A revolution in thought

[naturalist.atheist]

Over and over and over again.

Poor peacegirl.

Please get help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The past cannot cause us to do anything.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Now you're rejecting standard determinism as false, despite previously having agreed that you need it to be true for contra-causal free will to be ruled out. Does Peacegirl accept or reject standard determinism? Who knows? She sure doesn't.

The reason I said that is because one is the opposite of the other by definition. Determinism is being caused, therefore contra-causal free will is uncaused. But this definition is causing confusion due to the way it's defined.

Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is
free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding
this issue for although it is true man has to make choices, he must
always prefer that which he considers good not evil for himself when
the former is offered as an alternative. The words cause and compel
are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in
order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary
that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives
meaning to short.

Nothing causes man to build cities, develop
scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue
and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are
mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as
children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions
are the natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting
his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by
better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal
compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If someone uses the standard definition, they could then say, "I am not responsible for what I did because I was caused to do what I didn't want to do but had to because I'm just a cog in a wheel, and I have no say in the matter."

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If they say that, then they have misunderstood the implications of determinism and are in error. This can be pointed out. There is no need to redefine terms or introduce contradictory two-sided non-equations.

If we accepted the present definition without understanding the implications of this position, people would naturally be able to use this as an excuse to justify sub-optimal choices (according to the present day penal code).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are presupposing that the word "past" actually symbolizes something that is part of reality.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it symbolizes something that was reality.

Yes, it was a reality, but this thought is only a memory. It's not happening now, which is all we have, this very moment.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true, because we still are agents that make choices... In this sense, the term "free will" which has come to signify this aspect, is undeniable, but this does not mean we actually have freedom of the will.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Free will is undeniable!... but we don't actually have it!

Free will the way it's defined by the standard definition is fine as long as it's qualified. We can say "I did it of my own free will." There's nothing wrong with saying this, if this means (p. 53) "I did it because I wanted to, nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Under the changed conditions it will be impossible to find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow without justification.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Unsupported assertion and faith-claim.

Not if you understand all the principles, which you obviously do not.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I misunderstood. The standard definition implies that one's past experiences cause us to make certain choices. But if we only experience the present, then this is a fallacy. The past cannot cause us to do anything. Past experiences create the desire to move in a certain direction in the present. If someone uses the standard definition, they could then say, "I am not responsible for what I did because I was caused to do what I didn't want to do but had to because I'm just a cog in a wheel, and I have no say in the matter." With this definition, the person is a passive receptacle, which is exactly why people find snags in this position, rightfully so.

You've still not answered my original question, who is it you think this "someone" is who thinks of "cause" in that way? Who exactly, besides you and Lessans sees these same implications?

It's nobody here. It's nobody I've ever met. Who are you refuting when you make these statements and arguments? It seems to be a strawman.

[Vivisectus]

The standard definition implies that one's past experiences cause us to make certain choices. But if we only experience the present, then this is a fallacy

But we have seen this is not the case: the experiences create memories, which in turn cause us to make certain choices. There is a chain of causation from the past to the present. Like with the example of the vulcano and the tsunami: the past experience does not need to be present to still be a cause in decisions.

Unless it is your contention that memories do not influence decision-making?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason I said that is because one is the opposite of the other by definition. Determinism is being caused, therefore contra-causal free will is uncaused. But this definition is causing confusion due to the way it's defined.

The confusion is all yours. That causal determinism and contra-causal free will are mutually exclusive does not explain why you can't decide whether the thesis of causal determinism (by its standard definition) is true or false. Make up your mind. Tell us now: Is determinism, as standardly defined, true or false?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we accepted the present definition without understanding the implications of this position, people would naturally be able to use this as an excuse to justify sub-optimal choices (according to the present day penal code).

Understanding the implications of determinism (as standardly defined) does not require any redefinition of terms or the introduction of contradictory two-sided non-equations.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it was a reality, but this thought is only a memory. It's not happening now, which is all we have, this very moment.

Who are you arguing against now? Who has ever argued that the past occurs in the present?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Free will the way it's defined by the standard definition is fine as long as it's qualified. We can say "I did it of my own free will." There's nothing wrong with saying this, if this means (p. 53) "I did it because I wanted to, nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free."

So once again you are claiming that there is a perfectly reasonable sense in which we do have free will, and also that there is absolutely no kind of free will that we have.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not if you understand all the principles, which you obviously do not.

Bullshit. Your claim that "Under the changed conditions it will be impossible to find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow without justification" is nothing but an unsupported assertion and faith claim. Go ahead and prove me wrong. Show me where Lessans offers so much as a single shred of actual evidence in support of this claim.

[Vivisectus]

I notice also that there is a fundamental difference in approach. Philosophy, as I understand it, sees itself as a framework that can be used to describe reality. As such no philosophy pretends to be final: more useful frameworks may be created later, parts of the model can be revisited, and often different frameworks can co-exist. For instance, I do not believe you have to reject existentialism to accept determinism. It is a matter of how useful, consistent and relevant a framework is, not if it is true or false in an absolute sense.

This book seems to claim to be the one and only possible truth - even absolute truth. This seems odd: for starters, we know human beings are still evolving as a species. We also know that new situations and innovations keep popping up.

In order to be able to create an end-all system such as this book claims to be, you would need to assume several things:

a: There is a single, absolute truth and we are capable of knowing what this is.
b: It is possible to foresee all possible outcomes of human history and evolution and their interactions that are relevant to this system.

a) Is one of the big philosophical questions. It is not addressed in the book as far as I am aware, but some of the positions taken require an absolute, objective truth to exist and be knowable.

b) Would have to include all possible innovation from the moment the system is created, and we would have to assume that no innovation or evolutionary change will significantly influence human reactions in such a way as to invalidate the relevance of the system.

According to you, Lessans was able to establish that there is an absolute truth and knew what it was, and also was able to accurately forecast all human behaviour, innovation and evolution.

To the rest of us this seems a very tall order, and we are given no reason to assume that he was able to do this. Already his prediction that the transition to this system would begin before the 20th century was over has failed.

On what do you base your conclusion that these things are possible and that your father managed this? I think it is safe to say that it is not at all likely to the rest of us.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've still not answered my original question, who is it you think this "someone" is who thinks of "cause" in that way? Who exactly, besides you and Lessans sees these same implications?

It's nobody here. It's nobody I've ever met. Who are you refuting when you make these statements and arguments? It seems to be a strawman.

It's not a matter of who is thinking about "cause" in that way. It's implied in the definition. It's very easy to look up the standard way that people define this term. Cause is the operative word. If we are not caused, then it is believed we have free will. Tall gives meaning to short. Determinism gives meaning to free will as its opposite. But if the proposition of what determinism is (which leads to a faulty definition) is missing the mark, then we have to tweak it so that it is reflective of what is going on in reality, or we will continue to argue over a proposition regarding "determinism" that is misleading and will, therefore, have no resolution on the longest running debate in the history of philosophy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason I said that is because one is the opposite of the other by definition. Determinism is being caused, therefore contra-causal free will is uncaused. But this definition is causing confusion due to the way it's defined.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The confusion is all yours. That causal determinism and contra-causal free will are mutually exclusive does not explain why you can't decide whether the thesis of causal determinism (by its standard definition) is true or false. Make up your mind. Tell us now: Is determinism, as standardly defined, true or false?

It is misleading.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we accepted the present definition without understanding the implications of this position, people would naturally be able to use this as an excuse to justify sub-optimal choices (according to the present day penal code).

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Understanding the implications of determinism (as standardly defined) does not require any redefinition of terms or the introduction of contradictory two-sided non-equations.

So stick with the standard definition and remain in the dark. The choice is yours, although it's not a free choice.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it was a reality, but this thought is only a memory. It's not happening now, which is all we have, this very moment.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Who are you arguing against now? Who has ever argued that the past occurs in the present?

That's not what I said. I said that, by the standard definition, the past causes... The past does not cause anything if there's nothing but the present. All our memories of what has happened to us are just that, memories, and they come into play in the present. Our memories, perceptions, feelings, attitudes, understandings, combined with our heredity all come into play to determine which choice is more preferable at any given moment in time, thereby making any other choice at that instant an impossibility because it is less preferable when a more preferable choice is present. It's impossible to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. That does not mean that the next moment in time we cannot make a different choice based on a new set of possibilities, but once a choice is made it could not have been otherwise, rendering free will an illusion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Free will the way it's defined by the standard definition is fine as long as it's qualified. We can say "I did it of my own free will." There's nothing wrong with saying this, if this means (p. 53) "I did it because I wanted to, nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free."

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So once again you are claiming that there is a perfectly reasonable sense in which we do have free will, and also that there is absolutely no kind of free will that we have.

You're hanging on to your position for dear life, which is why you can't see the truth in what is being demonstrated. That's all I can think of as to why you aren't getting it, because I know you have the intellectual capacity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not if you understand all the principles, which you obviously do not.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bullshit. Your claim that "Under the changed conditions it will be impossible to find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow without justification" is nothing but an unsupported assertion and faith claim. Go ahead and prove me wrong. Show me where Lessans offers so much as a single shred of actual evidence in support of this claim.

His analytics and sheer spot on observations are what support his claims. If you read the first two chapters carefully, with an intent to understand why his claims are not hokey pokey, you would be more apt to understand these accurate principles. If you could only recognize that these claims are based on clear facts, not opinions, you would change your tune. But you don't want to give up your position because this would make you have to change your worldview, and admit that you lost the debate, even if this knowledge is capable of bringing about world peace and brotherhood for all mankind.

[Vivisectus]

But the matter of responsibility is not really important in any discussion of determinism. The implications for ethics are secondary: they are something we look at as a result of the idea of determinism, not something that is central to it.

Whether determinism has implications for responsibility does not make determinism more or less correct, and has nothing to do with "what is going on in reality". You are putting the cart before the horse: you argue that since there must be responsibility, the definition of determinism must be altered to include it.

But we have not reached any conclusions yet about whether responsibility as we understand it exists. You have merely claimed it does. And also that it does not, by the way.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is misleading.

I didn't ask if it was misleading. I asked you if it is true or false. So try again: Is it true or false that past events causally determine our choices? Forget about how this may or may not be misleading for those who misunderstand its implications, and just tell me whether or not you think it is true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So stick with the standard definition and remain in the dark. The choice is yours, although it's not a free one.

Evasion noted. If people misunderstand the implications of determinism, then the best thing to do is to correct them. Redefining terms and introducing contradictory non-equations helps no-one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I said. I said that, by the standard definition, the past causes... The past does not cause anything if there's nothing but the present. All our memories of what has happened to us our just that, memories, and they come into play in the present when making a choice. This combined with our heredity influence which choice is the more preferable alternative that desire is compelled to take, thereby making any other choice at that instant an impossibility. That does not mean that we cannot change our next choice based on a new set of possibilities, but once a choice is made it could not have been otherwise, rendering free will an illusion.

The past doesn't have to be present to causally determine our choices. Do you not understand the difference between distal and proximate causes? If past events have caused our memories which cause our choice, then the memories are the proximate cause, and the past events are the distal cause.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're hanging on to your position for dear life, which is why you can't see the truth in what is being demonstrated. That's all I can think of as to why you aren't getting it, because I know you have the intellectual capacity.

There is no truth in your contradictory claims that we both have and lack free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His analytics and sheer spot on observations are what support this claims. If you read the first two chapters carefully, with an intent to understand why his claims are not hokey pokey. They are based on clear accurate facts, you would change your tune. But you don't want to give up your position because this would make you have to change your worldview, and admit that you lost the debate.

More bullshit. All you can do is assert that his claims are all correct and well supported. But you won't lift a finger to show me so much as a single shred of actual evidence in support of the claim that "Under the changed conditions it will be impossible to find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow without justification". It is still nothing more than an unsupported assertion and faith-claim on your part.

Oh and why are you still here? Why do you choose to continue interacting with people who all think you're nuts? Is it because you are compelled to discuss your father's work anywhere you can? And that you can't find anyone to discuss this with who doesn't consider you mentally ill?

[Vivisectus]

His analytics and sheer spot on observations are what support his claims.

But that is just saying "he was right because he was right". What we want to know is: how can we check if he was right?

So far your answers are:

1: Because he just was
2: Because he was very clever and worked a long time on this book
3: Wouldn't it be nice if he was
4: Because of evidence that could possibly come into existence in the future

But none of this allows us to check to see if we agree with his conclusions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But we have seen this is not the case: the experiences create memories, which in turn cause us to make certain choices. There is a chain of causation from the past to the present. Like with the example of the vulcano and the tsunami: the past experience does not need to be present to still be a cause in decisions.

Unless it is your contention that memories do not influence decision-making?

You're missing IT Vivisectus; the IT that changes the landscape of our world. Seriously. You are contending once again that we are caused without our input, which is not true. The fact that the past cannot cause us to do anything is central to this debate, but you seem to be ignoring it, or treating it lightly. Think about what I'm saying before replying, because all it will do is make me repeat myself again and again and again, but it does not alter the truth of our nature.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But that is just saying "he was right because he was right". What we want to know is: how can we check if he was right?

So far your answers are:

1: Because he just was
2: Because he was very clever and worked a long time on this book
3: Wouldn't it be nice if he was
4: Because of evidence that could possibly come into existence in the future

But none of this allows us to check to see if we agree with his conclusions.

That is not true. His explanation is spelled out so carefully in first and second chapters, but no, you are not interested. You obviously believed from the very beginning that you had it all covered, and according to you he was wrong. (Note: If you really wanted to understand what he is talking about you would have not jumped to conclusions which he implored people not to do). But what did people do? That very thing. It's so easy to say that he doesn't know what he's talking about when you have no idea what the book is about (and because there are no famous philosophers supporting him), which you are depending on. Trusting that what I'm saying is true, what is the retort? That I don't want to accept that people understand this knowledge. THEY DO NOT! AND YOU WILL REALIZE AS TIME GOES ON THAT I AM RIGHT, WHETHER I STAY HERE OR GO. The people in here who are partaking in this thread are so far removed from understanding that it's equivalent to night and day. Where do I go from here? I don't know; you tell me. Are you ready to hear what Lessans has to say without prematurely judging him, or is this forum a lost cause? I will go on, trust me, but you all will be left behind.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're missing IT Vivisectus; the IT that changes the landscape of our world. Seriously. You are contending once again that we are caused without our input, which is not true. The fact that the past cannot cause us to do anything is central to this debate, but you seem to be ignoring it, or treating it lightly. Think about what I'm saying before replying, because all it will do is make me repeat myself again and again and again, but it does not alter the truth of our nature.

You are avoiding the point once again: you stated that the past cannot cause our decisions as it does not exist any more. I pointed out that a thing does not need to exist any more to be a cause, and provided 2 examples:

1: A tsunami which is caused by an earthquake that has stopped as long as days before.

2: Memories, which are caused by events that are in the past, but can nevertheless cause us to make certain decisions.

You are now simply repeating yourself by saying "the past cannot cause us to do anything" but I am supplying you with examples where this is plainly not the case, unless you want to contend that memories do not influence our decision-making, or that we cannot call the earthquake the cause of the tsunami.

Once again, very simple examples are sufficient to completely derail your point: it really does not seem to have been carefully thought through. If I am wrong, I would be delighted to listen to your explanation why, but so far you have merely dogmatically repeated THAT it is so, without explaining why my examples are mistaken.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1088245]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But that is just saying "he was right because he was right". What we want to know is: how can we check if he was right?

So far your answers are:

1: Because he just was
2: Because he was very clever and worked a long time on this book
3: Wouldn't it be nice if he was
4: Because of evidence that could possibly come into existence in the future

But none of this allows us to check to see if we agree with his conclusions.

That is not true. His explanation is spelled out so carefully in first and second chapters, but no, you are not interested.

We are asking why we should believe that your fathers explanation is correct, we are not saying that he did not offer one, albeit one that in my opinion is not very well thought through, for reasons that I have shared with you. I am not aware of any reason being given by you that is not one of the 4 above in some version or another.

The entire rest of your post - about 70% of it - is made up of self-pity, accusations and assorted histrionics that are neither here nor there were the actual point is concerned. If I spoke out of ignorance, then my reasoning should be flawed, and you should point out the flaw. Neither should it be important how I feel about the book: again, my points are either reasonable or not, the motive behind it is irrelevant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I notice also that there is a fundamental difference in approach. Philosophy, as I understand it, sees itself as a framework that can be used to describe reality. As such no philosophy pretends to be final: more useful frameworks may be created later, parts of the model can be revisited, and often different frameworks can co-exist. For instance, I do not believe you have to reject existentialism to accept determinism. It is a matter of how useful, consistent and relevant a framework is, not if it is true or false in an absolute sense.

It all depends on what you're talking about. To accept all frameworks as if anything goes regardless of how contradictory those frameworks are, does not serve us well. We can claim anything is true if we want to, define anything in any way we want, and say there are no facts or objective truths to base anything on, but what good would this do us if this only delays the very life we want for ourselves, which requires us to recognize that there are certain undeniable truths that we are AT LAST getting to understand.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This book seems to claim to be the one and only possible truth - even absolute truth. This seems odd: for starters, we know human beings are still evolving as a species. We also know that new situations and innovations keep popping up.

That may be true, but this happens to be an invariable law of man's nature. If you don't like this law, take it up with God, not me. I'm just a messenger

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In order to be able to create an end-all system such as this book claims to be, you would need to assume several things:

a: There is a single, absolute truth and we are capable of knowing what this is.

There is a single, absolute truth and, yes, we are capable of knowing what this is because we were given the ability to figure it out at the right time in our development. NOW is the right time or we would not even be cognizant of the importance of this issue. Lessans just happened to be the first one to make this discovery due to the time period he was born, his unusual cognitive abilities, and the convergence of many factors that led him in this direction. Other people could be making the same discovery as we speak because this is not something he invented. This knowledge is part of the real world waiting to be discovered.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

b: It is possible to foresee all possible outcomes of human history and evolution and their interactions that are relevant to this system.

When you use the word "sytem", you are making it sound contrived. Only the standard definition of determinism states that in order for determinism to be true we would have to know all of the outcomes of every single action in advance. This new way of understanding determinism only predicts one thing, and one thing only (which is based on facts, not theory); that, under the new conditions, no one could EVER desire to strike a first blow as a preferable choice IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION.

p. 193 There is no mathematical standard as to
what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of
others, which is prevented by this natural law.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

] Is one of the big philosophical questions. It is not addressed in the book as far as I am aware, but some of the positions taken require an absolute, objective truth to exist and be knowable.

The only objective truth we're talking about is this hurting of others. A hurt is defined as doing something to someone that he doesn't want done to himself. I asked people to listen to Sam Harris (a self-proclaims atheist). He shows where science and objective morality do not have to be opposite positions.

Sam Harris - Objective Morality & Religion -...

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

b) Would have to include all possible innovation from the moment the system is created, and we would have to assume that no innovation or evolutionary change will significantly influence human reactions in such a way as to invalidate the relevance of the system.

There is nothing that can alter a universal truth because it is not contingent on time. Necessary truths are hard to come by. Determinism happens to be one of them.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

According to you, Lessans was able to establish that there is an absolute truth and knew what it was, and also was able to accurately forecast all human behaviour, innovation and evolution.

There are no forecasts as to how the world is going to evolve or what it's going to look like 100 years from now. We can predict based on where we think it's headed, but we can't know for sure. The only thing we can predict once this discovery is confirmed valid, and the Great Transition is officially launched, is a future of peace and prosperity for all mankind, as we extend this principle into all areas of human relation. But there is no way for you to understand what I'm talking about unless you have a thorough understanding of his discovery, which you don't. The knowledge that man's will is not free IS NOT HIS DISCOVERY. It is only the gateway that leads to his discovery.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

To the rest of us this seems a very tall order, and we are given no reason to assume that he was able to do this. Already his prediction that the transition to this system would begin before the 20th century was over has failed.

This just shows me you did not listen to the audio, and you obviously didn't even read the pages before the foreword of this book. I made it clear the reasons why this knowledge was not brought to light in his lifetime. He admitted in the audio that he must have been dreaming that people would have open arms to what he knew could not be denied. Unfortunately, that did not come to pass because the leading authorities who could have made it possible for this knowledge to be recognized were nowhere to be found.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

On what do you base your conclusion that these things are possible and that your father managed this? I think it is safe to say that it is not at all likely to the rest of us.

This has nothing to do with my father managing this. If you follow the proof of his premises, you will see (hopefully in time) that every single extension that follows from his reasoning is foolproof.

[LadyShea]

Only the standard definition of determinism states that in order for determinism to be true we would have to know all of the outcomes of every single action in advance.

No definition of determinism states that. You are very confused.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're missing IT Vivisectus; the IT that changes the landscape of our world. Seriously. You are contending once again that we are caused without our input, which is not true. The fact that the past cannot cause us to do anything is central to this debate, but you seem to be ignoring it, or treating it lightly. Think about what I'm saying before replying, because all it will do is make me repeat myself again and again and again, but it does not alter the truth of our nature.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are avoiding the point once again: you stated that the past cannot cause our decisions as it does not exist any more. I pointed out that a thing does not need to exist any more to be a cause, and provided 2 examples:

1: A tsunami which is caused by an earthquake that has stopped as long as days before.

And I answered you. Even if a tsunami is the result of something that happened beforehand, we are experiencing the results of this earthquate in the here and now, at this instant, not in the past.

Originally Posted by vivisectus

2: Memories, which are caused by events that are in the past, but can nevertheless cause us to make certain decisions.

As I said before, there is a subtle distinction between the standard definition and Lessans' definition. Our experiences, memories, perceptions, feelings, what happened two minutes ago --- along with our genetic predisposition --- arouse our desire to move in a particular direction. We are compelled, by our nature, to choose that which we believe is the best choice under the circumstances (even if it doesn't look this way to others) based on all of these factors. But we can't say that these things caused us to kill someone, for example, because nothing (not heredity or environment) can make us or cause us to hurt anyone if we don't want to, for over this we have mathematical control. If that were true, people could very easily use the excuse that they couldn't help themselves because they were caused to do what they did, even if they didn't want to. This is inaccurate, and it's no wonder this line of thinking is rejected. Lessans is only clarifying one small, but major, point, which has become the source of all the confusion.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are now simply repeating yourself by saying "the past cannot cause us to do anything" but I am supplying you with examples where this is plainly not the case, unless you want to contend that memories do not influence our decision-making, or that we cannot call the earthquake the cause of the tsunami.

I never said we are not influenced by things that happened beforehand. We obviously are. All I'm saying (and this is a very subtle, but important, distinction) is that we are experiencing those things in the present. If I get hit by a tsunami, I am feeling the effects now, not yesterday or tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Once again, very simple examples are sufficient to completely derail your point: it really does not seem to have been carefully thought through. If I am wrong, I would be delighted to listen to your explanation why, but so far you have merely dogmatically repeated THAT it is so, without explaining why my examples are mistaken.

I have tried to explain it. Many thinkers (not just Lessans) have recognized that all we have is the present. Sam Harris for one. This is not a secret Vivisectus.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No definition of determinism states that. You are very confused.

Actually you are the one confused LadyShea. According to the standard definition of determinism we should be able to predict all actions, from the first cause up until the present day and beyond.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually you are the one confused LadyShea. According to the standard definition of determinism we should be able to predict all actions, from the first cause up until the present day and beyond.

Absolute bollocks. The developments of chaos theory, in the late 19th Century, put that notion to rest.

As usual peacegirl you are over a hundred years out of date.

[Vivisectus]

It all depends on what you're talking about. To accept all frameworks as if anything goes regardless of how contradictory those frameworks are, does not serve us well.

Strawman - that is not my position, nor is it relevant.

We can claim anything is true if we want to, define anything in any way we want, and say there are no facts or objective truths to base anything on, but what good would this do us if this only delays the very life we want for ourselves, which requires us to recognize that there are certain undeniable truths that we are AT LAST getting to understand.

Another strawman and an unproven claim.

That may be true, but this happens to be an invariable law of man's nature. If you don't like this law, take it up with God, not me. I'm just a messenger

....aaand a faith claim. In fact, this is doubly silly as we are in fact discussing if we should assume the book is correct. You are now saying "the book is correct, because the book happens to be correct".

There is a single, absolute truth and, yes, we are capable of knowing what this is because we were given the ability to figure it out at the right time in our development. NOW is the right time or we would not even be cognizant of the importance of this issue. Lessans just happened to be the first one to make this discovery due to the time period he was born, his unusual cognitive abilities, and the convergence of many factors that led him in this direction. Other people could be making the same discovery as we speak because this is not something he invented. This knowledge is part of the real world waiting to be discovered.

Please provide evidence for your claim.

When you use the word "sytem", you are making it sound contrived. Only the standard definition of determinism states that in order for determinism to be true we would have to know all of the outcomes of every single action in advance. This new way of understanding determinism only predicts one thing, and one thing only (which is based on facts, not theory); that, under the new conditions, no one could EVER desire to strike a first blow as a preferable choice IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION.

Beside the point: you are not dealing with the fact that we would have to be able to foresee all implications of all new development, both evolutionary and innovative ones. You are waffling again.

The only objective truth we're talking about is this hurting of others. A hurt is defined as doing something to someone that he doesn't want done to himself. I asked people to listen to Sam Harris (a self-proclaims atheist). He shows where science and objective morality do not have to be opposite positions

.

Facts not in evidence, nor is mr Harris's position relevant.

There is nothing that can alter a universal truth because it is not contingent on time. Necessary truths are hard to come by. Determinism happens to be one of them.

a) you have not proven your point is a universal truth
b) you have not proven that there is such a thing as a universal truth
c) If there is such a thing, you have not proven that it must also be eternal.

You are once again trying to dodge difficult points by piling poorly thought-put waffle on it.

There are no forecasts as to how the world is going to evolve or what it's going to look like 100 years from now. We can predict based on where we think it's headed, but we can't know for sure.

...and then you contradict yourself by saying

The only thing we can predict once this discovery is confirmed valid, and the Great Transition is officially launched, is a future of peace and prosperity for all mankind, as we extend this principle into all areas of human relation. But there is no way for you to understand what I'm talking about unless you have a thorough understanding of his discovery, which you don't. The knowledge that man's will is not free IS NOT HIS DISCOVERY. It is only the gateway that leads to his discovery.

...which assumes the book has been proven 100% correct. But it has not: in fact we are examining if we should believe it to be correct or not. You continually invoking the infallibility of the book as evidence for the infallibility of the book. That is nonsense.

This just shows me you did not listen to the audio,

finally you come up with a variation "you didn't read the book!!!". Which is not true by the way.

and you obviously didn't even read the pages before the foreword of this book.

I quoted the back to you extensively in this thread. Like I quoted where the book states explicitly that it will happen in the 20th century.

I made it clear the reasons why this knowledge was not brought to light in his lifetime.

Yes indeed: you made the excuses. He made the failed prediction.

He admitted in the audio that he must have been dreaming that people would have open arms to what he knew could not be denied. Unfortunately, that did not come to pass because the leading authorities who could have made it possible for this knowledge to be recognized were nowhere to be found.

That is one theory. Another is that it is an enormous pile of self-important piffle. And I have already pointed you to a whole bunch of leading authorities on philosophy you can easily contact, but when it comes to it you seem to lack the courage of your conviction.

This has nothing to do with my father managing this. If you follow the proof of his premises, you will see (hopefully in time) that every single extension that follows from his reasoning is foolproof.

Please provide that proof.

In the meantime, the facts that a) we are still evolving and b) we cannot predict all future innovations remain, and have not been dealt with.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually you are the one confused LadyShea. According to the standard definition of determinism we should be able to predict all actions, from the first cause up until the present day and beyond.

The only way we could predict all actions is if we could be aware of the complete states of affairs as they exist throughout the Universe...from the Quantum level up.

That's why no definition states that.

[Vivisectus]

And I answered you. Even if a tsunami is the result of something that happened beforehand, we are experiencing the results of this earthquate in the here and now, at this instant, not in the past.

you just proved my point, not your own, but you seem not to have noticed. Hence something can be caused in the present that does not exist anymore.

[quote]

Originally Posted by vivisectus

2: Memories, which are caused by events that are in the past, but can nevertheless cause us to make certain decisions.

As I said before, there is a subtle distinction between the standard definition and Lessans' definition. Our experiences, memories, perceptions, feelings, what happened two minutes ago --- along with our genetic predisposition --- arouse our desire to move in a particular direction. We are compelled, by our nature, to choose that which we believe is the best choice under the circumstances (even if it doesn't look this way to others) based on all of these factors. But we can't say that these things caused us to kill someone, for example, because nothing (not heredity or environment) can make us or cause us to hurt anyone if we don't want to, for over this we have mathematical control. If that were true, people could very easily use the excuse that they couldn't help themselves because they were caused to do what they did, even if they didn't want to. This is inaccurate, and it's no wonder this line of thinking is rejected. Lessans is only clarifying one small, but major, point, which has become the source of all the confusion.

What an enormous pile of waffle again. In it, you say

Our experiences, memories, perceptions, feelings, what happened two minutes ago --- along with our genetic predisposition --- arouse our desire to move in a particular direction.

Which is the same as saying that past experiences cause memories which in turn cause us to make decisions. Hence past events can indeed be the cause of present choices.

You then continue with

But we can't say that these things caused us to kill someone, for example, because nothing (not heredity or environment) can make us or cause us to hurt anyone if we don't want to, for over this we have mathematical control.

Which merely states "and the way in which these past experiences influence our present choices is called a desire". And a ludicrous claim about "mathematical control".

I never said we are not influenced by things that happened beforehand. We obviously are. All I'm saying (and this is a very subtle, but important, distinction) is that we are experiencing those things in the present. If I get hit by a tsunami, I am feeling the effects now, not yesterday or tomorrow.

Then things that do not exist any more can be causes in the present. Which you denied when you said "the past does not exist any more, how can it cause me to do anything?"

I have tried to explain it. Many thinkers (not just Lessans) have recognized that all we have is the present. Sam Harris for one. This is not a secret Vivisectus.

I doubt Harris agrees with you, but that is neither here nor there. The point remains: the past can indeed be the cause of events in the present: you are now pretending you never denied this yourself. It is the same for decisions. If this is not the case, you must feel memory does not influence decisions. You have once again avoided this point (or tried to) by throwing up enormous piles of waffle.

Tell me: if I told you yesterday that the red berries are poisonous, will that make you treat them differently than if I had not told you?

If the answer is yes, then past events can cause present ones through a chain of causation. If no, then you are saying that you would have taken the same action regarding the berries whether you remembered me telling you or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But the matter of responsibility is not really important in any discussion of determinism. The implications for ethics are secondary: they are something we look at as a result of the idea of determinism, not something that is central to it.

I don't think that's true. This discussion is so charged with emotion because it is very closely tied to this element of moral responsibility.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Whether determinism has implications for responsibility does not make determinism more or less correct, and has nothing to do with "what is going on in reality". You are putting the cart before the horse: you argue that since there must be responsibility, the definition of determinism must be altered to include it.

Whether determinism has implications for responsibility does not make determinism more or less correct, that is true. The reason it's correct is because every choice we make can only go in one direction. I am not putting the cart before the horse. Lessans was demonstrating that with the knowledge of determinism, responsibility goes up, not down. This has been a major factor in the rejection of determinism, for if our will is not free, we cannot blame, and how can we not blame people for hurting others? Free will strikes at the very heart of our present civilization. This is what Lessans refers to in the book as "the fiery dragon", the great impasse of blame. He writes:

p. 27 The belief
in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil for not
only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate
crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his
problems without blame and punishment which required the
justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience.
Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did
because he was endowed with a special faculty which allowed him to
choose between good and evil.

In other words, if you were called upon
to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you
do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way you
would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative
than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled
by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but
to think this way and that is why our civilization developed the
principle of an ‘eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ and why my
discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this point
because if man’s will is not free it becomes absolutely impossible to
hold him responsible for anything he does.

No one has been able to get beyond this point. He wasn't altering the definition for this reason; the moral implications of determinism are at issue no matter how its defined. The redefinition had only had to do with making the distinction in regard to the word "cause".

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But we have not reached any conclusions yet about whether responsibility as we understand it exists. You have merely claimed it does. And also that it does not, by the way.

I never reached that point in the discussion except for Spacemonkey's accusation that Lessans is making unsupported assertions in regard to conscience, which is simply not true.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think that's true. This discussion is so charged with emotion because it is very closely tied to this element of moral responsibility.

Everything is either deterministic, or it is not. Ethical question really do not get into it. There may be ethical ramifications, but that does not make determinism more true or less true. You may like it better or less, but that is neither here nor there.

[quote]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Whether determinism has implications for responsibility does not make determinism more or less correct, and has nothing to do with "what is going on in reality". You are putting the cart before the horse: you argue that since there must be responsibility, the definition of determinism must be altered to include it.

Whether determinism has implications for responsibility does not make determinism more or less correct, that is true.

You just finished saying you did not believe that was true. *Sigh*

Talking to you is like trying to play bridge with a person who is too impaired to remember the rules. You constantly break the rules of rational debate: you do not even make sense half of the time.

The reason it's correct is because every choice we make can only go in one direction.

Claim that you do not support.

I am putting no cart before the horse. Lessans was demonstrating that with the knowledge of determinism, responsibility goes up, not down, which is the impasse that no one has been able to get past,

There is no such impasse.

for if we extend this knowledge of determinism in the real world, we cannot blame people for what they are not responsible for.

That is not what determinism means, as has been painstakingly explained to you.

This is what Lessans refers to in the book as "the fiery dragon." No one has been able to get beyond this point.

Nonsense - it is just that neither you nor Lessans understand it. If determinism is correct, the world remains undetermined. Again - this has already been explained, but you just keep on parroting.

He wasn't altering the definition for this reason; the moral implications of determinism are an issue in the standard definition as well.

That has nothing to do with the question if it is true or not: just if we think it ought to be true.

The redefinition has only had to do with making the distinction in regard to the word "cause".

Indeed: you need to redefine the word "cause" in order to convince yourself your father was right. Because unless you do so, events in the past can indeed be causes in the present - including causes for present decisions.

I never reached that point in the discussion except for Spacemonkey's accusation that Lessans is making unsupported assertions in regard to conscience, which is simply not true.

So you admit that you use things you have not proven as proof for something that is actually central to proving that in the future. And still you think any of this makes sense. Amazing.

Look - don't take my word for it. Go to the philosophers forum. There you have your leading experts who can validate this knowledge. Send them the first two chapters and see what they say. They will tell you the same thing you have been told here: I absolutely guarantee it. But you already know this: that is why you don't do it. Safer to argue in here, where you will at least get attention. It is better than nothing, and you get to feel like you are the defender of Truth.

The rest of the world just thinks of you as a crazy lady with a dead fool's book. Always have, always will.