A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That humans use all kinds of things to excuse or explain their behavior, has no bearing on whether it is a fact that present states of affairs are determined by past states of affairs.

LadyShea, I'm following the argument of determinism and the problems that are encountered with this line of reasoning. You can talk to anyone who is familiar with this debate and they will tell you that this is a major stumbling block for those who support this position the way it is defined.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

p. 80 Instead of being
able to absolve one’s conscience by justifying an act of crime or some
other form of hurt because of the knowledge that he will be blamed
and punished (which permitted efforts to shift his responsibility while
encouraging what had to be criticized and condemned), he is
prevented from deriving any satisfaction from the contemplation of
this hurt by the realization that he will never be blamed, criticized,
punished or judged for doing what he knows everyone must condone,
while being denied a satisfactory reason with which to excuse his
contemplated conduct.

What happens to serial killers who at present keep their urges under control because they know they will likely be punished, or those who don't give a damn and are simply locked up after a while and can't cause further harm? If I tried to defend myself, wouldn't that mean blaming the killer for wanting to kill me?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can talk to anyone who is familiar with this debate and they will tell you that this is a major stumbling block for those who support this position the way it is defined.

I don't give a shit about the historic debate or stumbling blocks for other people. Ethical considerations are off topic.

I am only interested in this current discussion, the one where you have denied that the present is caused by the past...IOW you deny present states of affairs are determined by past states of affairs

[Vivisectus]

repeat after me: just because some people do not like the implications does not change a thing about whether it is correct or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said in the last post, ask anyone what the implications are of this position and why proponents of free will cannot accept those implications. The way it's defined, it is believed that if we lived in a deterministic world people could excuse themselves by saying they were caused to kill because their will is not free; that they didn't want to kill but they had to. Right there it shifts their responsibility away from themselves. Something other than them made them do it, but that's not true because nothing can make them do it if they don't want to. That's not an acceptable answer in any court of law.

It is true that once we choose something it couldn't have been any other way, but Lessans' discovery prevents the very actions that have to be rationalized away. Before I explain the difference I want you to at least understand why the present definition is not useful or accurate.

But those definitions don't reveal a deeper truth.

No, present states of affairs are all that exists, although we remember from moment to moment how we got to the present state we are in. Past states do not cause present states. It's a difficult concept. I hope you eventually have an aha moment, using Oprah's words.

Not at all.

Those are the implications. I didn't make this up. Determinism means what we did was beyond our control. That's where the two sides of this equation come into play.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, because the present states of affairs arises and continues from past states of affairs. Our present opinions, thoughts, desires and needs, etc. all arise and continue from our past opinions, thoughts, desires and needs (and everything else you can name because it's all "states of affairs")

Past states of affairs do give rise to present states of affairs, but they don't cause present states of affairs.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are just robots with no say in the matter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, that predeterminism, not determinism. Are you confusing two separate concepts?

I'm not sure what the difference is. If we are determined, according to the definition, we cannot be blamed for what we do, before or after a choice is made.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why the proponents of free will are so up in arms because they say this would free us of all responsibility.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bully for them. As far as I know there are no proponents of libertarian free will here....so why are you arguing with them?

Because free will is the basis of our entire civilization. It justifies our entire justice system and the laws that are in existence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In a court of law we could easily say we were caused to kill someone by our heredity and environment; we really didn't want to kill that person but had to.

[quote-snip- there is a distinction between saying "I was caused to do what I did by my past or my heredity, and I did it because it gave me greater satisfaction, which is a true statement. This faulty reasoning could also allow someone to excuse himself by saying that he really didn't want to hurt that person, but had to not because he chose to do it but because his past made him do it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is absolutely true that someone's heredity and environment influences their conscience, motivations, opinions, cognition and judgement so of course people will use this truth to try to absolve themselves. That doesn't mean those excuses are heartily accepted by every court or jury as freeing the person of all responsibility. Various events and states of affairs, both past and present, can be considered mitigating or aggravating factors in deciding that, sure.

But we're talking about living in a world without blame or punishment. Determinism means no blame. The conundrum is if we don't blame people who have committed murder would get away with it by saying, "My past made me do it; I really didn't want to." That's not true because people cannot be made to do anything they don't want to do. And how can we just let them hurt people and turn the other cheek? That's not what this discovery is about. It's about preventing the first cheek from ever being struck.

What you just said is true LadyShea, but we're trying to show how to prevent the need to justify why something happened. In other words, if this law of our nature can prevent the crime, then we don't have to come up with excuses. That's the whole point of his discovery, which we never got to.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

People also say they are controlled by deities or demons and therefore have absolutely no control over their actions. Should we change the definitions of God or Demons or Angels because some people use them as an excuse?

People can use anything as an excuse to try to shift their responsibility. But when this is impossible, when they can no longer make excuses when they are already excused, they will be unable to justify their actions, which prevents the crime. Wouldn't you rather live in a world where there is no crime than to punish a crime after it takes place?

[Vivisectus]

Past states of affairs do give rise to present states of affairs, but they don't cause present states of affairs.

Number 4 it is: while past does give rise to actions, phrnomenons and conditions, it is not a cause.

Only the problem is that if past states of affairs give rise to present states of affairs, that means they cause them.

[Vivisectus]

People can use anything as an excuse to try to shift their responsibility. But when this is impossible, when they can no longer make excuses when they are already excused, they will be unable to justify their actions, which prevents the crime. Wouldn't you rather live in a world where there is no crime than to punish a crime after it takes place?

Number 3: Wouldn't it be nice if Peacegirl was right, why do you hate nice?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Number 3: Wouldn't it be nice if Peacegirl was right, why do you hate nice?

peacegirl of all people should know that running out of excuses will not stop someone from finding excuses. But then again, she is insane.

[Vivisectus]

So let us get this straight: when I light a match and drop it on the gasoline I have scattered all over the ground floor of the daycare centre, then that "gives rise" to a massive fireball, and the ensuing inferno is "based on" that event...

But it did not cause it!

Does that mean that I did not cause the excruciating death of a building full of toddlers? That match was dropped in the past, and the past does't exist any more, so it could not have caused it, nor could my dropping it: that was in the past too.

I mean, I may have given rise to it. The ensuing events may even have been based on my actions. But cause them? Goodness gracious no.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, this definition could be used as an excuse which is why there is a problem with the definition.

Not if the problem lies with the excuse rather than the definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it is true that the desire based on one's heredity and environment result in a certain response, but to say it was caused implies that we had no control over the choice that was made.

No it doesn't. Being caused does not imply a lack of control.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The very definition of determinism states that we are caused to do what we do by previous events and circumstances. We are just robots with no say in the matter. That is why the proponents of free will are so up in arms because they say this would free us of all responsibility.

Compatibilists are proponents of free will but they do not say that being caused to do what we do would free us of all responsibility. Why do you keep presupposing the falsity of compatibilism?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Past states of affairs do give rise to present states of affairs, but they don't cause present states of affairs.

What does "give rise to" mean above if it doesn't mean "cause"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we are determined, according to the definition, we cannot be blamed for what we do, before or after a choice is made.

The definition of determinism (the normal one) doesn't say anything about whether or not we can be blamed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Determinism means no blame.

No it doesn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The conundrum is if we don't blame people who have committed murder would get away with it by saying, "My past made me do it; I really didn't want to."

Why would they get away with it? We can point out that this is a bullshit excuse and that being caused does not absolve them of responsibility.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

What happens to serial killers who at present keep their urges under control because they know they will likely be punished, or those who don't give a damn and are simply locked up after a while and can't cause further harm?

First of all, if someone's urges that are that strong, threats of punishment are usually not a strong enough deterrent to stop them from fulling their desires at any cost. Secondly, the possibility of these people continuing with their acts of violence after they become citizens is virtually nil because mental illness is going to be wiped from the face of the earth. But for any reason if someone could not be controlled by this law of our nature, we would know he is sick and he would have to be taken off the streets, just like we do today, or just like we would do if we encountered a dog that went mad. But this would be such a tiny portion of society, if any, and these sick people would disappear after the first generation that is born into the new world, that this is not a major consideration, and it would not stop the new world from coming into existence.

Originally Posted by But

If I tried to defend myself, wouldn't that mean blaming the killer for wanting to kill me?

Of course not. This just shows me how confused everyone is BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT CAREFULLY STUDIED THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS. Do you see the problem I have? This goes right back to where we started, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. To retaliate is justified if somebody hurts you.

p. 64 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 the one 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 of them 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 myself.
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 get the 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. Turning the
other cheek under these conditions could make matters worse, 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 get greater satisfaction defending myself or
retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things to
hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human
conduct. Most of mankind is 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 sock me I might get greater satisfaction in
socking you back. However, once man understands what it means
that his will is not free, this desire to sock 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.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

because mental illness is going to be wiped from the face of the earth.
these sick people would disappear after the first generation that is born into the new world

Faith claims. You have no scientific or medical support for these statements.

[LadyShea]

BTW do you still suffer from fibromyalgia?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So let us get this straight: when I light a match and drop it on the gasoline I have scattered all over the ground floor of the daycare centre, then that "gives rise" to a massive fireball, and the ensuing inferno is "based on" that event...

But it did not cause it!

Of course the match caused the inferno. When someone kills someone with his hands, he caused it, but it happened in the present and we are now remembering what happened in the present. Lessans is talking about the past (something that doesn't exist except in our memories) causing the present, not that causes don't have effects (some devastating) that we have to live with in the here and now.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Does that mean that I did not cause the excruciating death of a building full of toddlers? That match was dropped in the past, and the past does't exist any more, so it could not have caused it, nor could my dropping it: that was in the past too.

This entire book is about preventing these things because we can't justify the hurt we could cause others without justification.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I mean, I may have given rise to it. The ensuing events may even have been based on my actions. But cause them? Goodness gracious no.

How can the past cause the present when all we have is the present? Think about this instead of just handwaving it away. This does not mean that things don't cause other things to occur, which then have longlasting aftereffects. If someone kills another, we remember the incident, as the event becomes part of our memory, but that does not take away from the fact that all we have is the present.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Faith claims. You have no scientific or medical support for these statements.

Come on! We now know that her knowledge of mental illness comes straight from the Church of Scientology. How much more scientific and medical support do you need?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Faith claims. You have no scientific or medical support for these statements.

LadyShea, this claim is based on the discovery. If this discovery is proved valid, then you will see why this new world (a world where there is no blame or punishment; a world where no one desires to hurt another; where no one is judged inferior to another intrinsically) will create an environment where mental illness will no longer exist. If someone has a brain dysfunction from birth, then we will help that person with compassion, but the majority of mental illnesses, that are due to the harshness of a free will environment, will naturally disappear in due time.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course the match caused the inferno.

No, it didn't. The dropping of the lit match is the past, and inferno is the present. The past cannot cause the present because the present is all we have.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can the past cause the present when all we have is the present?

Ergo, the dropping of the lit match, i.e., the past, did not cause the fire! Please think about this instead of handwaving it away! (!!!)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Come on! We now know that her knowledge of mental illness comes straight from the Church of Scientology. How much more scientific and medical support do you need?

Why do love to hate me Mr. Anonymous? I'm going to address you that way from now on? I have never even learned the principles of scientology. To me, it's just another cult.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

BTW do you still suffer from fibromyalgia?

I still have remnants of it. I also have chronic fatigue syndrome which can have similar symptoms. My illness is allso called adrenal insufficiency.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never even learned the principles of scientology. To me, it's just another cult.

How can you condemn this knowledge when you haven't learned its principles? Calling something a cult implies a certain understanding, but how can you claim understanding when you've never read the book? And you call yourself a freethinker.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course the match caused the inferno.

Then the past does cause events in the present.

When someone kills someone with his hands, he caused it, but it happened in the present and we are now remembering what happened in the present

.

Ah! So the murder is still taking place, in the present, 3 weeks later when the murderer remembers it? Are we talking time-travelling here, or multiple universes?

Number 5: meaningless gobbledygook, which is what happens when you desperately try to take a statement that is clearly wrong (the past cannot cause the present because it no longer exists) and try like hell not to admit that it is wrong.

Lessans is talking about the past (something that doesn't exist except in our memories) causing the present, not that causes don't have effects (some devastating) that we have to live with in the here and now.

No, he states that the past cannot cause the present because it does not exist. Which is silly: even without memories the past can cause the present, even in human behaviour.

In fact it is another example of how poorly thought through this whole work is. He denies that he past can cause the present, and then cheerfully attributes all of sight to conditioning... a state in which past events cause us to do things, sometimes even without remembering the event.

Once again Lessans manages to contradict himself while remaining blissfully unaware of the fact.

This entire book is about preventing these things because we can't justify the hurt we could cause others without justification.

Which is neither here nor there.

How can the past cause the present when all we have is the present?

Simple: through a chain of causation.

Think about this instead of just handwaving it away.

...but I just answered you.

This does not mean that things don't cause other things to occur which then have longlasting aftereffects.

Ermm. Yes it does. That is what "cause" means. So if the past cannot cause the present, then it cannot "cause other things to occur which have longlasting aftereffects."

Either Lessans was not using the word "cause" right, as he meant something other than the word means, or (most likely) he was unaware of the silly implications of his statements.

The fact that he places such strong emphasis on conditioning while denying the possibility of human behaviour being caused by past events strongly suggests the latter, in fact.

If someone kills another, we remember the incident, as the event becomes part of our memory, but that does not take away from the fact that all we have is the present.

Which is neither here nor there: the past can still cause the present. If this was not the case, then the memory could not persist from the past into the present.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Number 4 it is: while past does give rise to actions, phrnomenons and conditions, it is not a cause.

Only the problem is that if past states of affairs give rise to present states of affairs, that means they cause them.

Again, there is a disconnect if you fail to understand that there is no past. It's a logical sleight of hand to say that the past causes anything. We remember what happened which gives rise to a desire to move in a certain direction; the only direction that could have been chosen at that moment (and why man's will is not free), but in reality there is no actual past, only the present. I don't know how to explain this any clearer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

How can you condemn this knowledge when you haven't learned its principles? Calling something a cult implies a certain understanding, but how can you claim understanding when you've never read the book? And you call yourself a freethinker.

I am a free thinker and if I didn't get a bad feeling based on what I heard in the news media, I might want to read their by-laws. But I have heard things that have happened in this cultish atmosphere (which I believe fits the definition), and because of this the whole movement seems to be just another cult. Maybe I'm wrong, but testimonies from people who lived there cannot be ignored. This is first hand knowledge, which any prosecutor dies for. There is a lot of testimony to what happens when on this compound and continues to exploit our most vulnerable. The kinds of allegiances that are required smells of brainwashing.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, there is a disconnect if you fail to understand that there is no past. It's a logical sleight of hand to say that the past causes anything. We remember what happened which gives rise to a desire to move in a certain direction; the only direction that could have been chosen at that moment (and why man's will is not free), but in reality there is no actual past, only the present. I don't know how to explain this any clearer.

This is another one of your set pieces: it is true, because it is true.

Only in this case it is clearly untrue: a dropped match this morning, although it has ceased to exist, remains the cause of the forest-fire tomorrow. How can this be if there is no match? Simple: events from the past can be the cause of current events. There is no need for it to exist to do so.

Now how about you address this point in stead of just repeating the claim "the past cannot cause events in the present because it does not exist any more"?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am a free thinker and if I didn't get a bad feeling based on what I heard in the news media, I might want to read their by-laws.

So you're following the crowd instead of trying to read and understand the book for yourself? That's groupthink and hivemind-ism, the very antithesis of freethought.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I have heard things that have happened in this cultish atmosphere (which I believe fits the definition),

Perhaps, but that's only because the standard definition of "cult" is wrong; it does not accord with reality. When the term "cult" is properly defined and understood, it becomes clear that Scientology is not a cult.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

and because of this the whole movement seems to be just another cult.

Again, it only seems like that because you're laboring under an incorrect understanding of what a cult is, and have not taken the time to read the book and understand the knowledge therein.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I'm wrong, but testimonies from people who lived there cannot be ignored. This is first hand knowledge, which any prosecutor dies for.

I know what it looks like, but what about the hundreds of thousands people Scientology has helped? Are you just going to ignore them and focus on the anecdotal evidence that superficially appears to support your preconceived notions?

But hey, if Scientology threatens your worldview to the point that you feel the need to use incomplete, out-of-context information in an attempt to make it look foolish, I certainly can't stop you. However, you're ruining it for yourself.