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

[peacegirl]

It may feel hurtful to have one's cherished beliefs ripped apart, but it is a philosophy forum and you are putting your claims up for scrutiny and being torn apart. So what are you to do?

I already explained that this was the wrong venue to have started with. I didn't come here to get this knowledge torn apart by people who never read the book in its entirety to even get an understanding of how these principles work.

If real time/instant vision is not related to bringing about world peace, what is the point of it? If it has no point or purpose, and being wrong, drop it, the book would be the better for it.

He made three discoveries, and I would never throw any of them out. They all matter.

As for determinism as a means of achieving world peace, I haven't seen a reasonable explanation for how that may work.

Of course you haven't. You won't until you understand the two-sided equation and how it works.

Perhaps give a clear and concise explanation of world peace in relation to determinism?

I already did. Do you understand what the two principles are that reconcile "doing of one's own accord" with "having no free will", which lead to the discovery? I can't keep going backwards. We've literally made no progress, in all this time.

More deflection. Every time you are asked to explain how determinism is related to bringing about world peace, you deflect.

Again, how is determinism related to transforming human behaviour and bringing about world peace?

I said the discovery lies hidden behind the door of determinism. Have you been following me at all? I have explained why man's will is not free throughout this entire thread. That is the first principle of the two-sided equation. Do you know what the second principle is?

You haven't explained your claim of transforming human behaviour and bringing about world peace through determinism, as above, you just keep deflecting.

Why not just explain your principles clearly and concisely?

I did already. I don't know where you've been. I asked you a simple question. If you don't know the other principle, admit it. It will help me to know where to start; otherwise, you will never understand his observations and reasoning for yourself.

 

[pood]

I did already. I don't know where you've been. I asked you a simple question. If you don't know the other principle, admit it. It will help me to know where to start; otherwise, you will never understand his observations and reasoning for yourself.

You have never once explained Lessans’ claims in your own words. You just cut and paste crap from his book.

I, otoh, have accurately rendered his claims about determinism and free will with a series of premises and a conclusion.

 

[peacegirl]

For The Road To Nowhere take the next exit and turn left.

Instead of explaining she says we have to read the book, and it has to be teased out.

I a guessing determinism in Lessans' context means actions have antecedents. Along with that we are conditioned by and act based on words that have no reality. Once everybody sees that there actions like war and crime are conditioned responses war and crime will end.

Determinism is us acfting from conditioned reposes.

The current economic and political systems will end replaced by distributed power. Hints of Marx. Marx predicted the world would spontaneously rise up against capitalist masters. Didn't happen and it became communism by force if necessary.

This response is ignorance in full view. Socrates was right when he said, “I know that I don’t know; other men don’t know either but think they know.” I will not respond because you have gotten too cock sure of yourself when you know nothing about determinism or what this discovery can do to help our world.

 

[steve_bank]

When you are in a car looking at an object outside your eyes are moving.

When you look at the Moon your eyes are moving, the Earth is rotating.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We are not seeing the light being emitted or reflected by the object. What is being seen is the object due to light's presence.

How?

How does this work?

The object is over there. I am over here. Light is "present", doing - what? Why is the light needed? What is it contributing?

How does the fact that the object is there, get to me here? How does that information cross the gap from there to here?

You keep comparing vision with the dimensions of space and time,

The Universe we live in has space and time.

when eyes don't travel.

Eyes do travel and so does light.

We are talking about eyes, not light;

Untrue. You are talking about both. However, when we examine a hypothetical without eyes, just light, you disagree with standard physics. That disagreement needs to be teased out first and independently.

therefore, your analogy doesn't compute. It has nothing to do with the object getting from there to you here, which is due to your starting point (afferent vision), that it takes time for light to travel. Light travels, but you are not grasping that the speed of light and seeing in real time are not mutually exclusive. It will never make sense the way you're looking at it.

He grasps everything. You cannot discuss the topic at a granular concrete level or it falls apart. For example, you cannot answer where the photon of blue wavelength at the photoreceptor comes from. Stating this will explicitly violate physics.

 

[DBT]

It may feel hurtful to have one's cherished beliefs ripped apart, but it is a philosophy forum and you are putting your claims up for scrutiny and being torn apart. So what are you to do?

I already explained that this was the wrong venue to have started with. I didn't come here to get this knowledge torn apart by people who never read the book in its entirety to even get an understanding of how these principles work.

If real time/instant vision is not related to bringing about world peace, what is the point of it? If it has no point or purpose, and being wrong, drop it, the book would be the better for it.

He made three discoveries, and I would never throw any of them out. They all matter.

As for determinism as a means of achieving world peace, I haven't seen a reasonable explanation for how that may work.

Of course you haven't. You won't until you understand the two-sided equation and how it works.

Perhaps give a clear and concise explanation of world peace in relation to determinism?

I already did. Do you understand what the two principles are that reconcile "doing of one's own accord" with "having no free will", which lead to the discovery? I can't keep going backwards. We've literally made no progress, in all this time.

More deflection. Every time you are asked to explain how determinism is related to bringing about world peace, you deflect.

Again, how is determinism related to transforming human behaviour and bringing about world peace?

I said the discovery lies hidden behind the door of determinism. Have you been following me at all? I have explained why man's will is not free throughout this entire thread. That is the first principle of the two-sided equation. Do you know what the second principle is?

You haven't explained your claim of transforming human behaviour and bringing about world peace through determinism, as above, you just keep deflecting.

Why not just explain your principles clearly and concisely?

I did already. I don't know where you've been. I asked you a simple question. If you don't know the other principle, admit it. It will help me to know where to start; otherwise, you will never understand his observations and reasoning for yourself.

I don't see that you have. What you happened to offer was not an adequate account of transforming human behaviour or bringing about world peace through determinism. Just as with physics, biology, the role of the eye as a sensory organ, I don't think the author understood the nature of determinism as it is generally defined.

 

[steve_bank]

For The Road To Nowhere take the next exit and turn left.

Instead of explaining she says we have to read the book, and it has to be teased out.

I a guessing determinism in Lessans' context means actions have antecedents. Along with that we are conditioned by and act based on words that have no reality. Once everybody sees that there actions like war and crime are conditioned responses war and crime will end.

Determinism is us acfting from conditioned reposes.

The current economic and political systems will end replaced by distributed power. Hints of Marx. Marx predicted the world would spontaneously rise up against capitalist masters. Didn't happen and it became communism by force if necessary.

This response is ignorance in full view. Socrates was right when he said, “I know that I don’t know; other men don’t know either but think they know.” I will not respond because you have gotten too cock sure of yourself when you know nothing about determinism or what this discovery can do to help our world. Socrates was right.

Ad Hom!! Ad Hom!! Where are the mods? She called me ignorant!! HeeHeeHee....

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... you have gotten too cock sure of yourself ...

 

[peacegirl]

We are not seeing the light being emitted or reflected by the object. What is being seen is the object due to light's presence.

How?

How does this work?

The object is over there. I am over here. Light is "present", doing - what? Why is the light needed? What is it contributing?

How does the fact that the object is there, get to me here? How does that information cross the gap from there to here?

You keep comparing vision with the dimensions of space and time,

The Universe we live in has space and time.

That is true, but you cannot compare traveling in a car with the eyes.

when eyes don't travel.

Eyes do travel and so does light.

We are talking about eyes, not light;

Untrue. You are talking about both. However, when we examine a hypothetical without eyes, just light, you disagree with standard physics. That disagreement needs to be teased out first and independently.

If scientists got this version of vision wrong after centuries of accepting it as fact, imagine how close to impossible it would have been for Lessans to dispute the present theory to a group of scientists who would have looked at him with disdain. The properties of light do not change other than the belief that light bounces off the object, traveling with the wavelength/frequency of everything it strikes. This cannot be teased out in the way you want because that is not how it can be found to be wrong. It appears, in scientific circles, that there is no other way to conclude how we see. Lessans tried to show that there IS another way, but no one cares to look because they believe science got it right...so why rock the boat?

therefore, your analogy doesn't compute. It has nothing to do with the object getting from there to you here, which is due to your starting point (afferent vision), that it takes time for light to travel. Light travels, but you are not grasping that the speed of light and seeing in real time are not mutually exclusive. It will never make sense the way you're looking at it.

He grasps everything. You cannot discuss the topic at a granular concrete level or it falls apart. For example, you cannot answer where the photon of blue wavelength at the photoreceptor comes from. Stating this will explicitly violate physics.

He does not grasp everything. The same blue wavelength would be at our photoreceptors INSTANTLY (with the same blue energy that the cones in the eye would absorb) if the flower were blue, even though in this account, there is no travel time, not because light doesn't travel, but because of how the eyes work. It does not violate physics because the two do not conflict.

 

[peacegirl]

I did already. I don't know where you've been. I asked you a simple question. If you don't know the other principle, admit it. It will help me to know where to start; otherwise, you will never understand his observations and reasoning for yourself.

You have never once explained Lessans’ claims in your own words. You just cut and paste crap from his book.

I, otoh, have accurately rendered his claims about determinism and free will with a series of premises and a conclusion.

I have explained more than enough, Pood. I don't have to do it your way. If will is not free, the corollary that follows has even perplexed the strongest determinists (which is why compatibilism came about, although it has no validity because free will and determinism are not compatible) due to the implications. All I'm willing to do is cut and paste important parts, even though they're out of order.

CHAPTER TWO: THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION

p. 63 In reality, we are all the result of forces completely beyond our control. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we are able to see for the very first time how it is now within our power to prevent those things for which blame and punishment came into existence. Although Spinoza did not understand the full significance of this enigmatic corollary, he accepted it by rejecting the opposite principle of “an eye for an eye” by refusing to defend himself against his sister or blame her for cheating him out of his inheritance. Neither he nor his sister had a free choice because she was willing to cheat to get what she wanted, while he was willing to be cheated rather than hold her responsible. Spinoza made matters worse for himself financially, but at that moment of time he had no free choice because it gave him greater satisfaction to let her cheat him out of what he was entitled to by law. Both were moving in the direction of what gave them satisfaction. Spinoza’s sister had no understanding of this knowledge, nor did the world at that time, although Spinoza himself knew that man’s will is not free. Consequently, he allowed others to hurt him with a first blow by turning the other cheek. He was excommunicated from the synagogue while being God-intoxicated, which seems to be a contradiction. You would think that a person would be thrown out for being an atheist, but not for being a God-intoxicated man.

The fact that I know God is a reality doesn’t intoxicate me. I know that the sun is also a reality, but when the heat gets unbearable, should I jump for joy? There is no comparison between Spinoza and me. He was a gentle man; I am not. He refused to blame his sister for stealing what rightfully belonged to him because he was confused and believed she couldn’t help herself. I, on the other hand, would never advocate turning the other cheek when someone can gain an advantage by not turning it. He excused her conduct, but if someone tried to take what belonged to me, I’d fight him tooth and nail. If an aggressive country were to start a war before this knowledge is released, it is only natural that we would fight back with everything we’ve got. Turning the other cheek under these conditions could lead to further harm, which is why most people reject the pacifist position. How is it humanly possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes back to the justification of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” I personally would derive greater satisfaction defending myself or retaliating against those people who have done, or would do, things to hurt my family and me. I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human conduct. Most of mankind are compelled, for greater satisfaction, to move in this direction. Therefore, it should be clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that man’s will is not free. It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us, something that investigators like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them from opening the door beyond the vestibule. The fact that man’s will is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. If you punch me, I might get greater satisfaction in punching you back. However, once man understands what it means that his will is not free, this desire to strike me is prevented by your realization that I will never blame you for hurting me. Until this knowledge is understood, we will be compelled to continue living in the world of free will; otherwise, we would only make matters worse for ourselves.

To show you how confused is the understanding of someone who doesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in my ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that man should not be blamed for anything he does, which is true only when man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he doesn’t know, he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ also received incursions of thought from this same principle, which compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in the moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible? But they knew what they were doing, and he could not stop them even by turning the other cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective. But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in total perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God for understanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep an open mind and proceed with the investigation. Let me show you how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.

If someone is not being hurt in any way, is it possible for him to retaliate or turn the other cheek? Isn’t it obvious that to do either, he must first be hurt? But if he is already being hurt and turning the other cheek makes matters worse for himself, then he is given no choice but to retaliate because this is demanded by the laws of his nature. Here is the source of the confusion. Our basic principle or corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, call it what you will, is not going to accomplish the impossible. It is not going to prevent man from desiring to hurt others when not to do so makes matters worse for himself, but it will prevent the desire to strike the very first blow. Once you have been hurt, it is normal and natural to seek some form of retaliation, for this is a source of satisfaction, the direction that life is compelled to take. Therefore, this knowledge cannot possibly prevent the hate and blame that man has been compelled to live with all these years as a consequence of crimes committed and many other forms of hurt; yet God’s mathematical law cannot be denied, for man is truly not to blame for anything he does, notwithstanding, so a still deeper analysis is required. Throughout history, no one has ever known what it means that man’s will is not free and how it can benefit the world, but you will be shown the answer very shortly. There is absolutely no way this new world — a world without war, crime, and all forms of hurt to man by man — can be stopped from coming into existence. When it will occur, however, depends on when this knowledge can be brought to light.

We have been growing and developing just like a child from infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies hidden beyond this point? If you recall, Durant assumed that if man was allowed to believe his will is not free, it would lessen his responsibility because this would enable him to blame other factors as the cause. If he committed crimes, society was to blame; if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine that had slipped a cog in generating him. It is also true that if it had not been for the development of laws and a penal code, for the constant teaching of right and wrong, civilization could never have reached the outposts of this coming Golden Age. Yet even though we have been brought up to believe that man can be blamed and punished for doing what he was taught is wrong and evil (this is the cornerstone of all law and order up to now, although we are about to shed the last stage of the rocket that has given us our thrust up to this point); the force that has given us our brains, our bodies, the solar and the mankind systems; the force that makes us move in the direction of satisfaction (or this invariable law of God) states explicitly, as we perceive these mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN’S WILL IS NOT FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING HE DOES. This enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood that the mathematical corollary, God’s commandment, does not apply to anything after it is done — only before.

“I don’t understand why God’s commandment applies before something is done and not after. Does this mean we can blame someone after a crime has taken place? And doesn’t this go back to the same problem that man has faced since time immemorial: how to prevent the crime in the first place, which is the purpose of our penal code? How is it humanly possible not to judge, not to criticize, not to blame, not to punish those criminal acts when we know that man was not compelled to do them if he didn’t want to? If someone killed my loved one, how is it possible not to hate the individual responsible, not to judge this as an act of evil, not to desire some form of revenge? I still don’t understand how not blaming will prevent a man from hurting his fellowman if this is his desire. Though this may be an undeniable corollary, how is it humanly possible not to hold someone responsible for murder, rape, the killing of six million people, etc.? Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these crimes or give the offender a mere slap on the wrist? Besides, what will prevent someone from blaming and punishing even though his will is not free if it gives him greater satisfaction? Just because man’s will is not free is certainly not a sufficient explanation as to why there should be no blame.”

This has always been the greatest stumbling block that kept free will on the throne until the present time. It is a natural reaction to blame after you’ve been hurt. The reason God’s commandment does not apply to anything after it is done, only before, is that it has the power to prevent those very acts of evil for which a penal code was previously necessary, as part of our development. At this juncture, I shall repeat a passage from Chapter One to remind the reader of important facts that must be understood before continuing.

To solve this problem of evil with the aid of our enigmatic corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, (for this seems mathematically impossible since it appears that man will always desire something for which blame and punishment will be necessary), it is extremely important to go through a deconfusion process regarding words by employing the other scientific fact revealed to you earlier. Consequently, as was pointed out, and to reveal this relation, it is an absolutely undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or do anything to hurt another unless he wants to. As history reveals, even the most severe tortures and the threat of death cannot make him do to others what he has made up his mind not to do. He is not caused or compelled against his will to hurt another by his environment and heredity, but prefers this action because, at that moment, he derives greater satisfaction in his motion to there, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another that which he makes up his mind not to do (this is an extremely crucial point), he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals that he has mathematical control over the former (you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink) but none over the latter because he must move in the direction of greater satisfaction. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse in his opinion, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Think about this once again: Was it possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was judged the lesser of two evils? They were compelled by their desire for freedom to prefer nonviolence, turning the other cheek as a solution to their problem. Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will because the alternative was considered worse, that he really didn’t want to do it but had to (and numerous words and expressions say this), he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, which means that his preference gave him satisfaction at that moment, for one reason or another.

Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so much confusion: Although man’s will is not free, there is absolutely nothing — not environment, heredity, God, or anything else — that causes him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not cause him to commit a crime; it just presents conditions under which his desire is aroused; consequently, he can’t blame what is not responsible, but remember, his particular environment is different because he himself is different; otherwise, everybody would desire to commit a crime. Once he chooses to act on his desire, whether it is a minor or more serious crime, he doesn’t come right out and say, “I hurt that person not because I was compelled to do it against my will but only because I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his desires. Therefore, he is compelled to justify those actions considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part, if not all, the responsibility, which allowed him to absolve his conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he really didn’t want to do. You see it happen all the time, even when a child says, “Look what you made me do,” when you know you didn’t make him do anything. Spilling a glass of milk because he was careless and not wishing to be blamed, the boy quickly searches for an excuse to shift the responsibility to something that does not involve him. Why else would the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody or something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents? It is also true that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed and punished for carelessness — which is exactly what took place — makes him think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the blame and punishment he doesn’t want. A great deal of confusion exists because it is assumed that if man does something to hurt another, he could always excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free.” This is another aspect of the implications that deterred philosophers from conducting a thorough investigation. In the following dialogue, my friend requests clarification on certain critical points.

“You read my mind. I really don’t know how you plan to solve this enigmatic corollary, but it seems to me that this knowledge would give man a perfect excuse for taking advantage of others without any fear of consequences. If the boy knows for a fact that his will is not free, why couldn’t he use this as an excuse in an attempt to shift his responsibility?”

 

[peacegirl]

“This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate reasoning. Because of this general confusion with words through which you have been compelled to see a distorted reality, it appears at first glance that the dethronement of free will would allow man to shift his responsibility all the more and take advantage of not being blamed to excuse or justify any desires heretofore kept under control by the fear of punishment and public opinion, which judged his actions in accordance with standards of right and wrong. But this is inaccurate simply because it is mathematically impossible to shift your responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with something, when you know that you will not be blamed for what you do. In other words, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper when you are held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by others. The very act of justifying or excusing your behavior is an indication that the person or people to whom you are presenting this justification must judge the behavior unacceptable in some way; otherwise, there would be no need for it. They are interested to know why you could do such a thing, which compels you for satisfaction to think up a reasonable excuse to extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action. If you do what others judge to be right, is it necessary to lie or offer excuses or say that your will is not free and you couldn’t help yourself, when no one is saying you could help yourself? Let me elaborate for greater understanding.

If someone does what everybody considers right as opposed to wrong, that is, if this person acts in a manner that pleases everybody, is it possible to blame him for doing what society expects of him? This isn’t a trick question, so don’t look so puzzled. If your boss tells you that he wants something done a certain way, and you never fail to do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you for doing what he wants you to do?”

“No, it is not possible. I agree.”

“Consequently, if you can’t be blamed for doing what is right, then it should be obvious that you can only be blamed for doing something judged wrong, is that right?”

“I agree with this.”

“These people who are judging you for doing something wrong are interested to know why you could do such a thing, which compels you for satisfaction to lie or think up a reasonable excuse to extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action; otherwise, if they were not judging your conduct as wrong, you would not have to do these things, right?”

“You are right again.”

“Now if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no one is going to blame you for what you did, wrong or right, that is, no one is going to question your conduct in any way because you know that they must excuse what you do since man’s will is not free, is it possible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause for what you know you have done, when you also know that no one is blaming you?”

“Why are you smiling?”

“You’re the greatest with your mathematical reasoning, and I agree that it is not possible.”

“This proves conclusively that the only time man can say, ‘I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,’ or offer any other kind of excuse, is if someone said he could help himself or blamed him in any way so he could make this effort to shift his responsibility, right?”

“You are absolutely correct.”

Which means that only in the world of free will, in a world of judgment, can this statement, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,” be made, since it cannot be done when man knows he will not be blamed. Remember, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper when you are held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by others. But once it is realized, as a matter of positive knowledge, that man will not be held responsible for what he does since his will is not free (don’t jump to conclusions, follow the reasoning — my problem is difficult enough as it is), it becomes mathematically impossible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause for what you know you have done simply because you know that no one is blaming you. To paraphrase this another way: Once it is realized that no one henceforth will blame your doing whatever you desire to do, regardless of what is done, because your action will be considered a compulsion over which you have no control, it becomes mathematically impossible to blame something or someone for what you know you have done or shift your responsibility in any way because you know that no one is blaming you.

Being constantly criticized by the standards that prevailed, man was compelled, as a motion in the direction of satisfaction, to be dishonest with everyone, including himself, while refusing to accept that which was his responsibility. He blamed various factors or causes for the many things he desired to do that were considered wrong because he didn’t like to assume full responsibility for being in the wrong. But the very moment the dethronement of free will makes it known that no one henceforth will be held responsible for what he does since his will is not free, regardless of what is done, and there will be no more criticism or blame, regardless of his actions, man is also prevented from making someone else the scapegoat for what he does, prevented from excusing or justifying his own actions since he is not being given an opportunity to do so, which compels him, completely beyond control but of his own free will or desire, not only to assume full responsibility for everything he does but to be absolutely honest with himself and others. How is it humanly possible for you to desire lying to me or to yourself when your actions are not being judged or blamed, in other words, when you are not being given an opportunity to lie, and how is it possible for you to make any effort to shift your responsibility when no one holds you responsible? In the world of free will, man was able to absolve his conscience in a world of right and wrong and get away with murder in a figurative sense — the very things our new knowledge positively prevents.

 

[peacegirl]

It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as the Ten Commandments, which came into existence out of God’s will, as did everything else. Consequently, you have come to believe through a fallacious association of symbols that these words, which judge the actions of others, are accurate. How was it possible for the Ten Commandments to come into existence unless religion believed in free will? But in reality when murder is committed, it is neither wrong nor right, just what someone at a certain point in his life considered better for himself under circumstances that included the judgment of others and the risks involved; and when the government or personal revenge retaliates by taking this person’s life, this too was neither right nor wrong, just what gave greater satisfaction. Neither the government nor the murderer is to blame for what each judged better under their particular set of circumstances, but whether they will decide to think and react as before will depend not on any moral values, not on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right and wrong, but solely on whether the conditions under which they were previously motivated remain the same, and they do not remain as before because the knowledge that man’s will is not free reveals facts never before understood. We can now see how the confusion of words and the inability to perceive certain type relations have compelled many thinkers who could not get beyond this impasse to assume, as Durant did, that if man knew his will was not free, it would give him a perfect opportunity to take advantage of this knowledge.

“I am still not satisfied with the explanation. If it were not for the laws that protect society, what is to prevent man from taking more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered? Further, what is to stop him from satisfying his desires to his heart’s content when he knows there will be no consequences or explanations necessary? In the previous example, it is obvious that the boy who spilled the milk cannot desire to shift the blame when he knows his parents are not going to question what he did, but why should this prevent him from spilling the milk every day if it gives him a certain satisfaction to watch it seep into the rug? Besides, if the father just spent $1000 for carpeting, how is it humanly possible for him to say absolutely nothing when the milk was not carelessly but deliberately spilled?”

“This is a thoughtful question, but it is like asking if it is mathematically impossible for man to do something, what would you do if it is done? How is it possible for the father to be hurt by an intentional act, as in the previous example, when this behavior would never be a source of satisfaction? Contained in this question is an assumption that deliberate hurt will continue. As we proceed with the investigation, you will understand more clearly why this deliberate hurt to others will be prevented by the basic principle.”

“Even though I cannot disagree with anything you said so far, I still don’t understand how or why this should prevent man from stealing more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered, and how is it humanly possible for those he steals from and hurts in other ways to excuse his conduct?”

“We are right back where we were before, the fiery dragon — but not for long. Now tell me, would you agree that if I did something to hurt you, you would be justified to retaliate?”

“I certainly would be justified.”

“And we have also agreed that this is the principle of ‘an eye for an eye,’ correct?”

“Correct.”

“Which means that this principle, ‘an eye for an eye,’ does not concern itself with preventing the first blow from being struck but only with justifying punishment or retaliation; is this also true?”

“Yes, it is.”

“And the principle of turning the other cheek — doesn’t this concern itself with preventing the second cheek from being struck, not the first cheek?”

“That is absolutely true.”

“Therefore, our only concern is preventing the desire to strike this first blow, for if this can be accomplished, our problem is solved. If the first cheek is not struck, there is no need to retaliate or turn the other side of our face. Is this hard to understand?”

“It’s very easy, in fact. I am not a college graduate, and I can even see that relation.”

“Let us further understand that in order for you to strike this first blow of hurt, assuming that what is and what is not a hurt has already been established (don’t jump to conclusions), you would have to be taking a certain amount of risk, that is, you would be risking the possibility of retaliation or punishment, is that correct?”

“Not if I planned a perfect crime.”

“The most you can do with your plans is reduce the element of risk, but the fact that somebody was hurt by what you did does not take away his desire to strike a blow of retaliation. He doesn’t know who to blame, but if he did, you could expect that he would desire to strike back. Consequently, his desire to retaliate ‘an eye for an eye’ is an undeniable condition of our present world, as is also your awareness that there is this element of risk involved, however small. This means that whenever you do anything at all that is risky, you are prepared to pay a price for the satisfaction of certain desires. You may risk going to jail, getting hanged or electrocuted, shot, beaten up, losing your eye and tooth, being criticized, reprimanded, spanked, scolded, ostracized, or what have you, but this is the price you are willing to pay if caught. Can you disagree with this?”

“I still say, supposing there is no risk; supposing I was able to plan a perfect crime and never get caught?”

“I am not denying the possibility, but you can never know for certain; therefore, the element of risk must exist when you do anything that hurts another.”

“Then I agree.”

“Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will is not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — for over this he has absolute control — let us observe what miracle happens when these two laws are brought together to reveal a third law. Pay close attention because I am about to slay the fiery dragon with my trusty sword, which will reveal my discovery, reconcile the two opposite principles, ‘an eye for an eye’ and ‘turn the other cheek,’ and open the door to this new world.”

 

[bilby]

We are not seeing the light being emitted or reflected by the object. What is being seen is the object due to light's presence.

How?

How does this work?

The object is over there. I am over here. Light is "present", doing - what? Why is the light needed? What is it contributing?

How does the fact that the object is there, get to me here? How does that information cross the gap from there to here?

You keep comparing vision with the dimensions of space and time, when eyes don't travel.

Nobody said eyes travel as part of seeing.

(However, as a point of information, eyes DO travel; It would be awkward and uncomfortable if we had to leave them behind every time we went anywhere).

We are talking about eyes, not light; therefore, your analogy doesn't compute.

You are talking about both. You have regularly agreed that light is necessary for sight. I am asking you why.

Why do we need light in order to see? What is the light doing? Why can't we see if there's no light at all?

It has nothing to do with the object getting from there to you here,

I didn't suggest that it does. Indeed, my entire question is founded on the fact that the object does not get from there to here.

As it is there, and I am here, my question is, "How do I know about the object?".

I know what it looks like. How did I come to that knowledge? How did that information cross the gap between the object and me?

which is due to your starting point (afferent vision), that it takes time for light to travel.

Nope; These questions apply regardless of how vision works, or what (if anything) light is doing.

My starting point is dead simple:

The object is over there. I am over here. Light is "present".

Starting with those three facts, and nothing else, I have questions:

Why is the light needed? What is it contributing?
How does the fact that the object is there, get to me here?
How does that information cross the gap from there to here?

Light travels,

I agree. But so what? What (if anything) does that have to do with seeing things?

but you are not grasping that the speed of light and seeing in real time are not mutually exclusive.

I am perfectly happy to take your word for it, if you will just answer some simple and important questions that arise when we assume that this is true.

Of course, if this assumption leads to questions that have contradictory answers, or that you cannot answer at all, then that would show the assumption to be false. But that's the risk we take with any claim we make.

It will never make sense the way you're looking at it.

I am not looking at it any differently from you. I am simply accepting your claims provisionally, and then asking you some basic follow-up questions about the claims YOU are making:

Why is the light needed? What is it contributing?
How does the fact that the object is there, get to me here?
How does that information cross the gap from there to here?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as the Ten Commandments, which came into existence out of God’s will

It should be obvious to you that no one here is interested in your preaching.

 

[peacegirl]

We are not seeing the light being emitted or reflected by the object. What is being seen is the object due to light's presence.

How?

How does this work?

The object is over there. I am over here. Light is "present", doing - what? Why is the light needed? What is it contributing?

How does the fact that the object is there, get to me here? How does that information cross the gap from there to here?

You keep comparing vision with the dimensions of space and time, when eyes don't travel.

Nobody said eyes travel as part of seeing.

(However, as a point of information, eyes DO travel; It would be awkward and uncomfortable if we had to leave them behind every time we went anywhere).

We are talking about eyes, not light; therefore, your analogy doesn't compute.

You are talking about both. You have regularly agreed that light is necessary for sight. I am asking you why.

Why do we need light in order to see? What is the light doing? Why can't we see if there's no light at all?

Light allows us to see our surroundings. If there is no light, we cannot see because light is a necessary condition of sight. We cannot see in the dark.

It has nothing to do with the object getting from there to you here,

I didn't suggest that it does. Indeed, my entire question is founded on the fact that the object does not get from there to here.

As it is there, and I am here, my question is, "How do I know about the object?"

I know what it looks like. How did I come to that knowledge? How did that information cross the gap between the object and me?

It did not have to cross a gap. If it is true that we are seeing the object, the light would be at our eyes instantly, as a mirror image (so to speak). Picture you on the other side of that mirror image. It would not involve travel at all. People don't understand that seeing the object doesn't mean there is a gap between the traveling light and the eyes that has to be filled.

Animal Reflections In Water: Over 447,274 Royalty-Free Licensable Stock ...

Found on Bing from www.shutterstock.com

sl.bing.net

which is due to your starting point (afferent vision), that it takes time for light to travel.

Nope; These questions apply regardless of how vision works, or what (if anything) light is doing.

My starting point is dead simple:

The object is over there. I am over here. Light is "present".

Starting with those three facts, and nothing else, I have questions:

Why is the light needed? What is it contributing?

It is a necessary condition, bilby. We obviously need light to see, but it is believed that light strikes an object, bounces off of it, and now the light has become the new wavelength/frequency that travels forever and ever until it strikes something else, and the beat goes on. It doesn't work that way... assuming Lessans is right. I don't want to get people more pissed off than they already are.

How does the fact that the object is there, get to me here?

You keep saying this, but it's not about getting there. Getting there implies travel, but if the eyes see the object, not interpret the light, it's a differnt ballgame altogether.

How does that information cross the gap from there to here?

Ugh!!! I don't know what to tell you that will help you get it.

Light travels,

I agree. But so what? What (if anything) does that have to do with seeing things?

Everything. When you think about how light reveals the world to us, it's truly amazing.

but you are not grasping that the speed of light and seeing in real time are not mutually exclusive.

I am perfectly happy to take your word for it, if you will just answer some simple and important questions that arise when we assume that this is true.

Of course, if this assumption leads to questions that have contradictory answers, or that you cannot answer at all, then that would show the assumption to be false. But that's the risk we take with any claim we make.

I don't see that there are contradictory answers. In fact, Lessans said that light travels at 186,000 miles a second. He didn't deny that. We've gone over this:

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted that five senses were equally scientific, made the statement (which my friend referred to and still exists in our encyclopedias) that if we could sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the earth, we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”

It will never make sense the way you're looking at it.

I am not looking at it any differently from you. I am simply accepting your claims provisionally, and then asking you some basic follow-up questions about the claims YOU are making:

Why is the light needed? What is it contributing?

Scroll up.

How does the fact that the object is there, get to me here?

The object doesn't get to you at all. We see the object because light reveals it when we're looking. The object is still there while you're here, and that distance is still seen. Whatever you would see in delayed time, you would see in real time. The only difference is that there would be no delay. If the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window to the world, rather than light traveling with the pattern through spacetime and ending up at the eye where it's reconstructed into an image in the brain, it would be the opposite of what is believed to be happening, which changes seeing the past to seeing the present.

How does that information cross the gap from there to here?

There is no gap to be crossed. Again, scroll up.

 

[peacegirl]

It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as the Ten Commandments, which came into existence out of God’s will

It should be obvious to you that no one here is interested in your preaching.

You obviously don't like the word God, but used in the way he used it, it should not be offensive to anyone. He used it as a metaphor.
--------------------------------------------

Some people may be offended that the word ‘God’ is used throughout the book and conclude that this is a religious work. Perhaps the ‘G’ word even makes them want to shut down and disconnect from what is being said. This would be unfortunate. As you carefully read the text you will see that the word God (often referred to as ‘He’) is simply a symbol pointing to the laws that govern our universe.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We are not seeing the light being emitted or reflected by the object. What is being seen is the object due to light's presence.

How?

How does this work?

The object is over there. I am over here. Light is "present", doing - what? Why is the light needed? What is it contributing?

How does the fact that the object is there, get to me here? How does that information cross the gap from there to here?

You keep comparing vision with the dimensions of space and time,

The Universe we live in has space and time.

That is true, but you cannot compare traveling in a car with the eyes.

when eyes don't travel.

Eyes do travel and so does light.

We are talking about eyes, not light;

Untrue. You are talking about both. However, when we examine a hypothetical without eyes, just light, you disagree with standard physics. That disagreement needs to be teased out first and independently.

If scientists got this version of vision wrong after centuries of accepting it as fact,

They haven't.

imagine how close to impossible it would have been for Lessans to dispute the present theory to a group of scientists who would have looked at him with disdain.

Scientists are diverse and therefore not all of them would behave or react in the same way. The emotions certainly are a hasty generalization fallacy on your part. It's like saying all cats are black. All scientists would not react in disdain.

The properties of light do not change other than the belief that light bounces off the object,

That isn't a belief, it's an observation.

traveling with the wavelength/frequency of everything it strikes.

Holy bejeebus why do you keep saying this as it is not how it works?

This cannot be teased out in the way you want because that is not how it can be found to be wrong. It appears, in scientific circles, that there is no other way to conclude how we see. Lessans tried to show that there IS another way, but no one cares to look

Everyone looked and saw it was wrong. You are trying to hold onto it for personal reasons.

because they believe science got it right...so why rock the boat?

Scientists rock the boat all the time and you've been told this before. So, why are you still making this claim about people?

therefore, your analogy doesn't compute. It has nothing to do with the object getting from there to you here, which is due to your starting point (afferent vision), that it takes time for light to travel. Light travels, but you are not grasping that the speed of light and seeing in real time are not mutually exclusive. It will never make sense the way you're looking at it.

He grasps everything. You cannot discuss the topic at a granular concrete level or it falls apart. For example, you cannot answer where the photon of blue wavelength at the photoreceptor comes from. Stating this will explicitly violate physics.

He does not grasp everything.

No, he gets physics.

The same blue wavelength would be at our photoreceptors INSTANTLY (with the same blue energy that the cones in the eye would absorb) if the flower were blue, even though in this account, there is no travel time, not because light doesn't travel, but because of how the eyes work. It does not violate physics because the two do not conflict.

You are mixing things up. Let's review. A wavelength is a property of a wave. Light exhibits wave and particle properties simultaneously. So, we say that a photon is associated with a wavelength. When you write that a wavelength is present, it means there is a photon there. I asked you where the photon came from. This:
"The same blue wavelength would be at our photoreceptors INSTANTLY (with the same blue energy that the cones in the eye would absorb) if the flower were blue, even though in this account, there is no travel time, not because light doesn't travel" doesn't answer the question. It's just a layer on top with no explanation of where the photon comes from. That's because the second you state where it comes from, it violates physics and so you conclude with this:
"...but because of how the eyes work. It does not violate physics because the two do not conflict..." but that is not true, it is just a mask over a non-existent explanation that you cannot explain because you and Lessans will contradict physics even more.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as the Ten Commandments, which came into existence out of God’s will

It should be obvious to you that no one here is interested in your preaching.

This is really funny. How do you know what people are interested in? Did you ask them? Did you take a vote? Why are you here if you don't like it here? Are you a closet listener who just can't stop listening? You have the "free will" to leave, ya know, if you really really want to (free will: the ability to do this or that without external constraint). Please speak for yourself instead of trying to get the thread closed so you can move on.

No, he's right. People here in this forum don't like being preached at.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as the Ten Commandments, which came into existence out of God’s will

It should be obvious to you that no one here is interested in your preaching.

This is really funny. How do you know what people are interested in?

Because I've been here since 2006.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as the Ten Commandments, which came into existence out of God’s will

It should be obvious to you that no one here is interested in your preaching.

Some people may be offended that the word ‘God’ is used throughout the book

Unsophisticated people may think this is the reason of the objection. The reason for the objection is the suggestion that all morality is derived from the Ten Commandments, which is ridiculous.