Peacegirl, that’s a disproof of the ENTIRE book!!!
Nobody breaks natural laws
By saying this, I believe gravity breaks down under certain conditions, but under the other conditions, it NEVER does.
But you go even further than this, you state that determinism towards peace is the highest immutable law in existence … the ONLY thing a person is required to do, to disprove this entire book is check with themselves (falsification - science - that stuff you claim you are doing) all they have to do is check with themselves and ask “is anyone’s consent being violated in existence?” If they answer “yes”, then your book does not describe a natural law.
That’s it. Proof, real proof. Not like you use the word, but how it’s actually used.
It’s unrealistic because it feels like it’s an impossible feat. I get it.
I’m really trying my best. You are right. It’s hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Very true.
Maybe so, but if you’re a serious philosophy student this wouldn’t be enough. I can’t do more than I’m doing. If I can’t people to read even if they skip the introduction, then I guess they won’t learn what this is about. I am bending over backwards already.
If somebody is a professor who is teaching philosophy, then he/she would do that. But most people are not going to invest that much time because they have other interests and other things to do.
True, and I’m not getting any younger.
I’m trying my best. I’ve already gone over why man’s will is not free, but when it is accepted to be true, once and for all, then we can reap the benefits as we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame.
I’m not asking about that.
If this law is immutable, there will be no afterwards because no one will desire to strike a first blow without justification. But in order for this to work, we must remove all of the things that justify retaliation, and there are many.
Number one, he won’t desire to kill her, but in this world he may desire this and may take the chance if he believes he won’t get caught. But for us to get to the point where no one wants to kill anyone, we have to remove the hurt that allow people to justify what they’re about to do.
It is a deterrent to know that the serious consequences of going to jail or the death penalty will be enforced, if caught, but not everyone heeds these threats.
These things will not occur because the environment in which children are raised will be so different that the thought of gaining at someone’s expense or hurting someone in any way will not even enter their minds. There are some mentally ill people and they may be so far gone that their conscience no longer can control their behavior therefore they may need to be institutionalized, but as a new generation is born into this new world, mental illness will be virtually wiped out.
I skipped Chapter 1. I’m familiar with the arguments for and against determinism. I just choose to ignore them.
I read Chapter 2. I think it’s a mistake to think that nobody with strike first. It’s just not a correct understanding of human behavior. That appears to be the critical flaw.
I think that the desire will still be there and people will act on it. People are not going to become as caring as the author believes.
No wonder it doesn’t seem reasonable to you. This chapter began on page 60 and you took an excerpt from 86 which was a conclusion based on the 26 pages that preceded it. Do you have any other questions before telling me there’s a fatal flaw. THAT seems unreasonable to me.
The chapter begins with a discussion of blame and responsibility. It presents the concept of THOU SHALL NOT BLAME. The real mechanics of how it would all work begins around page 75 (page 93 of the pdf) when the author is asked these questions:
I encourage people to read the chapter and decide for themselves whether it seems reasonable or not. (It’s about 34 pages long.)
What makes you think that by simply “removing” blame, people would become thoughtful and caring?
Some people are putting a lot of thought into their actions but many are not.
Some people already see themselves as blameless.
Some people are completely indifferent to the pain and suffering of others.
This new discovery would have no effect on these people.
Sometimes association gives me acid tongue sometimes. I think, if I remember correctly, that someone did the same thing to me about 6 years ago, it made me feel horrible.
Phyllo, you are getting way ahead of yourself and it’s not fair to the author. You said you know all about determinism, so what is his explanation of why man’s will is not free? His description is different than others, so you can’t just say you’re jumping ahead because you know the arguments.
What does this have to do with anything?
Because they are.
You are again basing your thoughts on the vantage point of a free will environment, which you cannot do if you want to understand this discovery.
Not in the environment that created them to be that way. You’re right, but we are talking about a different environment that would not create the same kind of individual.
But seriously … I’m accepting that determinism is correct. That way we can move on to actual scenarios that arise in the world.
If the argument is based on the author’s particular definition of determinism, then it’s all a word game and it won’t produce results. As Ecmandu suggests, if it’s a law, then it ought to be working already - independently of any verbal gymnastics.
Well his argument requires gaining some sort of intellectual understanding of freewill and determinism which changes behavior. Somebody who is not putting thought into their decisions is not going to act any differently.
I don’t think that I’m doing that. Especially in this quote which really has nothing to do with freewill.
I think that you are assigning too much value to the environment.
Let’s consider a lion.
I don’t blame it for wanting to eat me. It doesn’t know or care whether I blame it or not. It’s still going to try to eat me. I’m food.
There are a lot of human predators which are thinking and acting exactly as a lion. I and others are their prey. I need to defend myself by discouraging the predator from attacking. It’s a practical necessity.
Fair enough. I just hope you understand why a person could never do otherwise, or at the very least accept this fact so we can move on.
That is absolutely false. The FACT that man’s will is not free has never changed, but we needed the development of our species to recognize the importance of this knowledge to use it to our advantage.
[i]Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will —
Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those
who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going
to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must
come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence
not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later
it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s
will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are
compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Do you really think it was
an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the
sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or
freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to
fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains
developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly
when I did?
To show you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that
controls every aspect of this universe through invariable laws that we
are at last getting to understand, which includes the mankind as well
as the solar system, just follow this: Here is versatile man — writer,
composer,artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian,
architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief,
etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the
learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and
lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible not to
blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of
necessity and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to
why will is not free and what this means for the entire world which
perception was utterly impossible without the development and
absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of
history have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?
In reality we are all the result of forces completely beyond our
control. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we are
able to see for the very first time how it is now within our power to
prevent those things for which blame and punishment came into
existence.
[/i]
That is very true, and it’s a good question but this law does not necessitate a person put a lot of thought into what he knows he could never do in this new environment such as rob, steal, connive, burglarize, or murder.
This has more so to do with conscience than thoughts. Even children will not desire to take advantage of others when this principle is put into practice and they learn from an early age what it means that man’s will is not free (which can be simplified depending on their age obviously)
You are again basing your thoughts on the vantage point of a free will environment, which you cannot do if you want to understand this discovery.
It has everything to do with free will. You disagree because people in our present environment are often indifferent to the pain and suffering of others. But this can only occur in a free will environment. You have not carefully read this chapter or you would have had more questions regarding the two-sided equation. Do you even know what it is?
We can’t escape our interaction with the environment which has an enormous impact on how our feelings are expressed.
A lion kills for self-preservation. We also will kill for self-preservation if there is no other way to survive. When we are secure in our ability to sustain our standard of living, we humans will not have to hurt others in order that we may live.
It is true that some people have certain predispositions based on a mixture of their genetics and environment. This sometimes compels them to lash out at innocent people when their rage explodes just like a pressure cooker. It is a practical necessity to defend oneself by any means possible. But we are talking about a new world where the causes that lead to a person who has this predisposition from ever being given the opportunity to express itself.
Sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention but when you say “I think” it means it’s your opinion which I’m not interested in because opinions don’t mean much. Opinions are not facts. Have you heard the movie quote: “Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one?”
The author wrote his thoughts/opinions in the book. You have thoughts/opinions about the value of the book and whether it correctly describes the world and human behavior as it exists now and how it will be in the future. People who read it will have their own thoughts and opinions about it.
I see some human behavior (fact) and I don’t think it will change as a result of this new discovery (opinion). I don’t see any reason why it would.
But perhaps you think that the book contains facts and not the author’s opinions. And that places the author and book above the forum discussion. There are references to “mathematical impossibility” which may lead you in that direction. Be careful and skeptical when applying mathematics to human behavior.
