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

[DBT]

"Every conversation is reduced to it's lowest level of understanding" ~ unknown

Occam's razor is the simplest form of conversation but that doesn't mean it's the lowest level of understanding. Are you not understanding why man's will is not free, according to the author, or are you just not understanding why light can be at the eye without time for it to travel? I'm sure it's the latter.

I understand that light can't be 'at the eye' before it has been radiated by or reflected from by the object being observed, which happens to be the well established physics of the matter.

Sorry, but the book is wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

And anyone foolishly inclined to do so is probably still wading through Dianetics.

Or Aristotle. Actually that’s not quite fair, but couldn’t resist. We read and laud him for being one of the early thinkers to at least try to think clearly and consistently about the world, and about how it works and why that is. Given their lack of a knowledge base, we wouldn’t expect the early Greeks to get things right, but some of them, including Aristotle, had decent insights. But no, contra the author, scientists do not believe what they do because Aristotle said so. Quite the opposite.

So I shouldn’t have tried to share this knowledge, according to you.

Pretty much. You should have recognised that it's not in a fit state for publication, if you want it to be taken seriously.

Put yourself in my position for one second and you will have a little sympathy.

I have the greatest of sympathy for you. It's not easy being a Dunning-Kruger victim.

He never had a chance in his lifetime because he was not in academia.

No, he never had a chance because he didn't understand what academia is. It's not an old boy's club, it's a barely controlled brawl, in which only the strongest and best ideas have a hope of survival.

Thus discovery is still not recognized not because it’s vapid but because I cannot reach true academicians who would take this book seriously and study it like other philosophers have been studied. That’s not asking too much

Yes, it is.

A soldier who has fought bravely against almost impossible odds gets awarded medals, and when other soldiers see those medals, they give that soldier deep respect. But it would be a terrible mistake to just buy some medals in a junkshop, and wear them expecting to get the same respect.

It's not the medals that are respectable; It's the battle that they represent.

In the same way, an academic might be called Doctor or Professor, or have a string of letters after his name, and you might see that he is deeply respected by other academics as a consequence.

But it's not the honorifics that get him the respect; It's the intellectual hardships, conflicts, criticisms, and attacks that they represent.

If you turn up demanding respect, having never done the hard fighting needed to defend your ideas, and then, when challenged to prove your right to that respect, by defending the ideas you rode in on you try to hide behind demands for respect, instead of standing up and doing battle for your claims, reasoning, and ideas, then you are going to have a rough time of it.

Asking to be taken seriously abd treated with respect in academia, without first fighting for your ideas and winning, is just like turning up at the veterans dinner wearing a Military Cross you found in a junkshop.

IMO the best thing she could do, though she won’t is scrap the inanities like the eye is not a sense organ and God and the sun and all that, and focus one those claims which may be promising and have merit, several of which have been cited. She could then claim the final product as a joint.work of her and Lessans.

I won't change his words and his claims. I don't have the wherewithal to even begin to change things around, even if I wanted so. People can read the book and take what they like and leave the rest. The knowledge is helpful, even in this world. It could actually save marriages and keep families together.

 

[pood]

And anyone foolishly inclined to do so is probably still wading through Dianetics.

Or Aristotle. Actually that’s not quite fair, but couldn’t resist. We read and laud him for being one of the early thinkers to at least try to think clearly and consistently about the world, and about how it works and why that is. Given their lack of a knowledge base, we wouldn’t expect the early Greeks to get things right, but some of them, including Aristotle, had decent insights. But no, contra the author, scientists do not believe what they do because Aristotle said so. Quite the opposite.

So I shouldn’t have tried to share this knowledge, according to you.

Pretty much. You should have recognised that it's not in a fit state for publication, if you want it to be taken seriously.

Put yourself in my position for one second and you will have a little sympathy.

I have the greatest of sympathy for you. It's not easy being a Dunning-Kruger victim.

He never had a chance in his lifetime because he was not in academia.

No, he never had a chance because he didn't understand what academia is. It's not an old boy's club, it's a barely controlled brawl, in which only the strongest and best ideas have a hope of survival.

Thus discovery is still not recognized not because it’s vapid but because I cannot reach true academicians who would take this book seriously and study it like other philosophers have been studied. That’s not asking too much

Yes, it is.

A soldier who has fought bravely against almost impossible odds gets awarded medals, and when other soldiers see those medals, they give that soldier deep respect. But it would be a terrible mistake to just buy some medals in a junkshop, and wear them expecting to get the same respect.

It's not the medals that are respectable; It's the battle that they represent.

In the same way, an academic might be called Doctor or Professor, or have a string of letters after his name, and you might see that he is deeply respected by other academics as a consequence.

But it's not the honorifics that get him the respect; It's the intellectual hardships, conflicts, criticisms, and attacks that they represent.

If you turn up demanding respect, having never done the hard fighting needed to defend your ideas, and then, when challenged to prove your right to that respect, by defending the ideas you rode in on you try to hide behind demands for respect, instead of standing up and doing battle for your claims, reasoning, and ideas, then you are going to have a rough time of it.

Asking to be taken seriously abd treated with respect in academia, without first fighting for your ideas and winning, is just like turning up at the veterans dinner wearing a Military Cross you found in a junkshop.

IMO the best thing she could do, though she won’t is scrap the inanities like the eye is not a sense organ and God and the sun and all that, and focus one those claims which may be promising and have merit, several of which have been cited. She could then claim the final product as a joint.work of her and Lessans.

I won't change his words and his claims. I don't have the wherewithal to even begin to change things around, even if I wanted so. People can read the book and take what they like and leave the rest. The knowledge is helpful, even in this world. It could actually save marriages and keep families together.

I know you won’t, but any educated person who reads that the eye is not a sense organ and that if God turned on the sun at noon we would see it instantly, even though it takes the light from the sun some eight minutes to arrive at the eye, will drop the book like a hot potato. Those claims are false and the latter is both physically and logically impossible.

 

[peacegirl]

So I shouldn’t have tried to share this knowledge, according to you.

Pretty much. You should have recognised that it's not in a fit state for publication, if you want it to be taken seriously.

This man worked on his discovery for 30 years. You don't get to tell me it's not in a fit state for publication.

Put yourself in my position for one second and you will have a little sympathy.

I have the greatest of sympathy for you. It's not easy being a Dunning-Kruger victim.

You wouldn't make a good psychologist. Stick with your day job.

He never had a chance in his lifetime because he was not in academia.

No, he never had a chance because he didn't understand what academia is. It's not an old boy's club, it's a barely controlled brawl, in which only the strongest and best ideas have a hope of survival.

This is a major discovery (whether you or anyone here believes it or not). I will not even try to reach academicians who believe their *#%^ doesn't stink.

Thus discovery is still not recognized not because it’s vapid but because I cannot reach true academicians who would take this book seriously and study it like other philosophers have been studied. That’s not asking too much

Yes, it is.

A soldier who has fought bravely against almost impossible odds gets awarded medals, and when other soldiers see those medals, they give that soldier deep respect. But it would be a terrible mistake to just buy some medals in a junkshop, and wear them expecting to get the same respect.

It's not the medals that are respectable; It's the battle that they represent.

In the same way, an academic might be called Doctor or Professor, or have a string of letters after his name, and you might see that he is deeply respected by other academics as a consequence.

But it's not the honorifics that get him the respect; It's the intellectual hardships, conflicts, criticisms, and attacks that they represent.

If you turn up demanding respect, having never done the hard fighting needed to defend your ideas, and then, when challenged to prove your right to that respect, by defending the ideas you rode in on you try to hide behind demands for respect, instead of standing up and doing battle for your claims, reasoning, and ideas, then you are going to have a rough time of it.

This doesn't have anything to do with respect. Like I said, people can admire someone's hard earned accomplishments, but everyone deserves respect regardless of what they do. I'm not demanding that people agree if they don't, but I am demanding respect because I'm a human being and I won't tolerate disrespect.

Asking to be taken seriously abd treated with respect in academia, without first fighting for your ideas and winning, is just like turning up at the veterans dinner wearing a Military Cross you found in a junkshop.

I've been fighting for these ideas probably longer than you've been alive, so please don't be so condescending. Thank you.

 

[bilby]

This man worked on his discovery for 30 years. You don't get to tell me it's not in a fit state for publication.

I think you'll find that I just did.

But if it makes you feel any better, I am only going on your presentation of it as unfit for publication.

 

[bilby]

Asking to be taken seriously and treated with respect in academia, without first fighting for your ideas and winning, is just like turning up at the veterans dinner wearing a Military Cross you found in a junkshop.

I've been fighting for these ideas probably longer than you've been alive, so please don't be so condescending. Thank you.

Yeah, but you missed completely on the "and winning" clause, and are oblivious as to just how badly and obviously you have failed, so condescension is actually warranted.

 

[peacegirl]

This man worked on his discovery for 30 years. You don't get to tell me it's not in a fit state for publication.

I think you'll find that I just did.

But if it makes you feel any better, I am only going on your presentation of it as unfit for publication.

It’s already published! For you to say it’s not fit for publication is not very nice!

 

[pood]

I have been thinking more about Krishnamurti since his name was brought up, and also started a thread about him. It seems this passage some commonalities with the author’s writings;

The word is never the thing. The word wife is never the person, the door is never the thing. The word prevents the actual perception of the thing or person because the word has many associations. These associations, which are actually remembrances, distort not only visual observation but psychological. Words then become a barrier to the free flow of observation. Take the words, prime minister and clerk. They describe functions but the words prime minister have tremendous significance of power, status and importance whereas the word clerk has associations of unimportance, little status and no power. So the word prevents you from looking at both of them as human beings. There is ingrained snobbery in most of us, and to see what words have done to our thinking and to be choicelessly aware of it, is to learn the art of observation – to observe without association.

 

[peacegirl]

Asking to be taken seriously and treated with respect in academia, without first fighting for your ideas and winning, is just like turning up at the veterans dinner wearing a Military Cross you found in a junkshop.

I've been fighting for these ideas probably longer than you've been alive, so please don't be so condescending. Thank you.

Yeah, but you missed completely on the "and winning" clause, and are oblivious as to just how badly and obviously you have failed, so condescension is actually warranted.

There is nothing to win. This is not a fight! I am just tired of working so hard to get anyone to listen without bias! And there’s plenty of it to go around. If he was wrong about the eyes, then so be it, but his proof as to how the brain and eyes are conditioned to see what doesn’t exist because of words that are projected onto the screen of the outside world could only happen the way he described.

 

[pood]

Asking to be taken seriously and treated with respect in academia, without first fighting for your ideas and winning, is just like turning up at the veterans dinner wearing a Military Cross you found in a junkshop.

I've been fighting for these ideas probably longer than you've been alive, so please don't be so condescending. Thank you.

Yeah, but you missed completely on the "and winning" clause, and are oblivious as to just how badly and obviously you have failed, so condescension is actually warranted.

There is nothing to win. This is not a fight! I am just tired of working so hard to get anyone to listen without bias! And there’s plenty of it to go around. If he was wrong about the eyes, then so be it, but his proof as to how the brain and eyes are conditioned to see what doesn’t exist because of words that are projected onto the screen of the outside world could only happen the way he described.

Look at the Krishnamurti quote.

 

[peacegirl]

I have been thinking more about Krishnamurti since his name was brought up, and also started a thread about him. It seems this passage some commonalities with the author’s writings;

The word is never the thing. The word wife is never the person, the door is never the thing. The word prevents the actual perception of the thing or person because the word has many associations. These associations, which are actually remembrances, distort not only visual observation but psychological. Words then become a barrier to the free flow of observation. Take the words, prime minister and clerk. They describe functions but the words prime minister have tremendous significance of power, status and importance whereas the word clerk has associations of unimportance, little status and no power. So the word prevents you from looking at both of them as human beings.

I wouldn’t go that far but words can literally bring forth negative or positive feelings that are associated with that particular word.

There is ingrained snobbery in most of us, and to see what words have done to our thinking and to be choicelessly aware of it, is to learn the art of observation – to observe without association.

True. Words have different emotional responses depending on what is being said and who is saying it. It’s good to be aware of how our minds work in order remove false associations and connotations.

 

[pood]

I have been thinking more about Krishnamurti since his name was brought up, and also started a thread about him. It seems this passage some commonalities with the author’s writings;

The word is never the thing. The word wife is never the person, the door is never the thing. The word prevents the actual perception of the thing or person because the word has many associations. These associations, which are actually remembrances, distort not only visual observation but psychological. Words then become a barrier to the free flow of observation. Take the words, prime minister and clerk. They describe functions but the words prime minister have tremendous significance of power, status and importance whereas the word clerk has associations of unimportance, little status and no power. So the word prevents you from looking at both of them as human beings.

I wouldn’t go that far but words can literally bring forth negative or positive feelings that are associated with that particular word.

There is ingrained snobbery in most of us, and to see what words have done to our thinking and to be choicelessly aware of it, is to learn the art of observation – to observe without association.

True. Words have different emotional responses depending on what is being said and who is saying it. It’s good to be aware of how our minds work in order remove false associations and connotations.

It sounds to me like Krishnamurti is making an argument similar to your father’s but without the “screen of undeniable substance” and all that stuff.

 

[steve_bank]

Decline and Fall of All Evil
The Most Important Discovery of Our Times

Lets look at the title.

On first glance the first line sounds like a theological exclamation. A fantastic declaration of things to come. The hook that draws in the reader.

The second lime of course embellishes the claim, the most important disc covey of our time. Of course it is, the author says it is.

Then a salutation to all mankind, a bit grandiose IMO certainly a high opinion of himself as savior of mankind, followed by quotes of well known literary figures. Routine. Adds authenticity and tells people the author is smart and well read.

Then

This is the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written because it will
verify the prediction made in the introduction by producing
unbelievable changes in human relations in the next 25 years. By
discovering the invariable laws of the solar system we were able to
predict an eclipse and land men on the moon. By discovering the
invariable laws that inhere in the mankind system we are able, for the
very first time, to predict and accomplish what was never before
possible — our deliverance from evil.

Again heralding fantastical claims. Imagine regal trumpets.

Establish credibility by association. The laws I have found are as solid of the laws of physics. My predictions are as certain as the laws of science that predict an eclipse.

To me sounds like an Evangelical preacher proclaiming prophesy from the bible.

'our deliverance from evil' taken from The Lord's Prayer.

Then he appears to invoke the Civil War.

Note: Twelve years after the author’s passing, his daughter, Janis
Rafael, went on a mission to compile her father's seven books in the
hope that this discovery will not be lost to future generatio

And then as someone said it appears to lead into General Semantics

Socrates and prenatal consciousness?

Sorry Peacegirl, but the writer appears to be incoherent and babbling with delusions of grandeur, a Moses complex.

He threw together things he read..

The problem with never interacting with peers and never being in a college classroom is you never experience criticism interactively.

Eisenstein went through a series of peer reviews with colleagues before publishing relativity.

 

[bilby]

This man worked on his discovery for 30 years. You don't get to tell me it's not in a fit state for publication.

I think you'll find that I just did.

But if it makes you feel any better, I am only going on your presentation of it as unfit for publication.

It’s already published! For you to say it’s not fit for publication is not very nice!

I wasn't trying for nice, I was trying for honest.

 

[bilby]

Asking to be taken seriously and treated with respect in academia, without first fighting for your ideas and winning, is just like turning up at the veterans dinner wearing a Military Cross you found in a junkshop.

I've been fighting for these ideas probably longer than you've been alive, so please don't be so condescending. Thank you.

Yeah, but you missed completely on the "and winning" clause, and are oblivious as to just how badly and obviously you have failed, so condescension is actually warranted.

There is nothing to win. This is not a fight!

You are not paying attention. I was pointing out that acedemia is always a fight, and that only winning ideas survive.

I am just tired of working so hard to get anyone to listen without bias!

Everyone is listening without bias - other than a bias towards truth over nonsense, and fact over fiction.

And there’s plenty of it to go around. If he was wrong about the eyes, then so be it, but his proof as to how the brain and eyes are conditioned to see what doesn’t exist because of words that are projected onto the screen of the outside world could only happen the way he described.

Or he could be wrong again. Which is an absolute certainty if he used his mistake about the eyes as an input into the rest of that "thinking".

 

[DBT]

We do tend to see the world through the lense of our beliefs, where some see signs wonders in what others consider to be mundane events, where one man's pastor, prophet or saviour may be seen by others as either mistaken/conditioned or fraudulent.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

How would you use the principles in the book to deal with us who argue with you camping our views?

Also keep in ind the vast majority of people even those with a college degree have no understanding of the word determinism, or think philosophically in daily life.

I took four classes in philosophy. Phil 101. comparative religion, ethics, and logic. The classes were uesful. None of it covered determinism.

Note that an independent scholar created General Semantics which does have a following.

I am sure in his day Leessans was read, but it never rose to a serious level of credibility.

It wasn't read, so how can something not read rise to any level of credibility. In fact, when I approached my philosophy 101 professor, he said he was bogged down and didn't have the time to read it. It was very disappointing.

With the rise of modern experimental science, psychiatry, and psychology which a has an experimental part philosophy has fell by the wayside.

He proved will is not free. No experimental science, psychiatry, psychology, or even philosophy (which the discussion of free will/determinism came from) can change this law. But unfortunately, no one accurately extended this knowledge. They turned away due to the impasse of blame.

Look at current topics in psychology. I took a course in cognitive psychology. I also took a psych class Alternator States Of Awareness. A reflection of the culture of the day.

Today psychology appears to be where it is at for perception and cognition. I watched a number of shows on exerimnets in cognition and perception on people and animals.

Experimental psychology is well developed.

To make your case you would have to set up an experiment subject to peer review.

It's very easy to see that dogs cannot identify from a picture because the image or lightwave is not traveling to their eyes or they would be able to recognize their masters whether in person (without other cues) or as a representation. You can do that experiment in your own home. You don't need a formal experiment using props like they did in the other forum I was at. They actually believed from this experiment that Lessans was disproved. He was not. As far as determinism goes, there could be small segments of the population using these principles to show that it works, but if people recognized the premises as 100% accurate, it can be easily seen that when these principles are applied globally, they will work because human beings cannot move against their nature, which would be to hurt others when not to hurt them is the better choice given the changed environmental conditions --- which takes away any justification to do so. That's the whole point of this discovery. Hurting others when not to hurt them offers greater satisfaction (which is the only direction we can move) is the very reason why this is an invariable law. Laws don't change with time.

Shoving a book in somebody's face claiming it is true will not get you anywhere,.

There are tens of thousands papers written globally across many areas every year with authors looking for a peer review in a mian publcation. Thee is a selection and winnowing process and only a few make it.

Authors are often fiercely competing for grant money to pursue an idea.

That's true, and that's why some of these published studies are flawed but they need to get published anyway. That's not the direction I want to go. I'm not asking for funding, and I don't want to be beholden to a peer review that is biased, which is very likely because the belief in 5 senses has been established and accepted and it would be virtually impossible to get anyone in academia to study this with a straight face, where free will and determinism is still up for debate.

 

[steve_bank]

Sorry Peacegirl.

After going trough just the first part of the book putting it as tactfully as I can it is the work of an eccentric.

When I read Science And Sanity from General Semantics back in the 70s I thought part of it was pseudo science, but there was a structure and I found useful takeaways.

Your book is an incoherent sequence of chapters.

My guess is he read a lot of things and put in odd things and conclusions form what he read without any interaction with others and no peer review of his book.

Was your father Christian? The impression I get is a revivalist preacher of the day mixing religion and science.

I can see why no one in academic science or philosophy would give the book much credence.

 

[steve_bank]

It's very easy to see that dogs cannot identify from a picture is because the image or lightwave is not traveling to their eyes or they would be able to recognize their masters whether in person (without other cues) or as a representation. You can do that experiment in your own home. You don't need a formal experiment using props like they did in the other forum I was at. They actually believed from this experiment that Lessans was disproved. He was not. As far as determinism goes, there could be small segments of the population using these principles to show that it works, but if people recognized the premises as 100% accurate, it can be easily seen that when these principles are applied globally, they will work because human beings cannot move against their nature, which would be to hurt others when not to hurt them is the better choice given the changed environmental conditions --- which takes away any justification to do so. That's the whole point of this discovery. Hurting others when not to hurt them offers greater satisfaction (which is the only direction we can move) is the very reason why this is an invariable law. Laws don't change with time.

Sorry again Papergirl, that is nonsense gibberish.

 

[peacegirl]

A baby not recognising objects in the world around them is not the same as literally not seeing these things.

A newborn baby would not be able to focus without the other senses stimulating him.

if a newborn infant was placed in a soundproof room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is a prerequisite of sight — even though his eyes were wide open — he could never have the desire to see. Furthermore, and quite revealing, if this infant was kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of intravenous glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike the other four organs of sense, this baby, child, young, and middle aged person would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that room no matter how much light was present or how colorful they might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it.