Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1301  
Old 04-05-2011, 03:03 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Later, this is revisited and stated as follows:

Quote:
Quote:
All decisions must be meant to lead to the choice that yields the most satisfaction. However, the only measure of what it was that led to the most satisfaction is the fact that the person chose it – so really he is only re-stating the same proof that was there before: what was chosen had to be chosen because it was chosen.
No, you are doing the same thing davidm did. This is not a tautology and until you see why it isn't, you will keep calling it circular reasoning, which it is not.
Simply saying "no it isn't" is not a good way to convince anyone.

Quote:
Quote:
So far we have a wordy and prosy exposition of determinism – but what follows is a great leap that is not warranted or supported by anything. What is causing all harmful intent is blame, because blame leads to justification. Blame does not allow us to say “I hurt that person because I felt like it” and instead makes us invent a justification for harming without provocation – a “first blow”. All harm that is not justified is retaliation, a reaction to a first blow.
He didn't say what is causing all harmful intent is blame although knowing that one would be blamed for his wrong actions is one of the justifications he can use in order to act on his desires. We see this all the time. The minute the authorities question a person, they come up with a million excuses. These excuses are meant to shift one's responsibility to some other extraneous cause. We are able to justify hurting others with a first blow because of the knowledge that if we are caught, we will get punished. This eases our conscience.
This still means that all first blows occur because of justification, and that all justification is somehow made possible because of blame. There is nothing there to support this assertion.

Quote:
People retaliate against any harm done to them, which is a natural reaction, so the only way we can prevent this retaliation in response to being hurt, is to prevent the first blow in the first place. That's the point of this entire book. If a person isn't being hurt in any way, is there a need to retaliate? The definition of retaliation is striking back at someone because of a perceived or real hurt.
Thus - blame allows justification, which is what allows people to hurt others. Again there is nothing to support the assertion. It is not shown why it is necessary that without blame, we do not justify.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
So if we removed blame, then there would be no justification, so no-one would want to have harmful intents – the first blows are eliminated. If we consider will not free, then retaliation becomes useless as well.
I will repeat: The only time a person retaliates is if he believes he was hurt and he wants to strike back.
And I repeat - blame is posited as the sole cause of justification and therefor of harmful intent. Based on nothing but an assertion.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
There is a flaw here that Lessans seems unaware of. Blame, as well as justification (or rather, rationalization) happen after the fact. Someone who is trying to rationalize having done something harmful did not rationalize before acting, but does so after the fact. It is not part of the decision-making process. What is a part of the decision making process is a desire to do something and a weighing of the results. How far we look into the possible range of results could be taken as a measure of how careful we are about that decision. When a driver gets into a car while drunk, he does so because he wants to go home in his car, and not spend money on a taxi and waste time in the morning. He does so because probably, no accident will happen, even though he has increased the likelihood of one. He is already aware of this, and he is already aware that he is doing so because he wants to. He already knows there is no valid justification for doing it – yet he does so anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
This is not the result of blame. This is the result of someone prioritizing their own comfort over an increased likelihood of harm. It is not justified, as a drunk driver knows perfectly well that they are increasing the risk of accidents.
In the Golden Age, the mere thought of killing someone will be a thousand times worse, therefore people will want to follow all the do's and don'ts of safe driving. Put yourself in this position. Would you want to live with the consequences of your carelessness if you took someone's life knowing you were responsible? If someone should kill another because of negligence, he would want to be punished because this eases his conscience. At least he could pay a price for what he did. But when he knows there is no price that can be paid since no no one is blaming him --- because the world knows he couldn't help himself --- when he knows before he gets into the car that he could help himself, he will be compelled to be extremely careful before getting into the kind of situation that would haunt him for the rest of his life. This prevents the accident. He could not move in this direction for satisfaction, which is why will is not free. If will was free he could do this anyway, take his chances, and if he hurt someone in the process, he could rationalize it away. But a person is not able to rationalize his behavior when he is not being blamed
.

This, once more, is unsupported assertion. There is no difference between what we have now and what you advocate - it is not because of blame that we justify. It is because of a conflict between our interest and that of another.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Not only is increased awareness of consequences not necessary as a result of Lessans ideas, there is also a limit to what we can predict. Our actions may have unforeseen consequences, and what we can predict is limited by what we know – and while we may or may not live in a deterministic universe, we certainly do not live in a determined universe. Lessans does not account for this, and implicitly treats all consequences as predictable. They are not – there are simply too many factors for us to envision all of them when we make decisions.
Why did you say that not only is increased awareness of consequences not necessary as a result of Lessans ideas? It is true that there are unforeseen factors that won't allow us to make safe choices. And if something happens that we were unaware of, who is blaming us? The fact is that before we do something that we know present risks, we will try to learn what the possible risks are so we can prevent them. We know, for example, that one increases the risks of injuring or killing someone when he drinks and drives. If he doesn't want to heed these warnings, and he kills someone, he will have to live with the consequences of his behavior, because there will be no way to rid himself of this feeling of remorse. But this is hypothetical because it's the knowledge that he won't be blamed no matter what he does that prevents his desire to take any chances.
You have produced nothing but Lessans say-so that blame is what allows us to justify doing harmful things. I say that it is not so - so now you have just as much evidence for believing it as for disbelieving it.

Again - unsupported assertion, backed up by no evidence.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
All of chapter 3 is restating the claim that the removal of blame would also mean the removal of all carelessness - no new evidence for this is presented, however.
Yes there is. Waving your arms as if he has nothing shows me your intent to prove him wrong. I have gone over these principles for over 50 years; you for one day. I can easily see your confusion even though I know you're trying
.

I didn't see any new stuff in there, just a practical application of what was already covered.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Lessans fancies himself an old-school philosopher. He loves Spinoza for a reason – Spinoza was a system-builder. He, like Lessans, started with a single principle, and then attempted to expand that principle to cover all possible knowledge. There were merits to Spinoza’s thinking but his system was not the answer he thought it was.

The same is true of Lessans – although he is no Spinoza. Parts of his thinking have something to it, but he tries to extend his ideas to some sort of all-encompassing truth that simply is not there. There is no reason to assume that all harmful intent is caused by the ability to justify your actions. While we could say that all life moves from A to B because they always follow the path of maximum satisfaction, we cannot say that we have analysed and identified all sources of satisfaction and can now predict how they will move.
No we can't, but we can remove the justification that would give someone the satisfaction necessary to choose hurting someone as a possible option
.

Again - assertion, without any backup. We have not shown that removing blame will remove justification.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
If you need an example of how the point is stretched, look at chapter 5. Love and sex are practically made synonymous, and there is a further assertion that one cannot fall in love with someone that would never allow you to kiss or touch her or him, or with someone who cannot give or receive sexual gratification. This is stated simply as a fact with nothing to back it up.
The confusion in this chapter alarms me. You are going way ahead of yourself. Until you understand Chapter Two (which you only partially understand and that can get you into major trouble), I cannot jump to Chapter Five.
Again you blame the reader, not the material.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Also, it is assumed that you can make a decision to marry someone very early on, and then predict with absolute certainty how they are going to develop. Lessans world seems to be filling up with easily predictable drones at this stage. There is no possibility for people to meet young, fall madly in love, marry, develop along different paths (grow apart) and ending up leaving one another. Once again, Lessans assumes not only that we live in a determined universe, but that he has analysed all possible factors and can now predict exactly how things will go.
He is predicting that when all the little hurts that exists in relationships are removed, the desire to leave another will not even be considered. If there is still a desire to leave someone, no one will be stopping them. Remember, we are free to do whatever we want in the new world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
This seems to be because in Lessans world, love is but a sexual habit. The rather annoying habit of applying the word "Mathematical" to everything persists.
The glue that keeps lovers together is sex. Yes, people can stay together after sexual desire has reached its lowest ebb, but these couples are not the happiest.
That is not what I am talking about at all. I am saying that there is nothing BUT sex being discussed in Lessans discussion of love and marriage. It is a very, very narrow view.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Lessans once again has a point but makes the mistake of creating a world-encompassing system out of simple observations. You can indeed grow used to someone and develop a perfectly satisfying relationship, even with a more or less random person. I personally know people who live in arranged marriages that are happy - they say it places more emphasis on making a relationship work, and reduces the expectation for everything about your partner to be perfect.
Yes you can grow used to someone and develop a satisfying relationship. What Lessans is saying, once again, when the factors that cause resentment are removed, sexual satisfaction goes up and the chances of a person desiring to leave will not even enter their minds because they are extremely satisfied with what they have.
And sex is equated with love.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But again a leap is made that is not warranted by the observation. Lessans approach to love and sex is just that - his personal approach. There is nothing to back up the idea that love is a habit of sexuality for everyone. He once again takes a simple observation and proceeds to elevate it to the level of gospel, without anything to back up his assertions. A quick referral back to the assumed increased carefulness that is to come out of the removal of justification is all he feels it requires to make his predictions absolute fact. As we have already seen, they are not, and they cannot be.
But they can be. Conscience works in a very predictable way. Human beings need a justification anytime they hurt another. Conscience is built into us for a reason. If we are not given the opportunity to justify our behavior because no questions will be asked, we can no longer rationalize our behavior. It becomes a scary proposition to know that we could jeapordize someone's life by our carelessness, or even kill someone, and no one, not even the family of the person you killed, would blame us even though their hearts are broken. This scares me to no end to ever be in a position like this.
Again - you assert your belief, but do not back it up. If people disagree, this is because they do not understand.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I cannot help but feel that what Lessans is trying to do is build the Deterministic Time Machine. The idea is this: if our universe is deterministic, then it should theoretically be possible to build a model that depicts all particles in the universe with the proper direction, speed and position.
That's not the system Lessans is building. Obviously, you don't understand the other half of the two-sided equation. With all of your reading, you have never mentioned the core of his discovery, which makes me realize that your skimming has not served you well.
No, I think it is you who is misundestanding what I am trying to say. What I am pointing out is that you cannot accurately model human behaviour by breaking it down into a few principles, which is what Lessans is attempting.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
This model would then be able to accurately predict all of the future, as it would work exactly like ours. However, since you would need something that consists of at least 1 particle to represent each particle, this would mean that the smallest version of that machine is an exact replica of our universe. In other words, this is forever impractical.

However, one could simplify - represent groups of particles as units. This means you can make your future-predicting device smaller, at the cost of accuracy.

This is what Lessans is attempting to do. He simplifies the whole gamut of human experience into units, and then tries to predict the future with it. it doesn't work, because it is an oversimplification.

I am not even going to go into the rather murky theory of sight, which I have already dealt with in other posts.
I am not even going to attempt to answer these last few posts because you obviously were not here early on, or you did not understand, Lessans' definition AT ALL. It boggles my mind that we are back to square one. :eek:
Again - you cannot accurately model human behaviour by breaking it down into a few simple principles, just like the simplification of the Deterministic Crystal Ball must necessarily either be too big, or too inaccurate.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I will have a look at the rest of the book if I have more time later today.
Noooo!!!!! How many times do I have to ask people not to do this? You will come up with all kinds of strange interpretations because of your misunderstanding the principles in Chapter Two. I am asking everyone to first get through these first two chapters, and if there are questions, I'll be here to try to clarify things. But please don't act like you now understand these principles Vivisectus, because you don't.
[/QUOTE]

Fine - then take away my objections by dealing with them! If Lessans is undeniably right, this should pose no significant challenge.

I repeat - there is a reason why the revolution never happened, and there is a reason that this book has remained obscure.

On what do you base your further assertion that the revolution will happen in the next 25 years?
Reply With Quote
  #1302  
Old 04-05-2011, 04:04 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I want to say to everyone that I appreciate the posts coming in, but I cannot physically answer all of them. I am not cherry picking. It's just impossible for one person to answer every single question. So I kind of close my eyes and choose the post that happens to be in front of me at that moment. If I don't answer your particular post, and you think it is really important, please let me know. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #1303  
Old 04-05-2011, 04:06 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Later, this is revisited and stated as follows:

Quote:
Quote:
All decisions must be meant to lead to the choice that yields the most satisfaction. However, the only measure of what it was that led to the most satisfaction is the fact that the person chose it – so really he is only re-stating the same proof that was there before: what was chosen had to be chosen because it was chosen.
No, you are doing the same thing davidm did. This is not a tautology and until you see why it isn't, you will keep calling it circular reasoning, which it is not.
Simply saying "no it isn't" is not a good way to convince anyone.

Quote:
Quote:
So far we have a wordy and prosy exposition of determinism – but what follows is a great leap that is not warranted or supported by anything. What is causing all harmful intent is blame, because blame leads to justification. Blame does not allow us to say “I hurt that person because I felt like it” and instead makes us invent a justification for harming without provocation – a “first blow”. All harm that is not justified is retaliation, a reaction to a first blow.
He didn't say what is causing all harmful intent is blame although knowing that one would be blamed for his wrong actions is one of the justifications he can use in order to act on his desires. We see this all the time. The minute the authorities question a person, they come up with a million excuses. These excuses are meant to shift one's responsibility to some other extraneous cause. We are able to justify hurting others with a first blow because of the knowledge that if we are caught, we will get punished. This eases our conscience.
This still means that all first blows occur because of justification, and that all justification is somehow made possible because of blame. There is nothing there to support this assertion.

Quote:
People retaliate against any harm done to them, which is a natural reaction, so the only way we can prevent this retaliation in response to being hurt, is to prevent the first blow in the first place. That's the point of this entire book. If a person isn't being hurt in any way, is there a need to retaliate? The definition of retaliation is striking back at someone because of a perceived or real hurt.
Thus - blame allows justification, which is what allows people to hurt others. Again there is nothing to support the assertion. It is not shown why it is necessary that without blame, we do not justify.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
So if we removed blame, then there would be no justification, so no-one would want to have harmful intents – the first blows are eliminated. If we consider will not free, then retaliation becomes useless as well.
I will repeat: The only time a person retaliates is if he believes he was hurt and he wants to strike back.
And I repeat - blame is posited as the sole cause of justification and therefor of harmful intent. Based on nothing but an assertion.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
There is a flaw here that Lessans seems unaware of. Blame, as well as justification (or rather, rationalization) happen after the fact. Someone who is trying to rationalize having done something harmful did not rationalize before acting, but does so after the fact. It is not part of the decision-making process. What is a part of the decision making process is a desire to do something and a weighing of the results. How far we look into the possible range of results could be taken as a measure of how careful we are about that decision. When a driver gets into a car while drunk, he does so because he wants to go home in his car, and not spend money on a taxi and waste time in the morning. He does so because probably, no accident will happen, even though he has increased the likelihood of one. He is already aware of this, and he is already aware that he is doing so because he wants to. He already knows there is no valid justification for doing it – yet he does so anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
This is not the result of blame. This is the result of someone prioritizing their own comfort over an increased likelihood of harm. It is not justified, as a drunk driver knows perfectly well that they are increasing the risk of accidents.
In the Golden Age, the mere thought of killing someone will be a thousand times worse, therefore people will want to follow all the do's and don'ts of safe driving. Put yourself in this position. Would you want to live with the consequences of your carelessness if you took someone's life knowing you were responsible? If someone should kill another because of negligence, he would want to be punished because this eases his conscience. At least he could pay a price for what he did. But when he knows there is no price that can be paid since no no one is blaming him --- because the world knows he couldn't help himself --- when he knows before he gets into the car that he could help himself, he will be compelled to be extremely careful before getting into the kind of situation that would haunt him for the rest of his life. This prevents the accident. He could not move in this direction for satisfaction, which is why will is not free. If will was free he could do this anyway, take his chances, and if he hurt someone in the process, he could rationalize it away. But a person is not able to rationalize his behavior when he is not being blamed
.

This, once more, is unsupported assertion. There is no difference between what we have now and what you advocate - it is not because of blame that we justify. It is because of a conflict between our interest and that of another.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Not only is increased awareness of consequences not necessary as a result of Lessans ideas, there is also a limit to what we can predict. Our actions may have unforeseen consequences, and what we can predict is limited by what we know – and while we may or may not live in a deterministic universe, we certainly do not live in a determined universe. Lessans does not account for this, and implicitly treats all consequences as predictable. They are not – there are simply too many factors for us to envision all of them when we make decisions.
Why did you say that not only is increased awareness of consequences not necessary as a result of Lessans ideas? It is true that there are unforeseen factors that won't allow us to make safe choices. And if something happens that we were unaware of, who is blaming us? The fact is that before we do something that we know present risks, we will try to learn what the possible risks are so we can prevent them. We know, for example, that one increases the risks of injuring or killing someone when he drinks and drives. If he doesn't want to heed these warnings, and he kills someone, he will have to live with the consequences of his behavior, because there will be no way to rid himself of this feeling of remorse. But this is hypothetical because it's the knowledge that he won't be blamed no matter what he does that prevents his desire to take any chances.
You have produced nothing but Lessans say-so that blame is what allows us to justify doing harmful things. I say that it is not so - so now you have just as much evidence for believing it as for disbelieving it.

Again - unsupported assertion, backed up by no evidence.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
All of chapter 3 is restating the claim that the removal of blame would also mean the removal of all carelessness - no new evidence for this is presented, however.
Yes there is. Waving your arms as if he has nothing shows me your intent to prove him wrong. I have gone over these principles for over 50 years; you for one day. I can easily see your confusion even though I know you're trying
.

I didn't see any new stuff in there, just a practical application of what was already covered.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Lessans fancies himself an old-school philosopher. He loves Spinoza for a reason – Spinoza was a system-builder. He, like Lessans, started with a single principle, and then attempted to expand that principle to cover all possible knowledge. There were merits to Spinoza’s thinking but his system was not the answer he thought it was.

The same is true of Lessans – although he is no Spinoza. Parts of his thinking have something to it, but he tries to extend his ideas to some sort of all-encompassing truth that simply is not there. There is no reason to assume that all harmful intent is caused by the ability to justify your actions. While we could say that all life moves from A to B because they always follow the path of maximum satisfaction, we cannot say that we have analysed and identified all sources of satisfaction and can now predict how they will move.
No we can't, but we can remove the justification that would give someone the satisfaction necessary to choose hurting someone as a possible option
.

Again - assertion, without any backup. We have not shown that removing blame will remove justification.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
If you need an example of how the point is stretched, look at chapter 5. Love and sex are practically made synonymous, and there is a further assertion that one cannot fall in love with someone that would never allow you to kiss or touch her or him, or with someone who cannot give or receive sexual gratification. This is stated simply as a fact with nothing to back it up.
The confusion in this chapter alarms me. You are going way ahead of yourself. Until you understand Chapter Two (which you only partially understand and that can get you into major trouble), I cannot jump to Chapter Five.
Again you blame the reader, not the material.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Also, it is assumed that you can make a decision to marry someone very early on, and then predict with absolute certainty how they are going to develop. Lessans world seems to be filling up with easily predictable drones at this stage. There is no possibility for people to meet young, fall madly in love, marry, develop along different paths (grow apart) and ending up leaving one another. Once again, Lessans assumes not only that we live in a determined universe, but that he has analysed all possible factors and can now predict exactly how things will go.
He is predicting that when all the little hurts that exists in relationships are removed, the desire to leave another will not even be considered. If there is still a desire to leave someone, no one will be stopping them. Remember, we are free to do whatever we want in the new world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
This seems to be because in Lessans world, love is but a sexual habit. The rather annoying habit of applying the word "Mathematical" to everything persists.
The glue that keeps lovers together is sex. Yes, people can stay together after sexual desire has reached its lowest ebb, but these couples are not the happiest.
That is not what I am talking about at all. I am saying that there is nothing BUT sex being discussed in Lessans discussion of love and marriage. It is a very, very narrow view.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Lessans once again has a point but makes the mistake of creating a world-encompassing system out of simple observations. You can indeed grow used to someone and develop a perfectly satisfying relationship, even with a more or less random person. I personally know people who live in arranged marriages that are happy - they say it places more emphasis on making a relationship work, and reduces the expectation for everything about your partner to be perfect.
Yes you can grow used to someone and develop a satisfying relationship. What Lessans is saying, once again, when the factors that cause resentment are removed, sexual satisfaction goes up and the chances of a person desiring to leave will not even enter their minds because they are extremely satisfied with what they have.
And sex is equated with love.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But again a leap is made that is not warranted by the observation. Lessans approach to love and sex is just that - his personal approach. There is nothing to back up the idea that love is a habit of sexuality for everyone. He once again takes a simple observation and proceeds to elevate it to the level of gospel, without anything to back up his assertions. A quick referral back to the assumed increased carefulness that is to come out of the removal of justification is all he feels it requires to make his predictions absolute fact. As we have already seen, they are not, and they cannot be.
But they can be. Conscience works in a very predictable way. Human beings need a justification anytime they hurt another. Conscience is built into us for a reason. If we are not given the opportunity to justify our behavior because no questions will be asked, we can no longer rationalize our behavior. It becomes a scary proposition to know that we could jeapordize someone's life by our carelessness, or even kill someone, and no one, not even the family of the person you killed, would blame us even though their hearts are broken. This scares me to no end to ever be in a position like this.
Again - you assert your belief, but do not back it up. If people disagree, this is because they do not understand.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I cannot help but feel that what Lessans is trying to do is build the Deterministic Time Machine. The idea is this: if our universe is deterministic, then it should theoretically be possible to build a model that depicts all particles in the universe with the proper direction, speed and position.
That's not the system Lessans is building. Obviously, you don't understand the other half of the two-sided equation. With all of your reading, you have never mentioned the core of his discovery, which makes me realize that your skimming has not served you well.
No, I think it is you who is misundestanding what I am trying to say. What I am pointing out is that you cannot accurately model human behaviour by breaking it down into a few principles, which is what Lessans is attempting.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
This model would then be able to accurately predict all of the future, as it would work exactly like ours. However, since you would need something that consists of at least 1 particle to represent each particle, this would mean that the smallest version of that machine is an exact replica of our universe. In other words, this is forever impractical.

However, one could simplify - represent groups of particles as units. This means you can make your future-predicting device smaller, at the cost of accuracy.

This is what Lessans is attempting to do. He simplifies the whole gamut of human experience into units, and then tries to predict the future with it. it doesn't work, because it is an oversimplification.

I am not even going to go into the rather murky theory of sight, which I have already dealt with in other posts.
I am not even going to attempt to answer these last few posts because you obviously were not here early on, or you did not understand, Lessans' definition AT ALL. It boggles my mind that we are back to square one. :eek:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Again - you cannot accurately model human behaviour by breaking it down into a few simple principles, just like the simplification of the Deterministic Crystal Ball must necessarily either be too big, or too inaccurate.

I will have a look at the rest of the book if I have more time later today.
Noooo!!!!! How many times do I have to ask people not to do this? You will come up with all kinds of strange interpretations because of your misunderstanding the principles in Chapter Two. I am asking everyone to first get through these first two chapters, and if there are questions, I'll be here to try to clarify things. But please don't act like you now understand these principles Vivisectus, because you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Fine - then take away my objections by dealing with them! If Lessans is undeniably right, this should pose no significant challenge.

I repeat - there is a reason why the revolution never happened, and there is a reason that this book has remained obscure.
You are misunderstanding the basic meaning of revolution. This is not about a true revolution, but a revolution in thought. Of course, I am talking to a brick wall. :(

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
On what do you base your further assertion that the revolution will happen in the next 25 years?
It was based on his belief that these principles would have been thoroughly investigated. Vivisectus, I know I am ruffling your feathers like a lot of people in here. I do appreciate your interest but I cannot keep answering your questions when I know you don't understand the simplist aspect of this discovery. There are other people waiting to have their questions answered, so I have to give them a chance too. It's only fair. I'm really sorry about this, but I'm just one person, as Regis Philbin is famous for saying. ;)
Reply With Quote
  #1304  
Old 04-05-2011, 04:16 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
It's like those attempts to get people to stop using the word "retard" and calling people with mental retardation something else.

You know what they used to call them, scientifically? Morons, cretins, imbeciles.

Mental retardation was the new scientific euphemism. I wonder what's going to happen to the new term? :chin:
If the word retard has a connotation of disrespect, then of course this word will not be used in conversational language. No one will want to use it, nor will they want to use any word that hurts someone like moron, cretin, or imbecile. They are free to use these words if they want to, but they won't want to under the changed conditions.
Reply With Quote
  #1305  
Old 04-05-2011, 04:16 PM
ZEZOZE's Avatar
ZEZOZE ZEZOZE is offline
you're next
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Gender: Bender
Posts: VMMCCCLXXVI
Images: 147
Default Re: A revolution in thought

holy shit...53 pages and the thought keeps rolling.

told ya.
__________________
paranoid fringe dweller
Reply With Quote
  #1306  
Old 04-05-2011, 04:17 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's what you are failing to understand because we haven't gotten to Chapter Two.

Some of us have, and beyond.
I really hope so, but from what I've seen far, all bets are off. :(
Reply With Quote
  #1307  
Old 04-05-2011, 04:18 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ View Post
holy shit...53 pages and the thought keeps rolling.

told ya.
I know, isn't this crazy Itsozaz? But at least people are interested in searching for the truth, which gives me hope that one day this discovery will be recognized for its contribution to humanity. :wink:
Reply With Quote
  #1308  
Old 04-05-2011, 04:21 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Presenting whatever as "I believe this is true..." or "In my view this" is one thing because what's to argue..."No you don't believe that!" or "No you do not hold that view!"*. That is not apologetics, and that is not presenting your beliefs as Truth For All!

*Of course that opens discussion such as the basis for your belief or view
You asked me to explain this that I posted to Wildy. I was describing the difference between evangelizing from personal beliefs/experiences and apologetics.

Apologists argue that they have an objective and proveable truth applicable to all, so they do not use qualifies such as "I think", "I believe" or "In my opinion".

They even avoid subjective descriptors such as "beautiful" because the "in my opinion" or "to me" is understood when someone says "That is beautiful". You are aware of that are you not? That the subjective aspect is completely understood?
I get it. Thanks for making this more clear to me.
Reply With Quote
  #1309  
Old 04-05-2011, 04:23 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
It's like those attempts to get people to stop using the word "retard" and calling people with mental retardation something else.

You know what they used to call them, scientifically? Morons, cretins, imbeciles.

Mental retardation was the new scientific euphemism. I wonder what's going to happen to the new term? :chin:
If the word retard has a connotation of disrespect, then of course this word will not be used in conversational language. No one will want to use it, nor will they want to use any word that hurts someone like moron, cretin, or imbecile. They are free to use these words if they want to, but they won't want to under the changed conditions.
erimir's (and Demi's) whole point is the words moron, cretin, or imbecile were not originally hurtful, they were the clinical terms used to describe what has more recently been called mental retardation. They became hurtful due to them being used as insults.

Any word can be used to hurt provided enough people become aware of the evolving hurtful definitions. Languages change every day, words are co-opted and the meaning changed all the time
Reply With Quote
  #1310  
Old 04-05-2011, 04:30 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Yes, that's is exactly what I'm saying. If the eyes were a sense organ, a dog should be able to recognize his master (without the added help of his sense of smell or hearing), because the light is bringing the image to his eyes. If a dog is able to recognize a ball, a plush toy, or other objects, he should be able to identify his master's features when the word 'master' is used. But I'm not sure if a dog is capable of taking a photograph of a group of features (which is more complicated than one object) and associating them with a word, which would allow recognition to occur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir
But we already know that dogs can distinguish between otherwise identical objects by color alone. Not as many as humans because dogs only have dichromatic vision (essentially they are red-green color blind). You can design studies that would demonstrate that without the use of a command to "associate" those features with the red or blue ball (of course, in your version of things, how they know what features to associate with the word they learn if sight is not a sense is beyond me). You could for example give them two balls and whenever they pick a certain color, give them a treat. Which is probably how they've studied dog vision before.
If you don't understand how words are the critical element in an animal's training, then I am asking you to review the literature. A dog cannot distinguish any object from another unless a word is associated with it, unless, of course, he is able to use his sense of smell or hearing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir
Other problems are that dogs pay more attention to moving things than static images - but tv screens don't have a high enough frame rate for dogs (they distinguish movement better than humans). If you had a high frame rate video screen and a recording of sufficient frame rate, then a dog might react to a video of their master.
That is not proof that the dog recognizes his master. He sees some sort of movement, and yes, if his master has a unique gait, maybe the dog would recognize him, but not from sight alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir
Also I ask again: should a deaf person with no sense of smell or taste be able to see?
He would be able to focus, but only if he received sense experience as a child in order to develop. Maybe the parents cuddled him, touched him, etc. Look at Helen Keller. She was able to live her life productively because of the stimulation of the sense of touch only. It doesn't take much for the brain to focus on what it is experiencing through the other senses. You can even see this in children in orphanages who have very limited sense experience, like those in Romania. They are left in cribs all day. They not only are thwarted physically as a result of this neglect, but mentally. They end up retarded, not because they have a genetic problem, but because they were never given the nurturing to allow their brain cells to grow. Unfortunately, they don't have enough employees to adequately care for these children. It's so sad because their development is thwarted all because of lack of sensory stimulation and unconditional love.

Last edited by peacegirl; 04-05-2011 at 04:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #1311  
Old 04-05-2011, 04:33 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
It's like those attempts to get people to stop using the word "retard" and calling people with mental retardation something else.

You know what they used to call them, scientifically? Morons, cretins, imbeciles.

Mental retardation was the new scientific euphemism. I wonder what's going to happen to the new term? :chin:
If the word retard has a connotation of disrespect, then of course this word will not be used in conversational language. No one will want to use it, nor will they want to use any word that hurts someone like moron, cretin, or imbecile. They are free to use these words if they want to, but they won't want to under the changed conditions.
erimir's (and Demi's) whole point is the words moron, cretin, or imbecile were not originally hurtful, they were the clinical terms used to describe what has more recently been called mental retardation. They became hurtful due to them being used as insults.

Any word can be used to hurt provided enough people become aware of the evolving hurtful definitions. Languages change every day, words are co-opted and the meaning changed all the time
That's true, but in the new world these words will not hold the derogatory meaning they did in the past. If they did, they will be avoided, just like the N word is avoided because there is too much emotional baggage attached to it.
Reply With Quote
  #1312  
Old 04-05-2011, 04:38 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
A dog cannot distinguish any object from another unless a word is associated with it,
Of course they can distinguish things from each other without word associations, since they do not use words themselves. Their thought processes are alien to us though.

They can't describe their mental processes to us, or teach us how they distinguish between objects. They can learn some words so we can somewhat communicate with them is all, so we can see that they distinguish between objects.
Reply With Quote
  #1313  
Old 04-05-2011, 04:47 PM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLV
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Yes, that's is exactly what I'm saying. If the eyes were a sense organ, a dog should be able to recognize his master (without the added help of his sense of smell or hearing), because the light is bringing the image to his eyes. If a dog is able to recognize a ball, a plush toy, or other objects, he should be able to identify his master's features when the word 'master' is used. But I'm not sure if a dog is capable of taking a photograph of a group of features (which is more complicated than one object) and associating them with a word, which would allow recognition to occur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir
But we already know that dogs can distinguish between otherwise identical objects by color alone. Not as many as humans because dogs only have dichromatic vision (essentially they are red-green color blind). You can design studies that would demonstrate that without the use of a command to "associate" those features with the red or blue ball (of course, in your version of things, how they know what features to associate with the word they learn if sight is not a sense is beyond me). You could for example give them two balls and whenever they pick a certain color, give them a treat. Which is probably how they've studied dog vision before.
If you don't understand how words are the critical element in an animal's training, then I am asking you to review the literature. A dog cannot distinguish any object from another unless a word is associated with it, unless, of course, he is able to use his sense of smell or hearing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir
Other problems are that dogs pay more attention to moving things than static images - but tv screens don't have a high enough frame rate for dogs (they distinguish movement better than humans). If you had a high frame rate video screen and a recording of sufficient frame rate, then a dog might react to a video of their master.
That is not proof that the dog recognizes his master. He sees some sort of movement, and yes, if his master has a unique gait, maybe the dog would recognize him, but not from sight alone.
Are you aware that you can train a dog to respond to gestures alone? I'm guessing not. To reiterate: studies showing dogs identifying both objects and masters by sight alone have already been cited. All you have done in response is repeat your personal incredulity on the subject, much as you've done with the entire topic of sight, and as you have on the topic of free will.

You keep admitting that you have no empirical data but only Lessans' "astute observations." Let us set aside for the moment that observations are a form of empirical data. Other forms of empirical data on these topics has been presented to you, and you simply repeat your disbelief or repeat Lessans' observations, or both. Why do you keep repeating these things in the face of evidence that flatly contradicts them? You sound exactly like an evangelical apologist. If Lessans' work is worth defending, you shouldn't need to fall back to such obfuscating and dishonest tactics. If you find that you continually have to use such tactics, perhaps it is because the work is not worth what you think it is.
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
  #1314  
Old 04-05-2011, 04:54 PM
ZEZOZE's Avatar
ZEZOZE ZEZOZE is offline
you're next
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Gender: Bender
Posts: VMMCCCLXXVI
Images: 147
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ View Post
holy shit...53 pages and the thought keeps rolling.

told ya.
I know, isn't this crazy Itsozaz? But at least people are interested in searching for the truth, which gives me hope that one day this discovery will be recognized for its contribution to humanity. :wink:
i'm happy your circus is successful! :)
__________________
paranoid fringe dweller
Reply With Quote
  #1315  
Old 04-05-2011, 05:45 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You can even see this in children in orphanages who have very limited sense experience, like those in Romania. They are left in cribs all day. They not only are thwarted physically as a result of this neglect, but mentally. They end up retarded, not because they have a genetic problem, but because they were never given the nurturing to allow their brain cells to grow.

I understand that 1 is not much of a sample for research but the opposite of this can be true. My neighbors addopted a baby boy with Downs Syndrome, his birth parents were well educated but did not know how to deal with him. When he arrived he was quiet and inactive. My neighbors home was a bit noisey and very animated, and the boy responded to all the excitement. It was as if all the drama in the house 'woke him up', he became active, friendly, and much more involved in life. It was an amazing transformation, his brain cells were definately growing and developing.
Reply With Quote
  #1316  
Old 04-05-2011, 05:54 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=ITSOZAZ;933221][quote=peacegirl;933211]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ View Post
holy shit...53 pages and the thought keeps rolling.

i'm happy your circus is successful! :)

Hello, ITSOZAZ, I thought I recognized your avatar, you haven't posted on DP for awhile. 53 pages of pure entertainment. When are you going to agree with everything so we can move on?
Reply With Quote
  #1317  
Old 04-05-2011, 06:11 PM
ZEZOZE's Avatar
ZEZOZE ZEZOZE is offline
you're next
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Gender: Bender
Posts: VMMCCCLXXVI
Images: 147
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
When are you going to agree with everything so we can move on?
the problem is that i agree with everything and like to argue.
__________________
paranoid fringe dweller
Reply With Quote
  #1318  
Old 04-05-2011, 06:12 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
It's like those attempts to get people to stop using the word "retard" and calling people with mental retardation something else.

You know what they used to call them, scientifically? Morons, cretins, imbeciles.

Mental retardation was the new scientific euphemism. I wonder what's going to happen to the new term? :chin:
If the word retard has a connotation of disrespect, then of course this word will not be used in conversational language. No one will want to use it, nor will they want to use any word that hurts someone like moron, cretin, or imbecile. They are free to use these words if they want to, but they won't want to under the changed conditions.
erimir's (and Demi's) whole point is the words moron, cretin, or imbecile were not originally hurtful, they were the clinical terms used to describe what has more recently been called mental retardation. They became hurtful due to them being used as insults.

Any word can be used to hurt provided enough people become aware of the evolving hurtful definitions. Languages change every day, words are co-opted and the meaning changed all the time
I understand that the meaning of words change through time, and some words that were not hurtful at one point ended up having a bad connotaion. But, I will repeat, no one in the new world will desire using a word that is intended to hurt. If a word already has a negative connotation, such as imbecile, people will not want to use it unless the word no longer brings up negative emotions.
Reply With Quote
  #1319  
Old 04-05-2011, 06:13 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
When are you going to agree with everything so we can move on?
the problem is that i agree with everything and like to argue.
That's cool. But at least have something worthwhile to argue about and I'll be all ears. :D
Reply With Quote
  #1320  
Old 04-05-2011, 06:15 PM
ZEZOZE's Avatar
ZEZOZE ZEZOZE is offline
you're next
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Gender: Bender
Posts: VMMCCCLXXVI
Images: 147
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
When are you going to agree with everything so we can move on?
the problem is that i agree with everything and like to argue.
That's cool. But at least have something worthwhile to argue about and I'll be all ears. :D
lol. i think you actually insulted yourself there. back to being quiet :P
__________________
paranoid fringe dweller
Reply With Quote
  #1321  
Old 04-05-2011, 06:15 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You can even see this in children in orphanages who have very limited sense experience, like those in Romania. They are left in cribs all day. They not only are thwarted physically as a result of this neglect, but mentally. They end up retarded, not because they have a genetic problem, but because they were never given the nurturing to allow their brain cells to grow.

I understand that 1 is not much of a sample for research but the opposite of this can be true. My neighbors addopted a baby boy with Downs Syndrome, his birth parents were well educated but did not know how to deal with him. When he arrived he was quiet and inactive. My neighbors home was a bit noisey and very animated, and the boy responded to all the excitement. It was as if all the drama in the house 'woke him up', he became active, friendly, and much more involved in life. It was an amazing transformation, his brain cells were definately growing and developing.
The fact that the boy thrived on all the noise and commotion doesn't surprise me at all.
Reply With Quote
  #1322  
Old 04-05-2011, 06:17 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
When are you going to agree with everything so we can move on?
the problem is that i agree with everything and like to argue.
That's cool. But at least have something worthwhile to argue about and I'll be all ears. :D
lol. i think you actually insulted yourself there. back to being quiet :P
No, it only shows that you haven't seen the worthwhile nature of my presentation. You better go back to your corner and take notes. ;)
Reply With Quote
  #1323  
Old 04-05-2011, 06:19 PM
ZEZOZE's Avatar
ZEZOZE ZEZOZE is offline
you're next
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Gender: Bender
Posts: VMMCCCLXXVI
Images: 147
Default Re: A revolution in thought

yes ma'am.
__________________
paranoid fringe dweller
Reply With Quote
  #1324  
Old 04-05-2011, 06:21 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

So why the big focus on "eliminating" specific words like beautiful, and on "lawmakers" deciding which words are harmful.

It has to be assumed that if nobody intends hurt, then the words they use cannot be meant to hurt, and the listener should not BE hurt since there was no intent.

Do you believe words in and of themselves can be hurtful, when there was no intent to hurt?
Reply With Quote
  #1325  
Old 04-05-2011, 06:21 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ View Post
holy shit...53 pages and the thought keeps rolling.

told ya.
I know, isn't this crazy Itsozaz? But at least people are interested in searching for the truth, which gives me hope that one day this discovery will be recognized for its contribution to humanity. :wink:
i'm happy your circus is successful! :)
If I wanted a circus, I'd train some lions, tigers, and bears. But circuses are cruel, according to many animal advocates, so that's out. :(
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 25 (0 members and 25 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.22027 seconds with 14 queries