt their creditor if they want to, but they won’t want to under the changed conditions. Knowing in advance that the creditor will never ask them again for what they owe him since they know he will consider their not paying him back a compulsion over which they have no control — even though they know it is not beyond their control — they will be compelled, of their own free will, to desire paying back every penny since it gives them no satisfaction to be excused when every bit of justification has been removed. Personnel departments and employment agencies are displaced because they are employed to screen applicants, which blames them for being dishonest about their qualifications. A great many employers do not want to hire certain types such as Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, etc., and the agency screens this aspect also. Whatever the reason, since blame is present in some form, these agencies get displaced. It is obvious that an employer is anxious to get the best possible employees for the jobs that are available, which is the reason he screens his applicants. However, this screening is a definite form of tacit blame which justifies any efforts to lie in order to get the position. But when an applicant knows that he is not going to be questioned as to his qualifications; when he knows that he will never be blamed regardless of how many mistakes he makes; that he will never be criticized or punished by being fired, he is given no choice but to forgo any job for which there is the slightest doubt in his mind that he may not be able to handle. Therefore, by removing this tacit blame every individual who seeks employment is compelled to prefer developing a skill so that he can apply for a job with the confidence that he will never hurt anyone due to his lack of ability.

As for who becomes a citizen first, priority will be determined by those whose jobs, professions or businesses will be displaced immediately by the transition. This means that our next citizens will be the police who will be displaced in proportion as the non-citizens decrease. The second are the armed forces of defense which render useless the further need for weapons of offense. Before jumping to conclusions, let me explain. Since the armed forces of defense blame in advance the possibility of being attacked, they must be displaced, and because it is mathematically impossible for armies of offense to desire dropping bombs on those who refuse to retaliate, they too have no reason to remain in existence. How is it possible to spend on learning the art of war and self-defense when no one will ever again attack us? As was just demonstrated in the second and verified in the following chapters, when man judges in advance what is right for someone else and tacitly blames the desire to do what is considered wrong, he actually offers unconscious justification to do the very things not desired. Just as a girl can only offer her body without fear of being hurt when the boy knows that she will never hold him responsible in any way, or blame him for having a good time and leaving, the same holds true for countries in extreme conflict. When everything is removed that justifies aggression — which includes the removal of all weapons — there will be nothing to fear because no country will find satisfaction from pouncing down on a defenseless nation that announces to the world it will not retaliate."

 

[JLM]

Are you going to answer my question in post # 492?

 

[peacegirl]

Quoting peacegirl
i think you are misunderstanding what is meant by 'responsibility'. As i stated to s_lone, responsibility for an action only means that you were the one that did the act. You can't blame what you did on something other than yourself because nothing other than yourself can force you to do something against your will. Therefore, you wanted to do it, for whever reason. That's all this means. it does not mean that once you do something to hurt another, that you are responsible for the act; you are not because you were moving in the direction of greater satisfaction to hurt this person, over which you had no control.

Well, which way is it going to be?

This IS the two-sided equation, which is the discovery itself. Let's try again: The world must excuse (i.e. you can no longer be blamed for anything because it has been established that man's will is not free) what you can no longer justify because you know that if you hurt someone with a first blow and you also know absolutely and positively that the reaction would be one of no blame, you would feel terribly remorseful for this hurt to another. Therefore, in order avoid getting into a situation like this (because your conscience would feel the weight of responsibility with no way to justify it), the only avenue open to you is to do everything in your power to prevent this type of situation from occuring. This is about prevention; it is not about hurting someone and then people being forced to turn the other cheek.

 

[JLM]

This IS the two-sided equation, which is the discovery itself. Let's try again: The world must excuse (i.e. you can no longer be blamed for anything because it has been established that man's will is not free) what you can no longer justify because you know that if you hurt someone with a first blow and you also know absolutely and positively that the reaction would be one of no blame, you would feel terribly remorseful for this hurt to another. Therefore, in order avoid getting into a situation like this (because your conscience would feel the weight of responsibility with no way to justify it), the only avenue open to you is to do everything in your power to prevent this type of situation from occuring. This is about prevention; it is not about hurting someone and then people being forced to turn the other cheek.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Anyone else?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...you know that if you hurt someone with a first blow and you also know absolutely and positively that the reaction would be one of no blame, you would feel terribly remorseful for this hurt to another.

Like I said, that argument is that if we stop blaming people for behaving badly they'll stop behaving badly. You must live in a different reality than the rest of us.

 

[peacegirl]

Like I said, that argument is that if we stop blaming people for behaving badly they'll stop behaving badly. You must live in a different reality than the rest of us.

Dexter, that's only because you don't yet grasp these mathematical principles. It seems to go against the grain of everything we have been taught, which is why no one has made this discovery. If it was easy, someone would have discovered this law of our nature long ago.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Anyone else?

JLM, why is this so hard to understand? Tell me what bothers you, and I will try to help you understand why responsibility for one's actions goes up, not down.

 

[karrie]

peacegirl, once again I will reiterate, we all UNDERSTAND what you've said, we simply disagree that it would work. You are falling straight into parroting your father... equations, mathematical laws, truths... when we are all telling you that, no, they are not mathematical, they are not proven laws, they are conjecture and a ponderance on what might be if all minds worked the same. And a flawed conjecture at that.

 

[peacegirl]

peacegirl, once again I will reiterate, we all UNDERSTAND what you've said, we simply disagree that it would work. You are falling straight into parroting your father... equations, mathematical laws, truths... when we are all telling you that, no, they are not mathematical, they are not proven laws, they are conjecture and a ponderance on what might be if all minds worked the same. And a flawed conjecture at that.

karrie, I really do appreciate your devil's advocate come back, but it won't work only because these are mathematical laws of our nature. This is not about an agreement that all people are alike and will work the same way without the conditions that could make this happen. Yes, it is true that we all are different, but we are not different in one respect. Given the right situation, NO ONE COULD HURT ANOTHER WITHOUT A JUSTIFICATION, AND THIS IS WHAT THIS LAW IS PREVENTING.

 

[JLM]

Your explanations don't hold water. A person has to bear responsibility for every act, whether it turns out good or bad. As creatures with brains we are given the ability to think before we act and if we still don't have the answer we get advice, but ultimately the responsibility is ours. You have never given any references from psychologists, scientists or any other professionals that back your claims and until you do you have no credibility.

 

[talloola]

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Anyone else?

i'm with you JLM, and why would the police have to be out in full force, if no one is going to
be blamed for anything, maybe they just drive you around the block, then drop you off with a pat
on the head.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Dexter, that's only because you don't yet grasp these mathematical principles.

No, it's you who doesn't get it. Advanced mathematics is an important part of my professional qualifications, I KNOW math, I have to, and there is none, in any meaning of the word, including Lessans' spurious redefinition of it, in Lessans' work. There's no science either. That's another part of my professional qualifications and I know quite a lot about it, especially the physics and geology parts, plus how to tell good science from bad, how it works, how to do it, and so on. Lessans understood none of that, and goes off the rails almost immediately by claiming to have discovered an undeniable law of human nature that is simply false in my experience. Karrie's right, we do understand what you're saying, but we think you're wrong. I'd go even further: I know you're wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

Your explanations don't hold water. A person has to bear responsibility for every act, whether it turns out good or bad. As creatures with brains we are given the ability to think before we act and if we still don't have the answer we get advice, but ultimately the responsibility is ours. You have never given any references from psychologists, scientists or any other professionals that back your claims and until you do you have no credibility.

Who said you have to bear responsibility for every act? You would only bear responsibility for something that you are responsible for. JLM, this knowledge is unprecedented and therefore has not been recognized as a major discovery. Why do you think I'm doing this? If you could be instrumental in helping me reach scientists who could confirm these findings, please let me know. I would welcome this because people would be much more apt to read the book and pass on this knowledge.

No, it's you who doesn't get it. Advanced mathematics is an important part of my professional qualifications, I KNOW math, I have to, and there is none, in any meaning of the word, including Lessans' spurious redefinition of it, in Lessans' work. There's no science either. That's another part of my professional qualifications and I know quite a lot about it, especially the physics and geology parts, plus how to tell good science from bad, how it works, how to do it, and so on. Lessans understood none of that, and goes off the rails almost immediately by claiming to have discovered an undeniable law of human nature that is simply false in my experience. Karrie's right, we do understand what you're saying, but we think you're wrong. I'd go even further: I know you're wrong.

Dexter, this author was an established mathematician. He was told in the army that he could do anything in life because he had such amazing skill that he was the only one who got every question correct on his entrance exam. You have offered nothing except your ranting about how wrong this knowledge is. So tell me, where is he wrong? You can't answer me because you don't know. You have offered nothing substantial in your rebuttal. You can claim that he has nothing to offer until the cows come home, but you haven't pointed out where he is wrong. You just don't like being in the wrong. If you really don't believe he is right, then please move on. Why waste your time here? You don't have to protect anyone from evil Lessans; they will leave when they are ready; and it won't take long for this thread to peter out. I certainly don't want to waste my time talking with people who get angry because this is not the slam dunk they thought it would be.

i'm with you JLM, and why would the police have to be out in full force, if no one is going to
be blamed for anything, maybe they just drive you around the block, then drop you off with a pat
on the head.

This is why talking on these forums is not the answer since I am not quoted correctly and I am being used as a dart board. I said that until the transition is complete, the police will need to be in full force in just proportion. Why are you people twisting what I say to make this knowledge look ridiculous? That's all you are doing.

 

[s_lone]

This is why talking on these forums is not the answer since I am not quoted correctly and I am being used as a dart board. I said that until the transition is complete, the police will need to be in full force in just proportion. Why are you people twisting what I say to make this knowledge look ridiculous? That's all you are doing.

Do you seriously expect anything from this thread any longer Peacegirl? We're more than 500 posts into this thread and you haven't convinced anybody. Do you REALLY think you can still convince anyone here? I can't speak for everybody else, but I think it's pretty clear we've all made up our minds about what Lessans has to say.

 

[mentalfloss]

JLM, this knowledge is unprecedented and therefore has not been recognized as a major discovery. Why do you think I'm doing this? If you could be instrumental in helping me reach scientists who could confirm these findings, please let me know. I would welcome this because people would be much more apt to read the book and pass on this knowledge.

Clearly, this theory is not making any headway in this thread, regardless of what you would like to believe. And that's fine. An idea can be correct without having universal appeal. That said, I think what would be more practical of you, if you wish to instill the values that this theory is based upon, is to contribute your ideas to other threads.

The theoretical explanations themselves may not need to hold any merit if they can be shown in practice. There are a multiplicity of issues that forum members enjoy to discuss - if you are a part of that discussion, then that it is the most effective way that you can get this particular message across.

If you truly care about the message, then you will forsake the metaphysical diatribe and actually make a practical contribution to the relevant topics on this forum. Promoting this guy's book or whatever, will not get the message across, and it is clear that the longer you try to force that upon the forum, the more resistance you receive, thereby diminishing any genuine intentions you had to convey these ideas yourself for the sake of being a shill for this book.