A revolution in thought

[laughing dog]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with Marx's final stage of history. Why would you assume that?

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Six: The New Economic World

p. 278 It is interesting to note that the very people who want to
leave communist countries will lose their desire as soon as they
become citizens because they will not be subjected to the laws any
longer and will want to continue receiving their guarantee.
Communism, and the dream of socialism, came into existence out of
mathematical necessity as a reaction to injustice, but once the
injustice is removed, communism and the dream of socialism have no
further value. It was assumed that Marx had all the answers, but in
this new world nobody will tell anybody what to do, although each
person will be mathematically prevented from desiring to hurt others.

It is clear you are unfamiliar with Marx's Theory of History. The final stage is the utopian ideal where humans have fundamentally changed their nature to eliminate the need for gov't and private property.

My point is that once anyone assumes away current human nature, any utopia is possible. Of course, the problem is that human nature appears rather stubborn in its reluctance to radically change over time.

[davidm]

I suggest that Spacemonkey and LadyShea put some of the questions about death, numerical identity, subjectivity etc. to Wayne Stewart, since he is making an identical claim to that of Lessans. There occurs "existential passage" or "generic subjective continuity," as Tom Clark calls it, but there is no personal connection between x who dies and y who is born.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered you more than once so why are you asking me this again?

Do not talk down to me Spacemonkey, or we're done, and I mean it. I'm that frustrated, which has taken two years to brew.
.

Disingenuous hyprocisy at it's best. Peacegirl claims to have answered questions, which she has not. Spacemonkey states that he has answered questions, which he has, and Peacegirl accuses him of talking down to her, when she has been talking down to everyone else on this thread for 1200 pages.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is a thoughtful question, but this is the most equitable solution possible. It guarantees what everyone is now getting paid will continue, even if they should fall below their standard due to events they have no control over, but at the same time this set-up does not put a lid on anyone's opportunity to move upward to a higher income bracket.

What of the millions of people worldwide who do not have jobs? How will their guaranteed minimum be set?

What of the people who do not actually work for a living (various royals, for example) but receive money anyway, how will their minimum be set?

And what about the generations after the Transitional one? Where is the standard minimum set for Citizen X who is newly entering the Golden Age workforce?

[Adam]

Maybe the Q&A with Wayne Stewart can go to a new thrad so it can get the attention it deserves, rather than being lost in the ongoing glorious revolution?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What of the millions of people worldwide who do not have jobs? How will their guaranteed minimum be set?

What of the people who do not actually work for a living (various royals, for example) but receive money anyway, how will their minimum be set?

And what about the generations after the Transitional one? Where is the standard minimum set for Citizen X who is newly entering the Golden Age workforce?

Perhaps in the case of later generations, if the individual cannot find gainful employment, the "Golden Age" will reinstitute the 'caste system', the the children will be set at whatever income level the parents enjoyed? Seems like a step backwards.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Adam

Maybe the Q&A with Wayne Stewart can go to a new thrad so it can get the attention it deserves, rather than being lost in the ongoing glorious revolution?

That would be great, but I am certainly not going to be the one who asks livius for that split

I do know that what would help her, should any of you be brave enough to ask, is the list the post numbers that need to be moved

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Adam

Maybe the Q&A with Wayne Stewart can go to a new thrad so it can get the attention it deserves, rather than being lost in the ongoing glorious revolution?

I've no objection to this at all, but the posts, starting with Wayne's first post, would have to be moved to the new thread, else we'd have to start over again. I'll remark again at how gobsmacked I am that peacegirl finally has an ally on at least one Lessans claim, and can't seem to understand or appreciate this fact. This tells me what I've long suspected, that she really doesn't understand ANY of Lessans' claims, which is why she can never summarize them in her own words, but just parrots them anyway because she has religious faith in him. But anyway, peacegirl, you really ought to offer to send Chapter !0 to Wayne.

[Adam]

Special Relativity.

Obviously, there's some kind of ESB (Eternal Soul Bus) that accepts dead people and passes them, in the order in which they were received, into newly born bodies. The only reference frame that matters is that of the bus itself.

You lose again, SCIENCE!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What of the millions of people worldwide who do not have jobs? How will their guaranteed minimum be set?

I thought you said you read the book. Were you lying? You have to understand how piecemeal this is, and how every answer I give you will engender more questions. This chapter is over 100 pages and I can't condense it into a few sentences.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What of the people who do not actually work for a living (various royals, for example) but receive money anyway, how will their minimum be set?

By how much money they have always been receiving, or from their first paycheck after learning their trade. If they are unemployed because they can't find a job, they will calculate their expenses to derive at their standard of living, and that will become their basic standard.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Six: The New Economic World

p. 218 “Supposing a person like the President of the United
States who is earning in a neighborhood of $100,000 per year can’t
get a job paying that amount of money, what then?”

“If he can only get a job paying $5000, he will still receive his
guaranteed income just as long as he lives by drawing the other
$95,000, less taxes of course, from the Bureau of Internal Revenue.”

“But wouldn’t this make him desire to take the easiest job
available, regardless of the salary, since he knows that the chances are
very slim that he will ever earn more than this $100,000? Besides,
wouldn’t an employer take advantage of this knowledge to pay the
President only $5000 to do a very important job, one worth much
more money, since he knows the difference would be given in
unemployment compensation, so to speak?”

Your questions indicate that you have not looked into this deeply
enough otherwise you would not have asked them. In order for an
employer to pay less than what a job is worth, to pay less to the same
individual who would receive more under other circumstances, it
would necessitate that he hurt the taxpayers who would be compelled
to pay this difference because they know he cannot help hurting them
this way. But he knows he is not compelled to hurt them this way
unless he wants to, and it cannot satisfy him to do this when he knows
they are compelled to excuse what he is mathematically unable to
justify. This rule applies in every human relation, although there will
be a slight variation of this theme where children are concerned. Keep
in mind that the Inception of the Golden Age actually will get
underway just as you launch a satellite into space, with a countdown,
and when the count is down every weapon that is remaining on earth
that is meant to hurt or maim will be destroyed.

Is it possible for a
potential criminal to use a gun for a hold-up when nothing is going
to stand in his way of taking anything he wants without force? It
should be obvious that this countdown will not take place until every
adult on the planet will be taught what it means that man’s will is not
free, for otherwise it would only make matters worse. However, once
this is accomplished and Project Golden Age launched, millions upon
millions of people will be automatically displaced as a consequence,
but just before the launching, since no one can be blamed or hurt,
each person around the earth will record in his little book his exact
wealth and earning power so not one single penny in purchasing power
will be taken away from any individual regardless of whether or not he
is displaced.

Consequently, if the President of the United States, the
Premiere of Russia, the Queen of England, or any other top official
has been receiving a net income of so much, they will continue to
receive this same amount of money without any one telling them what
to do with their time, or how to spend their money. If the sailors and
soldiers returning home wish to retire for the rest of their lives on their
present income, this is their business, but if they desire to earn more
money then they will be compelled of their own free will to desire
going to work. Moreover, each person will record the exact amount
of time he is putting in to earn his present income (this applies only
to those employed) because it will be mathematically impossible for an
individual to work one second longer without blame.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And what about the generations after the Transitional one? Where is the standard minimum set for Citizen X who is newly entering the Golden Age workforce?

Children will be supported by their parents, just like they are today, until they can support themselves, at which time they will calculate their guarantee based on their first job. This does not mean they can't move to a higher paying position; it just means that if they should lose their job, or not make enough to sustain their standard of living, they will be secure in knowing that the difference will be made up by the guarantee.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That would be great, but I am certainly not going to be the one who asks livius for that split

I do know that what would help her, should any of you be brave enough to ask, is the list the post numbers that need to be moved

It hasn't been that long of a discussion. Just move, and eventually those questions will be answered again. The longer you wait, the harder it will be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I wasn't talking about Lessans' claims. I was talking about yours. You went from saying one thing to saying the exact opposite. YOU did that, not Lessans. Is the newborn numerically identical to the one who has died or not?

I'm not having a difficult time. YOU are. You've identified the question here. Why don't you try answering it?

As I've explained to you literally dozens of times now, for me to always be here requires that the reborn individual be numerically identical with me, and this is a connection between the recently dead and the newborn individuals. It is a connection of numerical identity.

If you deny this connection then it isn't me that gets reborn, for it is instead someone else being born for the first time. And if you accept this connection of numerical identity (as you must for anyone to be reborn), then you need to explain (beyond the mere assertion of your father) how and why this connection holds.

This is not an assertion. Read this again carefully because this is all I'm posting on this subject.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Ten: Our Posterity

p. 500 To draw up a comparison for a still better understanding,
if we let A and B, that which is carried along from generation to
generation equal a huge, live, headless body that never dies but
from which human heads begin to grow, the first head will say,
“I am the only human alive.” When the second head appears he
will say — “I am alive and I see you, my Siamese brother, and we
are the only two humans alive.” When the third head appears she
says, “Our family consists of my two brothers and myself and I am
alive, conscious of my existence.” If God chopped off one of these
heads, and like a hydra another one appeared instantly in its place,
the new head would say — “I am alive, conscious of my existence,
and there are only three heads in our family.” This is exactly what
happens when you die, your head is chopped off from the body of A
and B which continues in existence from generation to generation,
and when a boy and girl mate they create you, C, a body that grows
and develops and says — “I am alive, conscious of my existence.
I have brothers and sisters, a mother and father.” But when you die
your body and consciousness are gone only to be born again. If you
examine all the facts you will find them undeniable.

<snip>

It is impossible for me to have my consciousness and that of
another, therefore the differences that are now me must die before the
new differences, containing the same consciousness as the child that
develops from birth during the present moment of time, can be born.
If I should die this instant it only means that I, not the individual
Seymour Lessans, but someone of two new parents, would start my
life over again because this consciousness of individuality is given to
each person at birth and has nothing to do with the individual
characteristics themselves. Therefore, death is a mirage to those
who die and a reality only to the living. It is our ability to recognize
these deeper relations that give us our knowledge of personal
immortality and our freedom from the fear of death, for then we know
that even though God sweeps away our aging flesh, and our body and
consciousness are gone, we will be born over and over again to see this
miraculous world. This is an actual reality, not a figment of the
imagination, and can easily be verified when you realize that with all
the millions of years you, of all people, are born right now to see the
universe. The truth is, you will also be born a million years hence
because all we have is the present, and this universe can only be seen
through your consciousness, not the consciousness of another.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not an assertion. Read this again carefully because this is all I'm posting on this subject.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Ten: Our Posterity

p. 500 To draw up a comparison for a still better understanding,
if we let A and B, that which is carried along from generation to
generation equal a huge, live, headless body that never dies but
from which human heads begin to grow, the first head will say,
“I am the only human alive.” When the second head appears he
will say — “I am alive and I see you, my Siamese brother, and we
are the only two humans alive.” When the third head appears she
says, “Our family consists of my two brothers and myself and I am
alive, conscious of my existence.” If God chopped off one of these
heads, and like a hydra another one appeared instantly in its place,
the new head would say — “I am alive, conscious of my existence,
and there are only three heads in our family.” This is exactly what
happens when you die, your head is chopped off from the body of A
and B which continues in existence from generation to generation,
and when a boy and girl mate they create you, C, a body that grows
and develops and says — “I am alive, conscious of my existence.
I have brothers and sisters, a mother and father.” But when you die
your body and consciousness are gone only to be born again. If you
examine all the facts you will find them undeniable.

<snip>

It is impossible for me to have my consciousness and that of
another, therefore the differences that are now me must die before the
new differences, containing the same consciousness as the child that
develops from birth during the present moment of time, can be born.
If I should die this instant it only means that I, not the individual
Seymour Lessans, but someone of two new parents, would start my
life over again because this consciousness of individuality is given to
each person at birth and has nothing to do with the individual
characteristics themselves. Therefore, death is a mirage to those
who die and a reality only to the living. It is our ability to recognize
these deeper relations that give us our knowledge of personal
immortality and our freedom from the fear of death, for then we know
that even though God sweeps away our aging flesh, and our body and
consciousness are gone, we will be born over and over again to see this
miraculous world. This is an actual reality, not a figment of the
imagination, and can easily be verified when you realize that with all
the millions of years you, of all people, are born right now to see the
universe. The truth is, you will also be born a million years hence
because all we have is the present, and this universe can only be seen
through your consciousness, not the consciousness of another.

Right, and this is, in Seymour's own grandiose, colorful prolixity, his own statement of the argument of Wayne Stewart and Tom Clark.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Many people dedicate years and money to their ideas, ideas that simply don't merit further investigation because they aren't robust or have no evidence. Why should Lessans receive special treatment?

Because he has done the work, and in all fairness you cannot compare one person with another. You have to judge them individually. Lessans deserves to be heard because these claims have major implications for the betterment of our world. If he is right, there is a lot to lose if people refuse to investigate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Jacques Benveniste got his additional testing, due to his being a well respected scientist at the time, and his results could not be duplicated nor verified and he went from well respected to crackpot. He still clung to them. I am pretty sure you would still cling to Lessans ideas no matter how much testing is done.

And there are many discoverers that went from crackpot to well-respected. Why are you only looking at one side? I am pretty sure you would still cling to Lessans being wrong even after the testing proves him right.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Have the dignity and self-respect to walk away when you feel like the only reason that you're here is to be an entertaining chew toy.

In Lessans' Golden Age there will be no need for dignity or self-respect. In Lessans' Golden Age no one will criticize peacegirl for choosing to be an entertaining chew toy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What person does the word "YOU" refer to in this sentence? Replace you with a proper noun, please, otherwise this is meaningless. Personal pronouns require a referent.

You (peacegirl) seem to not understand my (LadyShe's) objection here, so I (LadyShea) am trying to illustrate it using your (peacegirl's) own claims

When you die, YOU may be a newborn named Jessica. This is not rebirth in the sense of any connection to a previous death, which people can't seem to grasp, especially when two completely different discussions on death are going on at the same time.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you die, YOU may be a newborn named Jessica. This is not rebirth in the sense of any connection to a previous death, which people can't seem to grasp, especially when two completely different discussions on death are going on at the same time.

No, they are NOT two completely different discussions. They are the same discussion. It astonishes me that you cannot grasp this.

You may be a newborn named Jessica, with no connection to a previous death, is exactly what Wayne is contending. Why don't you ASK him?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

WTF? My statement was regarding not having enough education in the formal tenets of philosophy to act as a guide for Christina in the discussion of Wayne Stuart's essay.

And by the same token, you have not had enough education in the formal tenets of philosophy to act as a guide for anyone in the discussion of Lessans' discovery. Why can't you be honest here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not about whether an action is legitimate or not. Legitimacy is in the eyes of the beholder. Do you actually think judging someone angrily because they don't want to do what you want them to do, and blaming them as a consequence, is going to help the situation? Let's get practical.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nor was I talking about legitimacy. I am merely pointing out that it is not a good rule to determine what is ok to do and what is not.

That's not what it's meant for. You are completely lost.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And did you notice that you are, right now, trying to respond to a critical question? We shall call it critical question 1 for convenience.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The same sort fo thing happened when we asked "Why should we assume conscience works as the book describes".

It can very easily be seen that conscience needs an excuse to do bad things to others, even if the justification isn't overt.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know you want it to be so. But that does not make it so - and you have been unable to provide a reason to believe it is.

You're going to have to take my word for it then. This observation took years and years of study, seeing patterns in human behavior, and finding commonalities that show that conscience works in a very predictable way. This is scientific even though he didn't write his findings down since he didn't plan on making a discovery.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Right - just like you will have to take my word for it that flight is not something that has anything to do with wings flapping, which is also scientific, even though I did not use the scientific method or conduct any kind of test to arrive at my conclusion, because I was just studying stuff at random and not planning on making any kind of discovery.

And you know you can trust me, because it took me years of study to reach this conclusion, spotting patterns in animal behaviors and finding commonalities between things that fly.

This totally makes up for any evidence to the contrary, lack of evidence in favor, complete absence of even a reason to think it might be so, and at times utter incoherence of my account.

Please note that this is also a response to a critical question: number 2 so far. In this post alone.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I see we have discovered a new school of philosophy: the "trust me, I know what I am doing" school of applied authoritarianism.

Let up already.

It's true that the only way to find out what leads to the "greater desire" is to see what people choose. The only predictive power this knowledge provides is the fact that, under the changed environmental conditions, man will be unable to derive greater satisfaction out of hurting others when not to becomes the preferable choice.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hence the fallacy.

What fallacy? When the new world is here and there's no war and crime, you'll still be saying Lessans was wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What you just described is one of the basic fallacies. It is a textbook example, in fact.

There is no fallacy Vivisectus, and saying it doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Alas, but it is. It is a form of the old textbook example: that what happens, had to happen, and we know this because it happened. This mixes up contingent and necessary truths: a classic fallacy.

It is not a fallacy. It just shows me, once again, how very confused you are. You are failing to understand that we are constantly moving away from a position that is dissatisfying to a position that is more satisfying and it doesn't just happen when making choices. Every single movement is in this direction, from the slightest sensation such as the need to scratch an itch to getting off the computer because suddenly you've grown hungry. Even the decision to take our time to figure out which choice, under our present circumstances, is the most favorable is a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction and, as such, is part of the causal chain of determinism, as Tom Clark noted. Therefore, this is not a modal fallacy.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And by the same token, you have not had enough education in the formal tenets of philosophy to act as a guide for anyone in the discussion of Lessans' discovery. Why can't you be honest here?

Laugh. Out. Loud.

So, let's see here. LadyShea can't discuss philosophy because she lacks education in the "formal tenets of philosophy." But Seymour Lessans, a seventh-grade dropout, is perfectly competent to contradict everything we know about science, and to make philosophically inept arguments, and we should unthinkingly accept all his bullshit because why, exactly?

Oh, and with respect to your most recent "woe is me" routine and your claim that people are abusing you: I point out again that the reason you receive a hostile reaction is because you lie, evade and weasel, most recently, yet again, when I asked you: If real-time seeing is true, why does NASA employ delayed time seeing calculations to launch spacecraft to Mars and other heavenly bodies? Your most recent dishonest response was to link to a wholly irrelevant NASA article about the technology of guiding such craft; but I did not and have not asked you about the technology. I asked you about the maths.

And of course, you proved once again, with your response, that you are a

Here's what would be an honest response:

"It's true, NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars, and I have no explanation for this. Of course it contradicts Lessans. Still, I believe Lessans was right, even though all evidence contradicts him."

If you said that, we would judge you irrational, and conclude that yours is a faith-based position without hope of being correct, but at least no one would accuse you of being dishonst (which you are), and your would earn a much less acrimonious reception.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That would be great, but I am certainly not going to be the one who asks livius for that split

I do know that what would help her, should any of you be brave enough to ask, is the list the post numbers that need to be moved

Why are you so scared to ask? Are you afraid she will reject the request? I can understand why you wouldn't ask her if you think it's an imposition.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you so scared to ask? Are you afraid she will reject the request?

Why are you so scared to ask Wayne Stewart what he thinks about Lessans' ideas about what happens after we die? Are you actually afraid to have a supporter for a change?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Why are you so scared to ask Wayne Stewart what he thinks about Lessans' ideas about what happens after we die? Are you actually afraid to have a supporter for a change?

From what I have read there is nothing in common between the two, that's why.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From what I have read there is nothing in common between the two, that's why.

Oh, really? But you still haven't read his book, have you? Just like you never read The Lone Ranger's essay on light and sight.

But wait. You said:

When you die, YOU may be a newborn named Jessica. This is not rebirth in the sense of any connection to a previous death, which people can't seem to grasp,

Wayne, is this not what you are saying also? And what Tom Clark is saying? "You" is being used in the loose sense here, as Tom Clark takes pains to explain in his essay, which peacegirl no doubt has failed to read as well.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

The head of the anti-poverty advocate inside me just exploded so I'm going to save this one for later when I can type in full sentences without saying fuck and moron a few thousand times.

OK, I think I can do this with my claws in now. I'm going to give you a few scenarios of some people's lives as they exist on the day before the cutover to utopia. I'd like it if you could tell me how they'll be maintaining their current standard of living 1 week after LessanLand gets going.

1) A physically or mentally disabled person is completely compliant with the medical treatments their doctors recommend, clearly benefits from them and decompensates quickly without them, requires a continuity of care from the same doctor in order to be as functional as they can be and receives social security disability income to pay for all of their living expenses and medicare to pay for their medical expenses. Who is paying for it when you guys take over?

2) A homeless heroin addict does not desire treatment. His living expenses and the cost of his drugs are covered by selling the things that he steals from the rest of the community. In case you don't know, heroin is very physically addictive and only the most inhumane of people would recommend that withdrawal symptoms occur without medical supervision and lots of junkies would rather die than quit. If he did want treatment and signed up today the waiting list would be 4 months long because there aren't anywhere near as many treatment beds as there are addicts. There's a good chance that he might not want it again or will have already died when the bed finally opens up but if not it would be paid for by the County.

3) A woman is in a state-funded domestic violence shelter with her 3 children. At the moment she has no idea of how she's going to support herself or her children in the future unless she's goes back home to get beat up some more. She was living in a mansion but it was all his money that was paying for it and she has none of her own. He's going to fight a divorce tooth and nail and drag it out as long as he can so that he doesn't have to give her any money and probably try to take her kids away too since he can provide for them better.

4) A mentally ill person lives on the streets. He likes his kind of crazy, has no desire to be what he thinks of as boring like everyone else is, he isn't bothering anyone other than that he doesn't smell very good, doesn't want to take meds because he hates how they make him feel and eats food from local shelter and sleeps in the woods. The shelter is funded by a combination of local government, state and federal money and they spend a fair amount of time worrying that he's going to die out there in the cold and rain but he just won't come in at night. He'd have already starved to death if they didn't bring his food to the edge of the woods for him. He scares everyone other than homeless people and shelter workers but he's definitely not a real threat to anyone and under current law there is no reason to commit him as long as he eats the shelter food.

(ETA: He would commit suicide before allowing himself to be committed.)

5) A heavy equipment operator has a wife and 4 kids and he can easily provide them with a middle class income until he a terrible accident at work which leaves him temporarily disabled. Right now his employer would pay him up until the point where all of his sick and vacation time were used up and then he would likely apply for temporary disability and get it. It wouldn't be as much as he used to make and they would have to significantly downscale their lifestyle for a while but he's expected to regain the ability to work within a year or 2. In the meantime he'll get enough disability to pay the rent and feed his family but not much more. Which lifestyle and income level does he get to have next week if there is no government to send him his disability check?

You should note that at least a few of these scenarios involve the government's financial support so where does the money come from when there is no government anymore? Another involves the level to which we as individuals will rise to in order to ensure that those who can't reasonably be expected to be self-sufficient don't suffer unnecessarily. Another issue that I'm raising is the level of control that the new society will exert upon those who sustain themselves by preying on others and the strength of the insistence that everyone fit societal norms without blame or punishment. Can you please try to address each and every one of my scenarios while keeping these things in mind?


ETA: Please do try to be realistic about human nature and don't just tell me that the masses will rise up and cure poverty without government intervention or I'm going to start going on again about how this sounds like something that libertarians would come up with if they were on bad drugs.