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

[pood]

I don't get it. Am I missing something? Are you saying that the world is not deterministic and that we have free will?

She means we live in an environment in which people believe in free will. Once they stop believing in that, then they will realize that the eyes are not a sense organ, that if God turned on the sun at noon people on earth would see it immediately, that people will fall in love with each other’s sex organs, and it will be “mathematically impossible” for married couples to desire to share the same bed.

I realize, of course, that believing in hard determinism does not entail in believing in the rest of this BS.

 

[DBT]

So how does believing in free will, whether we have it or not, alter the conditions in which we operate, decide and act.

I mean, we don't think about free will as we go about our daily lives, we just think and respond according to the situation we are in.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't get it. Am I missing something? Are you saying that the world is not deterministic and that we have free will?

She means we live in an environment in which people believe in free will. Once they stop believing in that, then they will realize that the eyes are not a sense organ, that if God turned on the sun at noon people on earth would see it immediately, that people will fall in love with each other’s sex organs, and it will be “mathematically impossible” for married couples to desire to share the same bed.

I realize, of course, that believing in hard determinism does not entail in believing in the rest of this BS.

You won’t stop Pood. This is very hurtful because you’re purposely misconstruing this book. I’m asking the moderators to tell you to stop. You’re doing in here what you did at FF and I’m not staying if you keep this up. It’s not worth it!

 

[pood]

I don't get it. Am I missing something? Are you saying that the world is not deterministic and that we have free will?

She means we live in an environment in which people believe in free will. Once they stop believing in that, then they will realize that the eyes are not a sense organ, that if God turned on the sun at noon people on earth would see it immediately, that people will fall in love with each other’s sex organs, and it will be “mathematically impossible” for married couples to desire to share the same bed.

I realize, of course, that believing in hard determinism does not entail in believing in the rest of this BS.

You won’t stop Pood. This is very hurtful because you’re purposely misconstruing this book. I’m asking the moderators to tell you to stop. You’re doing in here what you did at FF and I’m not staying if you keep this up. It’s not worth it!

You’re asking the moderators to do what? Tell me to stop telling everyone what is in the book? Meanwhile, I never bothered to report to the mods the endless strings of ad homs you have flung at me and others. Maybe I’ll do that, now.

Is it not true that the author says that if God turned on the sun at noon, people would see it on earth immediately? Have you not been defending this very claim in this very thread?

Are you telling me the rest isn’t in the book? About falling in love with each other’s sex organs and it being mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to sleep in the same bed? Of course it is. I have misconstrued nothing.

 

[peacegirl]

So how does believing in free will, whether we have it or not, alter the conditions in which we operate, decide and act.

I mean, we don't think about free will as we go about our daily lives, we just think and respond according to the situation we are in.

This is a great question. The only thing this knowledge prevents is hurting someone with a first blow. It doesn’t make us think about free will, just as we don’t think about not having free will. We just respond to the environment we are in. In today’s world we know if we are caught doing something bad, some form of punishment will be awaiting us. But when the environmental conditions change and we know IN ADVANCE that we will not be blamed or punished, we cannot find the justification necessary to strike this blow.

To reiterate: In order to hurt another, we need some form of justification. When all hurt is removed from the environment that could justify this strike (please don’t jump to conclusions), conscience will not permit it. It becomes an impenetrable deterrent because no one can move in the direction of harming someone if they cannot justify what they are contemplating. IOW, having no consequences presents consequences that are still worse, preventing what all the punishment in the world could never accomplish.

I really hope you read the book because he shows exactly how the economic system is involved in creating sustenance for everyone, therefore eliminating the justification to steal if necessary since self-preservation is the first law of nature.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't get it. Am I missing something? Are you saying that the world is not deterministic and that we have free will?

She means we live in an environment in which people believe in free will. Once they stop believing in that, then they will realize that the eyes are not a sense organ, that if God turned on the sun at noon people on earth would see it immediately, that people will fall in love with each other’s sex organs, and it will be “mathematically impossible” for married couples to desire to share the same bed.

I realize, of course, that believing in hard determinism does not entail in believing in the rest of this BS.

You won’t stop Pood. This is very hurtful because you’re purposely misconstruing this book. I’m asking the moderators to tell you to stop. You’re doing in here what you did at FF and I’m not staying if you keep this up. It’s not worth it!

You’re asking the moderators to do what? Tell me to stop telling everyone what is in the book? Meanwhile, I never bothered to report to the mods the endless strings of ad homs you have flung at me and others. Maybe I’ll do that, now.

Is it not true that the author says that if God turned on the sun at noon, people would see it on earth immediately? Have you not been defending this very claim in this very thread?

Are you telling me the rest isn’t in the book? About falling in love with each other’s sex organs and it being mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to sleep in the same bed? Of course it is. I have misconstrued nothing.

I showed everyone the excerpts where you misled them. This has turned into a lie and I hope the moderators will do something. You are doing such a disservice to me, the author, and anyone who is interested in this discovery. I’m trying to avoid ad hominems. So please stop with the lies and we will be even steven.

 

[bilby]

I don't see anything wrong using the word "wavelength."

Then you are unqualified to either use the word at all, or to have any opinion.

Perhsps you should leave discussion of how sight works to those of us who have at least some grasp of what light is, how it propagates, and how it interacts with eyes.

At the very least, you cannot expect to be taken seriously in any situation where you use words to mean something different from what everybody else uses those words to mean.

If you assign words arbitrary meanings that you don't elaborate, and then use those words, all you are doing is sowing confusion.

Wavelength means something. Your ignorance of its meaning doesn't grant you the right to assign it some random meaning of your own, and to then get snitty when other people "refuse" to understand whatever the fuck you are banging on about.

This is coming from someone who believes that books have no value. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. You are, in fact, wrong to a rather astonishing degree, even for someone who has demonstrated a hitherto unprecedented level of commitment to being wrong.

I am actually quite impressed that you could manage to be so spectacularly wrong, in so few words. Bravo.

 

[bilby]

Why are you telling me I have no idea what I am promoting?

I am not.

I am observing that you have no idea what you are talking about.

If that is true, then you can easily explain his explanation and throw it out. Go for it bilby!

OK. This might get a bit technical and long-winded, so brace yourself:

Show

The eye is a sense organ. He says it's not. He's wrong.

 

[bilby]

you don't believe in books.

I don't "believe in" anything; I believe only that which has been demonstrated. You should try it.

Books are great. Believing stuff for no reason other than that it is written in a book, is stupid.

 

[bilby]

Why are you telling me I have no idea what I am promoting?

I am not.

I am observing that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Then I can't have a conversation with you.

I had noticed.

You don't believe in books. You don't even understand his explanation, so how can you dispute it? Oh well.

Literally nobody (including you) understands his "explaination", because it is not in the form that fits the category 'things that can potentially be understood'.

The Literary Nonsense genre includes some great works, and is not to be derided as an art form. But it's neither able to be explained, nor to be understood. It just isn't that kind of writing.

When an author is unaware that his writing is of this kind, that's a little sad. When a reader is similarly unaware, that's even sader.

 

[bilby]

It's not that simple to test because we live in a free will environment.

Wasn't the entire point of this thread your claim that we do not?

If even you don't accept the nonsense you are pedalling, why the fuck would anyone else??

 

[bilby]

How can this be compared to a cult when all authority and control is being removed. No person is looked up to like some kind of god who demands obedience, and no one is being brainwashed.

And yet:

he said.

He said

Hmmmm.

 

[peacegirl]

Why are you telling me I have no idea what I am promoting?

I am not.

I am observing that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Then I can't have a conversation with you.

I had noticed.

You don't believe in books. You don't even understand his explanation, so how can you dispute it? Oh well.

Literally nobody (including you) understands his "explaination", because it is not in the form that fits the category 'things that can potentially be understood'.

How do you know? You haven’t looked at it.

The Literary Nonsense genre includes some great works, and is not to be derided as an art form. But it's neither able to be explained, nor to be understood. It just isn't that kind of writing.

How do you know? You haven’t read anything. You’re just assuming.

When an author is unaware that his writing is of this kind, that's a little sad. When a reader is similarly unaware, that's even sader.

It would be sad, but this is a genuine discovery although you will never know until someone you respect says it is. You’re waiting for others to do what you won’t —- read! You just assume he’s wrong (because the claims are extraordinary) and I’m wrong for believing him. Wrong!

 

[peacegirl]

Why are you telling me I have no idea what I am promoting?

I am not.

I am observing that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Then I can't have a conversation with you.

I had noticed.

You don't believe in books. You don't even understand his explanation, so how can you dispute it? Oh well.

Literally nobody (including you) understands his "explaination", because it is not in the form that fits the category 'things that can potentially be understood'.

How do you know? You haven’t looked at it.

The Literary Nonsense genre includes some great works, and is not to be derided as an art form. But it's neither able to be explained, nor to be understood. It just isn't that kind of writing.

How do you know? You haven’t read anything. You’re just assuming.

When an author is unaware that his writing is of this kind, that's a little sad. When a reader is similarly unaware, that's even sader.

It would be sad, but this is a genuine discovery although you will never know until someone you respect says it is. You’re waiting for others to do what you won’t —- read! You just assume he’s wrong (because the claims are extraordinary) and I’m wrong for believing him. Wrong!

Your laughter just confirms what I have expressed. I thought at the very least you would come back with something that disproves these concepts. Instead, you just laugh because you really don’t know.. This is not acceptable in any scientific inquiry bilby.

 

[pood]

It would be sad, but this is a genuine discovery although you will never know until someone you respect says it is.

You obdurately persist in your delusion that the people you meet on skeptics’ boards are actually not skeptics — that we are all waiting, like sheeple, for some respected authority figure to give your author’s nonsense “the stamp of truth,” a stamp that does not even exist in any case. But we are not. We read what the author wrote, and independently conclude that it is nonsense, and say so.

 

[peacegirl]

It would be sad, but this is a genuine discovery although you will never know until someone you respect says it is.

You obdurately persist in your delusion that the people you meet on skeptics’ boards are actually not skeptics — that we are all waiting, like sheeple, for some respected authority figure to give your author’s nonsense “the stamp of truth,” a stamp that does not even exist in any case. But we are not. We read what the author wrote, and independently conclude that it is nonsense, and say so.

No no no Pood. You will not even try to understand his explanation as to why the eyes are not a sense organ. I do not know if there is any way to change your thoughts on this without more objective individuals getting involved, so for the time being, this must be put on hold!

 

[peacegirl]

Dupe, sorry

 

[pood]

It would be sad, but this is a genuine discovery although you will never know until someone you respect says it is.

You obdurately persist in your delusion that the people you meet on skeptics’ boards are actually not skeptics — that we are all waiting, like sheeple, for some respected authority figure to give your author’s nonsense “the stamp of truth,” a stamp that does not even exist in any case. But we are not. We read what the author wrote, and independently conclude that it is nonsense, and say so.

No no no Pood. You will not even try to understand his explanation as to why the eyes are not a sense organ. I do not know if there is any way to change your thoughts on this without more objective individuals getting involved, so for the time being, this must be put on hold!

Oh, there you go again, thinking more “objective authorities” will give this bullshit “the stamp of truth” and somehow “change my thoughts.” No, these claims are not just nonsense, they are nonsense on a pogo stick, bouncing up and down and shouting, “Look at me! I’m nonsense on a pogo stick!”

 

[peacegirl]

It would be sad, but this is a genuine discovery although you will never know until someone you respect says it is.

You obdurately persist in your delusion that the people you meet on skeptics’ boards are actually not skeptics — that we are all waiting, like sheeple, for some respected authority figure to give your author’s nonsense “the stamp of truth,” a stamp that does not even exist in any case. But we are not. We read what the author wrote, and independently conclude that it is nonsense, and say so.

No no no Pood. You will not even try to understand his explanation as to why the eyes are not a sense organ. I do not know if there is any way to change your thoughts on this without more objective individuals getting involved, so for the time being, this must be put on hold!

Oh, there you go again, thinking more “objective authorities” will give this bullshit “the stamp of truth” and somehow “change my thoughts.” No, these claims are not just nonsense, they are nonsense on a pogo stick, bouncing up and down and shouting, “Look at me! I’m nonsense on a pogo stick!”

Yes , that is true! You are not the end all of truth Pood Face it! All your put downs mean nothing until they are examined by others in the field who hopefully will give this author the time of day!

 

[pood]

Yes , that is true! You are not the end all of truth Pood Face it! All your put downs mean nothing until they are examined by others in the field who hopefully will give this author the time of day!

I never said I was the “end of truth.” This is in keeping with your weird belief that “truth” is decided by authority. His claims have been examined, for hundreds of years. They are false. The eye is a sense organ. We seen in delayed time. Story over. It’s not because I say it, or Bilby says it, or because anyone says it. It’s because reality says it. Reality is the arbiter of truth, not any person.