“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[bilby]

I would first have to prove that will is not free; from there I would show how the extension of this knowledge overcomes the impasse of blame and in so doing, changes the trajectory our world is headed.

You have had over 3,000 posts and almost an entire year in this thread alone; When do you plan to start trying to do that?

 

[DBT]

It's not so much ''delayed time,'' but the time the light takes to travel from its source to the eye, the eyes to transmit information to the brain and the brain to process and act on that information.

A process that is not instant at any stage.

Processing of information is not what he was referring to when he claimed we see in real time. Nothing changes in how we process the information. Call it delayed if it suits you.

What we see is not instant. Light is not instant. Light is not instantly at the eye, that is the point.

You still don't get why efferent vision changes the direction. I do understand the dilemma, but this back and forth is a waste of time. If you can't even entertain the possibility that we see in real time (for argument's sake if nothing else) even though all other brain processes remain the same, this is not going to get us anywhere. Let's agree to disagree because that's the easiest way out for both of us.

You admit it takes light 8.5 minutes to reach the earth from the sun. The eye is on the earth. How can the eye detect the light at the sun instantly, if it takes the light 8.5 minutes to reach the earth, where the eye is?

Our eyes don't fly away to some ethereal place Pood. They are here on Earth. The only difference is that we are not receiving traveling light which is then interpreted as a virtual image. We are seeing the real deal in real time, which is why we would see the Sun turned on instantly (if it met the requirements for sight) before we would see each other 8.5 minutes later.

But the real deal is that we are seeing the light that left the sun eight minutes ago. That is what the eye detects and the source of information it acquires about the sun.

 

[pood]

I am serous Peacegirl.

You have not posted a clear statement of the thesis as I just asked for. From what I looked trough of the book I did not see one there either.

You post tings from the book and argue pseudoscience.

I do not argue pseudoscience. You have no right to say this just because you don't believe he was right about the eyes.

You think it is clear, it is not.

It is as clear as I could make it. Didn't you read the preface?

It is important to know that this book does not contain a theory but an undeniable equation that can be scientifically proven. It has no biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives — its only concern is in revealing facts about the nature of man never before understood. Furthermore, so as to prevent jumping to conclusions, this book has nothing whatever to do with communism, socialism, capitalism, government, or religion; only with the removal of inaccurate facts that have been passed along from generation to generation in the guise of genuine knowledge. There are those who may be blinded by this mathematical revelation as they come out of Plato’s cave having lived so many years in the shadows that distorted their beliefs into a semblance of reality — and may deny what they do not understand or don’t want to be true. Just bear in mind that any disagreement can be clarified in such a manner that they will be compelled to say, “Now I understand and agree.” I am about to demonstrate, in a manner our world’s leading scientists will be unable to deny, not only that the mankind system is just as harmonious as the solar system despite all the evil and ignorance that ever existed, but that the inception of the Golden Age cannot commence until the knowledge pertaining to this law is accurately understood. What is about to be revealed is unprecedented. Soon enough everyone will know, without reservation, that mankind is on the threshold of a NEW WORLD prophesied in the Bible that must come to pass out of absolute necessity when this natural law is stamped by the exact sciences with the brevet of truth.

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be read thoroughly before any other reading is done, it is my hope that the table of contents will not tempt you to read in a desultory manner. Should you jump ahead and read other chapters this work could appear like a fairytale; otherwise, the statement that truth is stranger than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical relations. If you find the first two chapters difficult, don’t be discouraged because what follows will help you understand it much better the second time around. This book was written in a dialogue format to anticipate the questions the reader may have and to make these fairly difficult concepts as reader friendly as possible. There is a certain amount of repetition for the purpose of reinforcing important points and extending the principles in a more cohesive fashion, but despite all efforts to make this work easier to understand, it is still deep and will require that you go at a snail’s pace, reading many things over and over again. When you have finally grasped the full significance and magnitude of this work and further realize there has never been and will never be another like it because of what is undeniably achieved, you will cherish it throughout your entire life.

Restart the thread with a clear statement as I asked for and then we can see what happen jnexts.

I've been there, done that. You said you looked through the book and you did not see one there. Oh my god, I guarantee that if you read carefully, you would have found the discovery. People have to meet me halfway.

Imagine you are going face to face with a group of people with science and philosophy credentials in a room and you are presenting an idea.

I would first have to prove that will is not free;

No, peacegirl, as I explained from the start, you do not have to first prove this. In constructing an argument in philosophy, you list “man’s will is not free” as a premise. The idea, in the first stage, is to list your premises and conclusion. We then test to see if the conclusion follows from the premises. If it does, the argument is said to be valid.

It is only in the SECOND stage that you have to prove your premises. For an argument to succeed, it has to be not only valid — conclusion follows from premises — it also has to be sound, which means all the premises have to be TRUE.

Of course you ignored my advice on this, and here you now are. I’d take Steve’s advice and start over, and this time take my advice in presenting your argument.

 

[pood]

How does Webb see back in time?

 

[peacegirl]

I would first have to prove that will is not free; from there I would show how the extension of this knowledge overcomes the impasse of blame and in so doing, changes the trajectory our world is headed.

You have had over 3,000 posts and almost an entire year in this thread alone; When do you plan to start trying to do that?

I'm not the one that can change the trajectory. Scientists will need to confirm that this discovery is genuine. Then they can bring this knowledge to the public. In the economic chapter, Lessans spelled out how this Great Transition from a free will environment of blame and punishment to a no free will environment of no blame and no punishment will take place. All weapons will be converted or destroyed. You will understand why this is important when you get to that chapter. This change, along with greater economic security, will prevent the desire to gain at anyone's expense. This is because we cannot go in the direction of what is the least satisfying, and under these new conditions, it would be the worst possible choice to cause harm to anyone. To repeat: What will stop people from desiring to hurt others is when they can no longer find a way to justify their actions. As long as a person has justification, it is a normal reaction to strike back, but when all justification to them is removed, a great change in human conduct will be seen. IOW, when people stop striking first blows (which is what the basic principle can accomplish), there will be no need to strike back or to turn the other cheek because the first cheek would not have been struck.

 

[steve_bank]

It is important to know that this book does not contain a theory but an undeniable equation that can be scientifically proven.

The intro is a manifesto, not a statement of a thesis or problem with a solution. Claptrap I have seen since the 70s.

Global scientists will be unable to resist? Megalomania? I am thinking of the chaacter Megalito/Dr Loveeelss in the old Wild Wild West TV show.

Plato had it wrong, give me a break.

The word that comes to mind is crackpot. I am gong to bend global sceince to my will!!!

There you go again, posing the book as if it is supposed to make your case.

We have pretty much shown it is not scientific and I expect you get the same response where ever you go.

If you are open to it pood is a good choice as a partner to help you structure your presentation.

It seems at this point you just quote the book without being able to actually debate and defejnd it it.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl’s inability to present a standard argument with premises and conclusions has long made me believe she does not actually understand the author’s argument about free will and determinism. I do.

You can set up a summary argument for anything, no matter how complex. Here is the argument for special relativity:

P1: Laws of physics are the same for all inertial observers

P2: Speed of light same for all inertial observers

P3: From 1 And 2, we get time dilation, length contraction, relative simultaneity and mass/energy equivalence; therefore,

C: Space and time are relative and not absolute

The argument is both valid and sound.

See how simple that was?

 

[bilby]

Scientists will need to confirm that this discovery is genuine. Then they can bring this knowledge to the public.

Scientists are the public; And any member of the public who follows the scientific method is a scientist.

Scientists are not a priestly class with membership rules and admission requirements. When Einstein did his best work, he did it in his free time while working as a patents clerk.

"Scientists" don't need to do the hard work of confirming something you want to see confirmed; YOU do, as the person who wants confirmation. And you need to do it in a way that makes it convincing - indeed, compelling - to any educated person who encounters your work.

You must set out your hypotheses, observations and methods, so that anyone who wants to can repeat your work. If your conclusions follow logically from your hypotheses, and your observations support your conclusions and refute any competing hypotheses, then you are doing science, and your ideas will be accepted even by those who are dead set against them.

Einstein's work predicted a deviation from the Newtonian hypothesis regarding the way stars positions would appear when close to the Sun. He presented a clear and logical set of premises and conclusions, that matched the observations previously believed to be due to Newtonian universal gravitation. And he predicted a set of observations that could settle the question of which hypotheses better described reality.

Eddington was sent by the Royal Society to observe the 1919 total eclipse, in the expectation that he could prove Newton right, and debunk Einstein. Instead, his observations did the reverse, and forced Eddington and his fellow Newtonians to change their beliefs. That's how science works. That's the kind of thing you need to do.

Instead you want someone else - some "scientists" unnamed and unspecified - to do your work for you. That's just laziness.

 

[Crumb]

I was reading through the introduction and found this. This is the kind of stuff you really need to eliminate from the book. It's just crazy and makes the author look confused. Really the whole introduction could go.

The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable’ and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal with what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.

First he complains about how confused people are with words. It is a weird complaint and it really isn't clear if the words are the cause or the ignorant minds or if it is the people. (peacegirl: You might want to remove the sexist language, as well.) Then in the very next sentence he declares that he will use the words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ as synonyms for undeniable! What? Why? Does that somehow clear up confusion? Or does that make more (il)logical cobwebs?

But then in the very next sentence he describes the "logic" in this work as "mathematical, scientific, and undeniable"! What? What does that mean in light of the sentence above? undeniable, undeniable and undeniable?

I'm guessing this book is full of this nonsense and needs a full rewrite. Even if it contain the secret to everlasting peace, it would be hidden in this confusing writing.

 

[steve_bank]

In the bewildering number of supplements commercials on TV one hears 'the science is overwhelming ', 'scientifically proven', 'a scientific breakthrough' and o on.

'The science says..' has become cliche.

I suppose that goes back a ways in human history.

 

[peacegirl]

It is important to know that this book does not contain a theory but an undeniable equation that can be scientifically proven.

The intro is a manifesto, not a statement of a thesis or problem with a solution. Claptrap I have seen since the 70s.

Global scientists will be unable to resist? Megalomania? I am thinking of the chaacter Megalito/Dr Loveeelss in the old Wild Wild West TV show.

Plato had it wrong, give me a break.

Yes, Plato. No historical figure is always right and should not be put on a pedestal. I said he was a humble man. This book removes power and you go use the "megalomania" in reference to him? WTF!!!!

The word that comes to mind is crackpot. I am gong to bend global sceince to my will!!!

There you go again, posing the book as if it is supposed to make your case.

We have pretty much shown it is not scientific and I expect you get the same response where ever you go.

If you are open to it pood is a good choice as a partner to help you structure your presentation.

It seems at this point you just quote the book without being able to actually debate and defejnd it it.

You have no idea what you're talking about Steve. This knowledge is absolutely undeniable, and the only reason he was so confident was because he knew it was as mathematical as one plus one equals two. He wasn't the type of person who boasts or acts like he's the greatest. He was not like that. You just don't get it. Please don't post to me. You are the one that will make it hard for people to want to read the book because you are passing along lies. Goodbye.

 

[peacegirl]

In the bewildering number of supplements commercials on TV one hears 'the science is overwhelming ', 'scientifically proven', 'a scientific breakthrough' and o on.

'The science says..' has become cliche.

I suppose that goes back a ways in human history.

By the way, this "scientifically proven" BS that pharmaceutical companies spew is exactly what this knowledge is preventing.

 

[peacegirl]

I was reading through the introduction and found this. This is the kind of stuff you really need to eliminate from the book. It's just crazy and makes the author look confused. Really the whole introduction could go.

The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable’ and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal with what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.

First he complains about how confused people are with words. It is a weird complaint and it really isn't clear if the words are the cause or the ignorant minds or if it is the people. (peacegirl: You might want to remove the sexist language, as well.) Then in the very next sentence he declares that he will use the words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ as synonyms for undeniable! What? Why? Does that somehow clear up confusion? Or does that make more (il)logical cobwebs?

But then in the very next sentence he describes the "logic" in this work as "mathematical, scientific, and undeniable"! What? What does that mean in light of the sentence above? undeniable, undeniable and undeniable?

He does not describe the logic in his work as mathematical. He said logic is what is getting in the way because logic is often invalid but gives the appearance of being sound.

I'm guessing this book is full of this nonsense and needs a full rewrite. Even if it contain the secret to everlasting peace, it would be hidden in this confusing writing.

Thank you Crumb, but I don't have the energy or finances to keep changing what people don't like. It will never end because someone somewhere isn't going to like how he wrote, what he wrote, and the claims he made. I will see what the reviewers that are reading the book (which no one has come close to doing here) say. It seems like you didn't read the first three chapters, which does clear up some of the confusion regarding why he said "logical cobwebs" and what is truly undeniable based on mathematics or facts. He didn't want people to get caught up with the words scientific, mathematical, and undeniable, which is why he said in the context of the book, all these were synonymous.

 

[DBT]

It's not a matter of what people like or dislike, but what is true and factual.

 

[peacegirl]

Scientists will need to confirm that this discovery is genuine. Then they can bring this knowledge to the public.

Scientists are the public; And any member of the public who follows the scientific method is a scientist.

Scientists are not a priestly class with membership rules and admission requirements. When Einstein did his best work, he did it in his free time while working as a patents clerk.

"Scientists" don't need to do the hard work of confirming something you want to see confirmed; YOU do, as the person who wants confirmation. And you need to do it in a way that makes it convincing - indeed, compelling - to any educated person who encounters your work.

You must set out your hypotheses, observations and methods, so that anyone who wants to can repeat your work. If your conclusions follow logically from your hypotheses, and your observations support your conclusions and refute any competing hypotheses, then you are doing science, and your ideas will be accepted even by those who are dead set against them.

Einstein's work predicted a deviation from the Newtonian hypothesis regarding the way stars positions would appear when close to the Sun. He presented a clear and logical set of premises and conclusions, that matched the observations previously believed to be due to Newtonian universal gravitation. And he predicted a set of observations that could settle the question of which hypotheses better described reality.

Eddington was sent by the Royal Society to observe the 1919 total eclipse, in the expectation that he could prove Newton right, and debunk Einstein. Instead, his observations did the reverse, and forced Eddington and his fellow Newtonians to change their beliefs. That's how science works. That's the kind of thing you need to do.

Instead you want someone else - some "scientists" unnamed and unspecified - to do your work for you. That's just laziness.

Lessans did his best work on a bus going to and from work because he had no other time in which to study. He did not know he would make a discovery at that time. He only had a thirst for knowledge and became a voracious reader, which eventually led him to his observations. You may not call this the standard scientific method of starting with a hypothesis, but that does not mean you should you ignore the fact that this knowledge is just as scientific --- or equivalent --- as any mathematical equation.

 

[peacegirl]

It's not a matter of what people like or dislike, but what is true and factual.

Obviously!

 

[steve_bank]

I think we may be finally seeing the true Peacegirl and indirectly her father.

'pharmaceutical BS' science.
''no one is responsible for anything, no punishments and greed'

Is Papergirl and RFK jr fan?

Listened to a report report on drugs and Oregon. Oregon went full tilt decriminalize drugs thinking compassion and treatment will stem the tide.

It made it worse, now they are reversing course.

No greed and all needs are met? Chinese and Russian commune tried that experiment and both systems failed miserably.

On paper Russian communism looked great, the problem it was made up of real human beings.

The classless system of equality formed hierarchical power structures. It is a natural human trait. Like our chimp cousins. Communist systems not based on risk reward and personal initiative failed to provide basic needs.

One of the first things China did to restructure was allow farmers to grow more food than the state quotas and sell at a profit. Result food p[reduction went up.

China brought itelf out of it collectivism misery by adapting free market capitalism.

It may be cliche, but us humans need challenges. Otherwise we fall apart.

We see it here in the USA, mass decadence and comfort on a grand scale never before seen in history. And we are developing mass social and physical ills form it. It i in the news every day.

Determinism or free will decisions have to be made. Modern liberal democracy tries to limit power of any one person or group, and we are being tested by Trump.

If you think you think will eliminate suffering history says otherwise. The question is how do we deal with and minimize it. And that is the left-right political polarization.

By the way Peacegirl if I rape your 15 year old daughter is it no harm no foul?

In your ideal world doe everybody see the light and condom, or are there laws which are enforced?

In any proposed alternative to liberal democracy and capitalism you have to provide details. How are decisions made? How much of and what gets produced. What is the compenation?

Who decides who gets an office job and who cleans toilets?

The idea that the wold will transformed to a heaven on Earth by adopting a universal philosophical paradigm is absurd.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl, did you read this article?

Across our Milky Way galaxy, distances are measured in terms of how many years it takes light to travel. The nearest star is over four light-years away. When we look at that nearest star, we see it not as it is today, but as it was four years ago. We are seeing the light that left that star four years previously and is just reaching us now.

 

[peacegirl]

I think we may be finally seeing the true Peacegirl and indirectly her father.

'pharmaceutical BS' science.
''no one is responsible for anything, no punishments and greed'

No, that's not it at all. I can't believe that's what you think after all this time. You missed half of the equation!

Is Papergirl and RFK jr fan?

I think he questions things that many people were afraid to question. That is a good thing if we're looking to be a healthier society.

Listened to a report report on drugs and Oregon. Oregon went full tilt decriminalize drugs thinking compassion and treatment will stem the tide.

It makes sense that it wouldn't work. It would be like removing all locks from a jewelry store and expecting people not to steal. We are not in the new world where there are new rules to this game. But you don't know what the rules are.

It made it worse, now they are reversing course.

Makes sense.

No greed and all needs are met? Chinese and Russian commune tried that experiment and both systems failed miserably.

If there was no greed and all needs were met that made the experiment fail, we're in trouble. I don't think one person in this world would say that the need for greed (taking from others unfairly) and having basic sustenance is the cause of any system to fail. Ludicrous, in fact. It was the lack of freedom to pursue one's dreams and goals and creativity and ingenuity that ruined it. It became stale. This is not the world Lessans is introducing, but if you feel that you don't want to be a part of this great change, you don't have to be. You can still live in a society where people are hurt every day from greed, and die from poverty, murder, and war.

On paper Russian communism looked great, the problem it was made up of real human beings.

The classless system of equality formed hierarchical power structures. It is a natural human trait. Like our chimp cousins. Communist systems not based on risk reward and personal initiative failed to provide basic needs.

What a leap if I ever saw one. We are now chimps? Is this how you think? Where did you get the idea that personal initiative and intrinsic reward would not be part of this new world?

One of the first things China did to restructure was allow farmers to grow more food than the state quotas and sell at a profit. Result food p[reduction went up.

China brought itelf out of it collectivism misery by adapting free market capitalism.

It may be cliche, but us humans need challenges. Otherwise we fall apart.

Again, where did you get the idea that friendly competition and for-profit entrepreneurship won't exist?

We see it here in the USA, mass decadence and comfort on a grand scale never before seen in history. And we are developing mass social and physical ills form it. It i in the news every day.

Mass decadence and comfort don't cause mass social and physical ills. These behaviors are the result of the system that is rigged which don't allow for equal opportunity to get ahead. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be comfortable, but this decadence you are talking about is due to people having given up. They have nothing to look forward to other than dead-end jobs with no chance for advancement.

Determinism or free will decisions have to be made. Modern liberal democracy tries to limit power of any one person or group, and we are being tested by Trump.

You are way off the beaten track. In the new world there will be no Trumps or Biden's because there will be no politics. Mankind will have grown from adolescence to adulthood metaphorically, where politics is no longer needed! Can't you see why this knowledge lies outside of the framework of modern thought, and why people can't imagine such a world is even possible?

If you think you think will eliminate suffering history says otherwise. The question is how do we deal with and minimize it. And that is the left-right political polarization.

And it will continue to be polarized because neither side has the solution.

By the way Peacegirl if I rape your 15 year old daughter is it no harm no foul?

You are completely out in left field. I have explained that this knowledge increases one's conscience to do only that which is a hurt to NO ONE.

In your ideal world doe everybody see the light and condom, or are there laws which are enforced?

The manmade laws will be superseded by this natural law, which you would understand if you read the economic chapter. We will be bound by the laws of our country until we become citizens of this new world (during the transition). Then we can do whatever we want without anyone on our back. The only caveat would be the fear of hurting someone without justification, which would be worse than any type of punishment society could offer.

In any proposed alternative to liberal democracy and capitalism you have to provide details. How are decisions made? How much of and what gets produced. What is the compenation?

Who decides who gets an office job and who cleans toilets?

The idea that the wold will transformed to a heaven on Earth by adopting a universal philosophical paradigm is absurd.

All of these questions are answered in the economic chapter. I think you would change your tune by seeing how this new world is actually possible.

 

[steve_bank]

However the question are answer, it i an impractical ideology that ignores human nature.

Marx is considered on of the greatest social scientist of all time. He acuratly described and modeled the social, political and economic system as it was then.

Capitalism today i not what it was. Marx could not have seen the rise of modern liberal democracy.

Mark predicted a spontaneous global uprising, and it never happened, Trotsky wrote that as people not willingly adopting the ideology they had to forced to conform. Such is the way of such ideologies.

'My ideology will save the world' is not exactly new. It i what Trump says about himself, he knows better than anyone else, his words.

I do not have to read the book to have an idea of what is in it, I have read it all before.

The west is not what it was 1900 what it was in 1800. The west is certainly not what it was today as it was 50 years ago. It evolves.

A fixed ideology will never work, humans just do not fit in a box.

Today the left is moving toward socialism and polls indicate younger people are heading that way. We see it in the NYC and Seattle mayoral race. Both have extreme socialist candidate.

Forced narrow ideologies all become oppressive however well intentioned.

Marx was right when he said the revolution never ends. There is always dynamic conflict and tension between groups.

I think I will write a book 'I will save the world' all you have to do is follow what I say.