A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hate to say that, but you give me no choice

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. ~Lessans page 70

[Vivisectus]

As an aside, is it possible to have an equation that is not two-sided? An equation is an expression that asserts the equality of two expressions - it is like the central point in a balance. Can you have a 3-sided equation, or a 4-sided one?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As an aside, is it possible to have an equation that is not two-sided? An equation is an expression that asserts the equality of two expressions - it is like the central point in a balance.

“You’re the greatest with your mathematical reasoning, and I agree that it is not possible.” ~Lessans page 72

[LadyShea]

duplicate

[Kael]

Welcome back, peacegirl. How was your tantrum?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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. ~Lessans page 70

LadyShea, when I said you give me no choice, it wasn't that I actually had no choice. This is an expression that many people use. This only meant that the choice to stay, under the present conditions, was unsatisfactory to me, not that I was actually being forced to leave. If you understood the definition of determinism that Lessans clearly posited [which is absolutely necessary if you want to understand this discovery], you would have known immediately what I meant.

Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good
or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will
of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of
compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every
moment of time?

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful
consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves
always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position
offers.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Welcome back, peacegirl. How was your tantrum?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

“You’re the greatest with your mathematical reasoning, and I agree that it is not possible.” ~Lessans page 72

Why are you taking one sentence out of an entire dialogue LadyShea? Where does he mention "an equation" in that sentence? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. You are still pulling sentences out of context and thinking this is a fair analysis. Mathematical reasoning is reasoning that is exact; it doesn't have to be math per se (which I mentioned many times), nor does it have to be expressed as an equation. In the following dialogue, Lessans is giving a mathematical explanation as to how people are able to shift their responsibility in a free will environment. This is purely mathematical (if understood), which only means undeniable.

In the following dialogue, my friend asks for
clarification regarding 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 or use any other excuse he feels will sound believable for
the same reason?”

This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate
reasoning because it is mathematically impossible to shift
responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with something, when
you know in advance that you will not be blamed regardless of what
you do, because the world knows your will is not free. 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 a superficial
perception of inaccurate reasoning 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. In fact, 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?
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?”

“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, 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.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can move forward under specific conditions, but these conditions have nothing to do with the proof of efferent sight, so don't even go there.

Setting aside the preposterous notion that your continued participation is desirable, the most likely reason for the proposal is that you have proven completely incapable of articulating in a non-gibberish manner the mechanism by which sight supposedly works in Lessans' view. Absent so much as a cogent explanation of what you want to establish, the very idea of "proof" is inapplicable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope people can take a deep breath and calm down, because no one will get at the truth without an objective view of what is going on.

You're projecting again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, when I said you give me no choice, it wasn't that I actually had no choice.

In other words, you don't mean what you say. We already knew that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As an aside, is it possible to have an equation that is not two-sided? An equation is an expression that asserts the equality of two expressions - it is like the central point in a balance. Can you have a 3-sided equation, or a 4-sided one?

I am sure he said two-sided equation for emphasis since it involves an individual on one side, and everyone else on the other. When it comes to an equation such as this, he needed people to see why the two sides of this equation are absolutely necessary, for without both sides understanding the principles, we could not prevent the desire to strike the very first blow.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Humans cannot be made to do anything they do not want to.

Please, it happens every second of every day. If it didn't, people wouldn't make excuses to justify their silly behavior to themselves.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have a proposition.

Sorry, but I'm not allowed to accept propositions from strange girls.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

a free will society.

Didn't Lessans prove that we do not have free will, which would make 'a free will society' an oxymoron?
Either we have free will or we don't, what we believe and how we act is irrelevant.

[thedoc]

Lessans was inconsistant and contradicted himself, Peacegirl can't explain this away by claiming different situations. Freewill is not something you can turn on and off when it is convient to support different concepts.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl
I can move forward under specific conditions, but these conditions have nothing to do with the proof of efferent sight, so don't even go there.

Does that mean you will simply stop discussing the subject without even admitting there are problems there you don't have an answer for?

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, In the first part of the book, which I did read, did Lessans prove that men do not have free will?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, In the first part of the book, which I did read, did Lessans prove that men do not have free will?

Hah interesting. Do we have a choice in either believing or not believing in free will? Or if you want to put it otherwise, if will is not free but currently we act as if it is, can we change our minds about it by ourselves?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by yguy

Please, it happens every second of every day. If it didn't, people wouldn't make excuses to justify their silly behavior to themselves.

I think what LadyShea meant was that you can't force someone to do something they don't want to. And in my earlier post I said, "You are all forcing me to leave." But I didn't mean that literally. Obviously, nothing can force me to do anything if I don't want to do it, for over this I have mathematical control. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. This is the other side of the two-sided equation, and is a very important concept especially when we're talking about the true meaning of determinism.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hah interesting. Do we have a choice in either believing or not believing in free will? Or if you want to put it otherwise, if will is not free but currently we act as if it is, can we change our minds about it by ourselves?

Yes, he proved, absolutely and positively, that man does not have free will, otherwise this new world could not come about because we could hurt people in spite of the changed conditions, but that is impossible since we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction. When striking a first blow gives us no satisfaction, we will be compelled, by our very nature, to move in a different direction for greater satisfaction.

Of course you can change your minds, not just about free will, but about anything. I think you are misinterpreting what he means by determinism. Determinism, the way it is defined, does not mean you are controlled in any way. It doesn't tell you what to do, or dictate how to think. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The only reason to believe in something is if you believe [or know] that it is true, otherwise you wouldn't believe in it. Actually, once the transition takes place, people won't have to understand why man's will is not free for these principles to work because these principles will already be a permanent condition of the environment. The results of this knowledge will manifest in such a way that it will put this world, and all of its misery, to shame.

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you taking one sentence out of an entire dialogue LadyShea? Where does he mention "an equation" in that sentence? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. You are still pulling sentences out of context and thinking this is a fair analysis.

Obviously, I can't speak for Shea but I believe she pulled that sentence out of context thinking it would be funny.

Granted, that's out of character for her in this thread so ... see what you did to LadyShea, peacegirl?!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, he proved, absolutely and positively, that man does not have free will, otherwise this new world could not come about because we could hurt people in spite of the changed conditions, but that is impossible since we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction. When striking a first blow gives us no satisfaction, we will be compelled, by our very nature, to move in a different direction for greater satisfaction.

Of course you can change your minds, not just about free will, but about anything. I think you are misinterpreting what he means by determinism. Determinism, the way it is defined, does not mean you are controlled in any way. It doesn't tell you what to do, or dictate how to think. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The only reason to believe in something is if you believe [or know] that it is true, otherwise you wouldn't believe in it. Actually, once the transition takes place, people won't have to understand why man's will is not free for these principles to work because these principles will already be a permanent condition of the environment. The results of this knowledge will manifest in such a way that it will put this world, and all of its misery, to shame.

You have contradicted yourself in the same post, I now understand why Lessans burned his books, he was intelligent enough to realize that his theories were rubish, A point that you, peacegirl, do not understand. In other posts you have stated that people must choose, "of their own free will" to join the new society of the 'Golden Age'. You do not understand the book or the ideas at all or you would not be trying to hawk this book, which you put together from the remains of your fathers work, work that he rejected. Your only interest in this book is as a meal ticket, because you believe that there must be a lot of suckers out there who will be dumb enough to buy it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lone Ranger, maybe you haven't been following this thread, but this one aspect of sight does not in any way contradict everything we know about the physiology of sight, the principles of optics, and especially the Theory of Relativity.

Ah, but it most-certainly does. Your unwillingness/inability to understand why -- factoring in your obvious and freely-admitted ignorance of the relevant science, and the fact that you've repeatedly demonstrated your unwillingness to actually learn the relevant science -- speaks volumes about you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you taking one sentence out of an entire dialogue LadyShea?

"I did it because I wanted to — because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.” ~Lessans page 57

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"I did it because I wanted to — because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.” ~Lessans page 57

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lone Ranger, maybe you haven't been following this thread...

See that, Lone Ranger? Pay attention! This is important stuff!

... but this one aspect of sight does not in any way contradict everything we know about the physiology of sight, the principles of optics, and especially the Theory of Relativity.

Says the woman who has already admitted that she understands nothing about the physiology of sight, the principle of optics, and the theory of relativity, and will not bother to educate herself about them.

Gee, peacegirl, if you don't understand anything about them, how do you know they're wrong?

Fortunately for her, peacegirl has me on Ignore, so she won't need to deal with the uncomfortable questions I keep asking that she has never answered because she is not able to do so.