Free will versus determinism

[talloola]

That is not what this world would look like. You are conjuring up a picture in your mind like people do of heaven. You know, angels with wings and harps. In the new world there will be lots of competition in jobs and sports. There will be all kinds of creative ways for one to express his or her talents. Life would just as exciting as it is today; the only thing being taken away is war, crime, accidents and illness. I would much rather live on a planet like this than what we have now. Finally, there is nothing unnatural about being genuinely nice (not trying to be nice) when there is no reason not to be. ;-)

so, what you're saying then is that your way would be utopia?, as that is the question I was
answering, that karrie had presented.

you know there is opinion, then there is 'telling' like there is no other way, all of our opinions
are just that, our opinions, including yours, nothing written in stone.

 

[s_lone]

Peacegirl, I am leaving for the weekend, so I won't be answering any posts until at least monday night...

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I knew that was the reason for his belligerence. He doesn't like that someone is making such huge claims and he will try to discredit this man if it's the last thing he does.

You really think you understand a lot of things you don't, and you're taking my attacks on Lessans as personal attacks on you. Lessans can make whatever huge claims he wants, my objections come from his failure to back them up with anything more than anecdote and speculation while claiming that he's mathematically and scientifically proven them, the many elementary mistakes he makes, and his awful style. Fairly early in the book he indicates that he uses the words mathematical and scientific as synonyms. That's simply wrong, they are not synonyms, and he obviously doesn't know what either of them mean. There's nothing in the parts of the book I've read that's either mathematical or scientific, despite his repeated claims to the contrary. He's ignorant of the concepts he's trying to use, and the book is almost impenetrably badly written. No table of contents, no references, no bibliography, no index, extremely repetitive, full of long rambling reports of conversations he's had in which he convinced doubters how right he is, with many paragraphs over a page long... it's hard work to read it, and not because the ideas are particularly difficult to grasp, but because they're so poorly articulated. On a scale of 1 to 10, he's still running at around 8-9 on my crank meter.

 

[JLM]

I think this thread is going to set a record for # of posts. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[talloola]

Yea, that's why I've always thought the whole heaven bit is kind of a sham.

you've got that right

 

[JLM]

you've got that right

Yeah, reincarnation to another useful existance makes more sense to me. How tough it will be depends on the report card we get for this one. :smile:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Somebody figured this all out, wrote it down, I read it, and it seems true to me. I found a useful summary in a discussion at the Internet Infidels discussion board, where there are half a dozen threads about this damnfool book and hundreds of pages--close to a thousand--of exchanges between peacegirl, a.k.a Janis Rafael, and some pretty bright people. Needless to say, nobody bought Lessans' thesis, but one user summarized it this way:

1) An integral part of Lessans' argument is that that anyone who reads and understands his argument will be compelled to agree with it.

2) Janis agrees with Lessans, and therefore agrees with point 1.

3) We disagree with point 1.

4) Therefore, by Lessans' (and Janis's) thinking, we must not have read and understood the book. Because if we did understand it, we'd agree with it.

No matter how many times we point out flaws, or paraphrase, or explain, Janis will never accept that we have read and understood the book. The fault must lie with us - since the book says so, and Janis is a True Believer.

That we may be right and Lessans may be wrong is simply not an option for her.

Therefore, Janis will never try to defend Lessans' arguments. Either we accept them, or we do not understand them. If we do not understand them, they need to be repeated to us. Our objections do not need to be answered, because they will disappear once we have read and understood the book properly. How does Janis know this? Because the book says so.

I think that covers it.

 

[JLM]

Somebody figured this all out, wrote it down, I read it, and it seems true to me. I found a useful summary in a discussion at the Internet Infidels discussion board, where there are half a dozen threads about this damnfool book and hundreds of pages--close to a thousand--of exchanges between peacegirl, a.k.a Janis Rafael, and some pretty bright people. Needless to say, nobody bought Lessans' thesis, but one user summarized it this way:

1) An integral part of Lessans' argument is that that anyone who reads and understands his argument will be compelled to agree with it.

2) Janis agrees with Lessans, and therefore agrees with point 1.

3) We disagree with point 1.

4) Therefore, by Lessans' (and Janis's) thinking, we must not have read and understood the book. Because if we did understand it, we'd agree with it.

No matter how many times we point out flaws, or paraphrase, or explain, Janis will never accept that we have read and understood the book. The fault must lie with us - since the book says so, and Janis is a True Believer.

That we may be right and Lessans may be wrong is simply not an option for her.

Therefore, Janis will never try to defend Lessans' arguments. Either we accept them, or we do not understand them. If we do not understand them, they need to be repeated to us. Our objections do not need to be answered, because they will disappear once we have read and understood the book properly. How does Janis know this? Because the book says so.

I think that covers it.

In post 262 I made a reference to Janis Rafael (for her to comment on) but she didn't bite...................so now we know. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[peacegirl]

Talloola- I'm going to nominate you for the Nobel Prize for sensibleness. A Utopia would just create a bunch of half witted zombies floating around with stupid grins on their faces and the ability to do nothing useful. I don't think we need wars either but we do need some form of adversity and the ones who survive it are that much stronger and generally more understanding people. A big challenge in itself can be fun. :smile:

JLM, I don't know if you read my post but this is not what the new world will look like. You are assuming that in order to be strong and understanding we would have to continue living with war, crime, and accidents. Don't you think we can be strong understanding people without these adversities? Seriously, if you knew that this new world was possible, would you choose to stay in our present world with all the pain and misery, just so it would make you stronger? Being a part of this new world would be your choice since there will be no force or Big Brother involved. Who said there won't be big challenges? Maybe not the kind of challenges that have to do with creating highly sophisticated weapons, but challenges that have to do with wiping out genetic diseases, creating cleaner energy, finding ways to use our resources more efficiently, building new technologies, etc. In fact, when we don't have to spend money on war, people will have more money available to do research. For those who have new ideas that help build the planet, there is no telling how much profit could be made.

Regardless of any of the rest, Lessans himself says exactly why evil will always exist.... humans move in the direction of the most reward. In a blameless, ie., passive, society, anyone with a lack of conscience could easily do whatever they pleased with no repercussion.

Reward is a great motivator for doing things, but being rewarded for something that hurts another, could never occur in the new world. One's conscience would not allow it, because we could not pay a price. When there is no price that can be paid, we cannot move in this direction for satisfaction.

Peacegirl, I am leaving for the weekend, so I won't be answering any posts until at least monday night...

Have a happy and safe holiday weekend. I won't answer your post until you get back.

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

I thought there is only one review. Is there another one on Amazon? Actually, when the author was selling his book in the early days, he got a lot of interest. One woman who was dying, said his chapter on death gave her immense comfort. But because there was no internet, and because he had to pay for everything out of pocket, he could only do so much. He looked forward to going to his post office mailbox to see if he got any orders, but he was so far ahead of the technology that could have gotten him the exposure he needed, his discovery could have been lost. He put an ad in the New York Times, and it cost him over $4000. He couldn't keep that up.

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:



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



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

I don't mind constructive criticism; what I do mind is having a barrage of rotton tomatoes being thrown at me before people hear me out. So far the mood has changed in here and gotten a little friendlier. I'm not asking for anyone to agree with something they don't agree with, but my god, give the book a fighting chance.

 

[JLM]

JLM, I don't know if you read my post but this is not what the new world will look like. You are assuming that in order to be strong and understanding we would have to continue living with war, crime, and accidents. Don't you think we can be strong understanding people without these adversities?




I don't mind constructive criticism; what I do mind is having a barrage of rotton tomatoes being thrown at me before people hear me out. So far the mood has changed in here and gotten a little friendlier. I'm not asking for anyone to agree with something they don't agree with, but my god, give the book a fighting chance.

Now we are getting somewhere. It's not that we dislike the book or you or the author, but you've summarized the gist of the whole thing in your one sentence regarding not having to live with war, crime and accidents. The human animal is what he/she is - an inbred instinct to fight to the death for survival, land, fortune, fame, authority. We are a fighting species, especially to protect what we already have. You can't change that, especially in folks like Al Qaeda and the TAlliban. Crime includes a lot of things and taken to the extreme, the majority of us have been "criminals" at some point and when folks lack the basics of life there is going to be crime. You'll never eliminate accidents, people by nature get tired, impatient, rambunctuous, inattentive. And you think you are going to change five billion people or more? :smile::smile:

 

[Curiosity]

Blameless society - no evil - no choice?

This sounds like robot-town. The beauty of human nature is we have the ability (in most cases having normal mind and body) of making choices in our lives.

I visit this lengthy exposition of Lessans' minor thoughts and the devotion paid to him and compare it with my daily visit to the webpage of a tiny just turned five year old girl who has been battling a vicious form of cancer - since the age of two - never knowing much of normal life other than what she can eke out between rounds of injections, radiation, terrible physical reaction, and yet she and her family accept and go on with her education, her ability to laugh to enjoy the tiny moments of happiness she finds between the horrors and know there are reasons- even in this most violent of cruel games nature can play - there has to be reason and choice - we are not, nor ever will be automatons following the same call of the same pied piper.

Anyone who promotes this has never lived in reality enough to fully expand his/her gifts given to all of us through living, learning and growth.

There is no yellow brick road - never has been one way only - only paralyzing fear to step beyond into the real world. Lessans in his prose of echolalia gives his devotees a reason to avoid living and growth through avoidance of experiencing all - both good and bad. Which in itself actually denies what we humans call "life".

Reading the path the young child has followed for most of her life, who has the smile of an angel - has far more to share and learn from that the impossibly selfish and
ignorant choices made and espoused by Lessans.

 

[peacegirl]

That's right. A blameless society can only exist because nobody is doing anything wrong. Not the other way around. It's not the absence of blame that will cause the end of evil. It's the end of evil that would cause the end of blame.

Blame is a result of evil. Not a cause.

Yes, blame is the result of the terrible things that we had no way of rectifying, without blame. Who said blame is a cause. Blame is not a cause but it is an obstruction. In other words, blame and punishment came into existence out of necessity. It was meant to be a deterrent. But we all know this has not worked for those who don't care about society's threats of punishment. They are willing to take the chance in order to fulfill their desires. Lessans is just trying to show another way out of this mess.

Blameless society - no evil - no choice?

Wrong. This is all about choice. You are off on the wrong track at the starting gate. Therefore, you will end up the same way in which you started. Why not start over again, and really listen to what this author is saying.

This sounds like robot-town. The beauty of human nature is we have the ability (in most cases having normal mind and body) of making choices in our lives.

Who in the world said we don't have this ability? Lessans never said that.

I visit this lengthy exposition of Lessans' minor thoughts and the devotion paid to him and compare it with my daily visit to the webpage of a tiny just turned five year old girl who has been battling a vicious form of cancer - since the age of two - never knowing much of normal life other than what she can eke out between rounds of injections, radiation, terrible physical reaction, and yet she and her family accept and go on with her education, her ability to laugh to enjoy the tiny moments of happiness she finds between the horrors and know there are reasons- even in this most violent of cruel games nature can play - there has to be reason and choice - we are not, nor ever will be automatons following the same call of the same pied piper.

That is a wonderful choice that this little girl made. Once again, I ask, who is taking this away from her?

Anyone who promotes this has never lived in reality enough to fully expand his/her gifts given to all of us through living, learning and growth.

Who is negating life's lessons? Who is negating the fact that we are all growing with our circumstances? This just shows me how very little you understand.

There is no yellow brick road - never has been one way only - only paralyzing fear to step beyond into the real world. Lessans in his prose of echolalia gives his devotees a reason to avoid living and growth through avoidance of experiencing all - both good and bad. Which in itself actually denies what we humans call "life".

There is no yellow brick road unless you choose it. Dorothy went down the yellow brick road because she didn't want to stay in the land of Oz. But it was her choice.

Reading the path the young child has followed for most of her life, who has the smile of an angel - has far more to share and learn from that the impossibly selfish and ignorant choices made and espoused by Lessans.

I think you have misinterpreted this knowledge, and I can see why you would feel this way. I can only hope you give it a second chance.

 

[JLM]

Having checked into the career of Mr. Lessans (contractor, salesman, terms with the military and accomplished pool champion) I'm not sure how any of these contribute to his ability to change the nature of the human animal. I don't see any degrees in phychology. So what is the source of his vast insight? :smile:

 

[peacegirl]

Having checked into the career of Mr. Lessans (contractor, salesman, terms with the military and accomplished pool champion) I'm not sure how any of these contribute to his ability to change the nature of the human animal. I don't see any degrees in phychology. So what is the source of his vast insight? :smile:

Reading, investigating, searching for clues, and the most important of all, a special talent for mathematical precision.

 

[JLM]

Reading, investigating, searching for clues, and the most important of all, a special talent for mathematical precision.

None of that "adds up". Reading only gives you knowledge that has already been gleaned. You say "most important, mathematical precision" Why haven't the many mathematicians and scientists who have mastered this precision not come up with the same theories. A few names of accomplished and recognized experts who support Mr. Lessans theories would give credibility and yet I see none. :smile:

 

[talloola]

peacegirl, do you give the same answer " you don't understand", to everyone in your life, who

disagrees with you about anything?

 

[JLM]

peacegirl, do you give the same answer " you don't understand", to everyone in your life, who

disagrees with you about anything?

It's very hard to understand when the basic premises are all wrong. The human animal is what it is, with some variation among individuals. But we all share certain traits and sadly greed is one of them.

 

[peacegirl]

None of that "adds up". Reading only gives you knowledge that has already been gleaned.

It depends who is doing the gleaning. It's not just about accumulating book knowledge; it's about using that knowledge in a way that comes up with something new.

You say "most important, mathematical precision" Why haven't the many mathematicians and scientists who have mastered this precision not come up with the same theories. A few names of accomplished and recognized experts who support Mr. Lessans theories would give credibility and yet I see none. :smile:

I don't know why. Many philosophers could have made the same discovery but they took a different route in their search for clues. Lessans opened the door of determinism and looked face to face at the fiery dragon (the great impasse of blame) while every other philosopher turned away because they didn't know how to overcome the beast.

It's very hard to understand when the basic premises are all wrong. The human animal is what it is, with some variation among individuals. But we all share certain traits and sadly greed is one of them.

Yes, it is true that there is no end to the greed, hatred, anger, cheating, stealing, abusing, fighting, raping, and killing that man is capable of, but only in an environment that encourages this type of behavior. Fortunately, it is also man's nature to be incapable of doing these things when the environment allows his more caring nature to come through.

peacegirl, do you give the same answer " you don't understand", to everyone in your life, who

disagrees with you about anything?

No, not at all. If someone disagrees with me on something important, I listen to their ideas and then make a decision.

That's right. A blameless society can only exist because nobody is doing anything wrong. Not the other way around. It's not the absence of blame that will cause the end of evil. It's the end of evil that would cause the end of blame.

Blame is a result of evil. Not a cause.

I wanted to add that a blameless society will prevent people from doing wrong. To repeat: Lessans never advised people to suddenly stop blaming because we now know man's will is not free. This could make matters worse for everyone. Therefore, a blameless society can only exist when the basic principle is applied on a global scale which will then prevent people from doing wrong because they won't get any satisfaction in this doing of what is wrong.

 

[MHz]

The only thing the Bible predetermines is that there will be these sorts of people alive.

Re:22:11:
He that is unjust,
let him be unjust still:
and he which is filthy,
let him be filthy still:
and he that is righteous,
let him be righteous still:
and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

Prior to the end of the groups Satan kills 1/3 of the worlds population and after that is done another 2/3 die at Christ's return. Those are determinations that won't be altered, another determination that won't be altered is who is alive at the beginning of Re:21

 

[peacegirl]

The only thing the Bible predetermines is that there will be these sorts of people alive.

Re:22:11:
He that is unjust,
let him be unjust still:
and he which is filthy,
let him be filthy still:
and he that is righteous,
let him be righteous still:
and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

Prior to the end of the groups Satan kills 1/3 of the worlds population and after that is done another 2/3 die at Christ's return. Those are determinations that won't be altered, another determination that won't be altered is who is alive at the beginning of Re:21

I really don't want to get into a discussion about the end of days, according to Christianity. I love so much of the wisdom in the Bible, but I don't take everything literally. In the world I am talking about, everyone becomes good. No one has to die for this to happen. And we all end up holy in God's eyes.

You really think you understand a lot of things you don't, and you're taking my attacks on Lessans as personal attacks on you. Lessans can make whatever huge claims he wants, my objections come from his failure to back them up with anything more than anecdote and speculation while claiming that he's mathematically and scientifically proven them, the many elementary mistakes he makes, and his awful style. Fairly early in the book he indicates that he uses the words mathematical and scientific as synonyms. That's simply wrong, they are not synonyms, and he obviously doesn't know what either of them mean. There's nothing in the parts of the book I've read that's either mathematical or scientific, despite his repeated claims to the contrary. He's ignorant of the concepts he's trying to use, and the book is almost impenetrably badly written. No table of contents, no references, no bibliography, no index, extremely repetitive, full of long rambling reports of conversations he's had in which he convinced doubters how right he is, with many paragraphs over a page long... it's hard work to read it, and not because the ideas are particularly difficult to grasp, but because they're so poorly articulated. On a scale of 1 to 10, he's still running at around 8-9 on my crank meter.

First of all, don't blame him for the writing style. Blame me. I felt certain things needed repetition which was mentioned in the foreword. I am not a writer by profession, but I really did the best I could in explaining the concepts. Lessans clearly stated that the words 'mathematical' and 'scientific' only meant 'undeniable' for the purposes of this book. If you don't grasp the mathematical nature of his findings, it's probably because it's not numbers per se, which is why you're having difficulty. I really suggest that you read the book in its entirety which will give you a much better grasp of these principles and how they can change our world for the better. Lessans also mentioned the reason he did not put in a table of contents. It would have encouraged people to open the book in the middle, which he was trying to prevent. Even without the table of contents, people are still doing this. I added a few examples that could have used a bibliography, but for the most part the information came from Lessans, so there was no need for a bibliography. At the end of the book, Lessans asked anyone to come forward who thinks they have a better way of explaining this discovery. If you think can do a better job Dexter, then please go ahead. I've done my best, but I'm not saying that others might not be able to do better. You have yet to prove to me that you understand the book, because you've offered nothing substantial to the heart of the conversation. I'm glad to see he is an 8 or 9 on the crank meter scale, and not a 10. Maybe you'll give him a better crank rating as time goes on. ;-)