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

[DBT]

How do you change human nature? How are we to revolutionize our wants and needs, food, shelter, meaning, how we make a living, business, class, profit. and countless other drivers? We come together in a crisis, showing care and generosity, but what about here and now?

We don’t change human nature. We use the knowledge of our nature (that man’s will is not free) by extending the corollary of no blame to the environment, which causes a change in human conduct.

How does this 'no blame' principle alter human behaviour? People still need food, clothing, shelter, earn a living, etc....where our economic system/s and society are the sum total of our thought and activity.

 

[peacegirl]

How do you change human nature? How are we to revolutionize our wants and needs, food, shelter, meaning, how we make a living, business, class, profit. and countless other drivers? We come together in a crisis, showing care and generosity, but what about here and now?

We don’t change human nature. We use the knowledge of our nature (that man’s will is not free) by extending the corollary of no blame to the environment, which causes a change in human conduct.

The problem is that Compatibilists are unimpressed. They fail to follow him where he shows how “no blame” doesn’t decrease responsibility, it increases it. They don’t want to hear it. Very very unfortunate!

 

[peacegirl]

How do you change human nature? How are we to revolutionize our wants and needs, food, shelter, meaning, how we make a living, business, class, profit. and countless other drivers? We come together in a crisis, showing care and generosity, but what about here and now?

We don’t change human nature. We use the knowledge of our nature (that man’s will is not free) by extending the corollary of no blame to the environment, which causes a change in human conduct.

How does this 'no blame' principle alter human behaviour? People still need food, clothing, shelter, earn a living, etc....where our economic system/s and society are the sum total of our thought and activity.

DBT, I posted half of the economic chapter early in this thread. I hope you can find it. Let me say it again: It doesn't change human nature; it just uses the truth of our nature to improve our world. You will be able to see how the hurt that justifies stealing or doing whatever a person can for self-preservation will no longer be necessary when everyone's standard of living is guaranteed NEVER to go down. I really hope you read the book. I need people who know man's will is not free, so I don't have to start from square one every single time.

 

[pood]

How do you change human nature? How are we to revolutionize our wants and needs, food, shelter, meaning, how we make a living, business, class, profit. and countless other drivers? We come together in a crisis, showing care and generosity, but what about here and now?

We don’t change human nature. We use the knowledge of our nature (that man’s will is not free) by extending the corollary of no blame to the environment, which causes a change in human conduct.

The problem is that Compatibilists are unimpressed. They fail to follow him where he shows how “no blame” doesn’t decrease responsibility, it increases it. They don’t want to hear it. Very very unfortunate!

The compatibilist says NOTHING about moral responsibility, or whether it would increase or decrease depending on how determinism and free will are defined; more, as Bibly noted early, an appeal to consequences is fallacious — “it’s unfortunate that the gravitationists don’t see how belief in anti-gravity would allow us to levitate. So sad!”

Also, “they don’t want to hear it” is ad hom again.

I’ve skipped over the rest of your recent posts because I have no intention of further debating the authors’s nonsensical claims with you, or of putting up with your endless stream of insults and ad homs in lieu of you presenting a proper argument. I might respond to others and make further comments as I wish. Good luck in getting others to follow down your rabbit holes.

 

[pood]

I’ll briefly summarize what’s wrong with these “three discoveries,” which are not discoveries at all. I’ll start with the so-called first discovery, that “man’s will is not free,” followed by something-something, concluding with the so-called “two-sided equation.” (is there another kind?)

I find here basically the same problem I find with Hard Determinism, of which the author’s claim seems to be a variant form. The author writes that “man is compelled of his own free will” to always move in the direction of “greater satisfaction.” Never mind that “compulsion” and “free will” are obviously opposite concepts; what the author seems to be suggesting is that we under some inner compulsion always to pick, what we prefer.

Huh? How can anyone be compelled to pick, what they prefer? You can only be “compelled” to pick what you don’t prefer.

If something compels me to pick Coke over Pepsi, then obviously my choice is not free, precisely because in such a case, I would have preferred to pick Pepsi but something or other forced me to choose Coke.

If, on the other hand, “compelled of my own free will to move in the direction of greater satisfaction” and “I always pick, what I prefer” are supposed to be synonymous, then what work does the former do, compared with the latter, which is far more parsimonious and harmonizes with our ordinary experience? Moreover, if there is supposed to be a relevant difference between the two, what test could we possibly devise to decide between them?

 

[pood]

The second “discovery” can be disposed of posthaste. It is empirically untrue that the eye is not a sense organ. It is empirically untrue, and physically and logically impossible, that if God turned the sun at noon, we would see it immediately, but nothing else around us for eight and half a minutes. Since peacegirl concedes that in order to see anything light must be at the eye, then if we were to see the sun immediately when God turned it on at noon, even though the light from the sun cannot arrive at our eyes for eight and a half minutes, then it would have to be case that the light both is, and is not, at our eyes simultaneously. This is physically impossible but also logically impossible (false at all logically possible worlds) because it violates the Law of Noncontradiction.

 

[pood]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

I won’t even get into this unless it comes up, but suffice it to say that Tom Clark at naturalism.org presents a similar argument. The argument is easily shown to be false or, even if true, meaningless, since it can be demonstrated that no one can know or even find any evidence for its truth.

 

[peacegirl]

How do you change human nature? How are we to revolutionize our wants and needs, food, shelter, meaning, how we make a living, business, class, profit. and countless other drivers? We come together in a crisis, showing care and generosity, but what about here and now?

We don’t change human nature. We use the knowledge of our nature (that man’s will is not free) by extending the corollary of no blame to the environment, which causes a change in human conduct.

The problem is that Compatibilists are unimpressed. They fail to follow him where he shows how “no blame” doesn’t decrease responsibility, it increases it. They don’t want to hear it. Very very unfortunate!

The compatibilist says NOTHING about moral responsibility, or whether it would increase or decrease depending on how determinism and free will are defined; more, as Bibly noted early, an appeal to consequences is fallacious — “it’s unfortunate that the gravitationists don’t see how belief in anti-gravity would allow us to levitate. So sad!”

Also, “they don’t want to hear it” is ad hom again.

The reason compatibilists want to believe in free will is the same reason libertarians want to believe in free will, for without free will, people cannot be held morally responsible. You are in denial. Hopefully, when I post the same excerpt for the thousandth time, it will sink in.

In the beginning of creation when man was in the early stages of development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However, to reach this stage of development so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop. The belief in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil for not only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his problems without blame and punishment which required the justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did because he was endowed with a special faculty which allowed him to choose between good and evil. In other words, if you were called upon to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way you would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but to think this way, and that is why our civilization developed the principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ and why my discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this point because if man’s will is not free, it becomes absolutely impossible to hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing and the wholesale slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature? Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough, he will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since time immemorial. Although it has had a very long reign in the history of civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and for all, by first demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true.

I’ve skipped over the rest of your recent posts because I have no intention of further debating the authors’s nonsensical claims with you,

I have shown everyone how you twisted everything he said. You know I'm right. That's why you keep saying they are nonsensical claims. Anyway, I could care less if you debate me. It will just be more of you misconstruing his words. Oh, and tell me where he mentioned military force anywhere in any of his books. You can't, because it was never said. Goodbye and good luck! I won't miss you.

or of putting up with your endless stream of insults and ad homs in lieu of you presenting a proper argument. I might respond to others and make further comments as I wish. Good luck in getting others to follow down your rabbit holes.

You have done much more to hurt me and this author than I have ever done to you. Yes, I was trying to understand your motives which, according to the definition, is an ad hom. I have heard enough ad homs in my lifetime on FF to know what a vindictive ad hom is. You have damaged this work for no other reason than you don't like his claims. You have not disproven them. I don't think there's any recovering from the damage you have caused. Again, it's fine if people question, but that's not what you have done. How can you feel no guilt over how you have taken his words out of context to make the book unrecognizable?

 

[peacegirl]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

I won’t even get into this unless it comes up, but suffice it to say that Tom Clark at naturalism.org presents a similar argument. The argument is easily shown to be false or, even if true, meaningless, since it can be demonstrated that no one can know or even find any evidence for its truth.

You are not as smart as you think you are. I have no idea what Tom Clark has said, but you definitely don't understand what Lessans has written. I'm not getting into it either. You will twist that too out of sheer ignorance.

 

[peacegirl]

I’ll briefly summarize what’s wrong with these “three discoveries,” which are not discoveries at all. I’ll start with the so-called first discovery, that “man’s will is not free,” followed by something-something, concluding with the so-called “two-sided equation.” (is there another kind?)

I find here basically the same problem I find with Hard Determinism, of which the author’s claim seems to be a variant form. The author writes that “man is compelled of his own free will” to always move in the direction of “greater satisfaction.”

Yes, and he wrote that because people get confused thinking that hard determinism (which is all that exists by the way, not soft determinism, which means nothing at all) means that we can be made to do something AGAINST OUR WILL. This is not true, which is why he clarified it throughout the book by saying "he was compelled, OF HIS OWN FREE WILL (BECAUSE HE WANTED TO), not that he was forced by determinism to do what he didn't want to do.

Never mind that “compulsion” and “free will” are obviously opposite concepts; what the author seems to be suggesting is that we under some inner compulsion always to pick, what we prefer.

Huh? How can anyone be compelled to pick, what they prefer? You can only be “compelled” to pick what you don’t prefe

They are compelled to pick what they prefer because what they prefer less (given their options) is less satisfying. After all this time, you still don't get it. And, btw, you cannot be compelled to pick what you don't prefer unless it's the least unpreferable of the available choices. It doesn't mean you are happy with your choice. For instance, if you were given a choice to eat cat poo or dog poo by your jailer, you certainly wouldn't prefer either, but you would pick what you thought was the one you could stomach the most, in the direction of greater satisfaction. If you said eenie meenie miney moe, this would also be your choice to do in the direction of greater satisfaction, giving you no choice at all.

If something compels me to pick Coke over Pepsi, then obviously my choice is not free, precisely because in such a case, I would have preferred to pick Pepsi but something or other forced me to choose Coke.

Nothing forced you to choose Coke other than your preference for Coke at that moment. If you had preferred to pick Pepsi at that moment, you would have, but you didn't, so you couldn't have. Maybe you would change your mind the next time, but this example doesn't prove anything. In fact, it actually proves you don't have free will of any kind.

If, on the other hand, “compelled of my own free will to move in the direction of greater satisfaction” and “I always pick, what I prefer”

Again, you always pick what you prefer is an important tautology. It has great significance!

New Information

Second – and heretical to philosophic orthodoxy – tautologies can actually teach us something new about the world. Lots of things, in fact.

Consider an idea I recently wrote about in The Metaphysics of Logic. Even if an omnipotent God exists, he certainly did not create the laws of logic. Those laws bind everything in existence, without exception, including any omnipotent gods. This conclusion is not hypothetical; it’s logically necessary and tautological.

Yet, billions of people on the planet probably believe otherwise. A standard theological idea is that “God created everything, including the laws of logic.” But this is mistaken.

Understanding why God could never “create logic” is neither trivial nor redundant. It’s new information that can only be revealed after a deliberate exercise in logical reasoning. It tells you something new about the universe that you wouldn’t know otherwise.

Tautologies Must Not Be Dismissed | Steve Patterson

Trivial. Redundant. Dogmatic. Useless. That’s what people really mean when they say, “Oh, your argument is just a tautology.”

steve-patterson.com

If, on the other hand, “compelled of my own free will to move in the direction of greater satisfaction” and “I always pick, what I prefer”

You are causing confusion. To say "I always pick what I prefer" is true but you aren't being clear. "I always pick what I prefer MORE given that I cannot pick what I prefer LESS having limited options. Even if you prefer something you don't like, it doesn't mean you don't prefer it. You just prefer it LESS because there is no better option at that moment.

are supposed to be synonymous, then what work does the former do, compared with the latter, which is far more parsimonious and harmonizes with our ordinary experience? Moreover, if there is supposed to be a relevant difference between the two, what test could we possibly devise to decide between them?

There is no relevant difference. I am compelled, of my own free will, to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Why? Because I am compelled to pick that choice which is the most preferable. The ultimate empirical test (just like we create a formulation to get man to the moon and finally feel that the astronauts will be safe), here too, the test as to whether this law will prevent man from desiring to hurt each other with a first blow, will bear out as the transition goes from a world of blame and punishment to a world of no blame and punishment once we are positive that this new environment will do what it claims it can do. If will was free, this new world could not come about because we could hurt others regardless, but this is impossible.

 

[peacegirl]

The second “discovery” can be disposed of posthaste. It is empirically untrue that the eye is not a sense organ. It is empirically untrue, and physically and logically impossible, that if God turned the sun at noon, we would see it immediately, but nothing else around us for eight and half a minutes. Since peacegirl concedes that in order to see anything light must be at the eye, then if we were to see the sun immediately when God turned it on at noon, even though the light from the sun cannot arrive at our eyes for eight and a half minutes, then it would have to be case that the light both is, and is not, at our eyes simultaneously. This is physically impossible but also logically impossible (false at all logically possible worlds) because it violates the Law of Noncontradiction.

The only reason you think it's impossible for us to see the Sun before the light gets here is because you have not grasped why the eyes, being efferent, can do what was never thought of. It was not on their radar. The size of the object and the brightness of the object (within one's field of view) IS NECESSARY, not necessarily distance. IF he is correct regarding the eyes, science got it wrong. Moreover, it does not violate the law of noncontradiction (which you should know a lot about lol) because, again, it's how the eyes work, not light. Light can be traveling to Earth which takes 81/2 minutes, but the object (although far far away) can be seen (due to efferent vision) before the light reaches Earth where we could see each other -- only because it meets the requirements for sight where on Earth it has not met the requirements for another 81/2 minutes. It isn't like the photons that allow us to see in real time are the same ones that hit our eyeballs once they reach Earth; so where is the contradiction?

 

[Crumb]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

 

[Crumb]

The second “discovery” can be disposed of posthaste. It is empirically untrue that the eye is not a sense organ. It is empirically untrue, and physically and logically impossible, that if God turned the sun at noon, we would see it immediately, but nothing else around us for eight and half a minutes. Since peacegirl concedes that in order to see anything light must be at the eye, then if we were to see the sun immediately when God turned it on at noon, even though the light from the sun cannot arrive at our eyes for eight and a half minutes, then it would have to be case that the light both is, and is not, at our eyes simultaneously. This is physically impossible but also logically impossible (false at all logically possible worlds) because it violates the Law of Noncontradiction.

The only reason you think it's impossible for us to see the Sun before the light gets here is because you have not grasped why the eyes, being efferent, can do what was never thought of. It was not on their radar. The size of the object and the brightness of the object (within one's field of view) IS NECESSARY, not necessarily distance. IF he is correct regarding the eyes, science got it wrong. Moreover, it does not violate the law of noncontradiction (which you should know a lot about lol) because, again, it's how the eyes work, not light. Light can be traveling to Earth which takes 81/2 minutes, but the object (although far far away) can be seen (due to efferent vision) before the light reaches Earth where we could see each other -- only because it meets the requirements for sight where on Earth it has not met the requirements for another 81/2 minutes. It isn't like the photons that allow us to see in real time are the same ones that hit our eyeballs once they reach Earth; so where is the contradiction?

It is about light peacegirl, and it does violate the laws of physics. If the sun is turned on it takes 8 minutes for the information that the sun is on to arrive at earth. That information travels at the speed of light and no one on the surface of the Earth, regardless of their eyes or whatever detector they may have, can know that the light exists until it reaches Earth. That light carries the information about how the sun looks and determines how it would appear in their cameras and in their eyes. This is well established science.

 

[peacegirl]

The second “discovery” can be disposed of posthaste. It is empirically untrue that the eye is not a sense organ. It is empirically untrue, and physically and logically impossible, that if God turned the sun at noon, we would see it immediately, but nothing else around us for eight and half a minutes. Since peacegirl concedes that in order to see anything light must be at the eye, then if we were to see the sun immediately when God turned it on at noon, even though the light from the sun cannot arrive at our eyes for eight and a half minutes, then it would have to be case that the light both is, and is not, at our eyes simultaneously. This is physically impossible but also logically impossible (false at all logically possible worlds) because it violates the Law of Noncontradiction.

The only reason you think it's impossible for us to see the Sun before the light gets here is because you have not grasped why the eyes, being efferent, can do what was never thought of. It was not on their radar. The size of the object and the brightness of the object (within one's field of view) IS NECESSARY, not necessarily distance. IF he is correct regarding the eyes, science got it wrong. Moreover, it does not violate the law of noncontradiction (which you should know a lot about lol) because, again, it's how the eyes work, not light. Light can be traveling to Earth which takes 81/2 minutes, but the object (although far far away) can be seen (due to efferent vision) before the light reaches Earth where we could see each other -- only because it meets the requirements for sight where on Earth it has not met the requirements for another 81/2 minutes. It isn't like the photons that allow us to see in real time are the same ones that hit our eyeballs once they reach Earth; so where is the contradiction?

It is about light peacegirl, and it does violate the laws of physics.

No, it doesn't.

If the sun is turned on it takes 8 minutes for the information that the sun is on to arrive at earth. That information travels at the speed of light and no one on the surface of the Earth, regardless of their eyes or whatever detector they may have, can know that the light exists until it reaches Earth.

Not true. The only reason you think this is because it feels counterintuitive to think any other way.

That light carries the information about how the sun looks and determines how it would appear in their cameras and in their eyes. This is well established science.

We see the object in real time. The wavelength is at the eye when we are gazing at the object (or we wouldn't see it), but it's not carried through space and time to reach the eyes for processing.

 

[peacegirl]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

Pood is wrong again. He has misrepresented everything the author wrote.

Chapter Ten: Our Posterity

Even though the other two discoveries will bring about an entirely new world for the benefit of all mankind, the blueprint of which is demonstrated as I extend the principles into every area of human relation; the discovery which I am about to reveal in this chapter is my favorite. When thoroughly understood it might be yours too. Well, my friends, I have great news! Wouldn’t it make you feel wonderful to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge, equivalent to two plus two equals four, that there is nothing to fear in death not only because it is impossible to regret it, but primarily because (don’t jump to any hasty conclusion) you will always be here.

“But there is an aspect of life that doesn’t seem fair. There are people who have suffered and died to develop this world who will not be around when the fruits of their labor have ripened to maturity. No matter how wonderful this Golden Age will be, how can God be a reality when there is no way perfect justice can prevail? Doesn’t the thought occur to you that it is awfully cruel of God to make the man of the past pay a penalty and be made to suffer in order for the man of the future to reap the harvest of the Golden Age?”

“You will see shortly why perfect justice does prevail. But I don’t want to get ahead of myself.
Although the basic principle has been an infallible guide and miraculous catalyst through the labyrinths of human relations, it cannot assist me here; but it did not help other scientists discover atomic energy, nor was it used to reveal itself. However, that of which it is composed, this perception of undeniable relations that escapes the average eye will take us by the hand and demonstrate, in a manner no one will be able to deny, that there is absolutely nothing to fear in death because we will be born again and again and again. This does not mean what you might think it means because the life you live and are conscious of right now has no relation whatsoever to you and your consciousness in another life. Therefore, I am not speaking of reincarnation or a spiritual world of souls or any other theory, but of the flesh, of a mind and body alive and conscious of existence as you are at this moment. Are you smiling? Can’t you see, once again, Eric Johnson refusing to listen because he was so certain man’s will is free, or Nageli not investigating Mendel’s discovery because the very core was regarded as impossible? Didn’t many of you smile when first hearing that man does not have five senses? I expect you to be skeptical but please give me the benefit of the doubt and deny my discovery after you have studied the relations, not before. I would like to share a conversation I had with my friend regarding my final discovery in the hope of making these difficult principles easier to understand.”

“Boy does that word ‘death’ give me the creeps! I can’t stand the thought that one day I’ll be gone from this earth; I won’t see the sun, the moon, and the stars; I won’t enjoy eating, sleeping, making love. What a horrible thought! And above all, I might not even be here when the Golden Age gets officially launched.”

 

[pood]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

 

[pood]

And, you know, it’s not reincarnation, because there is no soul to reincarnate. As mentioned, Tom Clark pushes something similar at naturalism.org.

 

[DBT]

I'll just say that determinism doesn't compell you to think or act in a certain way, but that events determine what you want, your will, and you act accordingly and willingly as determined. Otherwise it's not determinism.

 

[pood]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

The idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment seems to be a consequence of Julian Barbour’s time capsules, discussed in another thread.

 

[Crumb]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

I dipped out of those threads at times. It was just too much. I missed this bit. It just sounds like regular reincarnation to me. Apparently without a hierarchy, but maybe she just hasn't posted that bit yet.

peacegirl: Can you explain the difference between reincarnation and what you pasted from chapter 10 above? It sounds the same to me.