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

[peacegirl]

He was not philosophizing. You are once again putting this knowledge into a pot that reduces this discovery to nothing more than a conjecture based on a subjective topic, not a hard science. I don't know how many ways I can impress upon you that you're wrong.

Really? There is ONE and ONLY ONE way to impress upon any audience that any idea is hard science.

Present it scientifically.

So far, you (and your book) have utterly failed to even attempt this, and it seems increasingly likely that you don't even understand what doing so entails.

Here is a brief guide to scientific presentation from the University of Newcastle: https://www.ncl.ac.uk/academic-skills-kit/assessment/assignment-types/structuring-a-science-report/

Your weakest areas are Methods (How did you do the research?) and Results (What did you find?). Instead of providing these, you present rambling anecdotes, and then jump directly to Conclusions, leaving people with the distinct impression that you didn't do any hard science at all.

Certainly if you (or Lessans) did, you have done your audience and the world a great disservice by omitting this information, without which nobody has any good reason to believe a single word you say.

I'm sorry you feel that way bilby. He was an observer. There was no way to prove that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction by an experiment or methodology. There was also no way he could prove through this method that we are born with a rudimentary conscience. There was no way he could prove that the present is all that exists.

IF these things are true, there would probably be a way to demonstrate it; Certainly there would be ways to demonstrate the falsity of alternative hypotheses.

His (and your) lacking sufficient imagination to think up a test for their truth or falsity is not an excuse for you to believe any old crazy shit you like.

If it genuinely cannot be tested, then you have no reason to claim it to be true. And no basis for believing it to be true.

But his observations were correct,

Nope. You just said they couldn't exist.

Can you point to where I made this mistake?

and the very reason he wrote this:

For this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean “undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the “exact sciences” to be exact and scientific.

If you don't think there is anything to this discovery, then go do something more productive.

Nah, this is entertaining enough. If it stops being, I will wander off.

Look how many threads there are in this forum alone. You've got the world at your fingertips, but one thing is for sure: you won't find a more valuable treasure than right here.

I know it seems funny to you, but who gets the last laugh is yet to be seen.

Just remember that whatever you choose, it won't be a free one.

He proved that man does not have free will and why. If you're going to tell me that he didn't prove this, then I can't move forward.

 

[steve_bank]

g

Do you

1. Do you post here of your own free will and choice without coercion.

2.Do you postt here because you have no choice but to post here. Past experiences lead you to invaluably post here.

3. Other

If $#3 explain.


Lessans proof of non existence of free will appears to be ..... humans always seek more comfort so they have no choice, therefor free will does not exist.

Not a proof, a conjecture. All humans always act and are motivated the same way?

Not all are motivated by seeking more comfort. More like humans seek sabi9lityy and security. The history of civilizations began with tribes working cooperatively for mutual befit and security.

It is genetic, the instinct to survive and procreate.

And more traditional philosophy. Altruism. Putting group needs above your immediate neeeds and gratification

Lessans' so cal proof of non existence of free will is very simplistic.

 

[DBT]

. pood isn't looking for victory.

Exactly.

I am not looking for “victory.” People who think in these terms have a jejune, even infantile, mentality. That is the kind of mentality peacegirl has. For her, and it seems for her father, everything is personal.

Nothing is personal for me.

I am not interested in “victory.” I am interested, to the best that I am able, in figuring out what is true and what is false. If Lessans had an amazing discovery backed by solid evidence, I would be all like .

But, he does not. At least not insofar as light and sight are concerned.

As I told peacegirl when I invited her here, Lessans’ arguments about free will and determinism are at least debatable. I offered her, from the very start, to help her formulate a precise argument, with premises and a conclusion. I have done that even now for her, in the past couple of days. In return from her I get her usual insults and ad homs.

@peacegirl everyone will see that YOU YOURSELF cannot formulate your author’s argument.

But I can.

You are like Chuck in FF, who was the final straw that broke the camel's back, and the reason I left. Don't tell me that you are now the best at explaining this knowledge when your last summary was not up to par. Aside from that little summary you gave, you have taken so many things out of context that I don't trust your motives or anything you say. Why would you keep bringing up the part about marriage and sleeping arrangements if you didn't want to misuse that excerpt to hurt his chances of anyone taking the book seriously? You never read that chapter, and you have no understanding of it. In fact, you never read the book. After all these years, you understand very little. It's rather sad, actually.

Again you blame others for your failures as did Lessans.


Maybe your problem is conditioning believing in words that have no real world meaning?

Affer all, it is determinism and you are conditioned by prior events and you have no free will, right?

It is quite the opposite. It's showing words that are symbolic of reality, and those that are not. Determinism does not mean we are conditioned by prior events. We could be, but that's not the definition. People are so confused, it makes it that much more difficult because I take one step forward and two steps back due to everyone having different definitions of what these words mean. Is it worth going forward when no one is on the same page literally and figuratively? I dunno.

Our mental makeup is enabled by memory function. Memory is made up of information from the past, which enables recognition, self identity, how we feel, how we respond, etc. Although rapid, there is nothing instant about the process of cognition.

He wasn't referring to the processes that occur in the brain, which are rapid but not instant.

If not through the means and processes of the eyes and brain, how else are we able to see the world around us?

How is faster than light vision possible?

 

[DBT]

This guy has a new best friend!!

361K views · 37K reactions | Crow Addict on Reels

www.facebook.com

And the crow is perfectly able to recognise its friend by sight.

Wishful thinking!

Reality.