A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't know you were a moderator. Why did you leave IIDB?

I came to despise moderation of discourse and realized that I can't embrace free speech yet support censorship. livius and vm were starting a forum and, despite dire warnings of doom, were going to make it moderation free. That's why I love

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't know you were a moderator. Why did you leave IIDB?

IIDB is clown shoes.

I think there should be a light touch. I'm neither a fan of no moderation or Nazi moderation.

Incidentally I have been permanently banned from IIDB 8 times over a four year period. There has never been a time I stopped posting there though. Much of the moderation is laughably OTT and I'm pretty sure they know it, and Jo seems to have some God complex or delusions of grandeur as do many of the mods (not all but many). There's definitely an air of being too big for their jack boots over there I don't like though. I think it started going down hill when they changed their name from IIDB to FRDB and Jo took her place as Der Fuhrer. That's when it stopped being anything to do with free thought, I think.

The first time I was banned was for arguing with the mods about the aptness of genocide as a topic of conversation and for claiming that Jews were a race this got right up someone's nose for some reason. The second time was for pretending to be Jesus and the other 6 times was for being a sock. The mods will probably tell you that its because I swore at them, but I only did that after they accused me of being a nut, for making jokes about Jesus. And I only told them to fuck off for being self righteous and stupid and it was by email. And it only happened after they perma banned me anyway. I was a good boy before those things happened with a 2 year track record and no warnings, it took one kneejerk prick to turn me into a monster.

I am still a member there. Which is why permanently banning people is kind of pointless. If you know how to avoid the mods you can't be banned from anywhere anyway, which makes me wonder why they bother. Especially with the amount people move around these days and or change ISP. I am actually blacklisted on an IP ban list. They paid money to have my IP blacklisted. I'm kinda flattered by that its usually saved for bots and spam merchants.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you really are judging him very harshly. You were not in his shoes, so I'm asking you and everyone else to stop making a joke out of this. He never sued anyone actually. I think I'm going to take this out of the book because it's being used against him.

I stated the facts, you are perceiving judgment. And yes, he filed a lawsuit in court, that would be "suing"

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, I remain baffled as to your lack of even anecdotal evidence that these principles work. Did you apply them in your own life? Did you raise your kids in a Consensual Living/Non-Coercive Parenting and unschooling environment (these closely parallel Lessans ideas and have been used by many families)? Are you married, divorced, or widowed? Did you apply the principles in your marriage?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I came to despise moderation of discourse and realized that I can't embrace free speech yet support censorship. livius and vm were starting a forum and, despite dire warnings of doom, were going to make it moderation free. That's why I love

I totally get it. I was cut off suddenly because of some moderator's opinion that there was nothing more to talk about. All that time and energy were wiped out without a real reason.

[peacegirl]

I agree with you. The problem here is that his observations were not obvious to the average person, but that does not disqualify them as being valid. The fact that I can't easily set up a tangible proof (but that doesn't mean it can't be done) shouldn't stop people from being open minded to the possibility that he could be right.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

if you personally can't do it and neither can anyone else even remotely fathom how to do it, then it can't be done.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Your saying it can be done without doing it is pointless. Prove it or don't and be told your pet theory is worthless. You may not like the way it works but that is the way it works.

It's not a pet theory Sidhe. Aren't you at all curious why he says man's will is not free? Don't you want to understand even the first thing about these principles? To say it's a pet theory is inaccurate. Epistemology does allow for observation and reason, which these principles are based on as a means of determining truth.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I prefer my philosophy with a touch more reality thanks. As far as I have read there may or may not be free will but it depends much on how you define free and will and few people can even agree to that.

This has much more than to do with a consensus of opinion. Opinion is the cause of bias and prejudice.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I think though if your father had really answered the age old question it would of got much more recognition, in fact it would of been a massive event that would of probably made the national news. With that in mind I would read it, but I really sincerely doubt I am going to be convinced by it given what has been said so far.

What age old question? He could care less about national news, believe me. That was not his goal.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Does it worry me that we might not have free will? Does it worry you?

No it doesn't. Does it bother you?

Originally Posted by Sidhe

As far as I am concerned the question is unanswerable and probably always will be, so I just proceed as if I am free because the illusion or not is good enough for me.

But free will is an illusion. Enjoy your illusion, but it's false.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Would I care if I was an automaton that simply plods on a preset predetermined course 'til the day I die, probably, but then I don't think I am ever going to be aware of this on any reasonable level so why worry.

Your response just shows me you are ignorant of this knowledge. You don't even understand that determinism does not equate with being a robot. Why don't you get up to speed, and then we can talk, ok?

[Sidhe]

[quote=peacegirl;966540][quote=peacegirl;966518]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

It's not a pet theory Sidhe. Aren't you at all curious why he says man's will is not free? Don't you want to understand even the first thing about these principles? To say it's a pet theory is inaccurate. Epistemology does allow for observation and reason, which these principles are based on as a means of determining truth.

This has much more than to do with a consensus of opinion. Opinion is the cause of bias and prejudice.

What age old question? He could care less about national news, believe me. That was not his goal.

No it doesn't. Does it bother you?

But free will is an illusion. Enjoy your illusion, but it's false.

Your response just shows me you are ignorant of this knowledge that I am presenting. Why don't you get up to speed, and then we can talk, ok?

Yeah but even when people read the whole thing you accuse them of being ignorant. You might want to work on your sales technique. Being damned if you do and damned if you don't isn't likely to encourage anyone to read it. I've read some of it but its a big book and someone only pmed me a few hundred pages.

I only have your word for everything. Your word and your fathers is not good enough for me or science.

It would be far more credible if it made the national news is what I meant, the fact it didn't means that it is probably not credible, if people answer questions that have been asked since the first man walked the Earth it tends to be a big deal. I'm not saying that absolutely makes it wrong but it doesn't give me much hope its right.

I'm afraid both philosophy and Science rely on consensus of opinion. The only thing philosophers have a problem with is when people say consensus reflects truthiness broadly. The more people believe in evolution and its 100% the more credible it is in science, you can't get away from that nor would I want anyone to.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, I remain baffled as to your lack of even anecdotal evidence that these principles work. Did you apply them in your own life? Did you raise your kids in a Consensual Living/Non-Coercive Parenting and unschooling environment (these closely parallel Lessans ideas and have been used by many families)? Are you married, divorced, or widowed? Did you apply the principles in your marriage?

OMG, is this what this thread has come to, that you are now judging me by my own life in the world of free will? You can't do that LadyShea, which just shows me how ignorant you really are, yet you act like you are the goddess of science. Just sayin. I say it like I see it. Sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Yeah but even when people read the whole thing you accuse them of being ignorant. You might want to work on your sales technique.

This is not a sales job.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I only have your word for everything. Your word and your fathers is not good enough for me or science.

Bull shit!!! If his word is not enough for you, move on Sidhe. I don't want to put you through anymore trauma.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a sales job.

Bull shit!!! If his word is not enough for you, move on Sidhe. I don't want to put you through anymore trauma.

Of course its not, people don't change their opinion because someone tells them something that rewrites the whole of human endeavour in philosophy and science. Not unless they are gullible fools or religious. I am neither.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your response just shows me you are ignorant of this knowledge that I am presenting. Why don't you get up to speed, and then we can talk, ok?

Did you read The Lone Ranger's essay yet to get up to speed on how light works and how we see, knowledge that completely contradicts and invalidates your idiot father's ravings?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

OMG, is this what this thread has come to, that you are now judging me by my own life in the world of free will? You can't do that LadyShea, which just shows me how ignorant you really are, yet you act like you are the goddess of science. Just sayin. I say it like I see it. Sorry.

Who is judging? I am asking a question. Surely these principles can be applied in individual families and marriages to demonstrate that people can live without laying blame on each other? Surely you could make your own home a non-free will environment? Surely you could have raised your kids without the hurtful words being introduced in your home? People unschool and follow non-coercive parenting. Couples set the terms of their relationship and their agreement could include pretty much everything Lessans envisioned.

Why is it the whole world or nothing?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a sales job.

Bull shit!!! If his word is not enough for you, move on Sidhe. I don't want to put you through anymore trauma.

Argument from authority DOES NOT validate any idea, and is a very poor sales technique. Most when confronted with authority argue against it, and those who use authority as a basis for an argument, usually have nothing else, and are often wrong. Most winning arguments have sound reasoning or convincing evidence to back it up, Lessans had neither, and does not have a valid argument.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why is it the whole world or nothing?

[Sidhe]

oops nm.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I came to despise moderation of discourse and realized that I can't embrace free speech yet support censorship. livius and vm were starting a forum and, despite dire warnings of doom, were going to make it moderation free. That's why I love

I'm so in agreement with you I can't even tell you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I prefer my philosophy with a touch more reality thanks. As far as I have read there may or may not be free will but it depends much on how you define free and will and few people can even agree to that.

I think though if your father had really answered the age old question it would of got much more recognition, in fact it would of been a massive event that would of probably made the national news. With that in mind I would read it, but I really sincerely doubt I am going to be convinced by it given what has been said so far.

Does it worry me that we might not have free will? Does it worry you?

As far as I am concerned the question is unanswerable and probably always will be, so I just proceed as if I am free because the illusion or not is good enough for me. Would I care if I was an automaton that simply plods on a preset predetermined course 'til the day I die, probably, but then I don't think I am ever going to be aware of this on any reasonable level so why worry.

This has nothing to do with being an automatom, and if you read the book you would have known that. Then you would have not been threatened by this knowledge, and maybe you would have paid more attention. What can I say? I hope you let go of some of your preconceived ideas and finally give him a chance to share his knowledge. Otherwise, this is futile.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with being an automatom, and if you read the book you would have known that. Then you would have not been threatened by this knowledge, and maybe you would have paid more attention. What can I say? I hope you let go of some of your preconceived ideas and finally give him a chance to share his knowledge. Otherwise, this is futile.

I don't understand what you mean by that since having no free will would indeed make us nothing but slaves to our nature or automatons who are puppets to internal or external agency. If you are defining free will as something else then say so otherwise I will go with a conventional definition.

The question of free will hinges mostly on three things

• Moral agency (usually in compatibilism not absolutely necessary in libertarian free will, if I cannot chose how I act then how can I be responsible for it, issues of coersion, also issues of Gods foresight etc)
  
• Determinism and predeterminism (is the future determined by the past and issues of fate related to moral agency by the issue it has with randomness, if my actions are random how can they be moral)
  
• In libertarian free will all that is required usually is that I could of acted differently if time were rerun with a soupcon of concern for randomness.

If you aren't talking about these issues please explain what you mean by free will.

I don't feel threatened by no free will, why would I?

"The illusion of free will is so complete that it might as well exist."

I think is a quote that I agree with.

I am a free will nihilist. Ie I've always believed its pretty much impossible to prove especially libertarian free will, which I think makes the most sense to me personally, and compatibilism seems to be sullied with talk about God a lot so I tend to dislike that on the principle that when people talk about God reason goes out of the window. Not that it's exclusive to God botherers by any means.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

IIDB is clown shoes.

I think there should be a light touch. I'm neither a fan of no moderation or Nazi moderation.

Incidentally I have been permanently banned from IIDB 8 times over a four year period. There has never been a time I stopped posting there though. Much of the moderation is laughably OTT and I'm pretty sure they know it, and Jo seems to have some God complex or delusions of grandeur as do many of the mods (not all but many). There's definitely an air of being too big for their jack boots over there I don't like though. I think it started going down hill when they changed their name from IIDB to FRDB and Jo took her place as Der Fuhrer. That's when it stopped being anything to do with free thought, I think.

The first time I was banned was for arguing with the mods about the aptness of genocide as a topic of conversation and for claiming that Jews were a race this got right up someone's nose for some reason. The second time was for pretending to be Jesus and the other 6 times was for being a sock. The mods will probably tell you that its because I swore at them, but I only did that after they accused me of being a nut, for making jokes about Jesus. And I only told them to fuck off for being self righteous and stupid and it was by email. And it only happened after they perma banned me anyway. I was a good boy before those things happened with a 2 year track record and no warnings, it took one kneejerk prick to turn me into a monster.

I am still a member there. Which is why permanently banning people is kind of pointless. If you know how to avoid the mods you can't be banned from anywhere anyway, which makes me wonder why they bother. Especially with the amount people move around these days and or change ISP. I am actually blacklisted on an IP ban list. They paid money to have my IP blacklisted. I'm kinda flattered by that its usually saved for bots and spam merchants.

I totally empathize with you Sidhe. You are no more of a monster than I am. I wasn't banned from FRDB, but my thread was suddenly closed because of one moderator's decision, so I do understand your frustration. I'm glad this place doesn't ban people for no good reason.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I totally empathize with you Sidhe. You are no more of a monster than I am. I wasn't banned from FRDB, but my thread was suddenly closed because of one moderator's decision, so I do understand your frustration. I'm glad this place doesn't ban people for no good reason.

I am definitely not a fan of closing threads unless they are just flame wars or spam fests with no substance and that is very, very, very rare. Even then people are quite capable of self censorship if a thread is not there cup of tea.

"I do not agree with your ideas but I will fight to the death for your right to express them."

Voltaire. Not an exact quote but can't be bothered to look up the exact quote.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, I remain baffled as to your lack of even anecdotal evidence that these principles work. Did you apply them in your own life? Did you raise your kids in a Consensual Living/Non-Coercive Parenting and unschooling environment (these closely parallel Lessans ideas and have been used by many families)? Are you married, divorced, or widowed? Did you apply the principles in your marriage?

LadyShea, there is no way these principles can be applied in an environment that blames and punishes. That being said, I have used these principles in my life, and they do work up to a point. Remember, it takes two to tango, so if I'm the only one aware of these principles, there is no way they will work in the same way that they will work once they are understood by our leading scientists and applied on a global scale.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I am definitely not a fan of closing threads unless they are just flame wars or spam fests with no substance and that is very, very, very rare. Even then people are quite capable of self censorship if a thread is not there cup of tea.

"I do not agree with your ideas but I will fight to the death for your right to express them."

Voltaire. Not an exact quote but can't be bothered to look up the exact quote.

Free speech is at a premium.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, there is no way these principles can be applied in an environment that blames and punishes. That being said, I have used these principles in my life, and they do work up to a point. Remember, it takes two to tango, so if I'm the only one aware of these principles, there is no way they will work in the same way that they will work once they are understood by our leading scientists and applied on a global scale.

LOL, so that means you chose not to make your kids aware of the principles and what, your husband rejected them or something? This sounds like an excuse to me, because there is no reason you couldn't apply these within your own family household and raised your kids in a close approximation to the New World in multiple ways.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I stated the facts, you are perceiving judgment. And yes, he filed a lawsuit in court, that would be "suing"

The only fact you are counting on is that he didn't begin with a hypothesis. You are so sure he's wrong, you can't see beyond this. As far as suing, yes he registered this in court, but he never would have followed through. He did this to try to bring attention to his discovery, and for no other reason. You would know this if you read the book. Maybe he didn't make the best choice, but it wasn't what you are all making it out to be either.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Free speech is at a premium.

Of course but then it doesn't or hasn't ever existed so it would be. You are not free to say anything you want usually anywhere, even on the net although the distinction becomes somewhat arbitrary if you accept the web and the real world are the same thing. Something I often find hard to justify given the way the web seems to work.