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

[peacegirl]

I wasn't talking about force. The perception of a need to do things differently is not just a matter of being forced. A change in circumstance may generate an internal feeling or desire to do things differently, which is a rational response to changing conditions. Your will is modified and you act accordingly.

That is true. In regard to this knowledge, the only thing that changes is the desire to strike a first blow. If a first blow is not struck, we don’t have to strike back or turn the other cheek. IOW, when the conditions of the environment change, so will our responses to it. This discovery is about preventing the very things that blame and punishment were previously necessary as part of our development. I am jumping ahead though and why it’s important to read in the order it was written.

 

[peacegirl]

I am not here to debate, and I know people don't like that since these forums are meant for just that. The problem is that people cannot debate what they know nothing or very little about. My hope is to share the author's position.

Just so you know, preaching is explicitly forbidden here by the ToU of the board.

I’m not preaching bilby. I’m sharing a work and in order to share it, I have to post a link to it. If this is against the rules and if I am restricted to this degree, then let the moderators give me a citation and I will leave. Why should I work so hard to explain this discovery to people who don’t want to hear it? Is the form of how something is expressed (e.g. whether it’s in book form or in the course of conversation) more important than the knowledge it’s conveying—you know, the actual content?

 

[bilby]

I am not here to debate, and I know people don't like that since these forums are meant for just that. The problem is that people cannot debate what they know nothing or very little about. My hope is to share the author's position.

Just so you know, preaching is explicitly forbidden here by the ToU of the board.

Wow, how disingenuous can you be? I’m not preaching bilby.

Really?

I am not here to debate

Hmmm.

I’m sharing a work and in order to share it, I have to post a link to it. If that is not allowed, let the moderators give me a citation and I will gladly leave. Why should I work so hard to explain something important when it’s not appreciated. I will go somewhere where it is..

Posting a link and then discussing its content is not preaching.

Posting a link, or your own words for that matter, with no intent to discuss it, but rather with the implied demand that people should just believe it without further debate, is the very essence of preaching.

As is declaring in advance that nobody in your audience is qualified to question the material you post.

 

[peacegirl]

I am not here to debate, and I know people don't like that since these forums are meant for just that. The problem is that people cannot debate what they know nothing or very little about. My hope is to share the author's position.

Just so you know, preaching is explicitly forbidden here by the ToU of the board.

Wow, how disingenuous can you be? I’m not preaching bilby.

Really?

I am not here to debate

Hmmm.

I’m sharing a work and in order to share it, I have to post a link to it. If that is not allowed, let the moderators give me a citation and I will gladly leave. Why should I work so hard to explain something important when it’s not appreciated. I will go somewhere where it is..

Posting a link and then discussing its content is not preaching.

Posting a link, or your own words for that matter, with no intent to discuss it, but rather with the implied demand that people should just believe it without further debate, is the very essence of preaching.

Whoever said that it’s not open for discussion? The only requirement for a productive discussion comes after a concept is explained in as much detail as possible. In all honesty, how can something be discussed when no one has the slightest idea what the author is trying to demonstrate? I will say again that if Nietzsche was here, and he said we cannot have a conversation until you read my book, no one would say a word.

As is declaring in advance that nobody in your audience is qualified to question the material you post.

I never said that either, but you cannot debate what has not been introduced. This is not a repeat of the same old discussion repackaged! This is a new understanding of what it means to have no free will but, more importantly, how it benefits us. That should excite you to want to know more, rather than to find a way to shut me down.

 

[bilby]

I am not here to debate, and I know people don't like that since these forums are meant for just that. The problem is that people cannot debate what they know nothing or very little about. My hope is to share the author's position.

Just so you know, preaching is explicitly forbidden here by the ToU of the board.

Wow, how disingenuous can you be? I’m not preaching bilby.

Really?

I am not here to debate

Hmmm.

I’m sharing a work and in order to share it, I have to post a link to it. If that is not allowed, let the moderators give me a citation and I will gladly leave. Why should I work so hard to explain something important when it’s not appreciated. I will go somewhere where it is..

Posting a link and then discussing its content is not preaching.

Posting a link, or your own words for that matter, with no intent to discuss it, but rather with the implied demand that people should just believe it without further debate, is the very essence of preaching.

Whoever said that it’s not open for discussion?

You did:

I am not here to debate

The only requirement for a productive discussion comes after a concept is explained in as much detail as possible. In all honesty, how can something be discussed when no one has the slightest idea what the author is trying to demonstrate? I will say again that if Nietzsche was here, and he said we cannot have a conversation until you read my book, no one would say a word.

I can assure you that you are mistaken. Nobody here would give Nietzsche any more respect than they give any other poster.

They wouldn't even know it was him.

As is declaring in advance that nobody in your audience is qualified to question the material you post.

I never said that either, but you cannot debate what has not been introduced. This is not a repeat of the same old discussion repackaged! This is a new concept of what it means to have no free will but, more importantly, how it benefits us. That should excite you to want to know more, rather than to find a way to shut me down.

You are shutting yourself down.

If you have something to say, just say it. There's no need for a preamble about how unfairly you expect it to be treated if, as, and when you ever get around to it.

Indeed, such a preamble is the fallacy of poisoning the well.

 

[peacegirl]

I am not here to debate, and I know people don't like that since these forums are meant for just that. The problem is that people cannot debate what they know nothing or very little about. My hope is to share the author's position.

Just so you know, preaching is explicitly forbidden here by the ToU of the board.

Wow, how disingenuous can you be? I’m not preaching bilby.

Really?

I am not here to debate

Hmmm.

I’m sharing a work and in order to share it, I have to post a link to it. If that is not allowed, let the moderators give me a citation and I will gladly leave. Why should I work so hard to explain something important when it’s not appreciated. I will go somewhere where it is..

Posting a link and then discussing its content is not preaching.

Posting a link, or your own words for that matter, with no intent to discuss it, but rather with the implied demand that people should just believe it without further debate, is the very essence of preaching.

Whoever said that it’s not open for discussion?

You did:

It’s not open for discussion or debate until there is something to discuss or debate. That’s what I meant. I am saying this because I know how confused people can get when they take things out of context like they did in the other forum. I will not repeat that again.

I am not here to debate

The only requirement for a productive discussion comes after a concept is explained in as much detail as possible. In all honesty, how can something be discussed when no one has the slightest idea what the author is trying to demonstrate? I will say again that if Nietzsche was here, and he said we cannot have a conversation until you read my book, no one would say a word.

I can assure you that you are mistaken. Nobody here would give Nietzsche any more respect than they give any other poster.

I highly doubt that you would treat him the same as me and tell him he will be reported if he puts the links to his book/s.

They wouldn't even know it was him.

Funny!

View attachment 48868

As is declaring in advance that nobody in your audience is qualified to question the material you post.

I never said that either, but you cannot debate what has not been introduced. This is not a repeat of the same old discussion repackaged! This is a new concept of what it means to have no free will but, more importantly, how it benefits us. That should excite you to want to know more, rather than to find a way to shut me down.

You are shutting yourself down.

How? I prefaced by saying after the chapters are read, we can discuss them.

If you have something to say, just say it. There's no need for a preamble about how unfairly you expect it to be treated if, as, and when you ever get around to it.

Indeed, such a preamble is the fallacy of poisoning the well.

I don’t mean to poison the well! I am just trying to make sure this knowledge is explained well so there are no misunderstandings!

 

[DBT]

Context cannot transform fallacy into reality. Context cannot transform the contention of 'light at the eye/instant vision' into an accurate model of reality, that this is indeed how the eye works. That's not how vision works.

 

[peacegirl]

Context cannot transform fallacy into reality. Context cannot transform the contention of 'light at the eye/instant vision' into an accurate model of reality, that this is indeed how the eye works. That's not how vision works.

I wasn't referring to their dismissal of his claim regarding the eyes, which wasn't unexpected. What they did was take every sentence that sounded silly out of context and made a complete joke out of it. The book became unrecognizable. It was horrible the way they twisted everything he wrote. Mind you, no one had read the book. Look what happened when Pood copied a review on Amazon that said military force was used by someone who never purchased the book. Military force is never mentioned anywhere in the text. They cherry picked the book to death, and it destroyed any chance for a fair discussion because Lessans became a target for lulz they didn't want to give up. It was entertainment for them. Can you imagine how they will feel if he turns out to be right?

 

[pood]

Yes, that part was in the book. You took it out. Just as you took out all the good stuff about “juicy, juicy c’s.”

The book has been read by many, at the least the first three chapters, and it has been unanimously rejected because the claims about light and sight are demonstrably false. The eye is a sense organ. We do not see in real time. Period. He did not “demonstrate” otherwise, he simply made an empty and very stupid assertion. I might just as usefully assert that the earth is actually a giant peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and when everyone proves otherwise complain that no one has understood my “demonstration” of peanut butter and jellyness, or complain that no one has actually read it, or complain that I am not being taken seriously because I lack credentials, or complain that everyone has read and understood my demonstration that the earth is actually a giant peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and actually agree that it is because my “demonstration” is as iron-clad as 2=2=4, but they still reject my “demonstration” because it threatens their precious world view.

The above is exactly what you do all the time, and doing the above until the end of time will not change the fact that your author was wrong about light and sight.

 

[peacegirl]

I’m not

Yes, that part was in the book. You took it out. Just as you took out all the good stuff about “juicy, juicy c’s.”

The book has been read by many, at the least the first three chapters, and it has been unanimously rejected because the claims about light and sight are demonstrably false. The eye is a sense organ. We do not see in real time. Period. He did not “demonstrate” otherwise, he simply made an empty and very stupid assertion. I might just as usefully assert that the earth is actually a giant peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and when everyone proves otherwise complain that no one has understood my “demonstration” of peanut butter and jellyness, or complain that no one has actually read it, or complain that I am not being taken seriously because I lack credentials, or complain that everyone has read and understood my demonstration that the earth is actually a giant peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and actually agree that it is because my “demonstration” is as iron-clad as 2=2=4, but they still reject my “demonstration” because it threatens their precious world view.

The above is exactly what you do all the time, and doing the above until the end of time will not change the fact that your author was wrong about light and sight.

I’m not interested in talking to Pood. He is as biased as they come.He was one of the ringleaders in this fiasco! He can try to ruin this author all he wants. Truth will remain. I am hoping that people here are capable of separating the wheat from the chaff to give this man a chance in hell when so much is against him.

 

[peacegirl]

I’m not

Yes, that part was in the book. You took it out. Just as you took out all the good stuff about “juicy, juicy c’s.”

The book has been read by many, at the least the first three chapters, and it has been unanimously rejected because the claims about light and sight are demonstrably false. The eye is a sense organ. We do not see in real time. Period. He did not “demonstrate” otherwise, he simply made an empty and very stupid assertion. I might just as usefully assert that the earth is actually a giant peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and when everyone proves otherwise complain that no one has understood my “demonstration” of peanut butter and jellyness, or complain that no one has actually read it, or complain that I am not being taken seriously because I lack credentials, or complain that everyone has read and understood my demonstration that the earth is actually a giant peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and actually agree that it is because my “demonstration” is as iron-clad as 2=2=4, but they still reject my “demonstration” because it threatens their precious world view.

The above is exactly what you do all the time, and doing the above until the end of time will not change the fact that your author was wrong about light and sight.

I’m not interested in talking to Pood. He is as biased as they come.He was one of the ringleaders in this fiasco! He can try to ruin this author all he wants. Truth will remain. I am hoping that people here are capable of separating the wheat from the chaff to give this man a chance in hell when so much is against him.

Why would he bring up the eyes when I asked people to let that aspect go for now so we can move on unless he wants to ruin my chances to explain why we have no free will and what this means for our benefit?

It’s so obvious to me that he’s doing what he did at FF, just a little more toned down. He is not worth his salt when it comes to his desire to help me. It’s a crock. His proof that the free will of compatibilism is actually compatible with determinism is flawed, by definition. There is no soft or hard determinism; just determinism. Both sides of this debate are working with a definition of determinism that has a loophole, which makes it appear that these two schools of thought cannot be reconciled unless compatibilism sneaks in; a semantic nightmare. Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless they describe reality, which compatibilism does not. The rest of his twisted logic is pure gobbledegook!

 

[peacegirl]

I'm reading over some of the Sapolsky thread and Pood's comment made me laugh out loud.

You know the song with the lyric, What will be, will be? Notice the lyric isn’t, What will be, MUST be. Even the songwriter knew better than you!

Pood doesn't realize that determinism does not tell a person in advance what he must choose. That would be a modal fallacy, but that is not what determinism states. It only states that, once a decision is made, looking back, it could not have been otherwise. How can anyone know what tomorrow will bring with absolute certainty?

The only thing that keeps this discussion going is the fact that moral responsibility plays a big part in how someone is treated in the legal system. It also plays into the idea of just desert, "an eye for an eye," versus compassionate rehabilitation that does not use punitive tactics, so this conversation is by all means extremely important in how society operates. This does not mean that someone is not responsible for his actions. If someone steps on the accelerator and hits two children, he is responsible, but he is not morally responsible because his will is not free. This leads into the author’s two-sided equation, which is the core of the discovery. This also does not mean that responsibility for one's actions has no consequences. The consequences are the pain of knowing someone was hurt by one's actions without justification, which would be hard to bear. As a result, responsibility is increased, not decreased. Just imagine for a moment not having to use punishment as a deterrent because no one has done anything to cause harm to others. That would be the ultimate game changer, wouldn't it? No one believes this is possible only because they have been unable to get beyond the impasse that determinism presents.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ok, now we are getting somewhere at least a bit interesting, if also tired and droll on its own way, because it's about The Modal Fallacy.

First off, I'm a determinist. I came to the conclusion that the universe is systematically most likely deterministic independently after observing physics and studying computer science to the point of understanding how neurons drive thought.

I think the biggest issue here is that when many naive people utter the word "can" with reference to a subject, they don't fully understand that the subject is a completely* different collection of things than when they utter that same word and point to the same thing and say "did".

The only exception to this complete difference is that the subject of "can" contains the subject of "did" as an infinitesimal subset.

In the same way as sentences in propositional logic cannot be self or circularly referential and remain valid, ever, can can't refer to the exact collection as did and have the language remain valid, ever.

This is known as a circular reference and no formal language can "compile" into a Turing complete construction with such a reference for the former, and likewise there is a difference between types and instances of the type in such languages. Can vs Did accesses type vs instance.

To demonstrate what I mean by this, when I ask "can I jump over that candlestick" I am not asking will "this instance of type 'I'...", I am asking about the properties of the type itself. I am asking you to observe "anywhere, anywhen in the universe where any instance of that structure 'I' exists consistent with an instance of this contextual element 'candlestick', do ANY jump over it?"

When we ask "could it have been otherwise", we are faced with an entire infinite universe where it was, in fact, otherwise everywhere but there.

 

[peacegirl]

Ok, now we are getting somewhere at least a bit interesting, if also tired and droll on its own way, because it's about The Modal Fallacy.

First off, I'm a determinist. I came to the conclusion that the universe is systematically most likely deterministic independently after observing physics and studying computer science to the point of understanding how neurons drive thought.

I think the biggest issue here is that when many naive people utter the word "can" with reference to a subject, they don't fully understand that the subject is a completely* different collection of things than when they utter that same word and point to the same thing and say "did".

The only exception to this complete difference is that the subject of "can" contains the subject of "did" as an infinitesimal subset.

In the same way as sentences in propositional logic cannot be self or circularly referential and remain valid, ever, can can't refer to the exact collection as did and have the language remain valid, ever.

This is known as a circular reference and no formal language can "compile" into a Turing complete construction with such a reference for the former, and likewise there is a difference between types and instances of the type in such languages. Can vs Did accesses type vs instance.

To demonstrate what I mean by this, when I ask "can I jump over that candlestick" I am not asking will "this instance of type 'I'...", I am asking about the properties of the type itself. I am asking you to observe "anywhere, anywhen in the universe where any instance of that structure 'I' exists consistent with an instance of this contextual element 'candlestick', do ANY jump over it?"

When we ask "could it have been otherwise", we are faced with an entire infinite universe where it was, in fact, otherwise everywhere but there.

That's not how I see it. There are no instances of "could have done otherwise" anywhere when discussing the laws that all sentient beings are part of. Yes, I call determinism a law even though it is descriptive, not prescriptive. I can only offer what I know to be true. No one is saying that there isn't the potential to make a different choice based on different contingencies, but there is no way a person could have chosen otherwise given his genetics, predisposition, and the options that are available to him at any given moment in time. I don't need to go back to the Big Bang to prove that the trajectory of a person's life could not have been otherwise, but this does not mean before he makes a decision that his choice is written in stone. This is not fatalism, where whatever we do makes no difference or that we cannot change according to new contingencies. There is no modal fallacy in this account because no one is saying that a person has to choose something before he chooses it.

In order for me to explain the proof of determinism, according to this author, and how determinism is reconciled with "doing something of one's own accord (the free will that compatibilism fails at), I need people to read the first three chapters; otherwise, we will be talking at each other, not to each other. If he is right that free will doesn't exist, and continuing to state that it does due to wishful thinking (most people want to believe that they have a free choice), could actually be hampering our progress toward world peace. As Socrates once said, Know thyself, which is what we are all trying to figure out. Everyone in this thread would be wise to let me continue by engaging with those who have read the first three chapters. Then we can have a productive conversation, but not before. Sapolsky was on the right track, but I can see why people are turned off by making them feel no more than a preprogrammed automaton. I am trying to offer a different perspective, but I cannot do this without an understanding of the author's position. Obviously, his premises have to be correct for his conclusions to be correct. If he is right, then freedom of the will is wrong, regardless of any other theories to the contrary.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ok, now we are getting somewhere at least a bit interesting, if also tired and droll on its own way, because it's about The Modal Fallacy.

First off, I'm a determinist. I came to the conclusion that the universe is systematically most likely deterministic independently after observing physics and studying computer science to the point of understanding how neurons drive thought.

I think the biggest issue here is that when many naive people utter the word "can" with reference to a subject, they don't fully understand that the subject is a completely* different collection of things than when they utter that same word and point to the same thing and say "did".

The only exception to this complete difference is that the subject of "can" contains the subject of "did" as an infinitesimal subset.

In the same way as sentences in propositional logic cannot be self or circularly referential and remain valid, ever, can can't refer to the exact collection as did and have the language remain valid, ever.

This is known as a circular reference and no formal language can "compile" into a Turing complete construction with such a reference for the former, and likewise there is a difference between types and instances of the type in such languages. Can vs Did accesses type vs instance.

To demonstrate what I mean by this, when I ask "can I jump over that candlestick" I am not asking will "this instance of type 'I'...", I am asking about the properties of the type itself. I am asking you to observe "anywhere, anywhen in the universe where any instance of that structure 'I' exists consistent with an instance of this contextual element 'candlestick', do ANY jump over it?"

When we ask "could it have been otherwise", we are faced with an entire infinite universe where it was, in fact, otherwise everywhere but there.

That's not how I see it.

Then you are wrong.

There are no instances of "could have done otherwise" anywhere when discussing the laws that all sentient beings are part of.

I just pointed to the instances of "did otherwise". Every point in the universe is already doing otherwise of every other point in the universe. I discussed this early in the thread when I discussed local realism.

Determinism is, fundamentally, a belief in local realism.

You have a shape, and are made of stuff. In other contexts, that shape does otherwise. This is a property of the type according to the shape, rather than a property of the instance. It is like the mathematical concept of integration: it takes something, and looks at a more general case.

This is a well understood aspect of those laws all things in the universe are subject to, that things have properties, and properties allow integral thinking.

So while every point in space and time does otherwise in a very wide way, things with some more complicated property tend to be fewer and further away from each other.

We can observe the literal doing-otherwise by observable members of various classes though so we can observe the literal truth of doing otherwise.

Yes, I call determinism a law even though it is descriptive, not prescriptive.

No, determinism is the corrolary of laws but is not a law itself.

I can only offer what I know to be true.

Bullshit, you have offered plenty of shit that is not true. And you know it.

No one is saying that there isn't the potential to make a different choice based on different contingencies,

Ok...

but there is no way a person could have chosen otherwise given his genetics, predisposition, and the options that were available to him at any given moment in time.

Ok, so, you commit a modal fallacy right here. "Person could", is a dofferent subject than "available to him at a given moment in time"

The first word uses the type scope, accessing the idea of that person specifically and especially at all moments in space and time where things are shaped as that person. This is explicitly going to conflict with the predicate to-be of the first subject later declared.

This is a modal violation!

 

[DBT]

Context cannot transform fallacy into reality. Context cannot transform the contention of 'light at the eye/instant vision' into an accurate model of reality, that this is indeed how the eye works. That's not how vision works.

I wasn't referring to their dismissal of his claim regarding the eyes, which wasn't unexpected. What they did was take every sentence that sounded silly out of context and made a complete joke out of it. The book became unrecognizable. It was horrible the way they twisted everything he wrote. Mind you, no one had read the book. Look what happened when Pood copied a review on Amazon that said military force was used by someone who never purchased the book. Military force is never mentioned anywhere in the text. They cherry picked the book to death, and it destroyed any chance for a fair discussion because Lessans became a target for lulz they didn't want to give up. It was entertainment for them. Can you imagine how they will feel if he turns out to be right?

But what exactly turns out to be right? Instant vision/light at the eye can't turn out to be right because that's not how physics or biology works.

And we already know about social and cultural conditioning and its role in shaping thought and behaviour.

 

[peacegirl]

Context cannot transform fallacy into reality. Context cannot transform the contention of 'light at the eye/instant vision' into an accurate model of reality, that this is indeed how the eye works. That's not how vision works.

I wasn't referring to their dismissal of his claim regarding the eyes, which wasn't unexpected. What they did was take every sentence that sounded silly out of context and made a complete joke out of it. The book became unrecognizable. It was horrible the way they twisted everything he wrote. Mind you, no one had read the book. Look what happened when Pood copied a review on Amazon that said military force was used by someone who never purchased the book. Military force is never mentioned anywhere in the text. They cherry picked the book to death, and it destroyed any chance for a fair discussion because Lessans became a target for lulz they didn't want to give up. It was entertainment for them. Can you imagine how they will feel if he turns out to be right?

But what exactly turns out to be right? Instant vision/light at the eye can't turn out to be right because that's not how physics or biology works.

And we already know about social and cultural conditioning and its role in shaping thought and behaviour.

DBT, please let it go. You keep bringing this up. If he was wrong, so be it. I'm not defending him, but I don't think he was wrong given his observations. Regardless, this has nothing to do with what are discussing now. I'm surprised you haven't read anything. This thread is going down the tube fast.

 

[peacegirl]

Ok, now we are getting somewhere at least a bit interesting, if also tired and droll on its own way, because it's about The Modal Fallacy.

First off, I'm a determinist. I came to the conclusion that the universe is systematically most likely deterministic independently after observing physics and studying computer science to the point of understanding how neurons drive thought.

I think the biggest issue here is that when many naive people utter the word "can" with reference to a subject, they don't fully understand that the subject is a completely* different collection of things than when they utter that same word and point to the same thing and say "did".

The only exception to this complete difference is that the subject of "can" contains the subject of "did" as an infinitesimal subset.

In the same way as sentences in propositional logic cannot be self or circularly referential and remain valid, ever, can can't refer to the exact collection as did and have the language remain valid, ever.

This is known as a circular reference and no formal language can "compile" into a Turing complete construction with such a reference for the former, and likewise there is a difference between types and instances of the type in such languages. Can vs Did accesses type vs instance.

To demonstrate what I mean by this, when I ask "can I jump over that candlestick" I am not asking will "this instance of type 'I'...", I am asking about the properties of the type itself. I am asking you to observe "anywhere, anywhen in the universe where any instance of that structure 'I' exists consistent with an instance of this contextual element 'candlestick', do ANY jump over it?"

When we ask "could it have been otherwise", we are faced with an entire infinite universe where it was, in fact, otherwise everywhere but there.

That's not how I see it.

Then you are wrong.

Wow, that was quick.

There are no instances of "could have done otherwise" anywhere when discussing the laws that all sentient beings are part of.

I just pointed to the instances of "did otherwise". Every point in the universe is already doing otherwise of every other point in the universe. I discussed this early in the thread when I discussed local realism.

I'm talking about human behavior, not points in the universe, okay?

Determinism is, fundamentally, a belief in local realism.

I can go along with that. Like I said, we don't have to go back to the Big Bang to prove that what we choose at any given moment is never a free choice; therefore, free will is a defunct and useless theory.

You have a shape, and are made of stuff. In other contexts, that shape does otherwise. This is a property of the type according to the shape, rather than a property of the instance. It is like the mathematical concept of integration: it takes something, and looks at a more general case.

This is a well understood aspect of those laws all things in the universe are subject to, that things have properties, and properties allow integral thinking.

So while every point in space and time does otherwise in a very wide way, things with some more complicated property tend to be fewer and further away from each other.

We can observe the literal doing-otherwise by observable members of various classes though so we can observe the literal truth of doing otherwise.

How can you prove a person could have done otherwise by observable members of various classes?

Yes, I call determinism a law even though it is descriptive, not prescriptive.

No, determinism is the corrolary of laws but is not a law itself.

It is a LAW of our nature that we can only move in one direction. The corollary to this is the impasse that Will Durant and others could not get beyond.

I can only offer what I know to be true.

Bullshit, you have offered plenty of shit that is not true. And you know it.

Wow, you don't know me or anything about me. This is actually funny.

No one is saying that there isn't the potential to make a different choice based on different contingencies,

Ok...

So what is your problem? Contingency only means the options that we are considering before deciding. IOW, our choices are contingent or based on what thoughts come into our brains that compel us to make the one and only choice that is possible, given the options that are available to us, or the options that our brains are considering. We are not talking about the next moment, which compatibilists always bring up.

but there is no way a person could have chosen otherwise given his genetics, predisposition, and the options that were available to him at any given moment in time.

Ok, so, you commit a modal fallacy right here. "Person could", is a dofferent subject than "available to him at a given moment in time"

The first word uses the type scope, accessing the idea of that person specifically and especially at all moments in space and time where things are shaped as that person. This is explicitly going to conflict with the predicate to-be of the first subject later declared.

That is so far removed from what I'm conveying; it is becoming more and more frustrating. I have no idea what you mean by "specifically and especially at all moments in space and time where things are shaped as that person. You are far removed from anything that is even close to what I mean by determinism. Let's talk about human behavior, not some leap into space and time that has no bearing on this author's proof.

This is a modal violation!

I don't really care about the modal scope or fallacy bit that tries to prove free will compatible with determinism. It doesn't fly Jaryn.

 

[DBT]

Context cannot transform fallacy into reality. Context cannot transform the contention of 'light at the eye/instant vision' into an accurate model of reality, that this is indeed how the eye works. That's not how vision works.

I wasn't referring to their dismissal of his claim regarding the eyes, which wasn't unexpected. What they did was take every sentence that sounded silly out of context and made a complete joke out of it. The book became unrecognizable. It was horrible the way they twisted everything he wrote. Mind you, no one had read the book. Look what happened when Pood copied a review on Amazon that said military force was used by someone who never purchased the book. Military force is never mentioned anywhere in the text. They cherry picked the book to death, and it destroyed any chance for a fair discussion because Lessans became a target for lulz they didn't want to give up. It was entertainment for them. Can you imagine how they will feel if he turns out to be right?

But what exactly turns out to be right? Instant vision/light at the eye can't turn out to be right because that's not how physics or biology works.

And we already know about social and cultural conditioning and its role in shaping thought and behaviour.

DBT, please let it go. You keep bringing this up. If he was wrong, so be it. I'm not defending him, but I don't think he was wrong given his observations. Regardless, this has nothing to do with what are discussing now. I'm surprised you haven't read anything. This thread is going down the tube fast.

I said it because for me it's still not clear. I can't see any link between instant vision/light at the eye (as an assumption) and social conditioning/life experiences and genetic makeup, the very things that make us who we are and how we think and act.

So how exactly is this transformation in human thought and action achieved?

 

[peacegirl]

Context cannot transform fallacy into reality. Context cannot transform the contention of 'light at the eye/instant vision' into an accurate model of reality, that this is indeed how the eye works. That's not how vision works.

I wasn't referring to their dismissal of his claim regarding the eyes, which wasn't unexpected. What they did was take every sentence that sounded silly out of context and made a complete joke out of it. The book became unrecognizable. It was horrible the way they twisted everything he wrote. Mind you, no one had read the book. Look what happened when Pood copied a review on Amazon that said military force was used by someone who never purchased the book. Military force is never mentioned anywhere in the text. They cherry picked the book to death, and it destroyed any chance for a fair discussion because Lessans became a target for lulz they didn't want to give up. It was entertainment for them. Can you imagine how they will feel if he turns out to be right?

But what exactly turns out to be right? Instant vision/light at the eye can't turn out to be right because that's not how physics or biology works.

And we already know about social and cultural conditioning and its role in shaping thought and behaviour.

DBT, please let it go. You keep bringing this up. If he was wrong, so be it. I'm not defending him, but I don't think he was wrong given his observations. Regardless, this has nothing to do with what are discussing now. I'm surprised you haven't read anything. This thread is going down the tube fast.

I said it because for me it's still not clear. I can't see any link between instant vision/light at the eye (as an assumption) and social conditioning/life experiences and genetic makeup, the very things that make us who we are and how we think and act.

The two discoveries are unrelated. His observation regarding the eyes proves (if you don't believe it, that's okay) that words condition us by means of projection that the brain is capable of doing. That is why he compared the eyes to a movie projector to explain how this occurs. This has caused an injustice that cannot be eliminated until people stop using these words, and they won't stop using them until it is proved that these words are not symbolic of reality. Even then, it will be hard at first to say: This person appeals to me, which is a personal value, instead of saying: This person is beautiful, which creates a false standard that everyone is subject to. If this whole claim bothers you, then just think in terms of the removal of words that hurt. Gosh, I hope this doesn't stop you from reading his book. That would be upsetting.

So how exactly is this transformation in human thought and action achieved?

He shows how this transformation in human thought is achieved once it is understood that man's will is not free AND WHAT THIS MEANS. But it will take science to confirm it, or it will never be brought to light. It is not that man's will is not free that is of significance; it is what lies behind this door, which I've mentioned many times. Yet no one has even cared to read what this man wrote. To think that people believe they don't have to read a person's 30-year work but can dispute it without even knowing what it's about is outrageous. No teacher of philosophy would ever discuss a philosopher's work in class without giving the students an assignment to read it first.