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

[steve_bank]

I think Thomas More wrote in the time of Emery 8th that society creates the conditions in which some are forced to crime to survive, and then society punishes them for it.

 

[bilby]

If the argument of the book is based on determinism, that the world is deterministic, instantaneous vision, seeing the sun as it is now rather than 8 minutes ago, makes no sense. It contradicts determinism and the laws of physics. It's just not how the universe works.

Stop it! That's not fair!

The idea is that the mark starts out agreeing with the salesman, because he leads with something that he expects the mark to find obvious, or at least plausible. And then the mark has to keep agreeing, so as not to look like he's inconsistent.

You agreed with the introductory claim; Now you have a duty to keep agreeing with everything that follows. Those are the rules!!

 

[DBT]

I think Thomas More wrote in the time of Emery 8th that society creates the conditions in which some are forced to crime to survive, and then society punishes them for it.

To state the obvious, those in power rig the rules, tax breaks, business opportunities, etc, to benefit their own class.

 

[bilby]

I think Thomas More wrote in the time of Emery 8th that society creates the conditions in which some are forced to crime to survive, and then society punishes them for it.

Emery 8th was probably board by the whole thing.

 

[steve_bank]

I think Thomas More wrote in the time of Emery 8th that society creates the conditions in which some are forced to crime to survive, and then society punishes them for it.

To state the obvious, those in power rig the rules, tax breaks, business opportunities, etc, to benefit their own class.

Truue enough.

Our obsession with maximizing profit while those at the bottom getting little may lead to social instability and unrest.

The old observation, conservatives oppose social programs and safety nets but support welfare for fr business.

 

[peacegirl]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

That's not true DBT. How the brain processes light is not what is being disputed. All that is being disputed is how the eyes work, which allows us to see the object in real time, not delayed. As long as the object is bright enough, large enough (even with a telescope), and within our field of view, then we would see the object as it is, not as it was because the light would be at the eye instantly. People are having a hard time understanding how this is possible because they keep thinking in terms of travel time. But it actually works reverse when the eyes are efferent, not afferent. The brain processes the information conveyed by the light, but this is not what scientists are referring to when they say we see in delayed time. People are not taking this thread seriously because the author was unknown and because it's very easy to make fun of things that appear impossible. People follow whoever is the loudest. Pood is so upset about this claim that he is coming back with the same type of sarcasm and vengeance that he did at FF. Can you believe he would complain to the moderators about me when the harm he has done to me can't even compare to any harm I've done to him. To say that he's pissed is true, and he can't handle it, so he has to run like a crybaby to the moderators. He has gotten so confused that when the author said, "They are compelled, of their own free will... he actually thinks this is a contradiction. No wonder his summary stunk. He's grasping at anything he can to ruin me because he hates the author's claims even though it can prevent war. He doesn't care. He is a compatibilist, and he hates that he could not have done otherwise and that it's a modal fallacy. He hates everything about this book, but his analysis is all wrong. He has taken so much out of context, it actually makes me sick that people could actually take him seriously. Where did he ever compare homosexuality with war other than in his twisted brain? I've been with this work for many years and I don't know what he's even talking about. Doesn't anyone see the harm he's causing? If I don't continue here, if anyone wants to read the book the way it was meant to be read, and give a fair and balanced review, that would be cool. I don't have the desire to be on the defensive all the time if this is how it's going to play out. Lies and rumors die hard.

The eyes essentially work as light detectors, light sensitive cells, lenses, cornea, retina, rods, cones, pupil, iris optic nerve, etc, work to convert the acquired information from light into electrical impulses which are conveyed to the visual cortex. That being the evolved function of eyes as sense organs.

DBT, light works in conjunction with light receptors as it always has through the conveying of electrical impulses to the visual cortex or the brain would not be able to identify the object using words. The only difference is if the eyes are efferent. not afferent (which the author tried to explain), the light would be at the eye instantly as long as what we are gazing at meets the requirements of size and luminosity. If the author was correct, although light travels at 186,000 miles a second, the image does not. Light is a condition of sight but it does not reflect the light wave that then travels through space/time. This is not an implausible or impossible concept. We are seeing the actual object in real time because of how the eyes function. He demonstrates how this takes place. Did you read it? I am hoping you’re not like everyone else here because you can’t see how this could work. I’m not asking you to blindly accept his claim. I’m only asking that you keep an open mind until you learn what his reasoning was. People are so taken aback by his claim that they have a knee jerk reaction of put downs and attack just like they did in the Middle Ages. I’m tired of being the brunt of this attack for no damn reason.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

I am not attacking you personally, I am po8ning out the issues with what you are saying on optics. It is what go0ess on with the forum, debate and critique over what is said. No need to take personally.

An impulse has a specific definition, impulses are not created in the brain, it is ore of a continuous process. Your use of the word impulse sounds like pre 20th century philosophy and metaphysics.

Take a simple circular thin lens and point it at an object that is lit up. Put a piece of paper at the focal plane and you will see an image of the object on the paper, inverted. That is essentially a camera.

In optics there are two general categories, geometric optics and physical optics.

In geocentric optics rays are traced from points on an object through the lens and the focal plane. The process is computerized.

In physical optics Maxwell's equations are solved.

In geometric optics image formation is easy for a thin lens. Rays are traced from points on the object to the lens which are bent,refracted, and pass through the focal plane.

The image exists at all points between the object and the lens. The image exists as interference patterns of light waves.

Geometrical optics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The meaning of intensity can be a little murky.

Light intensity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Huygens–Fresnel principle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Huygens–Fresnel principle (named after Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens and French physicist Augustin-Jean Fresnel) states that every point on a wavefront is itself the source of spherical wavelets, and the secondary wavelets emanating from different points mutually interfere.[1] The sum of these spherical wavelets forms a new wavefront. As such, the Huygens-Fresnel principle is a method of analysis applied to problems of luminous wave propagation both in the far-field limit and in near-field diffraction as well as reflection

There are older basic optics texts in pdf, I will find one for you if you want.

Optics For Dummies. Dummies is a misnomer, the 'for dummies' books are well written for the non technical reader.

Optics For Dummies|Paperback

The easy way to shed light on Optics In general terms, optics is the science of light. More specifically, optics is a branch of physics that describes the behavior and properties of light'including visible, infrared, and ultraviolet'and the interaction of light with matter....

www.barnesandnoble.com

.

 

[peacegirl]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

That's not true DBT. How the brain processes light is not what is being disputed. All that is being disputed is how the eyes work, which allows us to see the object in real time, not delayed. As long as the object is bright enough, large enough (even with a telescope), and within our field of view, then we would see the object as it is, not as it was because the light would be at the eye instantly. People are having a hard time understanding how this is possible because they keep thinking in terms of travel time. But it actually works reverse when the eyes are efferent, not afferent. The brain processes the information conveyed by the light, but this is not what scientists are referring to when they say we see in delayed time. People are not taking this thread seriously because the author was unknown and because it's very easy to make fun of things that appear impossible.

Absolute bullshit. People aren’t taking the thread seriously because what the author claims is total nonsense.

People and scientists who are worth their salt will take a second look. You are just the effect of what you have been taught. I'm not interested in your reaction, which is biased to such a degree that you will be freaked out when it turns out he was right. I hope you won't need psychiatric care. I'm not trying to be mean at all, but I can foresee how this could mess you up emotionally.

People follow whoever is the loudest. Pood is so upset about this claim that he is coming back with the same type of sarcasm and vengeance that he did at FF. Can you believe he would complain to the moderators about me when the harm he has done to me can't even compare to any harm I've done to him. To say that he's pissed is true, and he can't handle it, so he has to run like a crybaby to the moderators.

Actually I haven’t. Your stupid little ad homs and insults aren’t even worth reporting or worrying about. But here you are whining about the mods not “saving” you when at unmodded FF you complained there weren’t any mods!

No comparison to what you, Maturin, and Chuck did to hurt me on FF. I'm glad you will stop threatening me to report me to the moderators. What a fuckin double standard if there ever was one.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl

I am not attacking you personally, I am po8ning out the issues with what you are saying on optics. It is what go0ess on with the forum, debate and critique over what is said. No need to take personally.

An impulse has a specific definition, impulses are not created in the brain, it is ore of a continuous process. Your use of the word impulse sounds like pre 20th century philosophy and metaphysics.

Take a simple circular thin lens and point it at an object that is lit up. Put a piece of paper at the focal plane and you will see an image of the object on the paper, inverted. That is essentially a camera.

In optics there are two general categories, geometric optics and physical optics.

In geocentric optics rays are traced from points on an object through the lens and the focal plane. The process is computerized.

In physical optics Maxwell's equations are solved.

In geometric optics image formation is easy for a thin lens. Rays are traced from points on the object to the lens which are bent,refracted, and pass through the focal plane.

The image exists at all points between the object and the lens. The image exists as interference patterns of light waves.

Geometrical optics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The meaning of intensity can be a little murky.

Light intensity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Huygens–Fresnel principle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Huygens–Fresnel principle (named after Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens and French physicist Augustin-Jean Fresnel) states that every point on a wavefront is itself the source of spherical wavelets, and the secondary wavelets emanating from different points mutually interfere.[1] The sum of these spherical wavelets forms a new wavefront. As such, the Huygens-Fresnel principle is a method of analysis applied to problems of luminous wave propagation both in the far-field limit and in near-field diffraction as well as reflection

There are older basic optics texts in pdf, I will find one for you if you want.

Optics For Dummies. Dummies is a misnomer, the 'for dummies' books are well written for the non technical reader.

Optics For Dummies|Paperback

The easy way to shed light on Optics In general terms, optics is the science of light. More specifically, optics is a branch of physics that describes the behavior and properties of light'including visible, infrared, and ultraviolet'and the interaction of light with matter....

www.barnesandnoble.com

.

Steve, all of this was explained to her, repeatedly, at FF, including by one biologist and two astrophysicists. It was explained repeatedly across more than 2,000 pages. You might want to save yourself the trouble. And yes, according to her, everyone who disagrees with her is attacking her personally, and “ruining it” for everyone else. We pointed out to her, for example, that if we see in real time because of “how the eyes and the brain work,” whatever that is supposed to mean, then what about cameras? A camera doesn’t have a brain. So if God turned on the sun at noon and we saw it immediately, without having to wait 8 minutes for the light to arrive, and then took a picture of the sun, would the camera take a photo of the sun in real time, or would it have to wait eight minutes for the light to arrive? You should have seen what knots that put her into! First she adopted one position — that the camera would have to wait for the light to arrive. But then, when we pointed out to her that if this was true, what we see, and what cameras take pictures of, would never be the same, but in fact they are — she took exactly the opposite position! That cameras take pictures without having to wait for light to arrive at the lens.

You cannot educate someone like this, someone who, moreover, contends that those who disagree with her secretly know that she and the author are correct, but are “furious” at having their “world view” challenged.

 

[pood]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

That's not true DBT. How the brain processes light is not what is being disputed. All that is being disputed is how the eyes work, which allows us to see the object in real time, not delayed. As long as the object is bright enough, large enough (even with a telescope), and within our field of view, then we would see the object as it is, not as it was because the light would be at the eye instantly. People are having a hard time understanding how this is possible because they keep thinking in terms of travel time. But it actually works reverse when the eyes are efferent, not afferent. The brain processes the information conveyed by the light, but this is not what scientists are referring to when they say we see in delayed time. People are not taking this thread seriously because the author was unknown and because it's very easy to make fun of things that appear impossible.

Absolute bullshit. People aren’t taking the thread seriously because what the author claims is total nonsense.

People and scientists who are worth their salt will take a second look. You are just the effect of what you have been taught. I'm not interested in your reaction, which is biased to such a degree that you will be freaked out when it turns out he was right. I hope you won't need psychiatric care. I'm not trying to be mean at all, but I can foresee how this could mess you up emotionally.

LOL. more pathetic ad hom from someone who doesn’t even know how a camera works, much less how the eyes work.

People follow whoever is the loudest. Pood is so upset about this claim that he is coming back with the same type of sarcasm and vengeance that he did at FF. Can you believe he would complain to the moderators about me when the harm he has done to me can't even compare to any harm I've done to him. To say that he's pissed is true, and he can't handle it, so he has to run like a crybaby to the moderators.

Actually I haven’t. Your stupid little ad homs and insults aren’t even worth reporting or worrying about. But here you are whining about the mods not “saving” you when at unmodded FF you complained there weren’t any mods!

No comparison to what you, Maturin, and Chuck did to hurt me on FF. I'm glad you will stop threatening me to report me to the moderators. What a fuckin double standard if there ever was one.

No, actually, I decided I am going to report you to the mods, and there is a HUGE backload of insults and ad homs to report.

 

[peacegirl]

I think Thomas More wrote in the time of Emery 8th that society creates the conditions in which some are forced to crime to survive, and then society punishes them for it.

Exactly.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

I am not attacking you personally, I am po8ning out the issues with what you are saying on optics. It is what go0ess on with the forum, debate and critique over what is said. No need to take personally.

An impulse has a specific definition, impulses are not created in the brain, it is ore of a continuous process. Your use of the word impulse sounds like pre 20th century philosophy and metaphysics.

Take a simple circular thin lens and point it at an object that is lit up. Put a piece of paper at the focal plane and you will see an image of the object on the paper, inverted. That is essentially a camera.

In optics there are two general categories, geometric optics and physical optics.

In geocentric optics rays are traced from points on an object through the lens and the focal plane. The process is computerized.

In physical optics Maxwell's equations are solved.

In geometric optics image formation is easy for a thin lens. Rays are traced from points on the object to the lens which are bent,refracted, and pass through the focal plane.

The image exists at all points between the object and the lens. The image exists as interference patterns of light waves.

Geometrical optics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The meaning of intensity can be a little murky.

Light intensity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Huygens–Fresnel principle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Huygens–Fresnel principle (named after Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens and French physicist Augustin-Jean Fresnel) states that every point on a wavefront is itself the source of spherical wavelets, and the secondary wavelets emanating from different points mutually interfere.[1] The sum of these spherical wavelets forms a new wavefront. As such, the Huygens-Fresnel principle is a method of analysis applied to problems of luminous wave propagation both in the far-field limit and in near-field diffraction as well as reflection

There are older basic optics texts in pdf, I will find one for you if you want.

Optics For Dummies. Dummies is a misnomer, the 'for dummies' books are well written for the non technical reader.

Optics For Dummies|Paperback

The easy way to shed light on Optics In general terms, optics is the science of light. More specifically, optics is a branch of physics that describes the behavior and properties of light'including visible, infrared, and ultraviolet'and the interaction of light with matter....

www.barnesandnoble.com

.

Steve, all of this was explained to her, repeatedly, at FF, including by one biologist and two astrophysicists. It was explained repeatedly across more than 2,000 pages. You might want to save yourself the trouble. And yes, according to her, everyone who disagrees with her is attacking her personally, and “ruining it” for everyone else. We pointed out to her, for example, that if we see in real time because of “how the eyes and the brain work,” whatever that is supposed to mean, then what about cameras? A camera doesn’t have a brain. So if God turned on the sun at noon and we saw it immediately, without having to wait 8 minutes for the light to arrive, and then took a picture of the sun, would the camera take a photo of the sun in real time, or would it have to wait eight minutes for the light to arrive? You should have seen what knots that put her into! First she adopted one position — that the camera would have to wait for the light to arrive. But then, when we pointed out to her that if this was true, what we see, and what cameras take pictures of, would never be the same, but in fact they are — she took exactly the opposite position! That cameras take pictures without having to wait for light to arrive at the lens.

You cannot educate someone like this, someone who, moreover, contends that those who disagree with her secretly know that she and the author are correct, but are “furious” at having their “world view” challenged.

There is a point at which critique becomes abusive.


I have no clue as to why you draw me into your battle, I have no axe to grind with peacegirl.

She has no science background, so what. She follows some quirky offbeat author, so what.

I have had my moments for sure over the years.

 

[pood]

There is a point at which critique becomes abusive.


I have no clue as to why you draw me into your battle, I have no axe to grind with peacegirl.

She has no science background, so what. She follows some quirky offbeat author, so what.

I have had my moments for sure over the years.

I’m not drawing you into any battle. I am not doing any battle at all. I’m just telling you from my experience that if you hope to educate her, your hope will be in vain. Just a word of advice that you’re obviously free to ignore.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl.

Drop two pebbles in a pond a few feet apart. Circular waves propagate around each drop point inn the water. When the 'wavefronts' cross interference takes place.

That will give you a rough idea of a light wave propagating in space.

I don't think we really know what light 'is', but the models work. Optical system that are built uisng the models work.

 

[peacegirl]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

That's not true DBT. How the brain processes light is not what is being disputed. All that is being disputed is how the eyes work, which allows us to see the object in real time, not delayed. As long as the object is bright enough, large enough (even with a telescope), and within our field of view, then we would see the object as it is, not as it was because the light would be at the eye instantly. People are having a hard time understanding how this is possible because they keep thinking in terms of travel time. But it actually works reverse when the eyes are efferent, not afferent. The brain processes the information conveyed by the light, but this is not what scientists are referring to when they say we see in delayed time. People are not taking this thread seriously because the author was unknown and because it's very easy to make fun of things that appear impossible.

Absolute bullshit. People aren’t taking the thread seriously because what the author claims is total nonsense.

People and scientists who are worth their salt will take a second look. You are just the effect of what you have been taught. I'm not interested in your reaction, which is biased to such a degree that you will be freaked out when it turns out he was right. I hope you won't need psychiatric care. I'm not trying to be mean at all, but I can foresee how this could mess you up emotionally.

LOL. more pathetic ad hom from someone who doesn’t even know how a camera works, much less how the eyes work.

People follow whoever is the loudest. Pood is so upset about this claim that he is coming back with the same type of sarcasm and vengeance that he did at FF. Can you believe he would complain to the moderators about me when the harm he has done to me can't even compare to any harm I've done to him. To say that he's pissed is true, and he can't handle it, so he has to run like a crybaby to the moderators.

Actually I haven’t. Your stupid little ad homs and insults aren’t even worth reporting or worrying about. But here you are whining about the mods not “saving” you when at unmodded FF you complained there weren’t any mods!

No comparison to what you, Maturin, and Chuck did to hurt me on FF. I'm glad you will stop threatening me to report me to the moderators. What a fuckin double standard if there ever was one.

No, actually, I decided I am going to report you to the mods, and there is a HUGE backload of insults and ad homs to report.

This is too funny. Go report me. Let them ban me.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl.

Drop two pebbles in a pond a few feet apart. Circular waves propagate around each drop point inn the water. When the 'wavefronts' cross interference takes place.

That will give you a rough idea of a light wave propagating in space.

I don't think we really know what light 'is', but the models work. Optical system that are built uisng the models work.

There is no comparison because this is not a comparison of apples to apples. It's a comparison of apples to walnuts. lol

 

[peacegirl]

There is a point at which critique becomes abusive.


I have no clue as to why you draw me into your battle, I have no axe to grind with peacegirl.

She has no science background, so what. She follows some quirky offbeat author, so what.

I have had my moments for sure over the years.

I’m not drawing you into any battle. I am not doing any battle at all.

Oh yes you are. You take this refutation personally. You've lost all objectivity!!

I’m just telling you from my experience that if you hope to educate her, your hope will be in vain. Just a word of advice that you’re obviously free to ignore.

Oh pllleeeeassee. Give me a damn break. You are not God's gift to all knowledge.

 

[peacegirl]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

peacegirl does not agree with this. Go figure.

I don't know why, or what it has to do with transforming human nature or making the world a better place.

I offered the book to you. You didn’t take the offer. Oh well.

I started it and got as far as the no blame principle, but as I have a lot going on, why not for the sake of discussion give a summary?

DBT, you have no idea what I've been through. Pood gave a horrible summary and now he's very angry and doing what he did in FF all because he says dogs can recognize people from a picture and that we see in delayed time and I say we see in real time. He's really really pissed. I tried to give some excerpts as to why man's will is not free and, when extended, can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. Most people believe in free will or worse, compatibilism, which makes it doubly hard. It's a shame that I'm up against so much. Nothing has changed since the author passed away in 1991. I really wish I could contact well-known determinists who could carefully study this book. That's the only way this knowledge is going to be brought to light.

Ad hom. Reporting all. Also false. I’m not pissed at all. I find you an object of hilarity. You remember how me, ChuckF, and Maturin had a lot of fun with your nonsense?

I hope the moderators stop you or this thread is toast.

Stop me from what? Telling people what’s in the book? Because you sure aren’t.

You are such a liar. You are not telling people what's in the book in sequence, which the author urged people to do. You've done the opposite. You are taking everything he wrote out of context and making a joke out of it. It's disgusting Pood. Anyone who has a motive can do this. Admit what you've done or you will feel extreme remorse when he's proven to be spot on.

 

[peacegirl]

If the argument of the book is based on determinism, that the world is deterministic, instantaneous vision, seeing the sun as it is now rather than 8 minutes ago, makes no sense. It contradicts determinism and the laws of physics. It's just not how the universe works.

His second discovery has nothing to do with his first discovery of determinism per se. The past doesn't exist except in our memories, so when you say that "antecedent events" cause the present, it implies that the past has this power to force a decision on us, like a domino. We remember the past, but we live in the present. I am assuming you didn't read his explanation as to why man's will is not free. We are still in agreement, but the details are slightly different.

“It’s amazing, all my life I have believed man’s will is free, but for the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”

Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied but I’m not. The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical doctrine that man’s choices, decisions, and actions are decided by antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his character. According to this definition, we are not given a choice because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do what I make up my mind not to do, as you just mentioned a moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in, can make me do it because over this I have absolute control. Since I can’t be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free, yet nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that, he brought out something I never would have thought of.”

All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, which is undeniable; however, though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point — he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?

 

[peacegirl]

If the argument of the book is based on determinism, that the world is deterministic, instantaneous vision, seeing the sun as it is now rather than 8 minutes ago, makes no sense. It contradicts determinism and the laws of physics. It's just not how the universe works.

Stop it! That's not fair!

The idea is that the mark starts out agreeing with the salesman, because he leads with something that he expects the mark to find obvious, or at least plausible. And then the mark has to keep agreeing, so as not to look like he's inconsistent.

You agreed with the introductory claim; Now you have a duty to keep agreeing with everything that follows. Those are the rules!!

This is not confirmation bias. He is only asking people to take the time to study the work. Everyone is jumping to premature conclusions because they are positive he must be wrong. That IS the problem! The premises that have to be correct for the rest of the content to be correct. I'm not telling people to agree with something that may be valid but not sound.

There is an ironic twist here, for if all evils in our world no longer exist, how happy would certain professions be to know that their services will no longer be needed. Shouldn’t this news make those individuals who have been trying to correct the evil in the world very happy? If the cry of the clergy is ‘Faith in God,’ isn’t it obvious that the priesthood would rather see an end to all sin than to preach against it and shrive the sinners in the confessional. They should be simply thrilled at the miracle God is about to perform, even though it means putting them out of work. Isn’t it true that politicians, statesman, the leaders of the world in general would much rather see an end to all war and crime than to retaliate an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? If the Communist and Capitalist governments are truly interested in the welfare of their people, then just imagine how excited they will be to learn that the most perfect relations between all men will soon be a reality even though it makes their services unnecessary. If a writer is just about ready to submit his book to the public for the purpose of revealing knowledge on how to raise children or live together in greater harmony as man and wife, he will be absolutely in ecstasy to learn that God is going to bring about such perfect harmony in a short time that all books purporting to do this very thing won’t have any more value. Just imagine how happy the profession of psychiatry will be to learn that all of its patients will be healed overnight by this miracle, making this service obsolete. There is a good deal of irony to this Great Transition, for it reveals how completely dishonest we were compelled to be with ourselves and others. A salesman is happy to make a sale when he works on commission, and if he found out that another salesman beat him to the punch, he would be disappointed. The only difference between a salesman selling books and a doctor, theologian, etc., is that the former must convince only his prospects while the latter must also convince themselves. A salesman is not interested if anyone uses his product, just so he is paid a commission. Doctors and theologians and those in the helping professions are compelled to justify that they know what they are advising and treating; otherwise, they could never accept a fee, gratuity, or income for their service. Someone who struggles to earn a living such as a salesman where the risk of injury is virtually nonexistent doesn’t need the same kind of justification and will even steal with a clear conscience.

Though we would all like to see an end to evil, there are two issues that need to be considered. No one could be pleased if their source of income was taken away as well as the very thing that gives meaning to their lives. Doctors are sincerely interested in making their patients well, but they want to be the ones to do it. Religion would like to see us delivered from evil, but in some manner that confirms what has been looked for — Judgment Day. The Chinese government would like to see an end to all evil, but in terms of communism. Is it possible for the supporters of socialism and communism to relinquish the thought that they are right, when they think they are not wrong? Politicians would like to see an end to all evil, but they want to find the solution. Would it be possible for the leaders of capitalism to willingly resign their jobs when they think their services are no longer required? How is it humanly possible for the organizations that fight for peace, for health, for security; those that wage a war against the evils of humanity to be sincerely happy about the very removal of the things they need for their ultimate satisfaction? Everybody would like to see a great change; “I have a dream” said Dr. Martin Luther King, “this view from the mountain top, but no one desires any intruders or interlopers.” These individuals, who at present control the thinking of mankind, set up a fallacious standard for the conscious purpose of protecting themselves against others and will react with hostility towards anything that shows they may be wrong unless it is presented in such a mathematical manner that it is impossible to disagree without revealing a still greater ignorance. If this book was not a mathematical revelation — which scientists will soon confirm — what do you think the clergy, the government, the medical and teaching professions, and many others would do if they thought for one moment this work was someone’s opinion that threatened their security, power, and leadership position in world affairs? They would tear this book to shreds. This discovery has incurred the wrath of the establishment because it upsets the apple cart and threatens the status quo. No one wants to willingly admit they don’t have the answer. The fact remains that these individuals are trying to solve problems that are very much over their heads and what is being revealed to them is only a method to accomplish the very things they have been attempting to do, without success. Unfortunately, those endeavoring to correct our ills appear to be cutting off the heads of a diseased hydra — the more psychiatrists we graduate, the greater becomes our mental illness; the more policemen and moralists we have, the greater and more prevalent become our crimes; the more diplomats, statesmen, generals, and armies we have, the greater and more destructive become our wars. And as an expedient to the situation, we find ourselves being taxed to death while our cost of living steadily rises. Wouldn’t you like to see an end to all this? Therefore, before I begin, I would like to ask you the following questions. Do you prefer war or peace, unhappiness or happiness, insecurity or security, sickness or health? Do you prefer losing the one you have fallen in love with, or winning and living happily ever after? Since I know that happiness is preferable to unhappiness, health to sickness, I shall now begin a revelation of knowledge which no one will be able to deny, provided the relations are understood. While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery and divorce will be a thing of the past changing the entire landscape of family relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical? And aren’t you jumping to the conclusion that this is against all human nature?