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

[peacegirl]

Since peacegirl won’t do it, I think it’s time to “spill the tea,” as they say nowadays, on the rest of the book. Surely peacegirl won’t object — she is trying to sell it, after all.

You never had the intention of helping me.

So OK, let’s discuss this book, in which the author talks about the “new world” that will emerge when everyone accepts his argument, a world that he says may have to be enforced at military gunpoint for those laggards and slugabeds who don’t accept his claims.

This is the biggest lie of all. He never mentioned the word "military in those terms." This book is about freedom, not force.

We are all aware of the consequences of a military strike, which is more bloodshed and continued acts of violence as those who have been attacked will have further justification to seek retribution, perpetuating the cycle of hurt and retaliation. But what other choice does a leader have when the security of his nation is under constant threat? The clash between cultures and their respective governments has caused a serious gap in international understanding. No government has been able to bring about permanent peace by the use of force, yet military action has been used as a last resort when diplomacy has failed. This has caused a backlash of resentment and unrest, fueling the fire of hatred and adding new recruits to a growing terrorist network. Because new cells are constantly forming with the help of the internet and other forms of communication, and because groups such as Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad are elusive targets without a territorial base, we are far from winning this war. For every terrorist that is captured there are thousands more being trained to die for their cause. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to protect a country from infiltration when there are so many points of entry. Loopholes in security are bound to exist regardless of the tax dollars spent to safeguard its borders. What is even more frightening is the technology to build nuclear bombs could get into the wrong hands, causing an untold loss of life. On an even larger scale, the possibility of an accidental detonation by a superpower could wreak havoc on the world’s population. All it would take is one misunderstanding on the part of either country and a retaliatory strike could lead to unparalleled suffering and destruction on a scale never witnessed. Not only would a major nuclear exchange have severe long-term effects, primarily from radiation release, but also from the production of high levels of atmospheric pollution leading to a ‘nuclear winter’ that could last for decades, centuries, or even millennia after the initial attack. In fact, there is a very real possibility that radioactive fallout would leave our world completely uninhabitable.

Did you know that dogs can’t recognize their masters by sight alone? That’s false, of course.

Just because you say it's false doesn't make it so.

Dogs Really Do Smell You More Than They See or Hear You

Dog owners know that smell plays a big part in how their canine friends function. New research shows just how important sense of smell is in their lives.

www.psychologytoday.com

, but the author claims it is true. Do you know what follows from that assertion, according to the author? What follows is, the eye is not a sense organ (!). Not only is that false, obviously,

His observation regarding dogs not recognizing from sight alone was not his proof as to why the eyes are not a sense organ. So why are you intentionally misleading people AGAIN?

but even if it were true that dogs can’t recognize their masters by sight alone (which is false), the conclusion that eyes are not a sense organ (which is also laughably false) would be a total non sequitur.

That dogs cannot recognize their masters from sight alone was not his proof. It was an observation that supports his claim when seen together with his other observations regarding words.

And do you know what “the eye is not a sense organ” means, in practice? It means, among other things, that if God turned on the sun at noon, everyone on the side of the earth facing the sun would see the sun immediately, but would not be able to see their neighbors, or anything else, for eight and a half minutes.

That's not what it means in practice.

Let me prove in another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight distance away, cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense, if an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic nerve, then he would recognize his master instantly, as he can from sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a Christmas tree and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize his master from a picture or statue because nothing from the external world is striking the optic nerve. The question of how man is able to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists. The answer will be given shortly; however, let me make one thing absolutely clear. The knowledge revealed thus far, although also hidden behind the door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as being of significance. Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, and that a dog cannot identify his master from a picture. What does mean a great deal to me when the purpose of this book is to remove all evil from our lives (which word is symbolic of any kind of hurt that exists in human relations) is to demonstrate how certain words have absolutely no foundation in reality yet they have caused the worst suffering and unhappiness imaginable. Let me explain.

One of the greatest forms of injustice still exists because we have never understood our true relationship with the external world, which is related to what we think we see with our eyes. What is this injustice? It is to be judged an inferior production of the human race because of physiognomic differences, and this judgment takes place the moment we call one person beautiful and another one ugly, handsome and homely, good looking and bad looking.

“But I have been taught that sticks and stones will break my bones, but names or words will never hurt me. Isn’t that a true statement?”

Actually, I’m not referring to those names. To be called the N word, kike, dirty Jew, wop, pig, or any name used in an effort to make a person feel inferior is actually not a hurt if this does not lower ourselves in our own eyes because we allow for the source. But when we believe we are inferior productions because of words that have told us so, the expression, ‘Sticks and stones will break my bones…’ is completely erroneous since we have been unconsciously hurt. This unconsciousness has its source in the failure to understand how the eyes function, which is revealed by the fact that they are included as one of the five senses. When someone is judged an inferior production of the human race by others, as well as himself, all because of words that have no relation to reality, although he sees this inferiority as if it is a definite part of the real world, then he is seriously hurt, and God is going to put a permanent end to the use of these words.

Those on the dark side of the earth would see the sun when they wake up, because the photons from the sun “hang around” for those people to see them. Dig it?

He never used the phrase "hang around." His observations did not come out of thin air, Pood, and if you could open your mind just a little bit, you might have a different viewpoint.

Did you know that in the “new world” it will be mathematically impossible for a husband and wife to desire to share the same bed (!)?

The only reason they will always have an extra bed available is because some people sleep better alone, and to make sleeping together an unspoken condition of marriage could create conflict. Nowadays people are sleeping in separate rooms for many reasons, one being snoring. You have purposely misconstrued everything he's written.

Traditionally, it is assumed that couples sleeping together is a sign of a healthy and strong relationship. It is seen as a way of connecting and building intimacy and is even a sign of unity. It’s almost an expectation that when you’re in a relationship or are married, you should share a bed with your partner. But what if that leads to poor sleep quality?

'Sleep divorce' is the practice of couples sleeping separately. This can either be in separate beds in the same room or having completely separate bedrooms. While generally not thought of as being very common, it’s a trend that’s on the rise, especially in younger couples. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine states that 45% of millennial couples sleep separately from their partner, followed by 33% of Gen Xers claiming it has other potential health benefits besides improving their relationships.

Loading…

healthnews.com

Did you know that in the “new world,” Harry, (stand-in for the author) will get to lick all the “juicy, juicy C’s” he wants, without shame or blame? (peacegirl cut all this out of the book but it’s hilarious, well-written, and even better than Henry Miller’s stuff).

Did you know that in the “new world,” “homo-sexuals” (as the author styles them) are destined to “pass by the wayside in due course”?

There was nothing wrong with what he wrote.

“I agree, Charlie, but what about the marriages that are already here? And what about homosexuals?”

“In a relatively short period of time, only the new marriages will be in existence. As for homosexuals, they are free to find a partner without blame. This is their business. However, all homosexuals that came into existence as a result of environmental conditions, not inherited or glandular, will be compelled to fall by the wayside—in due time.”

Also, there are three kinds of “homo-sexuals” — inherited (I-homos), glandular (g-homos), and environmental (e-homos). But all are totally fucked in the “new world,” and I don’t mean “fucked” in the sense of congress.

You and your cronies made this up in Jest and created an entire spoof around it. So nasty. Never did he say gays were totally fucked in the new world. Where in the hell did you come up with this garbage that you're now trying to pass off as his?

 

[bilby]

To live is to eradicate suffering as much as possible

Sure. But "completely" is more than is possible

The author never made the claim that all suffering would cease; only the hurt that is caused by man.

Sure. And that claim is obviously and observably impossible. Clearly he hasn't had enough exposure to man to have clue the first.

Man causes suffering in his fellow man for absolutely no reason whatsoever all the time. And not infrequently revels in doing so.

 

[bilby]

I just hope people here will be open minded enough to hear the truth of his words.

So, it's just a matter of religious faith?

Then why all the pointless blather about free will and determinism?

Starting a cult with a book of bullshit, that depends upon people being "open minded enough to hear the truth of his words", is so commonplace in human history as to be tedious.

Literally no true idea in history has depended upon openmindedness in an audience. None. If you can't persuade at least some of the people who are adamantly closed minded, your idea is likely nonsense.

One need not be open minded in order to test an hypothesis. Indeed, the chief weapon of the scientific method is skepticism. Skepticism and doubt, and an almost fanatical determination to show any new idea up as false.

Nullius in Verba, as they say at the Royal Society. Or, to express the same sentiment in the vernacular, Put Up, or Shut Up. Words are cheap.

 

[bilby]

I just thought people here would like to know why man's will is not free is so important as we begin to know thyself, as Socrates proclaimed.

...and it never occured to you that you might not know, yourself.

Abject lack of humility is the starting point of all cults, sects, and religions.

You want to bring us the truth? To paraphrase Robert Terwilliger: You don't know the truth. No truth handler you. I deride your truth handling abilities.

 

[peacegirl]

To live is to eradicate suffering as much as possible

Sure. But "completely" is more than is possible

The author never made the claim that all suffering would cease; only the hurt that is caused by man.

Sure. And that claim is obviously and observably impossible. Clearly he hasn't had enough exposure to man to have clue the first.

Man causes suffering in his fellow man for absolutely no reason whatsoever all the time. And not infrequently revels in doing so.

 

[peacegirl]

To live is to eradicate suffering as much as possible

Sure. But "completely" is more than is possible

The author never made the claim that all suffering would cease; only the hurt that is caused by man.

Sure. And that claim is obviously and observably impossible.

It appears that way, doesn't it? But appearances are often misleading.

Clearly he hasn't had enough exposure to man to have clue the first.

Incorrect.

Man causes suffering in his fellow man for absolutely no reason whatsoever all the time. And not infrequently revels in doing so.

Like I said, people do things out of misplaced anger over many things. We cannot trace back exactly why they get satisfaction out of hurting others, but there is a reason. They aren't born this way. The environment they are exposed to has a lot to do with how they behave.

 

[bilby]

It appears that way, doesn't it?

Yes.

But appearances are often misleading.

And even more often, are not.

 

[peacegirl]

I just hope people here will be open minded enough to hear the truth of his words.

So, it's just a matter of religious faith?

When I said to be open-minded to hear the truth of his words, that was not meant to accept his words on faith. It was to open one's mind to hear him out. No one is doing that. They've already assumed he must be wrong.

Who… in his right mind or with knowledge of history, would believe it possible that the 20th century will be the time when all war, crime, and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in the 20th century (1918-1991). Though we are well into the 21st century, this discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by our world’s leading scientists]. When first hearing this prophecy, shortly after Hitler had slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing appeared more ridiculous than such a statement. But after 15 years (8 hours a day) of extensive reading and thinking, my dissatisfaction with a certain theory that had gotten a dogmatic hold on the mind compelled me to spend nine strenuous months in the deepest analysis, and I made a finding that was so difficult to believe it took me two years to thoroughly understand its full significance for all mankind and three additional years to put it into the kind of language others could comprehend. It is the purpose of this book to reveal this finding — a scientific discovery about the nature of man whose life, as a direct consequence of this mathematical revelation, will be completely revolutionized in every way for his benefit, bringing about a transition so utterly amazing that if I were to tell you of all the changes soon to unfold without demonstrating the cause as to why these must come about, your skepticism would be aroused sufficiently to consider this a work of science fiction, for who would believe it possible that all evil (every bit of hurt that exists in human relations) must decline and fall the very moment this discovery is thoroughly understood?

This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well-concealed law and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles, though they do not transcend the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes and all the other evils of human relations is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If this is difficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss what I have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what I tried to prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And the reason must be that you judged such a permanent solution as impossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, which is a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed and compared to our present understanding of human nature. War seems to be an inescapable feature of the human condition that can only be subdued, not eradicated. But we must insert a question mark between the empirical fact that a feature is characteristic of human life as we know it, and the empirical claim that this feature is a sociological inevitability. Another reason that war is viewed as an unfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due to suffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream or have the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace. The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that his mind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone who dares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous and unfounded.

Down through history, there has always been this skepticism before certain events were proven true. It is only natural to be skeptical, but this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific miracle.

Then why all the pointless blather about free will and determinism?

Because it's not blather bilby. It's central to this discovery. Have you not read anything at all? Please be honest.

Starting a cult with a book of bullshit, that depends upon people being "open minded enough to hear the truth of his words", is so commonplace in human history as to be tedious.

But there may just be a gem in the middle of junk. Please stop using history to judge whether this book has any value.

Literally no true idea in history has depended upon openmindedness in an audience. None. If you can't persuade at least some of the people who are adamantly closed minded, your idea is likely nonsense.

How can a true idea be heard if people close their minds before they even investigate?

One need not be open minded in order to test an hypothesis.

A hypothesis is used in the scientific method. This comes from astute observation. It is hard to test this because we live in a free will environment, but as with any accurate equation, once it is confirmed as sound, it can be applied to our global environment just like we can accurately get to the moon using accurate equations. The fact that it can't be replicated easily does not disqualify this discovery from being authentic.

Indeed, the chief weapon of the scientific method is skepticism. Skepticism and doubt, and an almost fanatical determination to show any new idea up as false.

Nullius in Verba, as they say at the Royal Society. Or, to express the same sentiment in the vernacular, Put Up, or Shut Up. Words are cheap.

You sound very cynical. I understand why, but please don't tell me to put up or shut up. All I've been doing is putting up, and no one seems interested. DBT is the only one who understands the truth of determinism, and I'm glad he's here to support this thread. I'm being attacked from all sides for no reason. I'm not here to fool anyone.

 

[bilby]

We cannot trace back exactly why they get satisfaction out of hurting others, but there is a reason.

There is not a reason, so much as a cause. That cause is almost certainly in part evolutionary - and evolution doesn't do "best", it does "good enough".

They aren't born this way.

Enough of our imperfections are innate to ruin your thesis. And it's "we", not "they"; You and I are just as guilty of this tendency to unthinkingly act in harmful ways as anyone else.

The environment they are exposed to has a lot to do with how they behave.

Sure. Probably a lot more than their in-born nature. We are a social species.

But your utopia depends on none of this harmful behaviour being innate. And that's obviously not the case.

People like to think that they do things because they think about things. But the central nervous system is not in charge; Power is shared by diarchy, with the endocrine system as a silent and concealed player, with at least as much control as the brain.

We tend to ignore this in the post-Enlightenment world, and to pretend that if we don't acknowlege it, it doesn't exist. But it does, and it is itself the driver of that refusal to acknowlege its existence.

 

[bilby]

When I said to be open-minded to hear the truth of his words, that was not meant to accept his words on faith. It was to open one's mind to hear him out. No one is doing that. They've already assumed he must be wrong.

That's not an assumption; It's an observation.

If someone starts a long chain of reasoning with a false premise, it is not necessary to hear him out before rejecting his conclusions as unsound.

 

[peacegirl]

I just thought people here would like to know why man's will is not free is so important as we begin to know thyself, as Socrates proclaimed.

...and it never occured to you that you might not know, yourself.

The more we understand our nature, the better off we will be. That's a quote from Socrates. Take it up with him.

Abject lack of humility is the starting point of all cults, sects, and religions.

It seems that way, especially with the leaders of these sects. They are narcissists who begin to believe they are gods. Power struck.

You want to bring us the truth? To paraphrase Robert Terwilliger: You don't know the truth. No truth handler you. I deride your truth handling abilities.

We cannot trace back exactly why they get satisfaction out of hurting others, but there is a reason.

There is not a reason, so much as a cause. That cause is almost certainly in part evolutionary - and evolution doesn't do "best", it does "good enough".

A reason is a cause, although we don't always know the cause. To get enjoyment out of causing pain to someone is not evolutionary. It doesn't serve a purpose based on evolution alone.

They aren't born this way.

Enough of our imperfections are innate to ruin your thesis.

It's not ruining my thesis. We all have imperfections, but these imperfections cannot be used as an excuse to hurt someone under the changed environmental conditions. IOW, you can't say, "Oh, I couldn't help hurting you because I'm an imperfect human being" because no one is holding you responsible. I know you don't get this, but maybe you will in time.

And it's "we", not "they"; You and I are just as guilty of this tendency to unthinkingly act in harmful ways as anyone else.

We may act in a harmful way without realizing it, and we then try to correct it. I do my best not to hurt anyone, and I'm sure you do as well.

The environment they are exposed to has a lot to do with how they behave.

Sure. Probably a lot more than their in-born nature. We are a social species.

Agreed.

But your utopia depends on none of this harmful behaviour being innate. And that's obviously not the case.

People have certain proclivities and predispositions, but how they are expressed is dependent on the environment. When the conditions in the environment change for the better, these anti-social behaviors will never manifest.

People like to think that they do things because they think about things. But the central nervous system is not in charge; Power is shared by diarchy, with the endocrine system as a silent and concealed player, with at least as much control as the brain.

The endocrine system is innate and extremely important for our well-being, but it isn't the cause of anti-social behavior.

We tend to ignore this in the post-Enlightenment world, and to pretend that if we don't acknowlege it, it doesn't exist. But it does, and it is itself the driver of that refusal to acknowlege its existence.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[bilby]

The endocrine system is innate and extremely important for well-being, but it doesn't create anti-social behavior

Yeah, it absolutely does.

 

[bilby]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Evidently.

 

[peacegirl]

The endocrine system is innate and extremely important for well-being, but it doesn't create anti-social behavior

Yeah, it absolutely does.

Anti-social behavior maybe, especially if you don’t feel well, but it doesn’t cause people to murder or rape or steal or any of the things societ holds people responsible for.

 

[Politesse]

Ah, that explains a great deal! I'd been assuming from the start that peacegirl was the author. But family explains the data better.

 

[DBT]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Use of the word "contingent" is fine when it's used in the context of making a decision (i.e., the antecedents), but if you really want to go deeper (which offers more proof that man's will is not free), one's choices are based on necessity going back to when life originated. Most people don't look back in total perspective, but if we could go back in time, we would see that everything that led up to the present moment happened out of necessity based on the motion of life itself, which moves in one direction ONLY (i.e., the direction of greater preference or satisfaction), INCLUDING ONE'S CHOICES. How many more times am I going to have to explain this to you before you get it?

You can’t “explain” that which is wrong, because then there is nothing to explain.

And that word “necessity,” you still do not know what it means.

Causal, choice, necessity, compelled, fixed, contingent, predetermined, fatalistic, preordained, foreknowledge, etc. are leading people astray unless each is defined in the clearest possible way.

Right, which is exactly what I have done. You’re welcome.

You and DBT are repeatedly confusing and conflating these words.

You are the one using definitions that try to negate the absolute fact that we can only make one choice at each moment of time …

Yes, if you mean, “I can’t both choose and not choose Coke, at the same time.” So?

….and that choice can only be what is believed to be the most preferable.

Yeah, I choose what I prefer. OK.

Even if it's tautological, this does not mean it doesn't have major significance. Let's try this: Show me that you are free to shoot someone who has given you no reason. The reason you could not think of doing this is because you know this person is innocent, and it doesn't satisfy you to hurt him when you cannot justify it.

“I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.” Johnny Cash.

Show me where you are not under a compulsion to choose the option of not shooting him rather than shooting him.

Compelled by what? Crickets.

Compelled by the laws that dictate what you can only choose in the direction of greater satisfaction. This isn't rocket science Pood.

Given the definition of the free will compatibilists say you have, you should be able to shoot him just as easily as not shooting him.

Correct. But given antecedents x, y, z, I will NOT shoot him. It does not follow that I CANNOT shoot him. This is where you and DBT always run off the rails.

It does follow that you cannot shoot him if the alternative not to shoot him is better for you. You won't let this go, but that's not my problem, and it certainly doesn't prove Lessans was wrong.

According to compatibilists, you are not under a compulsion because you have no addiction, no OCD, and no gun to your head. Can't you see that you are compelled, by the laws of your nature, not to hurt this person because it can give you no satisfaction whatsoever under the conditions just described? I don't know how to make this any clearer than this.

There are no “laws” of my nature.

Of course we are subject to the laws of our nature. Are you kidding me? Everything is not helter skelter, where nothing we do can be depended upon.

And obviously there are no exemptions. Not thought, not deliberation, not action or will, where each and every point, step or stage in the evolution of the system is set by all that came before. Free will within a deterministic system? Absurd.

 

[peacegirl]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Use of the word "contingent" is fine when it's used in the context of making a decision (i.e., the antecedents), but if you really want to go deeper (which offers more proof that man's will is not free), one's choices are based on necessity going back to when life originated. Most people don't look back in total perspective, but if we could go back in time, we would see that everything that led up to the present moment happened out of necessity based on the motion of life itself, which moves in one direction ONLY (i.e., the direction of greater preference or satisfaction), INCLUDING ONE'S CHOICES. How many more times am I going to have to explain this to you before you get it?

You can’t “explain” that which is wrong, because then there is nothing to explain.

And that word “necessity,” you still do not know what it means.

Causal, choice, necessity, compelled, fixed, contingent, predetermined, fatalistic, preordained, foreknowledge, etc. are leading people astray unless each is defined in the clearest possible way.

Right, which is exactly what I have done. You’re welcome.

You and DBT are repeatedly confusing and conflating these words.

You are the one using definitions that try to negate the absolute fact that we can only make one choice at each moment of time …

Yes, if you mean, “I can’t both choose and not choose Coke, at the same time.” So?

….and that choice can only be what is believed to be the most preferable.

Yeah, I choose what I prefer. OK.

Even if it's tautological, this does not mean it doesn't have major significance. Let's try this: Show me that you are free to shoot someone who has given you no reason. The reason you could not think of doing this is because you know this person is innocent, and it doesn't satisfy you to hurt him when you cannot justify it.

“I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.” Johnny Cash.

Show me where you are not under a compulsion to choose the option of not shooting him rather than shooting him.

Compelled by what? Crickets.

Compelled by the laws that dictate what you can only choose in the direction of greater satisfaction. This isn't rocket science Pood.

Given the definition of the free will compatibilists say you have, you should be able to shoot him just as easily as not shooting him.

Correct. But given antecedents x, y, z, I will NOT shoot him. It does not follow that I CANNOT shoot him. This is where you and DBT always run off the rails.

It does follow that you cannot shoot him if the alternative not to shoot him is better for you. You won't let this go, but that's not my problem, and it certainly doesn't prove Lessans was wrong.

According to compatibilists, you are not under a compulsion because you have no addiction, no OCD, and no gun to your head. Can't you see that you are compelled, by the laws of your nature, not to hurt this person because it can give you no satisfaction whatsoever under the conditions just described? I don't know how to make this any clearer than this.

There are no “laws” of my nature.

Of course we are subject to the laws of our nature. Are you kidding me? Everything is not helter skelter, where nothing we do can be depended upon.

And obviously there are no exemptions. Not thought, not deliberation, not action or will, where each and every point, step or stage in the evolution of the system is set by all that came before. Free will within a deterministic system? Absurd.

I just want to add here that I think what people are confused about is that the system includes our ability not to do what we don’t want. This decision is also part of the causal chain of determinism, but it’s an important distinction to make by those who believe determinism equates with force.i just hope that compatibilists (who agree man’s will is not free and fail to see the contradictory nature of their position) will give this truth another go. I cannot move forward without anyone giving this author a go ahead to prove why this truth is so significant. If no one is interested, that’s okay. It’s better to know now than wasting my breath like I did in freethought forum.

 

[peacegirl]

When I said to be open-minded to hear the truth of his words, that was not meant to accept his words on faith. It was to open one's mind to hear him out. No one is doing that. They've already assumed he must be wrong.

That's not an assumption; It's an observation.

If someone starts a long chain of reasoning with a false premise, it is not necessary to hear him out before rejecting his conclusions as unsound.

It is obvious that his premises must be correct. You don’t even know what his premises are in order to come to a conclusion. You are just a skeptic because you can’t believe there can be any truth to his claim. I’m really not interested in trying to convince you or change your mind. This book is definitely not for you, and that’s okay.

 

[Crumb]

But doesn't almost everyone have to believe in this for it to work?

 

[pood]

But doesn't almost everyone have to believe in this for it to work?

And yet nobody does.

OTOH, the author does mention a period of military enforcement of belief, very Trump-like, so … maybe peacegirl should contact Donald Trump?

And if Trump ignores her, maybe she could sue Trump, the way the author sued President Jimmy Carter.