A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Again, when you say evidence you are looking for empirical data, not observable phenomena.

Nope, just a compelling reason to believe it is so.

It is an undeniable truth because it is an observable law. If you know no one in the world is going to blame you for what you do, how is it possible to pay a price for hurting someone (which only means paying in some way for what you did, through some sort of punishment or restitution)?

You keep repeating that, as if that is somehow going to make it true. I do not see why we should believe this to be so.

The advance knowledge that one will be punished if he does something considered wrong by others, frees his conscience to go do that very thing. Once again, this is an undeniable observation of how the mind works.

I am afraid it is not undeniable. That this is so is an article of faith for you - one that you are unable to support. Just repeating "it IS true! it IS it IS it IS" does not change that one jot.

He never said blame was the cause of justification. He said blame gives a person the opportunity to come up with reasonable excuses. Why? I don't know why. Why do apples fall to the ground? I don't know why except to say it's an accurate observation.

Ok, we can be pedantic about it and say blame is a condition for justification. There is still no reason to believe that this is so. Are firemen a condition for fires?

Not all harmful acts need to be justified in order to be perpetrated, that is true, but part of what allows someone to follow through with his harmful acts is the knowledge that, if caught, he will be seriously punished

.

Again you simply repeat "It is so! It just is!" and provide nothing else.

These are observations that are absolutely undeniable if you look closely enough.

I am afraid they are not. You have decided that they are true, and rigorously avoid looking at their inherent flaws. If you actually look closely, you see the tripod that the whole system rests on is missing a leg.

[davidm]

Again, when you say evidence you are looking for empirical data, not observable phenomena.

*Ahem* Empirical data are observable phenomenon. If you mean experimental data specifically, where is it?

It is an undeniable truth because it is an observable law.

The advance knowledge that one will be punished if he does something considered wrong by others, frees his conscience to go do that very thing. Once again, this is an undeniable observation of how the mind works.

So, the threat of punishment, far from deterring crime, encourages crime.

It is probably true that the threat of punishment often fails to deter criminals. To suggest, however, that the threat of punishment encourages criminals, and the removal all threat of punishment will discourage people from committing crimes, is ... what word do I want? Inane. I'll settle on inane.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

*Ahem* Empirical data are observable phenomenon. If you mean experimental data specifically, where is it?

I think of empirical data as testing samples. So then it's empirical data, not experimental data. Thanks for clearing that up.

It is probably true that the threat of punishment often fails to deter criminals. To suggest, however, that the threat of punishment encourages criminals, and the removal all threat of punishment will discourage people from committing crimes, is ... what word do I want? Inane. I'll settle on inane.

For some, yes. If they are inclined to steal, this gives them the perfect opportunity to follow through with their actions because they can pay a price for their desires. The price is punishment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nope, just a compelling reason to believe it is so.

You keep repeating that, as if that is somehow going to make it true. I do not see why we should believe this to be so.

I am afraid it is not undeniable. That this is so is an article of faith for you - one that you are unable to support. Just repeating "it IS true! it IS it IS it IS" does not change that one jot.

Ok, we can be pedantic about it and say blame is a condition for justification. There is still no reason to believe that this is so. Are firemen a condition for fires?

.

Again you simply repeat "It is so! It just is!" and provide nothing else.

I am afraid they are not. You have decided that they are true, and rigorously avoid looking at their inherent flaws. If you actually look closely, you see the tripod that the whole system rests on is missing a leg.

I'll have to come back later to finish this post because this can go on forever. I will say one thing and that is that threats of blame and punishment are what gives a person the ability to justify his actions. This is the leg that is standing strong, but you think it's broken. When we know in advance that no matter what we do, we will not be blamed, how can we attempt to justify our actions? No one is asking us to In other words, how can a person come up with excuses, when he is already excused? The only time a person can come up with an excuse, is if he is being blamed by someone somewhere. Please reread this section:

“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? Furthermore, is it possible for you to
say “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free” when you
know in advance that no one will blame or judge your action
regardless of what you do?”

"It is impossible."

“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, regardless of what is done (don’t
jump to conclusions, just 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.

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 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 the very things our new knowledge that
man’s will is not free positively prevents.

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, and 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 which 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 or the
murderer are 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
was not for our penal code 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? Furthermore, 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?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For some, yes. If they are inclined to steal, this gives them the perfect opportunity to follow through with their actions because they can pay a price for their desires. The price is punishment.

For some? But for your bizarre notions to work, it would have to be true for all, which of course it is not.

[DaveT]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know the claims are true; but you don't. Does that mean I'm a fanatic? I don't think so. These questions are for everyone. I think making some kind of test for people to see what they understand and what they need help with could be useful. I will put this on my website. This is just a start.

1. Why is man's will not free, according to Lessans?

2. What is the two-sided equation?

3. What are the three ways people can justify hurting someone?

4. What is the difference between what Gandhi believed, and what Lessans is proposing?

5. Why can't a person use the excuse, "I couldn't help myself because my will is not free" in the new world?

6. Why can't a person shift his responsibility to someone or something else when he is not being blamed?

7. Why is it impossible to lie or rationalize to oneself in the Golden Age?

8. What are the three forms of first blow?

9. What other factors must be removed, other than the knowledge that no retaliation will be forthcoming, for war to be eliminated?

10. Why is judging (in advance) what is right and wrong for others actually striking the first blow?

1) Because he cannot see how man could have free will; mind you, since his eyes don't actually work, he can't actually see anything.

2) It's that rare equation that only makes a single use of the = sign. Whilst most equations might say x+y=x+y=x+y, this freaky bastard of an equation has the gall to be simply x+y=x+y.

3) For the sake of argument, let's assume Peacegirl is a triplet. Ta-dah! Justifications found!

4) Gandhi was a Hindu, and Lessans isn't proposing Hinduism.

5) Because the NWO will throw photon lizards at them if they do. (Photon lizards! How fucking awesome does that sound!)

6) Trick question - he's not being blamed, so he doesn't have the responsibility in the first place. Oh, and the fucking photon lizards!

7) Because the great God IMHOTEP will come down and allow the righteous and the honest to ascend into his almighty bosom, after which he will destroy all liars and mankind's ability to lie.

8) Breeze, pitiful explosion, and a necrophile getting fellacio.

9) Eradicate all life in all of reality. Without life, there can be no wars between lifeforms. (Sweet fucking Christ, you really are completely insane!)

10) Because purple sheep guano banana monkey dishwasher loopy loop woop do wop hungry. <---- See that? That made more sense than the fucking question!

[davidm]

Dave passes teh quiz!

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by DaveT

5) Because the NWO will throw photon lizards at them if they do. (Photon lizards! How fucking awesome does that sound!)

Eh, the mind doesn't know the difference. It's just the byproduct of self-aware neurons in the brain ... supposedly, that is. It has no idea what a photon is, let alone anything physical. It's all just a simulation inside our head.

[Iacchus]

So, does information have mass? If it does, it must be pretty minuscule (compared to just about anything else), right?

I was just thinking, if we could contain all the information in the Universe in one space, how much space would that take up? ... the size of a lunch box maybe?

Or, if it was without mass, I guess it wouldn't even exist ... that is, within the realm of all things physical or, time and space.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

So, does information have mass?

Photons don't have mass, either.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

So, does information have mass? If it does, it must be pretty minuscule (compared to just about anything else), right?

I was just thinking, if we could contain all the information in the Universe in one space, how much space would that take up? ... the size of a lunch box maybe?

Or, if it was without mass, then I guess it wouldn't even exist ... that is, within the realm of all things physical or, time and space.

Does light not exist?

Because photons have no mass.

[DaveT]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Eh, the mind doesn't know the difference. It's just the byproduct of self-aware neurons in the brain ... supposedly, that is. It has no idea what a photon is, let alone anything physical. It's all just a simulation inside our head.

Fuck off.

[Iacchus]

Well, yeah, of course. Some of us are just more polite than others about it.

Why? Because we may actually have something better to say?

[DaveT]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Well, yeah, of course. Some of us are just more polite than others about it.

Why? Because we may actually have something better to say?

You may, but you don't. Please would you be ever so kind as to fuck the fuck off?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by davidm

Does light not exist?

Because photons have no mass.

Yeah, and until you project the light onto the movie screen, what do you get? Nothing but a blank screen, right?

So, how does mass accumulate? It's simply the result of light slowing down, isn't it? It seems I heard something to that effect. It's been awhile.

If so, that means mass is a byproduct of light, right? Similar to say, the way ice is a by-product of water which, as it begins to slow or cool down (looses its vibrancy), it begins to solidify ... and, in fact takes up more space than water. I don't know if it contains more mass or not though?

Anyway, look at how much information we can contain through fiber optics. And, depending on the types of transducers we hook up, we can do just about anything ... even simulate sex!

[wildernesse]

My post may be considered long, therefore I have emphasized the two questions that I am asking and the general point I am making. Your next post can respond to those two questions. I prefer that you respond in your own words and not through quotation from the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is an undeniable truth because it is an observable law. If you know no one in the world is going to blame you for what you do, how is it possible to pay a price for hurting someone (which only means paying in some way for what you did, through some sort of punishment or restitution)?

The advance knowledge that one will be punished if he does something considered wrong by others, frees his conscience to go do that very thing. Once again, this is an undeniable observation of how the mind works.

People talked about this earlier, like 30 pages ago, and asked you questions about why new criminal laws are created. I don't think that you ever really answered them, at least not to my satisfaction. 1)Why do you think new criminal laws are created?

If there is no criminal law on the point, then there is no punishment for doing the wrong thing. Therefore, you cannot believe that you will be caught, blamed, punished, and made to pay a price for doing the wrong thing. According to you, that would mean that your conscience does not perversely rest easy because it knows that it will eventually be blamed and made to pay.

If your idea were undeniably correct, then new criminal laws would not develop as new technology developed or as the idea of equal rights for all individuals became better understood. The fact that new criminal laws (and civil liabilities, for that matter) are created, would seem to support the idea that harm can exist without official punishment or sanction.

Even if you do not have criminal or civil liability, as new information is revealed about all sorts of topics, people discover that they are creating harm through their actions (or inactions) when their actions do not align with their values. People choose to stop eating factory-farmed meat, or animal products completely, because they learn about harms that they cannot support. If you want a human-centered version of that, people sometimes choose to build zero-barrier/universal design homes to make their homes more accessible to people with physical disabilities based on their principles rather than their personal needs. No one could blame them for building a standard home, there are no punishments or liabilities, but as some people become more aware of the harm that barriers to access create for people with disabilities, this might be a choice in accordance with their values.

In order for your point to be undeniable, you need to explain more about how this theory works in relation to how people harm and alleviate harm in the absence of laws and liabilities today. If you do not, then I, at least, will feel that your point is incomplete.

He never said blame was the cause of justification. He said blame gives a person the opportunity to come up with reasonable excuses. Why? I don't know why. Why do apples fall to the ground? I don't know why except to say it's an accurate observation.

It used to be the case that if you raped your wife, you were not punished because marital rape was not a crime. You didn't need an excuse, you could just say "She's my wife." That was the reason there was no crime. 2) Was there no harm in marital rape cases before there were criminal statues? Does the alleged accurate observation hold in this case? Or, in other words, if you observed this scenario in the past, would you have drawn the same conclusion that Lessans did?

If you say there was no harm, then I pretty much think you are a despicable person. If you say there was harm, then something other than punishment/consequences is creating harm, and eliminating them will not eliminate harm, and therefore this point is not undeniable or there needs to be additional information provided in order for the point to be undeniable.

[Hermit]

Again:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seraph, that is his entire discovery. Did you read the previous post? If we can't even make headway here, how can I move forward to clarify anything?

I did read the previous post, but somehow I missed the part where replicable experiments were described on which the theory that "advance knowledge that no one in the world would blame a person for doing something evil will stop said person from committing the evil deed" are based. Please help me find it. Best would be if you provided a link to that replicable experiment.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Yeah, and until you project the light onto the movie screen, what do you get? Nothing but a blank screen, right?

So, how does mass accumulate? It's simply the result of light slowing down, isn't it? It seems I heard something to that effect. It's been awhile.

If so, that means mass is a byproduct of light, right? Similar to say, the way ice is a by-product of water which, as it begins to slow or cool down (looses its vibrancy), it begins to solidify ... and, in fact takes up more space than water. I don't know if it contains more mass or not though?

Anyway, look at how much information we can contain through fiber optics. And, depending on the types of transducers we hook up, we can do just about anything ... even simulate sex!

Do you know what the definition of mass is?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by davidm

photons have no mass.

More specifically it has no rest mass.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Kael

More specifically it has no rest mass.

You're right, of course, no rest mass.

[davidm]

Let my clarify this, for Iacchus's benefit.

In science, a photon is said to have "no rest mass" because Catholic photons, when they kick back and relax, never hold church services. Since all photons are identical (i.e., all are Catholic) it follows that photons have no rest mass.

Say, can I write a 579-page book about this subject and hawk it on teh Internets?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This truth is not undeniable because it is not an observable law. The second statement above contradicts itself. When blame is removed so was punishment (according to the book) so hurting someone would not involve 'Paying the price' since there is no punishment or restitution, remember when you remove blame you remove punishment, so there is no longer any threat of punishment and no price to pay for hurting someone.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Say, can I write a 579-page book about this subject and hawk it on teh Internets?

I'm sorry I thought we were still seriously discussing this topic, is this now the joke page. No wait, it started that way.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you know what the definition of mass is?

It's a chunk of matter isn't it? And, it's either propagated (and accrues) when light slows down or it doesn't. That's what I was asking? I mean I'll look it up if I have to, but I thought it was already pretty well understood.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Kael

More specifically it has no rest mass.

Which is to say it has no mass until it starts to decelerate and/or collides with chunks of matter?

Or, how about this. If space has no mass, and light has no mass (at "no rest"), where does mass come from? Is it all what's left over from the Big Bang then?