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

[bilby]

View attachment 48516

...and yet, here you are 1,700 posts into the thread, still trying to explain the unexplainable.

"I feel that if a person has problems communicating, the very least that he could do is shut up" - Tom Lehrer

When someone has something of extreme value to offer, they will scream it from the mountaintops!

Sure. But that will also happen if they have nonsense to offer, but have convinced themselves that it is valuable.

So, we need other means to determine what is true than the mere persistence of evangelists.

 

[pood]

Indeterminism does not negate causality.

“The reason we can’t predict the outcome of a quantum measurement,” she explains, “is that we are missing information,” that is, hidden variables. Superdeterminism, she notes, gets rid of the measurement problem and nonlocality as well as randomness. Hidden variables determine in advance how physicists carry out the experiments; physicists might think they are choosing one option over another, but they aren’t. Hossenfelder calls free will “logically incoherent nonsense.”

Does Quantum Mechanics Rule Out Free Will?

Superdeterminism, a radical quantum hypothesis, says our “choices” are illusory

www.scientificamerican.com

That’s nice. Do you even know anything about quantum mechanics? No, you do not. Do you know what superdeterminism is? No, you do not. Do you know what hidden variables are? No, you do not. You just grabbed something from the internet because the “logically incoherent nonsense” bit caught your eye and boom, here it is. Pro tip: When you post links, the rules here state that you must provide your own commentary about them, however brief.

 

[pood]

Pood even thinks bees can recognize faces.

They appear to be able to, though as I have not kept bees myself, I don't know for sure. Certainly the idea that they can is not at odds with anything I do know about bees, so I have no sound reason to doubt it.

I already posted a link to her about how bees recognize their keepers’ individual faces. But she doesn’t like that, so she pretends it is not true.

 

[peacegirl]

PeaceGirl, there are a couple of really relevant topics out there you might be interested in. General Semantics is one, Zen Buddhism is the other.

Your father's work was for a different time. Maybe you could update it.

Do you know opr a fact that he was her father?

She did say she was marketing the book.

No I don't. But she did the same thread many years ago somewhere else. Maybe ratskep or talkrational.org or Dawkins old forum. It went for a long time

It is her father.

She had the same thread here some fifteen years ago here at iidb. Don’t know how long it went.

She has a thread at the Freethought Forum that began in 2011 and has been active on and off for 13 glorious years, with more than 2,000 pages.

The irony is that it got nowhere. Most of it was to target me for lulz. Three people were involved, including Pood who pulled everything out of context and used it to promote himself. Chuck got involved much later which turned out to be the final straw. He said he was the steward of my father's work because I didn't have the original and he did, and I was doing this for lucre. Utter defamation. Maturin called my father a pedophile. This was the worst libel against an innocent man. I should have sued him.

Everywhere it is the same. The two-sided equation. The eye is not a sense organ. In the New World gays will disappear. In the new world boys and goils, as the author calls them, will fall in love with each other’s sex organs. Etc.

Why do you keep repeating this? Now I have to copy paste to show people where this was written in context.

A mother asked, “How is it possible not to blame a child who grabs a toy from another? Shouldn’t the child be reprimanded?”

Absolutely not, because you are then blaming the child for the fact that his desire has been aroused to want something that another child has. Let me clarify this. If you place on the dinner table a pitcher of lemonade and a pitcher of milk, one child may prefer the former while the second selects the latter, but both were given an equal opportunity to satisfy their desire for either one, which does not in any way blame their desire. Could you possibly put on the table enough milk for one child and enough lemonade for two? Wouldn’t this obviously blame the desire of one child should both desire the milk? “Mommy, Johnny got a glass of milk, and I want some too.” Isn’t this just plain common sense, which we refer to as fairness? Children are very perceptive when it comes to noticing the slightest shade of discrimination, which parents are well aware of, and will resent their parents for taking something away from them, which is what they do when they are not equitable. How many times have you heard a child say, “This isn’t fair because you gave him more than me?” The truth of the matter is that it isn’t fair if it blames another child’s desire for wanting the same thing. Any type of discrimination, especially where young children are concerned, is a hurt. Let me show you the unconscious discrimination that goes on where toys are concerned.

One father could not understand why his fraternal twins, a boy and girl, were not satisfied — he with his toy soldier and she with her doll. Very young children often want what others have only because they see these differences and don’t understand why they can’t have the same thing. Soon they begin crying, which may then develop into a full-blown tantrum. If you give a little boy a toy soldier and a girl a doll, what is this but an encouragement for them to quarrel? In reality, aren’t you discriminating if you give a little boy a toy soldier and a little girl a doll? Why shouldn’t the boy want to play with the doll and the girl with the soldier; and what if both should desire the doll at the same time, what then? All this can be prevented by realizing that every child must be given an equal opportunity to be happy, which is denied when parents set up fallacious standards of what is for a girl and what is for a boy. Let’s observe the following dialogue.

Justin, this doll belongs to Suzie; dolls are for little girls, not for boys,” says the father.

“But I wanna play widda dolly.”

“Suzie, you’re older than Justin, so you be a big girl (this blames him for not being big about it) and let Justin play with your doll just for a little while, and you play with his soldier.”

“No! Dolly mine: you get for Suzie, and you said dollies are for goils, Daddy, and Justin is a boy, not a goil.”

So, what’s the solution? If it is a soldier you wish to give to a boy, you must also give the same exact soldier to the girl; and if it is a doll you wish to give to the girl, you will give the same exact doll to the boy. When they discover that each has the same toy, there can be no possessiveness, no jealousy, no envy, and what is much more important, no fighting to disturb your evenings. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to get rid of all these things that cause such a disturbance and make your living so much less enjoyable? Are you given a choice? But mind you, it is demonstrated that these things will take leave, not because they are worse for the children, but because they are definitely a source of dissatisfaction and unhappiness for the parents.

>snip<

By removing all the blame the pressure is also removed because he can have a sexual relation immediately and there is no possibility for unrequited love to develop, no chance for any girl to be swept off her feet and lose her virginity out of wedlock, no chance for a double-standard to make some girls bad and others good, no chance for a boy and girl to hurt each other in any way where sex is concerned because all the factors truly responsible are prevented from arising. Moreover, once all the words are removed that now judge some people as inferior physiognomic productions of the human race, everybody becomes perfectly equal in value except to the person making a choice. One face is not better looking than another — just different — although we will always find certain differences we like better. Couples will strongly desire to retain the physical appearance that first attracted their life partner. Since these marriages will take place when boys and girls are very young, and since all psychological impediments to eating will be removed from birth, very few will be carrying excess weight. However, some boys and girls are naturally heavy and there will be no reason for them to worry in the new world because to certain people this is a physical attraction. It is true that we have already been conditioned to move in the direction of certain preferences, but we cannot be hurt when these individuals reject us at the very outset and when other choices in a partner will never be directly or indirectly criticized. If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs and her features will become secondary because nobody will ever refer indirectly to her as ugly by calling other types beautiful, which in our present world could possibly make him regret his choice and keep an eye out for someone who would be looked upon by others as having more to offer in the way of physical appearance. But how is it possible for him to regret his choice when the world stops criticizing and when he has fallen head over heels for his sweetheart, which takes place after, not before, the sexual union? Once they consummate their love with a complete sexual relation, they will be married. They will have no choice in the matter of marriage as it will be their only source of sexual satisfaction, which I shall sum up by using mathematical phraseology.

Everyone everywhere responds with amazement and incredulity and sets about the task of educating her. Everywhere the result is the same. Failure to educate her.

It all depends on who's educating whom.

 

[peacegirl]

Pood, you are so mad at me that you put things online that are absolutely crazy. I hope people see this for what it is.

Ad hominem. And all that stuff is in the book, peacegirl. Oh, and, it will be mathematically impossible for a married couple to desire to share the same bed. That is in there, too.

Another excerpt taken out of context. Now I have to show people AGAIN where it makes absolute sense. You won't win this way.

The great humor lies in the fact that the husband and wife, in the new world, will always desire to make the other happy, which compels the husband to put on his slip where he knows his wife likes to go, while she will put on her slip, the restaurant where she knows he likes to go, just the opposite in your present world when you have been married for a little while. After a nice dinner, they may desire to come home and have a romantic evening. However, there is one change about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will surprise everybody, for you are about to see why a couple would never desire only one bed for the two of them.

“Is this because sleeping together decreases passion over time?”

“Sleeping together night after night does decrease passion, but it is not the reason you will have two beds, twin or otherwise.”

“When I first got married, my wife suggested we buy a double bed immediately (since that’s what is expected of married couples), so I agreed to it.”

The person who brings it up is the one who strikes this first blow of marriage. If you understand what it means that man’s will is not free and are able to perceive and extend the mathematical relations thus far, you will easily see the reason for this. Take note.

If, after making love, our partner wishes to sleep alone, this desire has the right-of-way over our desire to have our partner sleep by our side since this is a judgment of what is right for the other. Using today’s standards, it would be unusual to see a married couple sleeping in two separate beds. Most people would consider this a sign that the marriage was on the rocks, which may be true in our present world. If a couple preferred sleeping in a separate bed, they would then have to tolerate the comments of family and friends. There is nothing wrong with desiring to sleep together, but it cannot be satisfied unless both parties want the same thing. If they do not desire to move to another bed after making love, then it is obvious that both are content with the sleeping arrangement. But having only one double bed as the only alternative involves the same principle of considering only one person’s desire, and it is a subtle form of advance blame. In other words, the person desiring the double bed is actually blaming in advance the desire of the other to sleep alone, whereas the other does not blame by not making any demands. A’s desire involves B, but B’s desire does not involve A; it is that simple. In our present world, we justify criticizing our partner for wanting to sleep alone by invoking sleeping together as a condition of marriage. We expect them to show their love by sacrificing their desire in favor of ours, which only reveals our selfishness by expecting them to give up what they should not have to. Then, when they insist on sleeping alone, and because we believe we are right, we call them selfish and strike the first blow to get even for something that does not infringe on anyone else’s desires. But when we know they have the right-of-way and that they would never blame us for striking this blow, no matter what we do to hurt them for not satisfying our desire, then we are given no choice but to sacrifice our selfishness and respect desires that make no demands on us.

 

[steve_bank]

View attachment 48516

Are you giving up?

No comment on time dilation and GPS?

Aw come on Peacegirl, the fun is just getting started. We are having fun are we not?

No need to sulk.

I'm not sulking. Where did you get that idea?

n feel your pain.


I

 

[pood]

Did you read the whole article that you linked, peacegirl? The one that caught your eye that free will is “logically incoherent nonsense,” Sabine’s phrase?

The rest of it goes on to rebut her and her superdeterminism.

You really should try to read what you post.

 

[peacegirl]

PeaceGirl, there are a couple of really relevant topics out there you might be interested in. General Semantics is one, Zen Buddhism is the other.

Your father's work was for a different time. Maybe you could update it.

Do you know opr a fact that he was her father?

She did say she was marketing the book.

Determinism - TalkRational Archive

Determinism Philosophy

talkrational.org

Started in 2014 and was almost identical discussion

Of course it was identical because the discovery didn't change, just the people in the forum.

PeaceGirl, you must have really loved your father. I think that's beautiful. I remember this thread from another message board. Maybe talk rational or Richard Dawkins forum? At the time I read quite a bit of what you offered of his book and iirc you were asking people to buy the book for more. Is that still the case?

Anyway, I have entirely forgotten the contents so I just skimmed the intro and ToC of the book and I have to say that, while the sentiment seems nice and there may even be some valuable insight available in the book, deliverance from evil isn't really something I feel strongly about and anyway evil is in the eye of the beholder.

I remember another person who had a very similar argument using determinism in much the same way. His name was Ontic at Talk Rational, maybe he posts here. If so, you could find something of a kindred spirit there.

Aside from that, in a complexity regime which is what life is, causality is only a coherent concept at very gross levels. Rather emergence and adaptation are the foundations and static equilibrium doesn't happen at all. There is no end state. Or, that's my paradigm and it's very useful to me. Determinism is great in closed systems with few interactions. Outside of that, everything is caused by everything so I can't really go down this road with you. Also, I am already as happy as I want to be and the rest of the world is on their own as far as that goes. They all seem to be a bit crazy to me.

Anyway, thanks for having the link posted.

Peace out

When you get rid of causality you can imagine anything.

Gods. demons, magic spells, and most importantly somethings something form nothing.

Elaborate on what you men by causality being a gross level.

Causality outside of a controlled and mostly closed system has only general applicability in exceedingly limited domains. They just happen to be the domains that involve material stuff, chemistry and physics. In ecology or society, it is a display of ignorance to isolate a cause and claim it is universal. The whole system is the cause and the whole system is the effect and ceteris paribus just means not anything like reality. All things can never be equal once adaptive pattern begin. Nature has no closed systems.

Most people here will likely want to argue about this and you would probably find that my position is far more reasonable than it appears but causality becomes theoretic very quickly in any sociological context which is what is happening here and tends to be easier to make sense of under the framework of emergence. And I probably don't have the time to do a proper thread so you might just have to be mad at me for making an assertion.

Here is a quick Google first hit that gets at the nomenclature issue:

Emergence and Causality in Complex Systems: A Survey of Causal Emergence and Related Quantitative Studies

Emergence and causality are two fundamental concepts for understanding complex systems. They are interconnected. On one hand, emergence refers to the phenomenon where macroscopic properties cannot be solely attributed to the cause of individual properties. On the other hand, causality can...

www.mdpi.com

You're right in the sense that when it comes to humans interaction, you can't reduce it to one cause. That doesn't even come close to how this author defines determinism and what it means to have no free will.

 

[peacegirl]

Did you read the whole article that you linked, peacegirl? The one that caught your eye that free will is “logically incoherent nonsense,” Sabine’s phrase?

The rest of it goes on to rebut her and her superdeterminism.

You really should try to read what you post.

I read about superdeterminism, non-local variables that are not being considered. It doesn't relate other than to show that there are people in the QM community who do not believe that QM proves free will in any way, shape, or form.

 

[peacegirl]

PeaceGirl, there are a couple of really relevant topics out there you might be interested in. General Semantics is one, Zen Buddhism is the other.

Your father's work was for a different time. Maybe you could update it.

Do you know opr a fact that he was her father?

She did say she was marketing the book.

Determinism - TalkRational Archive

Determinism Philosophy

talkrational.org

Started in 2014 and was almost identical discussion

Thread got so long it needed to be split and restarted to ease strain on the database.

Determinism - Part 2 - TalkRational Archive

Determinism - Part 2 Philosophy

talkrational.org

Why are you pulling things out of context again and again? Why? You are trying to hurt the author, that's why. It's disgusting.

In what context does, “boys and goils will fall in love in love with each other’s sex organs” become less wrong and less disgusting?

Why does this bother you so much Pood? He was just trying to imitate a child. What are you trying to do? If people here are smart, they will see your agenda without any justification. You are hurting the author for no reason other than you want him to be wrong and you want to be right, and you'll do dirty to make this happen.

Ad hominem.

OK, so he was trying to imitate a child. Fine. That is not the issue. The issue is falling in love with each other’s sex organs. Would you care to provide the “context” that makes his claim any less wrong and repulsive?

I hope people read the context where falling in love with people's sex organs only means finding someone to love and who loves them even if they don't have the secondary attribute of "good looks." If people read the entire chapter, they would understand more clearly what he meant. This was not repulsive at all. You're not going to make this book look like something it isn't.

 

[steve_bank]

Indeterminism does not negate causality.

“The reason we can’t predict the outcome of a quantum measurement,” she explains, “is that we are missing information,” that is, hidden variables. Superdeterminism, she notes, gets rid of the measurement problem and nonlocality as well as randomness. Hidden variables determine in advance how physicists carry out the experiments; physicists might think they are choosing one option over another, but they aren’t. Hossenfelder calls free will “logically incoherent nonsense.”

Does Quantum Mechanics Rule Out Free Will?

Superdeterminism, a radical quantum hypothesis, says our “choices” are illusory

www.scientificamerican.com

That is speculation, at this time it is not knowable.

Looking at all of science my conclusion is we have no idea what the reality is that we are immersed in.

You can b find scientific opinions to support most any subjective view.

I know QM models work from what I did for work. Whether the QM models actually reflect reality is not knowable.

We have no metric or absolute point of reference from which to deduce we have discovered everything.

So in turn there is no way of determining if determinism is true or false.

All things in science come down to a measurement. Measurements come down to points of reference. System International defines all units of measure which are based on how the meter, kilogram, and seconds are defined.

 

[peacegirl]

Take out weird metaphor of eyes and you have a decent take on one of the principles of general semantics

See, that’s the thing. It’s not a metaphor. If it were a metaphor, he may have some decent stuff on, as you say, general semantics. If he had something like, for example, “while the eye strictly of course is a sense organ, we make sense of what we see by projecting our semantics and conditioning onto the external world.” Then when he says, “We project words onto an undeniable screen of substance,” this would make sense as a metaphor, Taken literally, of course, this is all nonsense, but he does have interesting things to say how semantics and conditioning color our view of reality.

We are not projecting our semantics and conditioning onto the external world; we are conditioned because of this projection of words that contain values (which do not symbolize reality) onto the external world.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Take out weird metaphor of eyes and you have a decent take on one of the principles of general semantics

See, that’s the thing. It’s not a metaphor. If it were a metaphor, he may have some decent stuff on, as you say, general semantics. If he had something like, for example, “while the eye strictly of course is a sense organ, we make sense of what we see by projecting our semantics and conditioning onto the external world.” Then when he says, “We project words onto an undeniable screen of substance,” this would make sense as a metaphor, Taken literally, of course, this is all nonsense, but he does have interesting things to say how semantics and conditioning color our view of reality.

We are not projecting our semantics and conditioning onto the external world; we are conditioned because of this projection of words that contain values (which do not symbolize reality) onto the external world.

That is the entire point of general semantics

 

[steve_bank]

I am not a big fan of Noam Chomsky, but he makes points on how language and semantics are a source of political power.

We do project and interpret reality we perceive through semantics. We take semantics as truth without any conscious thought.

 

[pood]

I am not a big fan of Noam Chomsky, but he makes points on how language and semantics are a source of political power.

We do project and interpret reality we perceive through semantics. We take semantics as truth without any conscious thought.

Which is also one of the points Krishnamurti made, and he said truth cannot be found there.

 

[pood]

Quantum physics is inherently indeterministic. Classical physics is inherently deterministic. So there is a clash. It becomes stranger when you realize that everything, including big stuff at the classical level, is quantum.

Einstein wanted to move QM closer to the determinism of the classical realm, as does Sabine Hossenfelder.

The physicist Nicolas Gisin wants to do the opposite: move the classical realm closer to the quantum realm. One way to do this, he writes, is to replace classical mathematics with intuitionist mathematics. In the former, a proposition is always true or false. In the latter, it is true, false, or indeterminate.

Indeterminist Physics for an Open World

 

[peacegirl]

I'm expecting people to hear him out and then make up their minds. They can think whatever they want but at least give him a fair shake. No one has done that. No one has read the book.

Your horse threw its jockey at the first fence.

If you don't like his claims, then you will believe the horse threw its jockey at the first fence. I can't make you want to read the book so please do what gives you greater satisfaction. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

You can watch the rest of the race to see if you won if you like; But it is not reasonable to criticise others for saying that you cannot win your bet even though the race is not yet over, and it is pointless and futile to demand that they should sit through the whole thing just in case it turns out you are a winner.

I'm not telling them to sit through anything. If they don't want to be here, they don't have to, although it's a big winner for everyone if he's right.

If the argument depends on the claims made right at the beginning, then it fails if any of those claims are false.

That's true, but I don't believe the claims are false.

If the argument does not depend on the claims made right at the beginning, or indeed if it contains ANY claims that are not required in order to reach the conclusion, then those claims should be excised, and the argument presented without them - because they are not only unecessary, they are an active impediment to getting people to accept your conclusions.

I'm not sure what claims are not required in order to reach the conclusion. The way we are conditioned is with value containing words that are projected onto real substance. This is not semantics.

So, having only read as far as his incorrect and laughable claim about the academic response if he declared that there were not five senses, and that Aristotle was wrong (shock!), a reasonable person can conclude with certainty that he is either totally wrong, or impossibly bad at presenting his idea(s).

Just like in here, anyone he talked to about the eyes not being a sense organ thought he was wrong at the very outset, although there was an expo in Canada that said: "Come on in, let us show you why the eyes are not a sense organ, but their explanation was different than his.

Either is a sound justification for discarding his book at that point; Life is too short to wade through impossibly bad presentations on the mere hint that they might lead to a valuable conclusion; And anyone foolishly inclined to do so is probably still wading through Dianetics.

I don't think it's a bad presentation. I guess we all take a risk when we spend our precious time in ways that may not serve us, but I believe this time is valuable. Dianetics is not this, or anything close to it. I can tell that you are careful with your time and that's great. I don't think you're wasting time here. He mentioned Dianetics:

Many philosophers, in trying to be educated, have taken a simple truth that could have been explained in very few words and then made a profound book out of it, which nobody understood, all because they judged the value of the book by the quantity of big words and how difficult of being grasped. How many poets, philosophers, psychiatrists, and psychologists have been accorded fame because they imparted their own meaning and used this as a confirmation of wisdom. To agree with a famous person is an unconscious way of saying, “I am as smart as he is,” only he got a lucky break, or he was able to express himself better. Aristotle stopped the world from thinking for a while because everybody agreed with what he had to say, due to his world renown. Can you imagine what he would say about this book? How many of you recognized in Durant’s Mansions of Philosophy your own wisdom, which now turns out to be ignorance? Another way of building up one’s own feeling of superiority is by disagreeing, but the great humor lies in the fact that the standards we used to judge another were equally fallacious. Because 6 is closer to the answer of the cow problem than 7 doesn’t make it less wrong, nor does a book like Dianetics become more true because it is dedicated to Durant or less true because it was not accepted by psychiatry.

 

[peacegirl]

Also, his two-sided equation stuff arguably has some merit and is certainly worth entertaining, if he weren’t so hyperbolic and dogmatic about his claims. For example, one can be a compatibilist, as I am, yet reject retributive justice, as I do. It can certainly be argued that while we always act on our preferences, a lot of our genetics and our upbringing heavily influence our choices, and if we recognized this and stopped blaming people for what they do, forcing them into a defensive crouch of rationalizing their behavior, they might well make choices better for themselves and others. We know the old childhood saw “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” is quite wrong, and moreover, childhood trauma alters gene expression in a way that lasts for a lifetime, leading to inherited intergenerational trauma. Perhaps much of this could be tempered and some of it eliminated in an environment in which blame and shame is greatly reduced. These are points worth entertaining.

Exactly. How our sense of the world develops and what feeds it are possibly the most profound questions facing humans. It's why religion can still be relevant in an age where magic and miracles are no longer valid causal forces.

So I can read the first 3 chapters metaphorically and see some points worth thinking about. And I see them as really quite important points. And I am also aware that there is a several thousand year history of philosophy dealing directly with these issues and am sympathetic to most efforts to rework them to make them relevant in each time.

I hope you do read the first three chapters. That would give you a little insight into how this knowledge, when applied, will be able to eliminate many ills that are plaguing our planet. It wouldn't be a utopia, but it would be a lot better than what we now have.

 

[peacegirl]

I will not be put in this defensive position.

You have been, so it's too late. If you want to know who put you there, look in a mirror.

If you won't defend your ideas, you will need to accept that they will never be widely accepted. Of course, that doesn't imply that they will if you do defend them - a defence is necessary, but is far from sufficient.

I am defending them.

So, when you said "I will not be put in this defensive position", that was empty bluster?

Yes, it was empty bluster. I will defend the book even though I don't like being in this position. I have no choice (actually I do have a choice; just not a free one).

 

[peacegirl]

Also, his two-sided equation stuff arguably has some merit and is certainly worth entertaining,

Gosh, I can't believe you gave him some credit. It sounds so strange coming from you.

if he weren’t so hyperbolic and dogmatic about his claims.

He was never dogmatic. Is it dogmatic to say that one plus one is two? No.

For example, one can be a compatibilist, as I am, yet reject retributive justice, as I do.

This shows me you don't understand how this knowledge of no free will, therefore no blame, extends. How can we punish people for wrongdoing when they can do no wrong?

In Buddhism this is called dukkha and samsara, in Taoism it is called the way, in xianity it is illustrated in parables culminating in turning the other cheek.

This knowledge is not about turning the other cheek. It is about preventing the cheek from being struck so that you don't have to turn it or strike back, an eye for an eye.

One of my favorite thinkers of all time, Thich Nat Han, illustrates the concept in a poem called Call Me By My True Names https://www.parallax.org/mindfulnessbell/article/poem-please-call-me-by-my-true-names/

Thanks for the poem. Didn't Thich Nat Han pass away recently? He had many followers.

It is the consequence that general semantics is working to uncover. In short, it is something that is incredibly well covered by philosophers throughout the ages. Your book adds to a rich history but doesn't overturn that history.

He never intended to overturn history. He learned from history which is the only reason he was able to make this discovery. He read a tremendous amount. In fact, he read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 7 times.