Free will versus determinism

Status
Not open for further replies.

peacegirl

Electoral Member
Aug 23, 2010
199
0
16
Let's forget the fallacies for now.. Rather, let's look at this practically in today's society and see what kind of solutions it can provide.

How do you think representative groups - like governments or religious entities - would act differently regarding these sorts of matters if they were acting in compliance with the ideology that you are proposing? For instance, foreign policy - terrorism and the mandate for war in the middle east. Or how about in the territory itself - the ground zero mosque and the tenacity between religious factions?

I can see why no one believes this could ever work, because they have not read Chapter Six which deals with economics, and the major overhaul that will prevent so much insecurity. You have to take a broad view, and be patient, in order to envision all of the problems that won't even be an issue. For example, government will not be run in the same way. in fact, most government will be displaced. Religion (you need to think long term) will gradually disappear because the very reason religion came into being was to pray to God for our deliverance from all evil. Once we are delivered, the desire to keep these institutions alive will gradually disappear. As far as foreign policy, the entire tax structure will include everyone, therefore if one country is not meeting its standard of living, the world will pitch in to cover the remaining cost. But no one will take advantage of this, which will give the needed taxes to cover these costs. He gets into depth about how this will work, but if you don't read it, then you won't get an accurate picture of how this can take place.

mentalfloss said:
What could be done differently by these groups that one might deem more appropriate behaviour and in line with the deterministic principles you are suggesting?

As I mentioned, these artificial divisions between people will gradually disappear when no one is hurt with a first blow. There is another form of hurt which is a first blow, and it is this critical judgment of others which, when removed, will prevent the justifiable anger that people feel when others judge them for how they look or what they wear, which hurts no one. Until now, we had to judge others because we were being judged. When all of this is removed from the environment, it will not be difficult to end hatred, war and crime, something never thought possible.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
...which you will see as you read how these principles work as they are extended into every area of human relation; that is, if you ever get that far...
If you could try arguing from a position other than "you'll agree once you understand" you might get a little more traction. Understanding does not imply agreement, and your comment about human nature demonstrates that you know one side of Lessans' equation doesn't work, whether you realize it or not. If you understood that, you'd see that Lessans has nothing to offer.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
43
Montreal
You don't have to regret what you said. I just want you to know that I did not come here to frustrate you, but that does not give you permission to talk to me in such a manner. I am not a dog to be treated like garbage just because you don't like something Lessans said. I thought these forums were about free expression. I came here to explain a discovery whether you believe it is genuine or not. For you to demand that I side with you on the issue of the eyes is wrong, but I do forgive you. I must be hitting a nerve and you are taking it out on me. I have respected you throughout this long discussion, and I would hope you would do the same.

As you say, these forums are about free expression. I do have the right to tell you honestly what I think and never did I suggest you don't have the right to post here. I did suggest you are wasting your time though. But you are free to do what you want (even though you disagree on being free).

If you are hurt about my opinion, that's your issue. I didn't treat you like a dog, (I don't treat dogs like garbage by the way), I treated you like a human being for this whole thread and I did show you respect all along by telling you my honest opinion. I told you in a very blunt way that I think you are mentally intoxicated by Lessans. You have lost your capacity to analyze his claims critically and you take every single thing he's written for cash, the ''sight'' example is just a very revealing example of how your critical mind has taken a very wrong turn. You're no better than creationists who insist on believing the world has been created 6000 years ago despite the overwhelming evidence that it hasn't.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
...these artificial divisions between people will gradually disappear when no one is hurt with a first blow.
Perhaps, but it's not possible to prevent that first blow. An example: you've mentioned having children and your surname is not Lessans, from which I assume you are, or at least were at one time, married. If you're paying attention in an intimate relationship like that, you'll soon learn that it's very easy to hurt someone quite badly without being aware of it. That first blow does not need to be intentional, human nature being what it is it'll happen regardless. Lessans' utopian world assumes people have a great deal more information about and understanding of the choices before them than they can ever really have.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Peacegirl- Why do you keep saying the same things over and over and over and over? You sound like a child in grocery store asking for a lolly pop.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,811
467
83
For example, government will not be run in the same way. in fact, most government will be displaced. Religion (you need to think long term) will gradually disappear because the very reason religion came into being was to pray to God for our deliverance from all evil. Once we are delivered, the desire to keep these institutions alive will gradually disappear. As far as foreign policy, the entire tax structure will include everyone, therefore if one country is not meeting its standard of living, the world will pitch in to cover the remaining cost. But no one will take advantage of this, which will give the needed taxes to cover these costs. He gets into depth about how this will work, but if you don't read it, then you won't get an accurate picture of how this can take place.

Can you give me the coles notes version please? I think it would be interesting how these principles would apply specifically to these issues at present.
 

peacegirl

Electoral Member
Aug 23, 2010
199
0
16
If you could try arguing from a position other than "you'll agree once you understand" you might get a little more traction. Understanding does not imply agreement, and your comment about human nature demonstrates that you know one side of Lessans' equation doesn't work, whether you realize it or not. If you understood that, you'd see that Lessans has nothing to offer.

Dexter, you need to at least give Lessans a chance, even if you don't believe he is right. I know how difficult it is to believe that peace is possible. It sounds not only impossible, but absolutely insane. If someone would say that to me, I would think he was a quack, so I know where you are coming from. But please give this knowledge a chance, and if you still think he has nothing to offer, you will have all the time in the world to reject his findings.

As you say, these forums are about free expression. I do have the right to tell you honestly what I think and never did I suggest you don't have the right to post here. I did suggest you are wasting your time though. But you are free to do what you want (even though you disagree on being free).

Your very last comment made me realize that you don't quite yet understand this knowledge. I am not putting you down; I'm just indicating that you don't quite get it yet. I never said I was not free to choose; I have always said I have options; but I am not free once the choice is made.

s_lone said:
If you are hurt about my opinion, that's your issue. I didn't treat you like a dog, (I don't treat dogs like garbage by the way), I treated you like a human being for this whole thread and I did show you respect all along by telling you my honest opinion.

I don't disagree with this.

s_lone said:
I told you in a very blunt way that I think you are mentally intoxicated by Lessans.

That is your opinion.

s_lone said:
You have lost your capacity to analyze his claims critically and you take every single thing he's written for cash, the ''sight'' example is just a very revealing example of how your critical mind has taken a very wrong turn.

I still say that is your opinion s_lone.

Perhaps, but it's not possible to prevent that first blow. An example: you've mentioned having children and your surname is not Lessans, from which I assume you are, or at least were at one time, married. If you're paying attention in an intimate relationship like that, you'll soon learn that it's very easy to hurt someone quite badly without being aware of it. That first blow does not need to be intentional, human nature being what it is it'll happen regardless. Lessans' utopian world assumes people have a great deal more information about and understanding of the choices before them than they can ever really have.

You are right about this. That is why there will be lawmakers who will look at all of those human relationships where people are not sure who is right and who is wrong, to let everyone [in the world] know who is striking the first blow. Once people realize that they are the ones who must yield because they would be striking the first blow, they will desire to yield so as not to be responsible for hurting someone or ruining a relationship.

Can you give me the coles notes version please? I think it would be interesting how these principles would apply specifically to these issues at present.

I'm sorry, I don't have coles notes yet. But in time they will be available. ;-)

Peacegirl- Why do you keep saying the same things over and over and over and over? You sound like a child in grocery store asking for a lolly pop.

JLM, I don't know what to say. I'm laughing and I'm crying at the same time.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Dexter, you need to at least give Lessans a chance, even if you don't believe he is right. I know how difficult it is to believe that peace is possible. It sounds not only impossible, but absolutely insane. If someone would say that to me, I would think he was a quack, so I know where you are coming from. But please give this knowledge a chance, and if you still think he has nothing to offer, you will have all the time in the world to reject his findings.
I've given him all the chances he needs. I've read four and a bit of the chapters in his book and read a lot of comments from others whose judgment I respect who've read more. I think that's enough to decide whether or not he's blowing smoke. And I *have* decided, he's blowing smoke. This has nothing to do with whether peace is possible or not. I believe it is, but he hasn't found the way to it. What he's got in his first four chapters is an excessively wordy, heavily redundant, badly written, error-prone, self-congratulatory analysis that goes nowhere and proves nothing. There's every reason to think the other chapters will be the same. He can't even state the terms of a simple logic puzzle with clarity and without redundancy, which is a bit hard to take from someone billed as an accomplished mathematician.

Consider, for instance: "...arrange 105 alphabetical squares divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter." First, it takes a bit of thought to realize he wants them arranged in 7 rows of 5 triplets each, which is irrelevant to the problem. Second, the condition for "15 different letters on a line" is redundant, if it's true of all 35 triplets, it'll be true of any subset of them. Third, does "never be twice" mean exactly once or any number of times other than twice? A real mathematician would have expressed the problem much more succinctly.
 

peacegirl

Electoral Member
Aug 23, 2010
199
0
16
I've given him all the chances he needs. I've read four and a bit of the chapters in his book and read a lot of comments from others whose judgment I respect who've read more. I think that's enough to decide whether or not he's blowing smoke. And I *have* decided, he's blowing smoke. This has nothing to do with whether peace is possible or not. I believe it is, but he hasn't found the way to it. What he's got in his first four chapters is an excessively wordy, heavily redundant, badly written, error-prone, self-congratulatory analysis that goes nowhere and proves nothing. There's every reason to think the other chapters will be the same. He can't even state the terms of a simple logic puzzle with clarity and without redundancy, which is a bit hard to take from someone billed as an accomplished mathematician.

I don't know what to say. It's really up to you whether you want to stick with this thread or not. I am not going to try to convince you to stay. He is not blowing any smoke, and you can't blame the wordiness and redundancy on him because I was the compiler. And I don't see anything redundant with the way he described his math (logic) question. You have not given him a chance at all, but if you believe you did, then so be it. You are entitled to think what you want.

dexter said:
Consider, for instance: "...arrange 105 alphabetical squares divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter." First, it takes a bit of thought to realize he wants them arranged in 7 rows of 5 triplets each, which is irrelevant to the problem. Second, the condition for "15 different letters on a line" is redundant, if it's true of all 35 triplets, it'll be true of any subset of them. Third, does "never be twice" mean exactly once or any number of times other than twice? A real mathematician would have expressed the problem much more succinctly.

I'm really not sure why he was redundant unless he was repeating the problem the way it was given to him, or unless he was trying to make the problem more clear. I will repeat exactly what he wrote on an answer sheet I found when I was cleaning out his desk:

The author asks that you arrange 105 alphabetical blocks divided equally between A and O in groups of 3 and in 7 lines, so that no letter is ever twice with the same letter. And the answer is---
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
... I don't see anything redundant with the way he described his math (logic) question.
And there it is. Even when I give you a clear and unequivocal explanation of exactly what I mean and prove beyond any possible doubt that what I claimed is correct, you just deny it. Did you not notice that your restatement of the question does not include the condition about the 15 different letters in a line?

You don't even understand the puzzle, you've given incorrect information about it in response to questions. The order of the letters in the solution can't matter. Given any triplet of letters like ABC, there are six ways to arrange it: ABC, ACB, BCA, BAC, CAB, and CBA. Because each letter can appear with every other one only once, only one of those six arrangements can appear in the solution, they're all identical in terms of the puzzle's conditions. The real puzzle, assuming I've understood his rather vague statement of it, is this: given the set of all possible unordered triplets of the letters A through O (there are 455 of them BTW), is there a subset of 35 of them in which each letter occurs in a triplet with every other letter exactly once? All the other information given in both statements of the puzzle is superfluous. Once you have those 35 triplets, you can sort them into any order you like. The order of the letters in each triplet and the overall order of all the triplets doesn't matter to the solution.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
43
Montreal
Your very last comment made me realize that you don't quite yet understand this knowledge. I am not putting you down; I'm just indicating that you don't quite get it yet. I never said I was not free to choose; I have always said I have options; but I am not free once the choice is made.

So if you never said you were not free to choose, I guess you mean that at some point, you are free to choose.

Freedom to choose is what free will is. Choose your camp.
 

peacegirl

Electoral Member
Aug 23, 2010
199
0
16
So if you never said you were not free to choose, I guess you mean that at some point, you are free to choose.

Freedom to choose is what free will is. Choose your camp.

Just because we have options, and we can choose between those options, does not make our will free because every single motion is in the direction of greater satisfaction. We cannot escape this even when we are choosing one thing over another which makes it appear as if we have free will. In the very begining of his proof Lessans states:

We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our own free will.


And there it is. Even when I give you a clear and unequivocal explanation of exactly what I mean and prove beyond any possible doubt that what I claimed is correct, you just deny it. Did you not notice that your restatement of the question does not include the condition about the 15 different letters in a line?

You don't even understand the puzzle, you've given incorrect information about it in response to questions. The order of the letters in the solution can't matter.

I had corrected what I had said originally.

dexter said:
Given any triplet of letters like ABC, there are six ways to arrange it: ABC, ACB, BCA, BAC, CAB, and CBA. Because each letter can appear with every other one only once, only one of those six arrangements can appear in the solution, they're all identical in terms of the puzzle's conditions. The real puzzle, assuming I've understood his rather vague statement of it, is this: given the set of all possible unordered triplets of the letters A through O (there are 455 of them BTW), is there a subset of 35 of them in which each letter occurs in a triplet with every other letter exactly once? All the other information given in both statements of the puzzle is superfluous. Once you have those 35 triplets, you can sort them into any order you like. The order of the letters in each triplet and the overall order of all the triplets doesn't matter to the solution.

You're absolutely right. It's not about the order of the triplets, just as long as each letter is never twice with the same letter.
 

peacegirl

Electoral Member
Aug 23, 2010
199
0
16
I get the feeling that people are very uncomfortable with me being here. In case I go, I hope you will not disregard this knowledge, even if at first it rubs you the wrong way. It IS a major discovery even if you don't see it right now, and one day it will be proven so.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
I get the feeling that people are very uncomfortable with me being here. In case I go, I hope you will not disregard this knowledge, even if at first it rubs you the wrong way. It IS a major discovery even if you don't see it right now, and one day it will be proven so.

Speaking for myself I'm not the least bit uncomfortable with your being here, BUT, I'M sure you could provide valuable input to other threads and would welcome that, BUT it's long past time to "change the record". :smile:
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
I get the feeling that people are very uncomfortable with me being here.
I'd be very surprised if that's true. Some people might be, I suppose, but that's not your problem anyway, it's theirs. It's just that on this particular subject nobody seems to agree with you. I'm sure you could contribute interesting and constructive comments to other threads, you're obviously fairly bright, and this subject can't be the only thing you think about. Why not spread yourself around a bit?
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
I get the feeling that people are very uncomfortable with me being here. In case I go, I hope you will not disregard this knowledge, even if at first it rubs you the wrong way. It IS a major discovery even if you don't see it right now, and one day it will be proven so.

I think not, I hate the concept.

We will gradually work our way toward a balanced world, where peace
is the priority for everyone, along with our natural human responses and abilities to work things out,
and seek the best road to travel.

I believe as time passes, each generation is seeing the harm of wars more clearly than generations gone
by, and over time as more generations come and go,
the world will be much more peaceful, and the masses will see that they can change the negative and
harmful ways of the present, and work together to improve life on this earth, and they will insist
as they become leaders, that peace and understanding, instead of aggression and power, is how we all
want to live.

The children of the children of the children of todays radical leaders across the world will not be
what their great grandfathers were, but more knowledgeable and peaceful and willing to reach out to find a better way.

From my perspective, wars and drugs alone cause most of the damage, lets work to get rid of them, then
the road ahead will be much clearer and people will feel better, and other problems can be addressed.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
talloola From my perspective said:
Absolutely, but at least with wars you are defending something, drugs are totally subversive (members of my family have been ruined by them) and I personally think we should do whatever it takes (hanging the importers and pushers) to rid us of this scurge. Until I was personally affected I never had an inkling of the havoc they cause, so if you haven't been personally affected - no need to respond. :smile:
 

Spacemonkey

New Member
Oct 11, 2010
6
0
1
Hello again, Janis. I see you're back online again and repeating the exact same mistakes. Accusing people who disagree with you of not understanding or of not even reading the material, misusing terminology even after correction, playing the victim, accusing people of bias, ignoring everyone's opinion that the book is very poorly written and instead blaming the readers for not giving Lessans a chance, and opting for screeds of cut & paste in place of actually explaining anything yourself.

You've been at this literally for years now and have presented the same material in exactly the same flawed manner at over a dozen different forums, and yet every single time you've received the same overwhelmingly negative response. It is my serious and honest opinion that you should cease this behavior immediately and seek professional help from a qualified mental health professional. You have an unhealthy emotional attachment to this material, leading to disturbingly obsessive/compulsive, repetitive, and completely unproductive behavior which, by your own admission, takes up a great deal of your time and energy.

Seriously, seek help. It's time to let Lessans and his book go.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Hello again, Janis. I see you're back online again and repeating the exact same mistakes. Accusing people who disagree with you of not understanding or of not even reading the material, misusing terminology even after correction, playing the victim, accusing people of bias, ignoring everyone's opinion that the book is very poorly written and instead blaming the readers for not giving Lessans a chance, and opting for screeds of cut & paste in place of actually explaining anything yourself.

You've been at this literally for years now and have presented the same material in exactly the same flawed manner at over a dozen different forums, and yet every single time you've received the same overwhelmingly negative response. It is my serious and honest opinion that you should cease this behavior immediately and seek professional help from a qualified mental health professional. You have an unhealthy emotional attachment to this material, leading to disturbingly obsessive/compulsive, repetitive, and completely unproductive behavior which, by your own admission, takes up a great deal of your time and energy.

Seriously, seek help. It's time to let Lessans and his book go.

I don't believe it. :-(
 

peacegirl

Electoral Member
Aug 23, 2010
199
0
16
Hello again, Janis. I see you're back online again and repeating the exact same mistakes. Accusing people who disagree with you of not understanding or of not even reading the material, misusing terminology even after correction, playing the victim, accusing people of bias, ignoring everyone's opinion that the book is very poorly written and instead blaming the readers for not giving Lessans a chance, and opting for screeds of cut & paste in place of actually explaining anything yourself.

Before I answer, I want to say hi. :) I remember you as being a very analytical thinker and I enjoyed our conversation. But I disagree with you in all respects. I am not making mistakes, number one, even though based on our conversation regarding the eyes, there was an assumption that the photons that made up the image were traveling at a certain rate of speed, which Lessans never said at all. It was my personal attempt to reconcile the two opposing theories or models. Secondly, I am not misusing any terminology because it was qualified in the introduction by the author. Thirdly, it is true that we all have bias. We cannot avoid it. This in itself would not exclude someone from understanding the discovery as long as he can put his bias aside temporarily. Fourthly, I do not cut and paste in place of explaining the book. I have bent over backwards to try to get the points across from my own understanding.

spacemonkey said:
You've been at this literally for years now and have presented the same material in exactly the same flawed manner at over a dozen different forums, and yet every single time you've received the same overwhelmingly negative response. It is my serious and honest opinion that you should cease this behavior immediately and seek professional help from a qualified mental health professional. You have an unhealthy emotional attachment to this material, leading to disturbingly obsessive/compulsive, repetitive, and completely unproductive behavior which, by your own admission, takes up a great deal of your time and energy.

Seriously, seek help. It's time to let Lessans and his book go.

Just because I am repeating myself to new forums does not make me in need of professional help. You are losing your objectivity. BTW, how would you know my internet history unless you have searched me out? This thread was long gone until you just brought it back to life. Why would you do this if you have no interest? Spacemonkey, you really don't have to worry about me. If it's flawed then eventually it will die out no matter what I do, and I would accept that. But it won't die out because there is an intrigue with the idea of a faultless world. Until people show no desire to learn what this discovery is all about, I will continue to try to reach people who I believe have the capability of understanding it. My will is not free to do otherwise. :(
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.