Free will versus determinism

[petros]

I am glad you are not giving up on the book. I just want to say one thing on Lessans' behalf. If he had found out he was wrong, he would have been the first to admit it. That's the kind of person he was.



Thank you for sharing this. It was interesting.

You may also find the writings of the al Khemists interesting too. Alchemy isn't about turning lead into gold in a physical sense. The Alchemist is the lead and he wants to turn himself into gold in a spiritual sense.

 

[talloola]

It's those very serial criminals who will be controlled by this natural law. You are being extremely near sighted and basing your conclusions on what is going on today. Your vision is limited.QUOTE]

one could put your way of 'living' into action for a thousand years, how many people over that time
would have suffered and died under the hands of those who are never made accountable for their actions.
The human being is a proud intelligent animal on this earth and will always defend their own, and
look for the good in their life and carry on even under odds that are highly against them, the human
being will not just stand by and let others run over them, as there is care of family and care of
oneself to be responsible for.
There are people now who, because of their faith will not fight back under any circumstances, and
it works for them because they keep to themselves, out of the mainstream, but even 'they' within
their own communities have 'consequences' for those who go against their community and religious
laws, and without that, their system would break down and not run smoothly the way the 'group' would
desire.
I would not like to be part of a world that you desire, too many other valuable
assets in the human would also dissapear, of course we all would like to see more
peace in the world, but the human did not come this far from the cave man days
by being peaceable in every aspect of life, it is not normal, and even the desire
to fight back creates a spirit and strength needed to exist on this earth, and has
taught the human about his strengths and weaknesses, all important to survival.

Your vision is limited.

 

[peacegirl]

It's those very serial criminals who will be controlled by this natural law. You are being extremely near sighted and basing your conclusions on what is going on today. Your vision is limited.QUOTE]

one could put your way of 'living' into action for a thousand years, how many people over that time
would have suffered and died under the hands of those who are never made accountable for their actions.

This turning point in our lives could never have come about without man's development. The belief in free will was necessary because we needed to believe that man had a choice; that he didn't have to hurt anyone if he didn't want to. And since he made the wrong choice, he must be punished for his crime. But now there is a way to prevent man from desiring to commit these crimes. This knowledge does not condone man's evil actions, it prevents them.

The human being is a proud intelligent animal on this earth and will always defend their own, and
look for the good in their life and carry on even under odds that are highly against them, the human
being will not just stand by and let others run over them, as there is care of family and care of
oneself to be responsible for.
There are people now who, because of their faith will not fight back under any circumstances, and
it works for them because they keep to themselves, out of the mainstream, but even 'they' within
their own communities have 'consequences' for those who go against their community and religious
laws, and without that, their system would break down and not run smoothly the way the 'group' would
desire.

This is not about turning the other cheek. Obviously, you didn't read the second chapter because he specifically states:

Before we move on, I must clarify a very important point. Christ and Spinoza turned the other cheek and paid the consequences because the justification to hurt them was never removed, but I am going to demonstrate how it is now possible to prevent the first cheek from being struck which renders obsolete the need to turn the other cheek or retaliate. Although Gandhi won freedom for his people and Reverend King won certain civil rights, they accomplished this at great expense. However, all was necessary because we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction over which we have no control because this is God’s law or will. At this point, I suggest that you study carefully, once again, Chapter Two and then discuss it to make certain you understand that if you find any flaw it exists only in your not understanding the principles, for they are undeniable.

I would not like to be part of a world that you desire, too many other valuable
assets in the human would also dissapear, of course we all would like to see more
peace in the world, but the human did not come this far from the cave man days
by being peaceable in every aspect of life, it is not normal, and even the desire
to fight back creates a spirit and strength needed to exist on this earth, and has
taught the human about his strengths and weaknesses, all important to survival.

Your vision is limited.

This new world is not going to come about if people prefer war and crime over peace. Are you telling me that if you knew war could come to an end tomorrow and all of our sons and daughters would no longer have to fight on the front lines, you would choose to keep them there because it makes them stronger? That's what it sounds like you are saying, but I don't think you mean that. I think there are other methods to help us build strength physically and spiritually besides war.

 

[talloola]

This new world is not going to come about if people prefer war and crime over peace. Are you telling me that if you knew war could come to an end tomorrow and all of our sons and daughters would no longer have to fight on the front lines, you would choose to keep them there because it makes them stronger? That's what it sounds like you are saying, but I don't think you mean that. I think there are other methods to help us build strength physically and spiritually besides war.

of course I wasn't talking about war, and you do know that. you also know I was talking about the
natural spirit in all of us, some more than others, that drives us thru life, the ability to defend
oneself if needed. There will 'always' be aggressors, your plan will never dry them up, the human
being is made up of many ingredients, and it doesn't make a difference many times how they were raised.
genetics, sibling rivalry, pride, determination, power or not, introvert or not, shy or brash, braggish
or quiet, stubborn or not, envious or not, and on and on. you will not breed that out of the human,
they will have to deal with those emotions thru life, in thousands of different ways by thousands of
different people. That is also the success of the human, to be so different from one another, but
still have the need to live in harmony, which also includes competition and problems.
people need to be different, need to make a difference, to be seen as an individual. Many will not
follow, just because, that will never change. Many will go against the grain, just because, that will
never change. Many follow, that will never change, and many will choose to lead, and many will insist
on being powerful, some mentally and others physically, that will never change.
facing consequences can be a positive force in many peoples lives, sets them straight, helps them
become stronger.
the problems we have stem from the few powerful leaders in the world, and also from religion which
is so judgemental and not accepting of 'all' others, and we don't all need to be perfect and never
pay for our mistakes to correct that, we just need leaders who aren't power hungry, with the need to
walk all over others. religion seems
to be the biggest problem, I don't see any way of solving that mess.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

The bottom line Dexter is that no one has studied this work carefully. They are doing exactly what you are doing, running around the internet trying to prove that he has nothing to offer because no one agrees. .

That's not the bottom line. Reading the first two chapters, as I did, strongly suggests the rest of it is going to be more of the same pretentious nonsense. You don't have to read the whole book to justify that conclusion; if in two chapters he hasn't said anything significant, it doesn't seem likely there'll be anything more meaningful in the rest of it, and I gather from the comments of people who've read more of it than I have, that that's true at least up to chapter 4. I might also point out that I didn't go "running around the internet" until well into this discussion, when I began to wonder if maybe there was a pattern here, and there is. You're beating a dead horse, and have been for years. Give it up and move on.

 

[peacegirl]

of course I wasn't talking about war, and you do know that. you also know I was talking about the
natural spirit in all of us, some more than others, that drives us thru life, the ability to defend
oneself if needed. There will 'always' be aggressors, your plan will never dry them up, the human
being is made up of many ingredients, and it doesn't make a difference many times how they were raised.
genetics, sibling rivalry, pride, determination, power or not, introvert or not, shy or brash, braggish
or quiet, stubborn or not, envious or not, and on and on. you will not breed that out of the human,
they will have to deal with those emotions thru life, in thousands of different ways by thousands of
different people. That is also the success of the human, to be so different from one another, but
still have the need to live in harmony, which also includes competition and problems.
people need to be different, need to make a difference, to be seen as an individual. Many will not
follow, just because, that will never change. Many will go against the grain, just because, that will
never change. Many follow, that will never change, and many will choose to lead, and many will insist
on being powerful, some mentally and others physically, that will never change.
facing consequences can be a positive force in many peoples lives, sets them straight, helps them
become stronger.
the problems we have stem from the few powerful leaders in the world, and also from religion which
is so judgemental and not accepting of 'all' others, and we don't all need to be perfect and never
pay for our mistakes to correct that, we just need leaders who aren't power hungry, with the need to
walk all over others. religion seems
to be the biggest problem, I don't see any way of solving that mess.

I just want to say that this knowledge does not breed human nature out of people. Eliminating war and crime, the things we are hoping will end one day, does not remove the individuality in people or the need to fulfill one's destiny. It appears that the conflicts that cause war and crime will never end, and I realize when you say you don't see any way of solving the mess, you are basing your view on what you see in the world. Believe me, I understand that. But what I am offering is a revolution in thought and action. So before you pass judgment on something you have not studied, please give it a chance. I'm not asking you to believe something that sounds impossible, I'm just asking you to keep an open mind.

That's not the bottom line. Reading the first two chapters, as I did, strongly suggests the rest of it is going to be more of the same pretentious nonsense. You don't have to read the whole book to justify that conclusion; if in two chapters he hasn't said anything significant, it doesn't seem likely there'll be anything more meaningful in the rest of it, and I gather from the comments of people who've read more of it than I have, that that's true at least up to chapter 4. I might also point out that I didn't go "running around the internet" until well into this discussion, when I began to wonder if maybe there was a pattern here, and there is. You're beating a dead horse, and have been for years. Give it up and move on.

First of all I am not beating a dead horse. The only forums I have been to are philosophy forums. And they have a pattern of reaction that resents me for making such big claims. It sounds ludicrous so they follow the leader, the one who barks the loudest, and then it become a free for all. The hecklers get louder and louder until I'm thrown off the stage, before I even have a chance. I can't imagine what Edison went through when he was trying to explain his discovery on the lightbulb. Thank goodness he got that chance, otherwise we might still be in the dark. :-(

You say you read the first two chapters, but not once did you ask me as question. NOT ONCE!!! That leads me to believe you did not understand what you read, which is okay, because it's not easy reading. So instead of just slandering me and the book, why not come up with a question. Or better yet, why not try to explain what you got out of these two chapters. Or better yet, why not explain why man's will is not free is not the same thing as the two-sided equation. Or even better yet, why not explain the two-sided equation in your own words. It should be easy if you were so quick to dismiss these chapters.

Regarding Chapter Four, I didn't want to discuss it at this point because it opens up a can of worms, which it did. So instead of using one person's reaction, try to step back for a minute, and start from the beginning. The chapters following chapter four get very interesting, but only if you have a grasp of the two-sided equation. I hope you don't give up Dexter. But if you decide to, it is your loss.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You say you read the first two chapters, but not once did you ask me as question. NOT ONCE!!! That leads me to believe you did not understand what you read

If I understood what I read, why would I have to ask you questions about it? I ask questions when I don't understand, not when I do. Your reasoning escapes me.

Here, listen to what a serious and accomplished intellect has to say about free will and determinism, and compare it to Seymour Lessan's erroneous, shallow, and facile treatment of the subject.
YouTube - Daniel Dennett: Is Science Showing That We Don't Have Free Will?

 

[JLM]

Peacegirl- You've told us (ad infinitim) you recommend the book. Others question the philosophy. Nothing more you say is going to make it any more valid. Why not drop the subject? :smile:

 

[s_lone]

I read chapter 5 on love and relationships. All I can say is that's it's deeply unconvincing. And I'm being polite.

What he has to say on relationships goes against all what I've been through. He imagines this perfect world where the first person you'd have sex with would automatically be the first person you'd spend the rest of your life with. All that is possible because of the perfection of No Blame Land.

First of all, he states that one's will is not free because one can only necessarily choose what brings most satisfaction. Because of this fact, one should not blame anybody for anything because we can't do otherwise then do what brings us the most satisfaction. Whatever one does, it had to be that way and one could not have chosen otherwise. Once this utopian ideal of No Blame is truly set in motion, it is impossible for one to hurt others because one knows that without any form of outward blame and punishment, one will feel the weight of his guilt unbearably inside oneself. Because it's impossible to transfer responsibility to outside causes, nobody will ever want to to do anything that could potentially hurt someone else.

Concerning love and relationships, Lessans argues that beauty is not grounded in external reality and that harmful words such as ''ugly'' would not exist in No Blame Land. Because there would no longer be any harmful words, nobody would feel ugly. If female X is in love with male Y, it is because X wants to have sex with Y. If Y also wants to have sex with X than they are very lucky... But how does X know that Y is truly sincere about his love toward X? She knows that with certainty because he knows that it's mathematically impossible for someone to be hurt by someone else in No Blame Land!!! X knows that Y is absolutely sincere because if Y had any form of doubts, he would abstain from demonstrating any kind of sexual interest.

Because any form of doubt concerning the other's interest is evacuated, they can freely indulge in their first sexual contact. The sex they'll have will necessarily be satisfying because they both want each other so very much. The sex will create a bond between them and they will necessarily fall madly in love with one another. And they'll live forever after.

I hope you can detect my derision Peacegirl. I'm not buying any of it.

I'm living happily with a girl I love right now. But before that I've had another important relationship with another girl. I was sixteen and we were together 3 years. Our relationship eventually fell apart. It was hard. I suffered. So did she. But I learned so much about myself in the process that I have absolutely no regret. Neither does she and I know that because we are still very good friends. This experience has shaped me and am now a more complete person because of it.

Life is clearly often difficult. But I think most of us will admit that it's the hard part that make us grow and evolve. The satisfying relationship I'm having with my girlfriend right now is only possible because of what I've learned in the fateful first one I went through. My girlfriend had her own previous experiences and similarly, they helped her understand better what she needs and the type of relationship she wants.

In the light of what I just said, there's no reason for me to agree that in a perfect world, we would necessarily spend our life with the first person we have sex with. I find the world in which we live more interesting. Not because I want to have sex with everyone, but because of the notion that difficult experiences are what makes you grow.

 

[peacegirl]

I read chapter 5 on love and relationships. All I can say is that's it's deeply unconvincing. And I'm being polite.

What he has to say on relationships goes against all what I've been through. He imagines this perfect world where the first person you'd have sex with would automatically be the first person you'd spend the rest of your life with. All that is possible because of the perfection of No Blame Land.

First of all, he states that one's will is not free because one can only necessarily choose what brings most satisfaction. Because of this fact, one should not blame anybody for anything because we can't do otherwise then do what brings us the most satisfaction. Whatever one does, it had to be that way and one could not have chosen otherwise. Once this utopian ideal of No Blame is truly set in motion, it is impossible for one to hurt others because one knows that without any form of outward blame and punishment, one will feel the weight of his guilt unbearably inside oneself. Because it's impossible to transfer responsibility to outside causes, nobody will ever want to to do anything that could potentially hurt someone else.

Concerning love and relationships, Lessans argues that beauty is not grounded in external reality and that harmful words such as ''ugly'' would not exist in No Blame Land. Because there would no longer be any harmful words, nobody would feel ugly. If female X is in love with male Y, it is because X wants to have sex with Y. If Y also wants to have sex with X than they are very lucky... But how does X know that Y is truly sincere about his love toward X? She knows that with certainty because he knows that it's mathematically impossible for someone to be hurt by someone else in No Blame Land!!! X knows that Y is absolutely sincere because if Y had any form of doubts, he would abstain from demonstrating any kind of sexual interest.

Because any form of doubt concerning the other's interest is evacuated, they can freely indulge in their first sexual contact. The sex they'll have will necessarily be satisfying because they both want each other so very much. The sex will create a bond between them and they will necessarily fall madly in love with one another. And they'll live forever after.

I hope you can detect my derision Peacegirl. I'm not buying any of it.

I'm living happily with a girl I love right now. But before that I've had another important relationship with another girl. I was sixteen and we were together 3 years. Our relationship eventually fell apart. It was hard. I suffered. So did she. But I learned so much about myself in the process that I have absolutely no regret. Neither does she and I know that because we are still very good friends. This experience has shaped me and am now a more complete person because of it.

Life is clearly often difficult. But I think most of us will admit that it's the hard part that make us grow and evolve. The satisfying relationship I'm having with my girlfriend right now is only possible because of what I've learned in the fateful first one I went through. My girlfriend had her own previous experiences and similarly, they helped her understand better what she needs and the type of relationship she wants.

In the light of what I just said, there's no reason for me to agree that in a perfect world, we would necessarily spend our life with the first person we have sex with. I find the world in which we live more interesting. Not because I want to have sex with everyone, but because of the notion that difficult experiences are what makes you grow.

All I have to say in response to your post (and in keeping with this knowledge) is that if you want to leave your girlfriend, it's okay. No one is blaming you for this, and no one is stopping you from moving forward. I am glad you two are still together and I wish you both the best that life has to offer.

Peacegirl- You've told us (ad infinitim) you recommend the book. Others question the philosophy. Nothing more you say is going to make it any more valid. Why not drop the subject? :smile:

If that's true JLM, why are you wasting your time being here? I don't understand this.

 

[JLM]

Of THAT I have no doubt. :smile::smile:

 

[s_lone]

I'm sorry to say this Peacegirl, but I am not going to finish reading Lessans book. It no longer brings me any satisfaction and you know what that means.;-)

I won't finish the book because Lessans is going too far into what I consider an unrealistic vision of humanity. I don't blame him for being a utopian, because we need utopias to drive us towards better worlds. And I think his reflection on morals and ethics is intriguing and interesting. But I can't say the book is pleasant to read. Much too often, he claims having undeniable truth while offering very poor argumentation and as it all piles up, it all becomes shakier and shakier. While you say he was a very humble man, the tone of his book is anything but, and it has reached the point where my annoyance is too big for me to continue.

You don't need to take this personal because this is not your work. I honestly enjoyed our exchange and I feel your patience has been equal to mine.

I'm still interested in discussing free will and determinism, and I'm even still willing to discuss some of what Lessans has to say. But I won't keep on reading his book. Time is too precious to spend on things that you don't consider useful in your life.

 

[peacegirl]

I read chapter 5 on love and relationships. All I can say is that's it's deeply unconvincing. And I'm being polite.

What he has to say on relationships goes against all what I've been through. He imagines this perfect world where the first person you'd have sex with would automatically be the first person you'd spend the rest of your life with. All that is possible because of the perfection of No Blame Land.

First of all, he states that one's will is not free because one can only necessarily choose what brings most satisfaction. Because of this fact, one should not blame anybody for anything because we can't do otherwise then do what brings us the most satisfaction. Whatever one does, it had to be that way and one could not have chosen otherwise. Once this utopian ideal of No Blame is truly set in motion, it is impossible for one to hurt others because one knows that without any form of outward blame and punishment, one will feel the weight of his guilt unbearably inside oneself. Because it's impossible to transfer responsibility to outside causes, nobody will ever want to to do anything that could potentially hurt someone else.

Concerning love and relationships, Lessans argues that beauty is not grounded in external reality and that harmful words such as ''ugly'' would not exist in No Blame Land. Because there would no longer be any harmful words, nobody would feel ugly. If female X is in love with male Y, it is because X wants to have sex with Y. If Y also wants to have sex with X than they are very lucky... But how does X know that Y is truly sincere about his love toward X? She knows that with certainty because he knows that it's mathematically impossible for someone to be hurt by someone else in No Blame Land!!! X knows that Y is absolutely sincere because if Y had any form of doubts, he would abstain from demonstrating any kind of sexual interest.

Because any form of doubt concerning the other's interest is evacuated, they can freely indulge in their first sexual contact. The sex they'll have will necessarily be satisfying because they both want each other so very much. The sex will create a bond between them and they will necessarily fall madly in love with one another. And they'll live forever after.

I hope you can detect my derision Peacegirl. I'm not buying any of it.

I'm living happily with a girl I love right now. But before that I've had another important relationship with another girl. I was sixteen and we were together 3 years. Our relationship eventually fell apart. It was hard. I suffered. So did she. But I learned so much about myself in the process that I have absolutely no regret. Neither does she and I know that because we are still very good friends. This experience has shaped me and am now a more complete person because of it.

Life is clearly often difficult. But I think most of us will admit that it's the hard part that make us grow and evolve. The satisfying relationship I'm having with my girlfriend right now is only possible because of what I've learned in the fateful first one I went through. My girlfriend had her own previous experiences and similarly, they helped her understand better what she needs and the type of relationship she wants.

In the light of what I just said, there's no reason for me to agree that in a perfect world, we would necessarily spend our life with the first person we have sex with. I find the world in which we live more interesting. Not because I want to have sex with everyone, but because of the notion that difficult experiences are what makes you grow.

Of course relationships make us grow. I wouldn't be the person I am today if I didn't go through certain difficult experiences. In hindsight, they teach us how to make things better, not just in our love relationships, but in life. But what you are saying is that the only way to grow is through bad relationships. I don't agree. I am not sure where you got off the beaten track. You use the term No Blame Land with such derision that it's hard to have an open conversation. He said many times in this chapter that 'not blaming' will not prevent people from leaving one another if they want to leave. What makes them not want to leave is because they are happy. The point of this chapter is to show how the hurt of unrequited love can be prevented. Many young people are scarred for life by people who exploit and take advantage of them sexually and emotionally. In the new world this type of exploitation will not occur because no one could desire causing this kind of pain. We don't need to come to the brink of suicide to learn about relationships. Some people are so afraid of love, that they won't try again. I'm glad you reached out and found someone you are happy with, but that is not what occurs in all cases. Another important point I want to make is that we don't need to have devastating experiences in order to grow. That's like saying we must have war and hate and crime and misery in order to grow. We can also grow from happy experiences. If I had to choose between finding a wonderful relationship by first having to go through years of emotional pain, or finding a loving relationship without having to go through this kind of pain, I would choose the latter. Somehow you've made it either/or. I'm sorry you won't read anymore of the book. You showed me how this book is so far removed from our present understanding, that it will take a lot of clarification to overcome this huge stumbling block. It was nice meeting you.

 

[s_lone]

I definitely agree with you on that. We don't necessarily need bad and devastating experiences to grow and evolve. In trying to make my point, I did make it sound as either/or but that was not my intention. But I stand by my point that difficult experiences do make us grow, so long as they don't destroy us.

But doesn't the issue of ''intentions'' bring us back to one of the original problems considering Lessans theory? It's one thing to not be careless, but to be able to always calculate the consequences of every single one of our actions seems to require some form of superhuman ability. And isn't Lessans going in that direction?

As I already said, I can't blame him for trying to imagine a perfect world. At least he's trying to imagine what a truly good and gentle world could be like and for that, he deserves praise. Too many people just become cynics and figure that humanity is condemned to moral mediocrity.

To come back to the subject of love, I still stand by my point that we need challenging experiences to grow. Ot at least that challenging experiences are not a bad thing per se. Again that doesn't mean satisfying experiences can't make us grow. But it's a simple fact that when we are in a state of dissatisfaction, we need to be active in order to find satisfaction. And constant satisfaction, while being comfortable, tends lead to passivity and a static state of things. Life is challenging but that's part of the beauty of it.

I'm rather timid in real life. And I used to fall in love with girls desperately. It would cause me great suffering because I didn't have the self confidence to act upon my love interests. But there was another trickier aspect to this. I thought I was in love but I wasn't really. Being obsessed over someone you barely know is not love. What was happening was just a pathetically romantic projection of my notion of beauty onto one girl who I didn't dare talk to and who I actually didn't know very much. I'm sure many people fall into the same pattern, especially when they are young. A jungian therapist would say I was projecting my anima (I don't know if you are familiar with jungian psychology).

What I'm saying is that I had to go through this pattern many times before I could finally understand it and have the lucidity to overcome it. In Lessans world (I'll use this instead of No Blame Land), humans are so incredibly lucid about every single little detail of their lives that my experience simply wouldn't have happened. You know what? He could be right! Maybe in 100 000 years, if humanity has survived that long, we will have evolved to such a state of brilliant lucidity in terms of our actions and inner psychological patterns. But for the time being, I have hard time seeing how Lessans view is realistic and how it could ever come to be.

You said that in Lessans world, nothing would stop someone from leaving someone else if that is what they really want. But what if the other person is still in love? What happens? Either someone is hurt by being abandoned. Or the other is hurt by staying in a relationship that no longer brings any satisfaction.

 

[peacegirl]

If I understood what I read, why would I have to ask you questions about it? I ask questions when I don't understand, not when I do. Your reasoning escapes me.

Here, listen to what a serious and accomplished intellect has to say about free will and determinism, and compare it to Seymour Lessan's erroneous, shallow, and facile treatment of the subject.
YouTube - Daniel Dennett: Is Science Showing That We Don't Have Free Will?

It is so obvious to me Dexter that you did not read this book. The fact that you won't tell me what the two-sided equation is because it's not necessary (according to you), is baloney. Then you expect me to listen to youtube and give my thoughts. Didn't you put this onlnie to get my feedback? Why is it okay for you to want feedback, and not me? Nevertheless, I will respond to the youtube video because I want there to be conversation. Lessans is not in conflict with Dennett. In fact, there is a lot of common ground. The only problem is that Dennett did not have all of the pieces of the puzzle put together. He sided with free will, just as others philsophers side with determinism. But Lessans was able to reconcile these two apparently irreconcilable thought systems. I know you probably don't get this, and you will continue to argue with me. It will not negate this discovery, but it will make me very very tired in discussing with someone, who is bent on proving him wrong, why this knowledge is irrefutable.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

It is so obvious to me Dexter that you did not read this book. The fact that you won't tell me what the two-sided equation is because it's not necessary (according to you), is baloney. Then you expect me to listen to youtube and give my thoughts.

Did you actually read what I said? I did not claim to have read the book, I read the first two chapters as you requested, found it typical of cranks and decided it's not worth my time. I did not say the two sided equation is not necessary, nor did I refuse to tell you what it is, I said I found nothing I could recognize as an equation. I did not ask for your thoughts on Dennett's speech, I posted the video so you could see how somebody who thinks and speaks clearly and understands what he's talking about works through ideas like this.

 

[peacegirl]

Did you actually read what I said? I did not claim to have read the book, I read the first two chapters as you requested, found it typical of cranks and decided it's not worth my time. I did not say the two sided equation is not necessary, nor did I refuse to tell you what it is, I said I found nothing I could recognize as an equation. I did not ask for your thoughts on Dennett's speech, I posted the video so you could see how somebody who thinks and speaks clearly and understands what he's talking about works through ideas like this.

The equation issue was already discussed and understood. This has now become a strawman Dexter. Please, if you want to continue the conversation, let me know what the two-sided equation is, or we cannot continue. It was stated very clearly in the second chapter. I need to say that Dennett does not have a claim on truth. He gave his ideas, but they are lacking. If you don't want to read this book because you think Dennett is right, don't read it. I really don't know why you are here. :-(

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I really don't know why you are here. :-(

It's because you're making claims that are not sustained by the evidence you're offering and I'm trying to point that out to you and anybody else who reads the book. It's NOT a good book. It's repetitive, turgid, smugly self-congratulatory, contains major errors of fact and logic (some of which s_lone has pointed out), makes claims about itself that are false, and adds nothing of substance to a discussion of free will versus determinism.

 

[talloola]

the lucidity to overcome it. In Lessans world (I'll use this instead of No Blame Land), humans are so incredibly lucid about every single little detail of their lives that my experience simply wouldn't have happened. You know what? He could be right! Maybe in 100 000 years, if humanity has survived that long, we will have evolved to such a state of brilliant lucidity in terms of our actions and inner psychological patterns. But for the time being, I have hard time seeing how Lessans view is realistic and how it could ever come to be.
------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, we all would love to see our world back off from all the aggression and controversy that we
presently have and come back to a more congenial more peaceful way of life throughout the world,
BUT to take the pendulum so far that the world becomes blameless and 100% peacefull without any
controversy or friction, for me seems like a world of boredom and people who all just had
a lobotomy, there is a wonderful middle ground we should be striving for, that fits the human
perfectly and satisfies 'all', and gives everyone room to grow and thrive.

 

[peacegirl]

It's because you're making claims that are not sustained by the evidence you're offering and I'm trying to point that out to you and anybody else who reads the book. It's NOT a good book. It's repetitive, turgid, smugly self-congratulatory, contains major errors of fact and logic (some of which s_lone has pointed out), makes claims about itself that are false, and adds nothing of substance to a discussion of free will versus determinism.

It's repetitive because this is a difficult concept to grasp. This was mentioned in the foreword. But I'm sure you didn't read this, because you are rushing to judgment. Where are there errors in fact and logic? s_lone did not have a leg to stand on. So now you are using him to validate this discovery? That is exactly why this may not be the right venue to bring this knowledge to light. Dexter, you have absolutely no idea what this discovery is about; you have no idea why he says man's will is not free (not once have you even discussed his reasoning); and you have no conception of the two-sided equation. I think you are threatened by the idea of determinism (like many people are) and you will do anything to protect your freedom. Ironically, this new world offers more freedom than ever thought possible. I really have nothing more to say to you unless you can prove to me that you read the first two chapters. You have failed this test.

the lucidity to overcome it. In Lessans world (I'll use this instead of No Blame Land), humans are so incredibly lucid about every single little detail of their lives that my experience simply wouldn't have happened. You know what? He could be right! Maybe in 100 000 years, if humanity has survived that long, we will have evolved to such a state of brilliant lucidity in terms of our actions and inner psychological patterns. But for the time being, I have hard time seeing how Lessans view is realistic and how it could ever come to be.
------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, we all would love to see our world back off from all the aggression and controversy that we
presently have and come back to a more congenial more peaceful way of life throughout the world,
BUT to take the pendulum so far that the world becomes blameless and 100% peacefull without any
controversy or friction, for me seems like a world of boredom and people who all just had
a lobotomy, there is a wonderful middle ground we should be striving for, that fits the human
perfectly and satisfies 'all', and gives everyone room to grow and thrive.

This world does not give people a lobotomy. It just shows how, under certain conditions, we could never step over the threshold of hurting another with a first blow. That's it. It's taking nothing away from our individuality, creativity, curiosity, and uniqueness. In fact, a peaceful world will give us the chance to pursue our God given talents. More importantly, it will allow us to live in harmony where we can have our families in one peace; not destroyed by premature death. Why would anyone not want a world without war, crime, hatred, and misery? What have we all been searching for all these years if not to find a way to solve humanity's conflicts? As far as war goes, there really IS no middle ground talloola, at least not in the world I hope to live in.