Free will versus determinism
- Thread starter peacegirl
- Start date
- Status
I never flogged anything Dexter. It's true I grew up with this knowledge, but that in itself did not get me to invest my time. The only reason I am investing my time is because I know this knowledge is true based on my understanding, nothing more. It's not even that people don't understand, it's that they are not convinced that each premise that leads to these conclusions are true. They just can't believe that someone proved that man's will is not free; that he accurately observed how conscience works, and that the eyes are not a sense organ. Who is he to make all these claims that goes against everything they have been taught? He is threatening the entire scientific world, and especially those people who believe they have the ability to decipher what is true and what is not. Remember Nageli, the leading authority of his time on genetics. It turned out he was wrong, so why can't be more open to the possibility that he could be right. Every forum I go to has a certain bias. There are the Nietszchians, the atheists, the naturalists, the free willers, the New Agers, the skeptics, and the objectivists who, by the way, are not always objective. So going in to these forums has been difficult, but not because Lessans was wrong in his analysis of human nature.
dexter said:
Nothing you said is true. Yes, I did invest money and time, but this is a labor of love because I know what he has. It has nothing to do with my devotion. If I believed that he did not prove anything, I would let go of this, but this knowledge is too important. I think I am going to take out the one section on the sun exploding (as long as I have a chance before the book goes to press) because this really is unimportant in showing why the eyes are not a sense organ and why so many words are not symbolic of reality. In fact, this was an afterthought which he did not have in all his books. Therefore, I don't want to turn people off before they even get started.
I can stop when it gives me greater satisfaction to do so rather than post. At this point, I'm wavering. It will all depend on whether this is all about the wolves coming in for the final kill, or whether there are any valid questions that I can answer regarding the book. This is not about betrayal bcool. My father would have never wanted me to suffer trying to bring this knowledge to light. It would have upset him. And I believe that this knowledge will spread on its own with a little help from advertising. I won't need to be there moderating all the time because, it's true, I want to do other things in my life. I wrote a children's book which I would like to promote. I also want to help train animals who are in shelters so they will have a better chance of getting a home. There are so many things I want to do that would give me a more immediate reward.
Last edited:
Ok, one bit at a time here: "as long as I have a chance before the book goes to press" So you are spamming! Vanity press, publishing company, not yet published but about to be.... Whichever, that's spamming in my book. (Pun!)
"I think I am going to take out the section on the sun exploding because this really is unimportant . . . " Whooee! I think that most people would tend to think that leaving out an assertion that the sun is going to explode may be somewhat important in assessing the validity of both a very radical and rather unrealistic theory as well as the reader's opinion of the author's rationality.
" . . . the eyes are not a sense organ . . . " Yes they are! To state otherwise is to definitely put the whole book in the 'absolute rubbish' catagory. Don't be silly! And don't expect us to be silly enough to waste time debating this with you.
" . . . why so many words are not symbolic of reality . . . " Every word in the whole book actually.
You said you were leaving. Well?
As expected, instead you desperately searched every post for something to argue, to pretend to debate. Round and round in circles... As long as you get the responses you crave no matter what they say, just as long as you get something, anything to give you an excuse to post the same old stuff over and over ad infinitum. I said you were driven, you're proving it with every word you feverishly type.
I could do what you do: Leave this thread! Now! You don't understand. You're not listening. You're not contributing you just want to argue with me. So leave! Come back when you are able to understand! Go!
__________
My sentiments exactly- just never had the heart to put it that way until now.
If you insist on publishing this Peacegirl, I think you should entirely leave out the part about eyes ''not being a sense organ''. All it leads to is the conclusion that words are not symbolic of reality but you simply don't need to say ''eyes are not a sense organ'' to get to that conclusion.
I say this because this part is exactly where I dropped out of the book completely. And I have a pretty high level tolerance for outrageous claims. So if someone like me dropped out, you can be sure almost everybody will.
Actually, you do s_lone. If something is coming in on the waves of light, then how can there even be a projection onto a screen? Think about it. I am not asking you to give a knee jerk reaction. Just think about it.
I'd be more impressed, at any rate, if we could actually have an authentic conversation about free will and determinism without the involvement of this man and his book. Obviously the purchase of some book is not as important as having the conversation about the material on its own merits. If we could actually be convinced of this information without having to spend money, that would be a much more effective way to spread this ideology - assuming it is the ideology and not the book that is actually what is important here.
Would you be happy, peacegirl, if we somehow accepted your proposal but didn't reference this author or purchase his book?
Would you be happy, peacegirl, if we somehow accepted your proposal but didn't reference this author or purchase his book?
How am I spamming?
bcool said:
It's up to them to determine whether the author is rational or not. Who said it wasn't up to the reader? Obviously, if the reader finds this knowledge faulty, they will disregard it. So who is stopping them from doing this bcool?
bcool said:
I am not asking you to accept this without some weird proof that does not prove anything at all. Why can't you hear the author out? You have no commitment to siding with him, so there is nothing to be threatened by.
bcool said:
Bcool, you did not read the book. And if you said you did I wouldn't believe you.
bcool said:
Why does it bother you so much that I haven't left? I don't understand you bcool, I have to admit this.
bcool said:
bcool said:
If that is what you think, it's okay. I just hope you can change your mind if you ever get to know me.
bcool said:
bcool said:
Yes, it can work both ways. The only thing that divides truth from nontruth is proof. You are very right and I thank you for clarifying this because people don't understand that the proof is all that matters in a debate like this.
MentalFloss, who is asking you to spend money? The reason I put this major work online is because people think I'm trying to make money for my own benefit. This is wrong.
mentalfloss said:
Truly, if I made not one cent but could get people to pass this knowledge on, I would rest in peace until the day I die because this is truly not about me at all. It's about man's nature that can help our world. That's it!
Don't you get it peacegirl.... that's all Lessans has done too, only he's thrown in the words 'theory', and 'mathematical', and 'true' with his opinion, and called it science, without doing anything scientific to back his claims. What's good for the goose as they say.
If it weren't for the fact that this is your father's work I'd have let 'the wolves' tear you to shreds, and banned you off the forum for spamming by now (using our site to advertise something you are trying to sell, incase you're confused about the meaning).
The fact that you keep putting words in my mouth, and having anticipatory arguments with me, is ridiculous. But, I guess you did learn it well... the whole opening of Lessans' book is an anticipatory argument for anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Karrie, that's just the point. It is NOT just an opinion. If it was I would never have invested the time and energy to this, whether it was my father or not. Please don't condemn me because I was his daughter. That in and of itself does not make me a believer in something that is not true. There is science to back up his claims, but it is not empirical at this point, it is a priori. Just give him a chance Karrie before you throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You said he was an "established mathematician," which means he's recognized as such by other mathematicians, and he wasn't. I doubt you know enough mathematics to know whether he was an incredible mathematician or not. He appears from the book to have a certain facility with mathematical puzzles, but that doesn't make him a mathematician. As for the rest, walk the talk. You can't criticize me, I'm just doing what I'm deterministically compelled to do, I had no choice.
It is not a priori. No one thinks or functions the way Lessans thinks we all need to in order to be peaceful, therefore there is no experience for him to draw from to justify it with a priori argument.
That is not what aprioi justification is. In fact, it is just the opposite because it is telling people to accept the premise, at least temporarily, on an a priori basis, which you have not done.
No no no, you will not get away with this Dexter. A mathematician does not require approval from anyone. That is your big game plan, and it's not working because it's false. I am wondering how you separate your ability in mathematics better than Lessans? 8O I sincerely do not criticize you at all. You are compelled to do what you do, and because of that, I can honestly say that I like you in spite of your opposition.
That is not what priori means in a scientific sense. That's what it means in an imagining sense, when it is an argument with no basis in logic. So, you're admitting that it has no basis in logic, in empirical human experience?
No, I am saying that it is much more than logic. It is mathematical whether you see it or not. That's why it is a priori, but even for those who don't buy into this as being a priori, in order to go on, you need to accept this as a priori TEMPORARILY! You will never be able to enjoy this book without letting go just a little bit.
I didn't say he does, I said he does if he's going to be called an established mathematician. Otherwise he's a hobbyist.
I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to get across. There is nothing coming in on the waves of light apart from the waves of light themselves, which are made of photons, as far as I understand.
When a tree falls, it causes air pressure waves which reach my ears. THEN and only THEN, it becomes a sound in my own subjective experience of reality. The same applies to light. Once the photons reach my eyes, my brain processes the differences in light intensity and colour and starts associating concepts with the various light patterns. Beyond the fact that they are based on different physical events, how are sight and hearing any different?
- Status