A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Fair enough, peacegirl. Would you please list any and all observations that led Lessans to conclude that the human will is not free? Seems like as good a place to start as any, yes?

That sounds reasonable. The only way I can explain his observations is to first post certain excerpts since there's no other way of getting his points across. Whether or not people will understand the reasoning behind his observations is undetermined (which only means I have no idea at this point who will understand and who won't). I certainly hope everyone carefully considers what he's saying before accusing him of being wrong.

[LadyShea]

Actually, the purpose of this thread is to share a discovery, not to hear everybody's ideas on free will versus determinism

This is a discussion forum where people come to share all of their ideas. If you want to pontificate rather than discuss, you need your own website or blog.

Really blogs are totally free, peacegirl. Go start one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is a discussion forum where people come to share all of their ideas. If you want to pontificate rather than discuss, you need your own website or blog.

Really blogs are totally free, peacegirl. Go start one.

That's my next step.

[LadyShea]

Then go do it.

WordPress.com — Get a Free Blog Here
Blogger: Create your free Blog

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, the purpose of this thread is to share a discovery, not to hear everybody's ideas on free will versus determinism. There are already a lot of threads that discuss this issue, so you may want to go to one of them.

Sorry, you don't get to dictate who participates or what is said.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That sounds reasonable.

Thankee much.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only way I can explain his observations is to first post certain excerpts since there's no other way of getting his points across.

Explaining the observations is a necessary step in the process, but I don't think we're there yet. I suggest starting with a simple list of the observations. If there's any misunderstanding with regard to what the observations actually were, those misunderstandings can be cleared up at the outset. Once we're all on the same page as to exactly what Lessans observed, a discussion of explanations would likely be more fruitful.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That sounds reasonable. The only way I can explain his observations is to first post certain excerpts since there's no other way of getting his points across. Whether or not people will understand the reasoning behind his observations is undetermined (which only means I have no idea at this point who will understand and who won't). I certainly hope everyone carefully considers what he's saying before accusing him of being wrong.

No.

Don't post excerpts, and don't post "explanations."


What. Were. The. "Observations." ?


That is the starting point.

Before there can be any honest or meaningful discussion of what his so-called "observations" mean, we must know what they were.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wow, I totally called your continued weasling.

I made pretty simple statements and asked a pretty simple question. Either respond to them, refute them, or ignore them, but please no more blather about understanding Lessans or butthurt about "wanting to see it" and astuteness and all that.

YOU make yourself understood. YOU make a case for Lessans brand of determinism

We are talking about our own thoughts on the topic, and they are very interesting to me. How about you listen for a change? How about you discuss these other ideas and compare and contrast to Lessans and show where he got it right and others have it wrong?

Quit being so arrogant

Fair enough. And I'm not being arrogant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No.

Don't post excerpts, and don't post "explanations."


What. Were. The. "Observations." ?


That is the starting point.

Before there can be any honest or meaningful discussion of what his so-called "observations" mean, we must know what they were.

The reason this discussion failed the first time is because I did not go in a step by step fashion. You asked me what were the observations, and that's what I'm trying to share with you if you will give me half a chance.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, the purpose of this thread is to share a discovery, not to hear everybody's ideas on free will versus determinism.

That is only your purpose, other than being rude and disrespectiful to everyone, good start, same old peacegirl. As has been stated others who wish to contribute may do so as they see fit. Here we are on page 4 and you have still not explained or detailed any of Lessans ideas or observations, nothing yet that could be qualified as a discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Thankee much.

Explaining the observations is a necessary step in the process, but I don't think we're there yet. I suggest starting with a simple list of the observations. If there's any misunderstanding with regard to what the observations actually were, those misunderstandings can be cleared up at the outset. Once we're all on the same page as to exactly what Lessans observed, a discussion of explanations would likely be more fruitful.

I have tried to make a simple list, but it gets more confusing as so much is left out. So I'm going to post a few excerpts to start, and see how that goes. It's unfortunate that the book is not online so everyone could read it at their own pace. But there's no point looking back.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason this discussion failed the first time is because I did not go in a step by step fashion. You asked me what were the observations, and that's what I'm trying to share with you if you will give me half a chance.

The reason it failed the first time is because you spent nearly 600 pages defending something that was repeatedly shown to be false.

Falsity has a way of making things not work out the way you want them to.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason this discussion failed the first time is because I did not go in a step by step fashion. You asked me what were the observations, and that's what I'm trying to share with you if you will give me half a chance.

Then share the damned observations.

People asked you to do that for over 500 pages, with no results.


Don't post excerpts and don't try to "explain" them.


Just list them.

Then we'll have something from which a useful discussion might evolve.

[The Lone Ranger]

It's very simple, by the way. To evaluate the logic and validity of a claim, it's first necessary to evaluate the premises upon which it is built.


So let's see them.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You asked me what were the observations, and that's what I'm trying to share with you if you will give me half a chance.

Just how much does it take to type in a post of a few of these alledged observations, or are you so obsessed with the thread that you can't tear yourself away long enough to do that. I could understand if you were taking your time to make them up so they sound possible, and if that's the case go ahead, the better you do the easier it will be to take them apart.

[peacegirl]

I want to impress on everyone what Lessans went through. It's important to really get the background of how this came about, not just his observations, so I hope you will all bear with me. This is the last time I will be posting this online, so appreciate that I'm doing this, don't disparage me for it.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 21-25

Long ago man formed a theory that the earth was flat
because he could not conceive of it as a ball suspended in
space. It became a dogma, such a fixed idea that when the
first astronomer, in attempting to explain the reason why
darkness came over the sun in the middle of the day, was denied an
opportunity to present his findings because his discovery called into
question this sacred belief. Let us imagine the first astronomer being
granted an interview by the leading authorities of his time to explain
the cause of a solar eclipse.

“Dear gentlemen, I have come to you to explain my findings about
the shape of the earth. In order for you to understand the cause of
the darkness coming over the sun, it is first necessary to understand
that the earth is not flat.”

“What’s that? Did we hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell
us that the earth is round which means it is floating in space?”

“That is true, and my discovery lies locked behind the door
marked the earth is round.”

“This is absurd! Who are you to come in here and tell us that we
are wrong? We are not interested in your theory because we say the
earth is flat [and since we are wiser than you, more learned than you,
more educated than you, you must be wrong], so why discuss this
matter further. Besides, our chief medicine man chanted the
incantation that caused the darkness to vanish. Thank you very much
for coming out to give us your explanation but we are not interested
in discussing this matter further because we know, beyond a shadow
of doubt, that the earth is flat.”

This is the second half of the primary problem. The fact that a
theory such as the belief that the earth is flat can hermetically seal
knowledge that prevents our discovering the invariable laws of the
solar system which, in turn, prevents the knowledge necessary to land
men on the moon. Children were taught this by their parents who
had received this knowledge from their parents who were instructed by
the medicine man who was considered the wisest man of his time.
Since there was no way the knowledge of the medicine man could be
proven false because no one knew any different, and since he was
considered the wisest man of his time, his conclusion that the earth
was flat brooked no opposition. Consequently, when those who were
judged inferior in wisdom or knowledge disagreed with the medicine
man, they were rejected. When an upstart scientist came along who
concluded that the earth was round after making certain observations,
how was it possible to get others to agree with him when they couldn’t
follow his reasoning which compelled them to compare him, not his
knowledge, to the medicine man, to the professors and teachers whose
wisdom and knowledge could not be impugned. To help you see how
easy it is for a dogmatic theory to prevent scientific investigation let
us once again return, in imagination, to the time when man knew
nothing about the solar system, and listen to a conversation.

“Say, Joshua; do you believe the earth is flat or do you go along
with my theory that it is round?”

“Even though most of mankind agrees that it is flat, what
difference does it really make what I think?” said our philosophical
friend. “The shape of the earth is certainly not going to be affected or
changed no matter what my opinion is, right?”
“That is true enough, but if the earth is really round isn’t it
obvious that just as long as we think otherwise we are prevented from
discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their
discovery, consequently, it does make a difference. How much so we
are not in the position to know just yet but thousands of years hence,
perhaps in the twentieth century, there may be all kinds of scientific
achievements attributed directly to knowing the true shape of the
earth, such as landing men on the moon which may never be possible
without first knowing the true shape of the earth.”

You may look back and smile at the unconscious ignorance of our
ancestors but pay close attention to what happened to me as I draw up
a perfect comparison with which you can identify. Because my
discovery was purely scientific, my attention was drawn to an article
by Eric Johnson, now deceased, who was once among other things the
President of the Motion Pictures Association. It appeared in the
November 6, 1960 issue of This Week Magazine of The Baltimore
Sun.

“If there is one word which characterizes our world in this exciting
last half of the twentieth century, the word is change. Change in
political life; change in economic life; change in social life; change in
personal life; change in the hallmark of our times. It’s not gradual,
comfortable change. It is sudden; rapid; often violent. It touches and
often disrupts whole cultures and hundreds of millions of people.
Behind it all lies an explosive growth in scientific knowledge and
accomplishment. Some 90% of all the scientists who ever lived are
living today, and the total accumulation of scientific knowledge is
doubling every ten years. But this is reality. If we remember that,
then we will never flinch at change. We will adjust to it, welcome it,
meet it as a friend, and know it is God’s will.”

Since my discovery would bring about the greatest change in all
of history, it appeared that this man would be willing to let me explain
my findings. By convincing him on the phone that it was now
possible to put a permanent end to all war as a result of my discovery,
he agreed to meet me on a Sunday afternoon in Washington, D.C.
Our conversation went as follows:

“I’m really not a scientist, Mr. Lessans, and in all probability you
should be talking to someone else. Your claims are absolutely
fantastic, but I want you to know that even though I wrote an article
about science, I am not a scientist. Besides, after you hung up I
became more skeptical of claims such as yours because they not only
sound impossible but somewhat ridiculous in view of man’s nature.
Frankly, I don’t believe your claims are possible, but I am willing to
listen if it doesn’t take too long and if I can see some truth to your
explanation; I do have another engagement but I can devote at least
one hour. Would you get right on with it?” I then told him the story
about the earth being flat and he smiled at this, and then told him
that a theory exists regarding man’s nature that is accepted as true by
98% of mankind, and I pointed out that this theory is actually
preventing the decline and fall of all evil because it has closed a door
to a vast storehouse of genuine knowledge.

“I will be as brief as possible, Mr. Johnson, but in order for me to
reveal my discovery it is absolutely necessary that I first show you its
hiding place because they are related to each other.”

“What is this theory?” he asked.

“You see, Mr. Johnson, most people believe consciously or
unconsciously that man’s will is free.”

“What’s that? Did I hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell me
that man’s will is not free?”

“That is absolutely right, Mr. Johnson. I don’t believe it; I know
this for a mathematical fact. My discovery lies locked behind the door
marked Man’s Will is Not Free, just like the invariable laws of the
solar system were concealed behind the door marked The Earth is
Round — until some upstart scientist opened it for a thorough
investigation.”

“I have always believed it to be free, but what difference does it
make what I think; the will of man is certainly not going to be
affected by my opinion, right?”

“That part is true enough (do you recall the comparison), but if
the will of man is definitely not free isn’t it obvious that just as long
as we think otherwise we will be prevented from discovering those
things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery,
consequently, it does make a difference. The opinion of our ancestors
that the earth was flat could never change its actual shape, but just as
long as the door marked “The Earth Is Round” was never opened
thoroughly for an investigation by scientists capable of perceiving the
undeniable but involved relations hidden there, how were we ever to
discover the laws that allow us now to land men on the moon?”
“Your door was opened many times through the years by some of
the most profound thinkers and never did they come up with any
discoveries to change the world.”

“It is true that determinism was investigated by people who were
presumed profound thinkers, but in spite of their profoundness none
of them had the capacity to perceive the law that was hidden there.
Most people do not even know it is a theory since it is preached by
religion, government, even education as if it is an absolute fact.”

“Mr. Lessans, I don’t know what it is you think you have
discovered but whatever it is, as far as I personally am concerned, it
cannot be valid because I am convinced that man’s will is free. Thank
you very much for coming out but I’m not interested in discussing
this matter any further.” And he would not let me continue.

Now stop to think about this for one moment. A discovery has
been made that will go down in history as that which will change the
entire world of human relations for the better, yet because it
challenges a theory which is held by many world religions, there is a
hostile reaction when it is questioned. This is a perfect example of
how this preemptive authority of false knowledge which is passed along
from generation to generation by theology, by government, and by
various other sources does not even allow a person to open his mind
to hear the explanation.

The theologians I contacted, though they
admit they pray to God for deliverance from evil also believe it is
impossible for man to accomplish this apparent miracle. In a sense
they are right because the law that was discovered is equivalent to the
law that inheres in the solar system, over which we have no control.
Any system of established dogma, religious or otherwise, which
shackles man’s mind and prevents scientific investigation needs to be
discarded, so that the truth can be uncovered. This is much easier
said than done because the knowledge of what it means that man’s will
is not free was buried deeper than atomic energy, and presents
problems that are almost insurmountable. Convincing a few people
of this truth is one thing; convincing the entire world is something
else. Supposing the very people whose understanding it is necessary
to reach refuse to examine the facts on the grounds that the discovery
could not be valid because it starts out with the premise that man’s
will is not free.

To show you how confused are those who have been
guiding us, a rabbi was told that the author of the book “Decline and
Fall of All Evil” has the permanent solution to every problem of
human relation, and he replied, “How do we know that God wants us
to remove all evil?” Now you tell me, if he is doubtful of this why do
all theologians ask God in the Lord’s Prayer to deliver us from evil?
Another rabbi criticized me for not attending the synagogue to which
I replied, “Isn’t the reason you go to the Temple due to your faith in
God, your belief that one day He will reveal Himself to all mankind?”

“That is true,” he answered. “Well you see, Rabbi, the reason I don’t
go to the synagogue is because I know for a fact that God is real. I
don’t have faith or believe this; I know that 2+2=4; I don’t have
faith or believe that this is true.” Still hoping that I could convince
a member of the clergy to hear what I had to say, I phoned a Catholic
priest for an appointment and our conversation went as follows:

“What do you want to see me about?”

“Father, when you utter the words of the Lord’s Prayer I take for
granted that you are sincere and would like to see us delivered from
evil, isn’t that true?”

“Certainly, what kind of question is that?”

“Well the reason I had to ask is because I have just made a
scientific discovery that will bring about the actual fulfillment of this
prayer, this deliverance from evil.”
“What’s that you say? Deliver mankind from evil? Absolutely
impossible, it cannot be done.”

“But how can you know without first finding out what it is I have
discovered? Isn’t this your fervent wish, that God perform such a
miracle?”

“It is.”

“Well then, why don’t you let me come out and show you exactly
how all evil must decline and fall as a direct consequence?”

“It’s impossible, that’s why I’m not interested. The only time
such a world will become a reality is on Judgment Day.”

“But that’s just the point; this Judgment Day when interpreted
properly has actually arrived because it conforms to the basic
principle.”

“This still doesn’t convince me that I should devote my precious
time to what sounds ridiculous.”

“Sounds can be deceiving, Father. Who believed the first
astronomer when he predicted an eclipse or Einstein when he revealed
the potential of atomic energy? If I told you without adequate proof
that this discovery will bring about the inception of the Golden Age,
your skepticism would not be an unwarranted reaction, but the actual
proof is explicit and undeniable. It is only natural for you to be
skeptical, Father, but this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the
possibility of a scientific miracle.”

“I’m afraid that I will have to end this conversation. My advice is
to take what you have to one of the secular universities. I’m sorry I
couldn’t be more helpful but thanks for calling anyway.”

Later on, I tried to engage a pastor in a discussion about free will
and he responded to me by asking, “If man’s will is not free, then you
can’t blame or punish anything he does, is that correct?” And when
I answered, “Right,” he actually got up and walked out of the room.
You see, this learned ignorance presents quite a problem, and only by
getting the world to understand what it means that man’s will is not
free can I hope to break through this barrier. This law of our nature
is not a premise, not an assumption, not a theory, but when 98% of
the world believes otherwise, they might just close the windows of their
mind to any scientific investigation which requires rejecting a theory
that has dogmatically controlled man’s thinking since time
immemorial. How is it possible to explain the solution when nobody
wishes to listen because they think they know there isn’t any? Where
is there one iota of difference between this attitude and that of our
ancestors regarding the shape of the earth?

To show how confused is
the thinking of the average person who is not accustomed to
perceiving mathematical relations of this nature, when I told someone
that his answer was incorrect, he replied with a tone of resentment,
“That’s your opinion, but I believe it is possible,” as if the answer
could be one or the other. The earth cannot be round and flat, it has
to be one or the other and your opinion can never change what is.
Remember, I am going to bring about an unprecedented change in
human conduct, but I can only do this if you understand what I am
about to reveal. If you can’t follow my reasoning as to why the earth
is round, you will be compelled to believe that it is flat for it gives you
satisfaction not to be wrong. In other words, if I were going to offer
an opinion as to why man’s will is not free, then your educational
rank, your scholarly background could assert itself as a condition more
valid to deny my claim, but when I declare that I am not going to
reveal a theory but will give a scientific, undeniable, demonstration,
then regardless of who you are you must wait to see the proof before
rejecting the claim. Therefore, it is imperative that you know well in
advance that my reasoning will be completely mathematical, scientific
and undeniable; so if you find yourself in disagreement you had better
reread that which you disagree, otherwise, your stubborn resistance,
your inability to perceive these relations will only delay the very life
you want for yourself.

Many philosophers consider the discussion of
whether man’s will is or is not free equivalent to the discussion as to
what came first — the chicken or the egg. To them, what difference
does it really make? But if this knowledge can put an end to all war,
crime, and evil in general, it makes a very big difference and it is
imperative that the world listen so that this evil in our lives can come
to a permanent end.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only way I can explain his observations is to first post certain excerpts since there's no other way of getting his points across.

Are you saying it would be impossible to translate Lessans' observations into another language? German, say, or Japanese?

If it is possible to translate them into other languages, then all we're asking is that you translate them into simple English - as if you were trying to get the message over to a child.

If a new world order is to be built as a result of the ideas in the book, then it will presumably be useful to have a child-friendly version of the book, so your efforts won't have been wasted.

But as Stephen Maturin said, a simple list of the observations would be a better place to start.

If it were the gospels of the bible, the list would include items like:

• Birth of Jesus
• Return of young Jesus to Nazareth
• Ministry of John the Baptist
• First disciples of Jesus
• Beatitudes

Could you do something similar for this book? And then we could discuss each of the observations in turn, in greater detail.

[davidm]

Holy, shit, it's wrong from the first paragraph.

The ancient Greeks knew that the earth was round! They even measured the diameter of the earth to within a breathtaking degree of accuracy.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's unfortunate that the book is not online so everyone could read it at their own pace.

It is still on some computers as a PDF, but the last thing you want is for people to have access to the whole book now. I should ask my son-in-law to help, I'm sure there is a way to reformat my copy of the PDF and post it somewhere.

[LadyShea]

She doesn't know what observation means to the rest of us

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Holy, shit, it's wrong from the first paragraph.

Davidm, I was under the impression that you had read the bulk of the book online, and in that light wanted to know which parts you thought were the most silly. We could start a poll but the book would need to be avalable somehow.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She doesn't know what observation means to the rest of us

Evidently not.

peacegirl, you're making a very poor showing of it, right off the bat.

Either you don't understand what people are asking for, or you're ignoring their very useful and important advice.


ETA: Eratosthenes measured the Earth's circumference in 230 B.C.E.

[LadyShea]

As was pointed out to you before (sorry I forgot by whom)

An apple falls to the ground <---observation

Gravity causes apples to fall to the ground <---explanation

We don't want explanations right now, we want observations.

[ceptimus]

The book only says, 'Long ago ...' and 'the first astronomer ...' Presumably this was a long time before the Ancient Greeks, so that part isn't necessarily wrong.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Davidm, I was under the impression that you had read the bulk of the book online, and in that light wanted to know which parts you thought were the most silly. We could start a poll but the book would need to be avalable somehow.

Yes, it is full of hilarious stuff, just quick rundown:

1. To wake a child is to blame it for sleeping.

2. People will have sex on the dinner table (but only if the children are not around; yet it's not explained why the children need to leave. Isnt' that blaming them for wanting to watch?)

3. People will prance about scantily clad and fall in love with the genitals of the first person they meet without even a conversation. They will mate for live/ Divorce will be mathematically impossible. BUT!

4. It will be a mathematical impossibility for people to share the same bed. Bed will only be for teh quck and dirty, and then separate beds.

5. Vaccinations are wrong.

6. Anyone can be a doctor! Just hang out a shingle

7. No one will call Seymour a moron anymore, because in the New World such judgemental terms will not exist.

That's just seven off the top of my head that cracked me up.