A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then whose control are they in?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. How can our choices be in our control if our will is not free? It looks like we are choosing freely, but if you understood anything about the definition Lessans is proposing (which is more accurate), choice is an illusion because we can only move in one direction. We do not have the ability to choose A or B equally, which is exactly what free will states.

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by Traditional native

I have read and respect the posts above. Allow me to suggest to peace girl, "Accept these posts as constructive criticism." As for myself, I don't want to read or purchase the book yet (I'm lazy and or cheap ) However, if you were to post a few ideas from the book, I and I'm sure others, would love to discuss them.

Welcome to the Traditional native!

I might suggest diving in in another thread. This one might be a bit too much for a new guy. Maybe you would even consider posting a greeting in The Archway or something light in The Atrium. I hope you enjoy your stay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So you and Lessans say. Neither of you offer any evidence that such is the case, just unsupported assertions, as usual.

This is an accurate observation Angakuk. Your obstinance seems to come from your desire that Lessans not be right, not that what he says is not right. You need a refresher course.

p. 485 The reason man cannot do what I asked is because there is no such
thing as the past. The past is simply the perception of a relation
between two points. As I move from here to there, the past is what I
leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something
that happened. In actual reality you are not moving between two
points, a beginning and an end, you are in motion in the present. I
know that we were talking yesterday, and that I was talking a fraction
of a second ago, and that I am still talking.

The word ‘past’ is
obviously the perception of a relation that appears undeniable because
it has reference to the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to
the sun. You are conscious that it takes a certain length of time to do
something, and because you are also conscious of space you perceive
that as you traverse a point from here to there, what is left behind as
you travel is called the past and your destination is the future. Here
lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how is it
humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future
when in reality all we ever have is the present? Yet we have a word to
describe something that has no existence in the real world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just as wrong implies, you are in judgment which means you believe in free will. This goes against the very definition of determinism. So tell me how a person would not be able to offer excuses using the standard definition? I'm just asking you to show me how this works because obviously he is using excuses that justify his behavior?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Peacegirl, it seems to me that you are confusing explanation with excuse. Just because an act has been explained in terms of the factors that caused it does not mean that the act has been excused.

That's not what I'm even saying. I'm only saying that a person could use this as an excuse as to why he did what he did EVEN THOUGH HE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT. This explanation can't be accurate because nothing can make him do what he doesn't want to do. This was explained clearly in Chapter One.

p. 56 The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’
has been seriously misunderstood, for although it is impossible to do
anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES EVERYTHING
BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely nothing can make
him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this once again. Was
it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what they
did not want to do when unafraid of death which was judged,
according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils? In their eyes,
death was the better choice if the alternative was to lose their freedom.

Many people are confused over this one point. Just because
no one on this earth can make you do anything against your will does
not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for his people and it was
against his will to stop his nonviolent movement even though he
constantly faced the possibility of death...but this doesn’t mean his
will was free, it just means that it gave him greater satisfaction to face
death than to forego his fight for freedom. Consequently, when any
person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that
he really didn’t want to but had to because he was being tortured, he
is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and
others because he could die before being forced to do something
against his will. What he actually means was that he didn’t like being
tortured because the pain was unbearable so rather than continue
suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of two evils, to tell his
captors what they wanted to know, but he did this because he wanted
to not because some external force made him do this against his will.
If by talking he would know that someone he loved would be instantly
killed, pain and death might have been judged the lesser of two evils.

This is an extremely crucial point because though it is true that will
is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS EARTH CAN
MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING AGAINST HIS WILL. He might
not like what he did — but he wanted to do it because the alternative
gave him no free or better choice. It is extremely important that you
clear this up in your mind before proceeding.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have also said that previous experience compels us to choose that which is most preferable, so the past has an influence, but in reality the past cannot cause anything because the past exists in our minds, not in the external world.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If the past cannot be said to have caused an event in the present, because the past no longer exists, then, for the same reason (i.e. the non-existence of the past), it is equally true that the past cannot be said to have influenced an event in the present.

Things happen everyday in the world, but they are happening in the present. The results of those things that happen; the effects that occur are seen in the present. This does not mean that things that happen, the effects of which we experience in the here and now, don't cause in us a desire to respond to those things.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Welcome to the Traditional native!

I might suggest diving in in another thread. This one might be a bit too much for a new guy. Maybe you would even consider posting a greeting in The Archway or something light in The Atrium. I hope you enjoy your stay.

That was the nicest greeting. I wish everyone was as welcoming as you.

[peacegirl]

I thought I'd pass this on for those who didn't see it.

LOVE IT: Actress Sally Field Drops An Emphatic F-Bomb During Award Acceptance Speech

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what you mean by that. How can our choices be in our control if our will is not free?

Then who or what does control our choices?

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1089275]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I never said determinism is not true. All I say is that if you hold that the past cannot cause us to do anything in the present, then you cannot also believe in any form of determinism, and certainly not in any compulsion to choose what is the most preferable. That would be a contradiction.

You seem unable to explain this - all you do is repeat yourself.

I have to repeat myself because you're not understanding. There is a compulsion to choose what is the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time, which is why will is not free. There is no contradiction.

Funny you should say that, as you go on:

I have also said that previous experience compels us to choose that which is most preferable, so the past has an influence, but in reality the past cannot cause anything because the past exists in our minds, not in the external world. Our memories arouse our desire to move in a certain direction, and in that sense the past exists

.

Which in essence means that past DOES cause us to do things. You just (once again) substitute the word "influence" for "cause". Or "Arousing a desire". It changes nothing though: you admit that the past causes us to do things.

This is a subtle distinction, and the only reason this is important is because of the two principles that are based on this understanding. The first principle: Man is always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. The second principle: Nothing can compel man (not the past or anything else; this bars what other people can do to us) to do anything against his will, for over this he has absolute control (you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink).

To be caused to do something does not mean compelled against your will, you goose. Is it sinking in now? The book relies on the past causing us to do things.

That is why it is silly to say "how can the past cause us to do anything?".

As you pointed out, it is central to the entire book that this does indeed happen.

These two principles are accurate and form the foundation for the two-sided equation, which I don't believe we are ever going to get to.

You claim they are, yeah. However you seem unable to explain why anyone who is not inclined to feel Lessans was infallible should think so. Personally I would expect such a genius to avoid leaving contradictory statements in the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then who or what does control our choices?

Our background, experiences, perceptions, genetics, interpretations, age, all factor in when making a choice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Funny you should say that, as you go on:

.

Which in essence means that past DOES cause us to do things. You just (once again) substitute the word "influence" for "cause". Or "Arousing a desire". It changes nothing though: you admit that the past causes us to do things.

To be caused to do something does not mean compelled against your will, you goose. Is it sinking in now? The book relies on the past causing us to do things.

That is why it is silly to say "how can the past cause us to do anything?".

As you pointed out, it is central to the entire book that this does indeed happen.

You claim they are, yeah. However you seem unable to explain why anyone who is not inclined to feel Lessans was infallible should think so. Personally I would expect such a genius to avoid leaving contradictory statements in the book.

I said this word needs qualification. It is okay to say my past caused or compelled me to do something as long as it can't be used as an excuse. It is a fact that nothing can cause you to do anything, not your past, not your heredity, not even God, can cause you to do something you yourself don't agree to. This excuse is used in court even today when people say his psychosis made him kill; drugs made him kill; the way he was raised made him kill. It may have compelled him to kill, but he did it because he wanted it to, not because he was made to against his will. You're the bigger goose because you don't want Lessans to be right.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our background, experiences, perceptions, genetics, interpretations, age, all factor in when making a choice.

So are you saying none of those factors are within our control? Are you saying how we respond and react to various factors is not in our control? Are you saying we can't control the addition of factors via data input and contemplation?

It is a fact that nothing can cause you to do anything, not your past, not your heredity, not even God, can cause you to do something you yourself don't agree to.

So some choices are within our control, as long as it is the choice to NOT do something.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our background, experiences, perceptions, genetics, interpretations, age, all factor in when making a choice.

And all of that is in our past, so the past causes the present.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a fact that nothing can cause you to do anything, not your past, not your heredity, not even God, can cause you to do something you yourself don't agree to. This excuse is used in court even today when people say his psychosis made him kill; drugs made him kill; the way he was raised made him kill. It may have compelled him to kill, but he did it because he wanted it to, not because he was made to against his will.

This is an empty claim with no proof at all, people are always doing things they do not want to do, and that is a fact of life that is indisputable. Lessans was wrong. The 'Path of least resistance' is very common even if it is something they do not want to do.

[thedoc]

Work requirements, family obligations, promises to friends, are constantly making people do things that they would not otherwise do. People will do things that they do not want to do for a variety of reasons, there is nothing absolute or mathematical about a persons ability to refuse to do something. Lessans examples were childish and stupid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our background, experiences, perceptions, genetics, interpretations, age, all factor in when making a choice.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So are you saying none of those factors are within our control? Are you saying how we respond and react to various factors is not in our control? Are you saying we can't control the addition of factors via data input and contemplation?

We have control over the collection of data that could help us in making an informed decision if we feel that we don't have enough information, but this decision to accumulate more data is also a movement in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction.

It is a fact that nothing can cause you to do anything, not your past, not your heredity, not even God, can cause you to do something you yourself don't agree to.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So some choices are within our control, as long as it is the choice to NOT do something.

No choice is free, even the choice not to do something. My choice not to do something rather than do something is in the direction of greater satisfaction.

[LadyShea]

And what is greater satisfaction? How is it formed? What controls it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have control over the collection of data that could help us in making an informed decision if we feel that we don't have enough information,

As you have ampely demonstrated in your refusal to collect any data that could disprove your fathers claims. You have refused to make an informed decision, instead have held to false beliefs in spite of overwhelming data disproving your concepts. You have more than enough information to reject your fathers nonsense, but you hang on in spite of everything.

[thedoc]

'Greater Satisfaction' is a meaningless red herring, by Lessans' definitiion it is self proving, therefore useless in any debate. By the examples given it is true because it is true by its own self serving definition, therefore of no value.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is an accurate observation Angakuk. Your obstinance seems to come from your desire that Lessans not be right, not that what he says is not right. You need a refresher course.

p. 485 The reason man cannot do what I asked is because there is no such
thing as the past. The past is simply the perception of a relation
between two points. As I move from here to there, the past is what I
leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something
that happened. In actual reality you are not moving between two
points, a beginning and an end, you are in motion in the present. I
know that we were talking yesterday, and that I was talking a fraction
of a second ago, and that I am still talking.

The word ‘past’ is
obviously the perception of a relation that appears undeniable because
it has reference to the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to
the sun. You are conscious that it takes a certain length of time to do
something, and because you are also conscious of space you perceive
that as you traverse a point from here to there, what is left behind as
you travel is called the past and your destination is the future. Here
lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how is it
humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future
when in reality all we ever have is the present? Yet we have a word to
describe something that has no existence in the real world.

Those quotes don't support the claim to which I was responding. They don't even address the same subject. Lessans claims that the free will principle was necessary during a certain stage of our development. At no point does he provide any evidence that such was the case.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I'm even saying. I'm only saying that a person could use this as an excuse as to why he did what he did EVEN THOUGH HE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT. This explanation can't be accurate because nothing can make him do what he doesn't want to do. This was explained clearly in Chapter One.

p. 56 The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’
has been seriously misunderstood, for although it is impossible to do
anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES EVERYTHING
BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely nothing can make
him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this once again. Was
it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what they
did not want to do when unafraid of death which was judged,
according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils? In their eyes,
death was the better choice if the alternative was to lose their freedom.

Many people are confused over this one point. Just because
no one on this earth can make you do anything against your will does
not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for his people and it was
against his will to stop his nonviolent movement even though he
constantly faced the possibility of death...but this doesn’t mean his
will was free, it just means that it gave him greater satisfaction to face
death than to forego his fight for freedom. Consequently, when any
person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that
he really didn’t want to but had to because he was being tortured, he
is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and
others because he could die before being forced to do something
against his will. What he actually means was that he didn’t like being
tortured because the pain was unbearable so rather than continue
suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of two evils, to tell his
captors what they wanted to know, but he did this because he wanted
to not because some external force made him do this against his will.
If by talking he would know that someone he loved would be instantly
killed, pain and death might have been judged the lesser of two evils.

This is an extremely crucial point because though it is true that will
is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS EARTH CAN
MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING AGAINST HIS WILL. He might
not like what he did — but he wanted to do it because the alternative
gave him no free or better choice. It is extremely important that you
clear this up in your mind before proceeding.

An explanation for an action only constitutes a valid excuse if that explanation meets the criteria for a valid excuse as established by the social norms under which the explanation is being offered as an excuse. If determinism (by any definition) is true those social norms are also determined.

Suppose that within the context of a particular socialon of/cultural environment, certain acts are considered to be inherently inexcusable and deserving of punishment. In such an environment no amount of rational explanation will ever render those actions excusable. If, for example, within a particular social environment, serving white wine with beef is considered inexcusable, regardless of the circumstances, then the explanation that one's decision to serve white wine with beef was the inescapable consequence of prior events, while constituting a reasonable explanation for the action, cannot not excuse the action (that is what "inexcusable" means). Thus, even under the hardest of hard determinisms no explanation could constitute a valid excuse for having done that which is, under the aforesaid social norms, considered to be inherently inexcusable and no explanation could justify remitting the punishment due those actions.

Likewise, if the prevailing social norms reject the notion that some actions are inherently inexcusable and allow for the existence of mitigating circumstances then reasonable explanations for said actions may very well constitute valid excuses.

In either case it is the social norms that determine what constitutes a valid excuse, regardless of whether or not determinism is true and regardless of whether or not the will is free.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Things happen everyday in the world, but they are happening in the present. The results of those things that happen; the effects that occur are seen in the present. This does not mean that things that happen, the effects of which we experience in the here and now, don't cause in us a desire to respond to those things.

The desire to act in a certain manner is logically and temporally prior the action stimulated by that desire. That means that the desire to act is a past state or condition in relation to the action it has inspired. Clearly a case of something that happened in the past causing something else to happen in the present.

[LadyShea]

When people say "My past made me do it", what they really mean is "Past circumstances made me want to do it". Of course if it is against the societal norms, as Angukuk pointed out, they will try to say it was against their desires in order to avoid punishment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is an empty claim with no proof at all, people are always doing things they do not want to do, and that is a fact of life that is indisputable. Lessans was wrong. The 'Path of least resistance' is very common even if it is something they do not want to do.

I took you off of ignore for one day, as I always give people second chances and since there's not that many posts I will answer yours. I'm also answering yours because your post isn't nasty; it's just confused. The path of least resistance is very common, that is true, but again you are missing the point of the distinction he is making. They may be choosing the path of least resistance, or some other sub-optimal choice, because the alternative in their eyes is considered worse under the circumstances. In other words, even though they would rather not do it, they find themselves in a position where any other choice available to them is worse. The point he was making is that they're not doing it against their will; they're doing it because they are consenting to do it, even if they are doing it AS THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When people say "My past made me do it", what they really mean is "Past circumstances made me want to do it". Of course if it is against the societal norms, as Angukuk pointed out, they will try to say it was against their desires in order to avoid punishment.

You got my point.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And what is greater satisfaction? How is it formed? What controls it?

What controls anything LadyShea in the external world? Universal laws. What controls how an animal acts? Laws of his nature. The movement in the direction of greater satisfaction is a universal law that controls the mankind system. We have absolutely no control over the direction our desire is forced to take. I am passing along a truth that has been misunderstood for centuries. None of us have any power over this law; it's beyond our control, yet we can use this knowledge for our betterment, once we understand how to harnass it and apply it on a global scale.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Those quotes don't support the claim to which I was responding. They don't even address the same subject. Lessans claims that the free will principle was necessary during a certain stage of our development. At no point does he provide any evidence that such was the case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl
The belief in free will is a principle that came into being because in our stage of development we had to believe that a person could have chosen otherwise in order to justify punishment, which was a necessary deterrent and the only way we could prevent people from hurting others.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Those quotes don't support the claim to which I was responding. They don't even address the same subject. Lessans claims that the free will principle was necessary during a certain stage of our development. At no point does he provide any evidence that such was the case.

You're right. I am not sure how that happened. I have to repeat some of these passages.

p. 27 In the beginning of creation when man was in the early stages of
development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to
control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the
reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense
of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of
everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However,
in order to reach this stage of development so God could reveal
Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it
was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he
believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously.

It became a
dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all
civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop. 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.

<snip>

The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was
because they never attempted to look behind the door marked ‘Man’s
Will Is Not Free.’ Why should they when they were convinced man’s
will was free? Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the
world and saw the truth but in a confused sort of way because the
element of evil was always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told
the rabbis that God commanded man to turn the other cheek, they
threw him out because the Bible told them that God said — ‘An eye
for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ When his enemies nailed him to
the cross he was heard to say — “They know not what they do.” “Turn
the other cheek,” he said.

Because Christ exemplified in his behavior
the principle of forgiveness, and because he saw such suffering in the
world, he drew to himself those who needed help, and there were many.
However, the legacy he left for Christianity was never reconciled. How
was it possible to turn the other cheek in a world of such evil? Why
was the mind of man so confused and in spite of every possible
criticism how was religion able to convince the world to be patient and
have faith? Where did these theologians receive their inspiration since
there was no way science could reconcile good and evil with a God that
caused everything. They solved this problem in a very simple manner
by dividing good and evil in half and God was only responsible for the
first. Then they reasoned that God endowed man with freedom of the
will to choose good over evil. To theologians, God is the creator of all
goodness and since man does many things considered evil they were
given no choice but to endow him with freedom of the will so that
God could be absolved of all responsibility for evil, which was assigned
to Satan. This is also the reason why religion is so hostile towards any
person who speaks against free will.