New Discovery

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Fri May 24, 2019 8:44 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

Almost everyone on earth is such a moron, that it's certainly difficult to ascribe agency to them...


Peacegirl: Everyone has agency.

Ecmandu: However, it is infantalizing (disrespectful) to them to not give them the full reprocussions (not no reprocussions) of that agency if they want it.

Peacegirl: You mean consequences? If that’s true why do people do everything to avoid consequences? It’s true that some people may feel bad about something they caused and may want to be punished.


People are not all like that.

Phyllo brought sociopaths up as well, and you scoffed at him.

These people consider it a calculated risk to terrorize human beings, and many who are caught don't try to avoid it, they'll be like, "yeah, I guess you caught me, but I had a good run for awhile"

They accept the consequences if they come to bear, like eating a nectarine ... it's almost a nothing, they've prepared their entire lives to being caught.

For them, it's better to go to prison for 50 years than to not have killed one innocent.

I'd say in general about you, you are very sheltered and have not "been around the block" once yet, let alone many times.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Fri May 24, 2019 8:52 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

Almost everyone on earth is such a moron, that it's certainly difficult to ascribe agency to them...


Peacegirl: Everyone has agency.

Ecmandu: However, it is infantalizing (disrespectful) to them to not give them the full reprocussions (not no reprocussions) of that agency if they want it.

Peacegirl: You mean consequences? If that’s true why do people do everything to avoid consequences? It’s true that some people may feel bad about something they caused and may want to be punished.


People are not all like that.

Phyllo brought sociopaths up as well, and you scoffed at him.

These people consider it a calculated risk to terrorize human beings, and many who are caught don't try to avoid it, they'll be like, "yeah, I guess you caught me, but I had a good run for awhile"

They accept the consequences if they come to bear, like eating a nectarine ... it's almost a nothing, they've prepared their entire lives to being caught.

For them, it's better to go to prison for 50 years than to not have killed one innocent.

I'd say in general about you, you are very sheltered and have not "been around the block" once yet, let alone many times.


Also, I edited about half this post before you replied, you may want to read the edits:

viewtopic.php?p=2729750#p2729750
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Fri May 24, 2019 10:42 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

Almost everyone on earth is such a moron, that it's certainly difficult to ascribe agency to them...


Peacegirl: Everyone has agency.

Ecmandu: However, it is infantalizing (disrespectful) to them to not give them the full reprocussions (not no reprocussions) of that agency if they want it.

Peacegirl: You mean consequences? If that’s true why do people do everything to avoid consequences? It’s true that some people may feel bad about something they caused and may want to be punished.


People are not all like that.

Phyllo brought sociopaths up as well, and you scoffed at him.


These people consider it a calculated risk to terrorize human beings, and many who are caught don't try to avoid it, they'll be like, "yeah, I guess you caught me, but I had a good run for awhile"

Peacegirl: You are right. Some people are willing to take the risk.

Ecmandu: They accept the consequences if they come to bear, like eating a nectarine ... it's almost a nothing, they've prepared their entire lives to being caught.

Peacegirl: They probably know eventually they’ll get caught.

Ecmandu: For them, it's better to go to prison for 50 years than to not have killed one innocent.

Peacegirl: Yes that’s true. They have no feelings.

Ecmandu: I'd say in general about you, you are very sheltered and have not "been around the block" once yet, let alone many times.


Peacegirl: This isn’t my first rodeo! I’ve been around for quite awhile! lol
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Fri May 24, 2019 10:46 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

Almost everyone on earth is such a moron, that it's certainly difficult to ascribe agency to them...


Peacegirl: Everyone has agency.

Ecmandu: However, it is infantalizing (disrespectful) to them to not give them the full reprocussions (not no reprocussions) of that agency if they want it.

Peacegirl: You mean consequences? If that’s true why do people do everything to avoid consequences? It’s true that some people may feel bad about something they caused and may want to be punished.


People are not all like that.

Phyllo brought sociopaths up as well, and you scoffed at him.

Peacegirl: I didn’t scoff at him. I just told him he’s looking at what occurs in today’s environment.


Ecmandu: These people consider it a calculated risk to terrorize human beings, and many who are caught don't try to avoid it, they'll be like, "yeah, I guess you caught me, but I had a good run for awhile"

Peacegirl: You are right. Some people are willing to take the risk.

Ecmandu: They accept the consequences if they come to bear, like eating a nectarine ... it's almost a nothing, they've prepared their entire lives to being caught.

Peacegirl: They probably know eventually they’ll get caught.

Ecmandu: For them, it's better to go to prison for 50 years than to not have killed one innocent.

Peacegirl: Yes that’s true. They have no feelings.

Ecmandu: I'd say in general about you, you are very sheltered and have not "been around the block" once yet, let alone many times.

Peacegirl: This isn’t my first rodeo! I’ve been around for quite awhile! lol
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Fri May 24, 2019 11:31 pm

Peacegirl,

Every single reply that you made to my post that you replied to, demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that you haven't even been around the block even once.

I'm not even going to bother with all of it, but I'll just take this part:

Peacegirl stated: I didn’t scoff at him. I just told him he’s looking at what occurs in today’s environment.(in response to phyllo)

Ecmandu's reply: phyllo is telling you that because this is today's environment, nobody will be deterred in your system. Your system is psychopath heaven!!!

Literally, you're entire philosophy, this silly book, is nothing but psychopath heaven.

So you state something like: "well if everyone obeyed me, the world will be at peace!!"

Billions of people have tried that argument before!!

It doesn't work!


If I WANTED TO WRITE (as a psychopath) the book that would bring me psychopath heaven, and the psychopathic children of my children of my children psychopathic heaven as well... I'd write this book!!!!!!!!

People who haven't been this sheltered are not that dumb.

Actually, if they didn't give you the benefit of the doubt of just not being life wise... they'd have to conclude that YOU !! Are a psychopath!! Trying to trick all of us !!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Fri May 24, 2019 11:40 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

Every single reply that you made to my post that you replied to, demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that you haven't even been around the block even once.

I'm not even going to bother with all of it, but I'll just take this part:

Peacegirl stated: I didn’t scoff at him. I just told him he’s looking at what occurs in today’s environment.(in response to phyllo)

Ecmandu's reply: phyllo is telling you that because this is today's environment, nobody will be deterred in your system. Your system is psychopath heaven!!!

Literally, you're entire philosophy, this silly book, is nothing but psychopath heaven.

So you state something like: "well if everyone obeyed me, the world will be at peace!!"

Billions of people have tried that argument before!!

It doesn't work!


If I WANTED TO WRITE (as a psychopath) the book that would bring me psychopath heaven, and the psychopathic children of my children of my children psychopathic heaven as well... I'd write this book!!!!!!!!

People who haven't been this sheltered are not that dumb.

Actually, if they didn't give you the benefit of the doubt of just not being life wise... they'd have to conclude that YOU !! Are a psychopath!! Trying to trick all of us !!


I can’t waste my time responding to your lack of insight as well as your lack of robust investigation. Like I said, compatibilists think they have disclosed something great therefore they’re extremely defensive but all they’ve done is repackaged free will with the same problems that we have dealt with for centuries, but also in terms of having nothing new to bring to the table that could actually be of benefit to our world!
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Fri May 24, 2019 11:46 pm

peacegirl wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

Every single reply that you made to my post that you replied to, demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that you haven't even been around the block even once.

I'm not even going to bother with all of it, but I'll just take this part:

Peacegirl stated: I didn’t scoff at him. I just told him he’s looking at what occurs in today’s environment.(in response to phyllo)

Ecmandu's reply: phyllo is telling you that because this is today's environment, nobody will be deterred in your system. Your system is psychopath heaven!!!

Literally, you're entire philosophy, this silly book, is nothing but psychopath heaven.

So you state something like: "well if everyone obeyed me, the world will be at peace!!"

Billions of people have tried that argument before!!

It doesn't work!


If I WANTED TO WRITE (as a psychopath) the book that would bring me psychopath heaven, and the psychopathic children of my children of my children psychopathic heaven as well... I'd write this book!!!!!!!!

People who haven't been this sheltered are not that dumb.

Actually, if they didn't give you the benefit of the doubt of just not being life wise... they'd have to conclude that YOU !! Are a psychopath!! Trying to trick all of us !!


I can’t waste my time responding to your lack of insight as well as your lack of robust investigation. Like I said, compatibilists think they have disclosed something great therefore they’re extremely defensive but all they’ve done is repackaged free will with the same problems that we have dealt with for centuries. They have brought nothing new to the table that could actually be of benefit to our world!


And MagsJ goes at me from my replies...

But will leave this one alone.

I can actually start a whole thread as a proof that this is more offensive than my reply earlier!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat May 25, 2019 10:24 am

There is nothing remotely offensive about her reply to you at all
Address what she is saying instead of making such silly assertions
For this is a serious topic that deserves contributions of substance
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Sat May 25, 2019 4:13 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:There is nothing remotely offensive about her reply to you at all
Address what she is saying instead of making such silly assertions
For this is a serious topic that deserves contributions of substance


She's stating: don't judge anyone, especially psychopaths, because they need the least judgement of anyone ...

That's a line that you don't cross in any species.

She literally thinks that if you are kind to psychopaths, that world will be at peace, and that the world not being at peace, is because we aren't kind to psychopaths, that it's OUR fault if we get tortured by psychopaths.

This is not the way existence works.

It's extremely inflammatory.

She is completely negating the concept of boundaries.

Besides, she already lost the debate by calling it the highest natural law, when nobody follows it.

That's laughable.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sat May 25, 2019 4:28 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:There is nothing remotely offensive about her reply to you at all
Address what she is saying instead of making such silly assertions
For this is a serious topic that deserves contributions of substance


She's stating: don't judge anyone, especially psychopaths, because they need the least judgement of anyone ...


That is not what I'm saying AT ALL! It's your lack of understanding that's getting in the way!!

Ecmandu wrote:That's a line that you don't cross in any species.


This book is about preventing the psychopathic mind from developing in the first place, not in condoning behavior that none of us want. You are displaying extreme ignorance Ecmandu!

Ecmandu wrote:She literally thinks that if you are kind to psychopaths, that world will be at peace, and that the world not being at peace, is because we aren't kind to psychopaths, that it's OUR fault if we get tortured by psychopaths.


OMG, you're out in left field! Our fault if we get tortured by psychopaths? Did I say that? I am only trying to show, as much as you can't stand to hear it, that determinism prevents the very acts of crime that all of the punishment in the world could never achieve. I already said that during the transition to this new world, if there are people that are so far gone, so mentally deranged, that they have no conscience at all, then this principle may not help them and they will need to be institutionalized. But as a new generation is born, the kind of environment that created these psychopaths will no longer be a factor. Mental illness will be virtually wiped out!! No more psychopaths and no more sociopaths. Wouldn't that make you happy, or does it hurt your pride to think that your precious compatibilism (that you believe you've proved) only perpetuates the same old status quo?

Ecmandu wrote:This is not the way existence works.

It's extremely inflammatory.


You are right, this is not the way existence works as long as we are living in a free will environment. Our entire civilization is based on the belief that will is free. It's inflammatory because you don't understand this knowledge one whit.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat May 25, 2019 5:06 pm

Just read the second chapter and there are some serious flaws in it that have to be addressed :

The distance of the Earth from the Sun was not a determined event [ it actually took 200 million years for the Earth to form ]
It was a random event whereby all possible outcomes had an equal chance of occurring which is the opposite of determinism
So using the strong anthropic principle and fine tuning arguments as a reason to justify human existence is entirely fallacious

There is no mathematical certainty at all that God exists - proofs are for hypotheses and conjectures not metaphysical beings

There is no evidence to suggest that the elimination of a genuine reason for blame will actually result in there being no more
Just because someone is not responsible for something does not mean they will not be blamed anyway - that will still happen
For the reasons as to why someone gets blamed for something are not always logical - sometimes it is something else entirely

The foundation of the book is very flawed if these first two chapters are anything to go by
They also ignore the fact that before a final choice is made the will of man is actually free

Apart from you and your father has anyone - especially philosophers - ever accepted the entire premise of the book unconditionally ?
If the answer to this question is no that might be telling you something important so have you ever considered any of the criticisms ?
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sat May 25, 2019 5:54 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:Just read the second chapter and there are some serious flaws in it that have to be addressed :

The distance of the Earth from the Sun was not a determined event [ it actually took 200 million years for the Earth to form ]
It was a random event whereby all possible outcomes had an equal chance of occurring which is the opposite of determinism
So using the strong anthropic principle and fine tuning arguments as a reason to justify human existence is entirely fallacious


That was not his discovery. If he was wrong about how long it took for the Earth to form, it's an incidental. Please keep that in mind.

"
surreptitious75 wrote:There is no mathematical certainty at all that God exists - proofs are for hypotheses and conjectures not metaphysical ubeings


WOW! He never said God was a personal being. That was made very clear early on.

By a similar process of working our problem backwards we can
officially launch the Golden Age which necessitates the removal of all
forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so that
each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants to do.
Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation
of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide
rule which God has given us as a guide.

By now I hope you
understand that the word God is a symbol for the source of everything
that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil using
the word God only as a symbol for the former. Actually no one gave
me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force
that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the
direction of satisfaction and for me to be satisfied after reading Will
Durant’s analysis of free will it was necessary to disagree with what
obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not
satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving
that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke.

To say that God
made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my
nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is
absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is
concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun;
regardless of how much there is I don’t know about this ball of fire
does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and
regardless of what words I employ to describe God does not change the
fact that He is a reality. You may ask, “But isn’t there quite a
difference between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the
description of the sun could be inaccurate, but I know it is a part of
the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing and
say this is God, therefore we must assume because of certain things
that God is a reality, correct?”

We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a
discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or believed
that there was a design to this universe by the fact that the solar
system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon,
earth, planets and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some
internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now
that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free and at the very
moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration
compels man to veer sharply in a new direction although still towards
greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the
sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as
the solar system only we never knew it because part of the harmony
was this disharmony between man and man which is now being
permanently removed.


surreptitious75 wrote:There is no evidence to suggest that the elimination of a genuine reason for blame will actually result in there being no more
Just because someone is not responsible for something does not mean they will not be blamed anyway - that will still happen
For the reasons as to why someone gets blamed for something are not always logical - sometimes it is something else entirely


You'll need to read the whole book at least twice. You're jumping to a premature conclusion. Obviously, we can't just stop blaming. That would make every crook happy as a lark. There will be a transitional period from one world to the other, which may be very gradual. As people become citizens, the police force will be reduced in just proportion.

surreptitious75 wrote:The foundation of the book is very flawed if these first two chapters are anything to go by


If you are so sure the book is flawed then you must really understand it, so for starters what is the two-sided equation in your own words?

They also ignore the fact that before a final choice is made the will of man is actually free[/quote]

Absolutely not. Before a final choice is made man has a choice, but how can it be free when he cannot move in any other direction but "greater" satisfaction, not less? Your analysis so far is completely flawed and lacking depth.

[quote="surreptitious wrote:
Apart from you and your father has anyone - especially philosophers - ever accepted the entire premise of the book unconditionally ?
If the answer to this question is no that might be telling you something important so have you ever considered any of the criticisms ?


What difference would that make surreptitious? Srsly???? I've been criticized by lots of people who are doing what you're doing, making quick judgments without carefully reading the book or asking questions. They skim, can't tell me what the discovery is, and then have the chutzpah to tell me it's flawed! People rush to judgment especially when it doesn't jive with their worldview. And even if it does, they will jump to the conclusion that it's a religious work because he uses the word God. Amazing!
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat May 25, 2019 6:42 pm

I think over time we will become a more moral species although we will both collectively and individually always be a work in progress
I can see the thinking in the book being applied to artificial intelligence that will be able to think in absolute terms but not to humans

I think that you have to accept criticism even if you do not agree with it as such which you seem unable to do
You cannot have the book discussed on a philosophy forum and not expect any because all works get criticised

I have read the first two chapters as you asked and gave you my take on them
If I was being close minded then I would not have bothered to read them at all

My opinion should not matter to you anyway but you should not dismiss it just because it is critical

You should print more extracts from the book as you did above because that way you may get more feedback from the posters here
Its actually easier to read in the forum format anyway - I think I will read the final chapter next as its a bit too repetitive otherwise

The main problem is that there is no way of knowing if what the book claims will come to pass as it will be long after anyone now reading it is dead
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sat May 25, 2019 7:30 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:I think over time we will become a more moral species although we will both collectively and individually always be a work in progress
I can see the thinking in the book being applied to artificial intelligence that will be able to think in absolute terms but not to humans


We will become a more moral species when hurting people stop hurting people, and the only way to accomplish that is to remove the hurt to those who have been hurt first which then causes them to strike back and on and on it goes...

surreptitious75 wrote:I think that you have to accept criticism even if you do not agree with it as such which you seem unable to do
You cannot have the book discussed on a philosophy forum and not expect any because all works get criticised.


I don't mind being criticized if the criticism is valid. It's not.

surruptitious75 wrote:I have read the first two chapters as you asked and gave you my take on them
If I was being close minded then I would not have bothered to read them at all


I'm glad you read the chapters, but you did not read them carefully enough. You probably skimmed them because you couldn't even tell me what the discovery is. I can easily tell when someone hasn't read the book in a way that would allow the concepts to sink in, but only to criticize and find loopholes that don't exist. Your critique is scant and it's certainly not balanced. Unfortunately, because of your comments people will decide that it's not worth reading. Sad.

The principles are valid and sound. The criticism you made about the Earth is trivial. It would be like telling Einstein he was wrong because he made a mistake regarding a date. That's what tells me you weren't reading to grasp the knowledge but rather searching for anything you could find that would cause doubt. As I said, these trivialities have nothing to do with the validity and soundness of the discovery itself.

surreptitious75 wrote:You should print more extracts from the book as you did above because that way you may get more feedback from the posters here
Its actually easier to read in the forum format anyway - I think I will read the final chapter next as its a bit too repetitive otherwise

The main problem is that there is no way of knowing if what the book claims will come to pass as it will be long after anyone now reading it is dead


We can't know how long it will take (it depends how quickly this knowledge can spread) but one thing is for sure, it must come about in time due to the fact that the discovery is sound and people will want what they see. Once it is recognized by science it won't take but a relatively short period of time for the Great Transition to begin and the leaders of each nation to become our first citizens. Global peace will then be within our reach.

Even if we die before the Golden Age is here, we will know that our children or their children will benefit just as we have benefited from the generations that have come before us. Finally, if you begin to understand his chapter on death you will know that we (our consciousness) will be here to enjoy this new world, not our posterity.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Sat May 25, 2019 9:24 pm

Peacegirl,

More contradictions. So we have to judge before we become judgeless?!?!?

I see where you're going here...

If everybody just acts perfectly, there'll be no reason to judge, so you or this author sees, "well that means if we don't judge, everyone will be perfect.

We have no choice but to judge... we are biological beings. Judgement is hardwired into DNA.

Psychopaths are determined to be born in this species, without jobs like soldiers or firemen or police officers, they just kill innocent people, that's what they do. To get rid of them, you need a very sophisticated knowledge of the human genome.

Not someone who is themselves psychopathic saying, "if everyone obeys me the world will be at peace, obey me now!!"
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat May 25, 2019 11:32 pm

Excellent point you make about psychopaths Ecmandu and one that peacegirl would have failed to factor in to her Utopian vision

Psychopaths do not understand the difference between right and wrong and would behave exactly the same in a blameless world
They would not understand why such a world would be any different for them because they would still do whatever they want to

In a perfect Utopia the criminally insane would still be themselves so everyone else being altruistic would have zero impact upon them
Psychopaths are not all of a sudden going to stop being psychopathic just because every one else has become entirely non judgemental
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 26, 2019 12:13 am

peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:You are acknowledging that you are unable to fully explain and to demonstrate what and how and why conscious matter is and came to be.


I don't have to for the purposes of this discussion. Why do you keep bringing it up? If the thread was titled: How and why conscious matter is and came to be, that would be a different story.


How seriously can I take someone who actually believes this...unless I assume that they believe it only because they were never able not to?

Sure, you can narrow this discussion down to the things that you assert are true and then just dismiss all the factors that don't actually reinforce your own point of view as irrelevant. As though understanding how matter evolved into life evolved into brains evolved into minds evolved into your own particular self-conscious "I" is completely incidental to the author's discovery.

It would be like physicists discovering that the multiverse does in fact exist, and someone insisting that, for the purposes of their own discussion, they want only this universe to be relevant. Even though the ecxistence of the multiverse might have profound implications for our own universe.

Or like someone living in Flatland able to demonstrate the existence of our own three dimensional world, and dismissing that as irrelevant to all that might be understood regarding the relationship between these two worlds.

Or like someone who was raised to believe their Christran beliefs were based only on the Old Testament alone, discovering that the New Testament existed...but then dismissing that is irrelevant to a discussion about Christianity.

That's how I see you in a nutshell. There is what you believe. There is the comfort and consolation that what you believe provides you. And you'll be damned if someone like me is going to insist on expanding the reach of the discussion if that might mean chipping away at this discovery. A world of words that, in my view, has become the psychological foundation [defense mechanism] onto which you anchor "I".

iambiguous wrote:You don't know why it is what is and not something else. But this gigantic gap between the knowledge encompassed in your author's discovery and all the knowledge there actually is to be known about these relationships is not something we should take into account when reacting to this discovery.


peacegirl wrote:Where is the gap? Where are we ever free from moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, which offers us only one choice each and every moment of time? The two principles that comprise the two-sided equation (not math per se) lead to this discovery, but we haven't even gotten to the discovery yet. If these two principles are accurate (which they are), then when we extend them into all areas of human relation, we get a sound result.


Note to others:

Do you not see the gap I am talking about here? Do you not see how our own understanding of these relationships [including mine] can only be but considerably short of all that can possibly be known about existence itself?

peacegirl wrote: As I said, a person can argue that one plus one is three but you cannot tell me he's closer to the truth, or equal in truth value to the person who says that one plus one is two.


iambiguous wrote:But here you are basically telling me that whether I tell you this or not I am not compelled by nature to tell you only what I must. Telling you or not telling you is beyond my autonomous control.


peacegirl wrote:I am not saying that at all. You are compelled to think and say and do what you think and say and do. What I am saying is that the person who says one plus one is three is not as close to the truth as the person who says one plus one is two.


Who cares? If the person who says 1 + 1 = 2 and the person who says 1 + 1 = 3 are equally compelled by nature to say only what they must? And if somebody caring or not caring is equally compelled by nature to care or not to care...?

The truth is ever and always the embodied of natural laws. If, in fact, that is actually true itself.

iambiguous wrote:I see you somehow putting the author over and above all this and being able to grasp nature in such a way that even nature itself is eventually compelled to be in sync with that which he construes to be "progressive" behaviors.


peacegirl wrote:How can nature be compelled to do anything when nature is not an entity that can think.


Clearly, in order to understand that you would have to understand what or who is responsible for nature [existence] itself. But you won't go there for all the reasons I noted above. That and the fact that [so far] nature hasn't compelled you to go there.

peacegirl wrote: Nature is ourselves and how we behave according to immutable laws.


Back to this: I couldn't have said it better myself!

iambiguous wrote:No, the conflict revolves around whether I was ever able not to make points that you concluded were mumbo jimbo, and whether you were ever able not to now conclude that I couldn't help myself.

It's either all necessarily intertwined in the only possible reality or autonomy on some level does exist and it may be possible to distinguish which frame of mind here is in fact more reasonable.


peacegirl wrote:You keep going back to autonomy as if this means we can extricate ourselves from the laws that we are part of. That's like saying we can extricate ourselves from being human.


You forgot [again] to point out that nature compelled me to go back to autonomy.

Only you are adament that in order to understand fully what "being human" entails others must be wholly in sync with the assumptions embedded in that particular "intellectual contraption" you call The Discovery.

peacegirl wrote:That's not the point. We already know you couldn't help yourself, so why do you keep repeating it?


iambiguous wrote:But that is my point: I keep repeating it because I do not possess the free will to stop repeating it. Why? Because nature compels me to keep repeating it. Just as nature compels you [in this exchange] to keep pointing out that to me.


peacegirl wrote:Nature doesn't compel you. You, as part of nature's law, are compelled to keep repeating yourself, because it gives you greater satisfaction.


Note to others:

In different words, please explain to me how, if "I" is necessarily, inherently a part of nature, this doesn't compel me to keep repeating myself. Please explain to me in turn how my embodiment of "greater satisfaction" is not as well the embodiment only of nature itself.

peacegirl wrote:There you go again. This is not the issue because we already know that. Repeat repeat repeat. That's why we're getting nowhere.


iambiguous wrote:No, the reason we are not getting anywhere is that nature has yet to compel me to agree with your own intellectual contraptions embedded in your own definitions and word meaning. Unless of course it is because nature has not compelled you to agree with mine.


peacegirl wrote:That could be the case. What don't you agree with? Do you believe we can move in the direction of less satisfaction when an option of greater satisfaction is available to us? Do you disagree that we have to give consent to any choice that we make?


Sigh...

What difference does it make [for all practical purposes] what I agree or disagree with here when [for all practical purposes] I am always being compelled to by nature? We clearly understand the [for all practical purposes] relationship between "I" and nature in very different ways.

peacegirl wrote:No, it's not the most important thing because the foundational principle that man's will is not free, which was demonstrated, IS the first premise.


iambiguous wrote:Note for us the clearest example of where this has been demonstrated. How has the author set up a set of circumstances in which he was able to show us beyond all doubt that man's will is not free. What actual experiments did he conduct in regard particular chosen behaviors in a particular context such that others can replicate the same results.


peacegirl wrote:Greater satisfaction is not something that can be replicated through an experiment but the proof comes when it is shown that humans cannot desire to hurt one another when not to hurt them becomes the preferable choice.


Over and again, when I ask you to bring this all down to earth and note how the author has actually demonstrated why his principled assessment works in regards to actual human interactions -- actual choices, actual behaviors -- I am told that the "proof" will become clear only in the future when "it is shown that humans cannot desire to hurt one another when not to hurt them becomes the preferable choice."

peacegirl wrote: Even if you believe there could be an element of free will, you really need to put it aside so we can move forward.


iambiguous wrote:And how would I do that unless and until nature compels me to?


peacegirl wrote: It depends. If you want to continue making progress, you will put it aside. You are able to if you want to iambiguous. If you don't want to, then you won't, in the direction of what gives you greater satisfaction and we will make no progress.


And how will I do that unless and until nature compels me to want to continue to make progress?

peacegirl wrote:It's like the mathematical principle of 1+1=2 is the basis that allows a bridge to be built but you keep saying that this is not important.


iambiguous wrote:No, I said that a bridge is not able to be built by engineers who insist they can ignore mathematical truths.


peacegirl wrote: Same here. Peace and brotherhood cannot be achieved by libertarians and compatibilists who insist they can ignore the law of determinism, but remember, the conventional definition leaves much to be desired because we are not caused by a past event.


Oh, like 1 + 1 = 2, is the same as peace + brotherhood = the author's own prescription for a progressive future. Value judgments as mathematical equations.

iambiguous wrote:But that one of them might be compelled by nature to try to anyway. What is important however is the extent to which one is able to choose to build a bridge. Whether it stays up or not.


peacegirl wrote: We don't have a choice as to the extent we are able to choose to build a bridge. That's not of our doing. But once the desire is there, I think most architects would desire building a sturdy bridge because it is in his best interest and the interest of others to know what he is doing. We have seen when people don't take important safety precautions because they don't see the risks (maybe they aren't experienced enough), they don't think the corrections are necessary, or they skimp on safety for economic reasons. Whatever the case, people are killed as a result. But what if we could create a world where people would never take a chance where safety is concerned, and where these tragedies don't continue. Wouldn't that be nice?

These issues can be easily solved just like they are today. If more than person is involved, they can take a vote. These are not serious issues and can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The serious issues have to do with creating a world where there is no economic insecurity and where the desire to hurt another is the result of being a loser if one doesn't hurt someone in the process.


All I can note here is nature compels me to note that, from my frame of mind, this frame of mind is so incredibly naive, I wouldn't even know where to begin in responding to it.

Then back to this knot:

peacegirl wrote: Obviously, the consenting of toppling the domino, once you make this decision, is not of your own free will. We know that so don't repeat it.


iambiguous wrote:I am compelled to make this decision.


peacegirl wrote: This is the crux of the problem. You are not compelled before you do it.


iambiguous wrote: I have no free will not to make it. But it seems from your frame of mind that only after I make it does the "no free will" part kick in.


peacegirl wrote: That is very true. You cannot say "out of necessity" I must repeat myself before you even make the choice. You repeat yourself because you get satisfaction out of repeating yourself. Maybe you think that by repeating yourself, I will get it. I do get it but there's a flaw in your analysis. Before you do something, you have a choice. You do not have to repeat yourself if you don't want to. Nature isn't causing you in advance to make the choice to repeat. You are repeating, once again, because it gives you greater satisfaction. Once you choose this option as a preferable alternative, you could not not have chosen this option. #-o


If everything I think and feel and say and do and want and desire is necessarily a manifestation of nature's laws, then how does time here get broken into "before I decide" and "after I decide"? How does the author demonstrate this other than by merely asserting it to be true? How could this actually be proven in a particular context? Other than by understanding the defintions and the meaning he gives to the words in his world or words discovery as he does?

Somehow in your head you make this before and after distinction between "I" desiring something and nature. As though "I" really does have some control over what it wants and desires.

Whereas I see all aspects of the brain -- the more and the less primitive parts -- as coordinating everything to be wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

peacegirl wrote:You don't have the free will to not "not get it" but you could get it later if the laws of your nature compel you to want to get it.


iambiguous wrote:Back again to this: That is what I am compelled to argue too! "Get it" or "not get it" -- past, present, future -- nature is behind it all. But: What is behind nature?


peacegirl wrote: You are changing topics again. It doesn't matter what or who is behind it all. You can ask this question until the cows come home. A more important question is if the claims are true and this discovery can change our world for the better, it needs to be brought to light sooner rather than later.


iambiguous wrote:I'm sorry, but when you note things like this I can't help but wonder if you are altogether there from the neck up. All of this is smply presposterous given the manner in which "I" construe determinism out in the "for all practical purposes" world of actual human interactions.


peacegirl wrote: That is the disconnect; it's preposterous because of the way you construe determinism but you refuse to allow this author to explain why the present definition is creating problems that could be resolved. But no, you won't budge, not even to hear the explanation.


Always, the way someone thinks about all this. Always about the definitions. Why? Because [in my view] this allows you keep the discussion up in the clouds of abstraction, and general description, and "principles".

iambiguous wrote: I can only presume you are compelled to note things like this. Either because nature is literally in charge here or given some measure of autonomy your own particular "I" is utterly locked into believing what you do about the present begetting a future in sync with your author's own political prejudices. Why? Because, in my view -- compelled or not -- that is how you attain a foundation for "I" psychologically; and then sustain a comforting and consoling frame of mind by believing it in a world filled with so many terrible things.


peacegirl wrote: That is the problem. You are making determinism a forced prescription where the choice is made for you, which would necessitate an "I" that only believes the illusion of having a choice to have a choice. But this is not necessary. The problem is with the definition. Once it is made clear that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, but that we have a choice although not a free one, we can move to the two-sided equation. I really don't know if it's possible because you are convinced that his definition is made up, and you won't let go of your definition. So we're deadlocked.


Indeed. But, in my view, the laws of nature compelled you to conclude that before you in fact did. But only if, in turn, the laws of nature compelled me to conclude that before I did.

peacegirl wrote: You are in sync but, once again, by saying nature's law MADE you step on the accelerator is misleading because nothing outside of YOU made you choose this.


iambiguous wrote:Here again [to me] this mysterious, incomprehensible manner in which you insert this [to me] unexplained "break" between "I" and nature. "I" to me is just another necessary manifestation of a material nature unfolding only as it must. Mindful matter that cannot be fully grasped other than as you and the author are compelled to. Why? Because there is no true break between nature and your "selves".


peacegirl wrote: Exactly my point, but what you are not grasping for whatever reason, is that nothing but you makes the decision, even though your brain is pushing you in that direction.


Whatever reason can there be in a wholly determined universe but that nature compels my brain/"I" to not grasp it here and now? I see no break between "I" before concluding I don't grasp it, and "I" after concluding I don't grasp it. It's all nature...past, present and future.

peacegirl wrote: Nature isn't separate from you, but that's how you're making it sound. "I couldn't help myself because nature made me do it." See what I mean? This is the problem with language as a tool since it always needs clarification when discussing topics that require people to be using the same definition.


iambiguous wrote:But if nature compels me to make it sound that way, then how could I help but -- naturally -- to be in sync with that?


peacegirl wrote: I'm not saying you could help it, but let's try to be more clear with our definitions. You can try a little harder, nature is not forcing you to give up.


This is basically either 1] nonsensical or 2] unintelligable to me. I can't help but sound as I do. Why? Becasue nature compels me to. But: if I do try a little harder how is that not also because nature compels me to? Nature may not be forcing me to as when we imagine someone forcing another to do something with a gun to his head, but that is because we cannot point to nature as we can the man with the gun. But if nature compels the man to point the gun how can we say that he is to blame for doing so? How can we hold him responsible as you seem to hold me responsible for not trying harder?

iambiguous wrote: Apparently there is this universal "standard" for differentiating right from wrong behavior and it just so happens to be entirely in sync with human behaviors in the author's own "peace and prosperity" future.


peacegirl wrote: Differentiating right from wrong is basically differentiating between what is a hurt to another and what is not. Obviously abortion is one of those gray areas where a fetus doesn't have a say, so it must be the mother's choice.


iamiguous wrote:And then those who argue that since it surely hurts the unborn to be literally shredded alive, to die, the living must be there to take that hurt away. It must be the unborn's natural right to life that prevails. Ah, but that's not in sync with your own political prejudice so you just "think" the unborn out of the equation and insist/assert that it must be the mother's choice that counts. All the while admitting that throughout the entire sequence you were never able to freely choose any of this.


peacegirl wrote: I am saying that once conscience reaches a higher level (due to the fact that no one will blame anyone for anything, and this will be known in advance) where the mere thought of causing pain to any sentient being would be a terrible thing to contemplate, people will want to reduce pain and suffering wherever it occurs.


What on earth does that have to do with my point though? Even in the future, if a woman becomes pregnant and doesn't want to be, there's the pain and grievences embedded in shredding the unborn or in forcing the woman to give birth.

Similarly:

peacegirl wrote: Some people think that killing animals for food is wrong. Some people don't. In this case, people will have to use their own feelings regarding this to determine if they want to eat meat, but they will not tell others what to do. The biggest change is how an animal will be slaughtered if they are being used for food. In the Jewish religion they have very strict laws so that the animal will feel no pain at all.


This in no way really addresses my point regarding conflicting goods in your so-called "progressive" future. It's just a frame of mind that you have concocted in order to feel good about the author, his discovery and all the peace and prosperity heading our way as a result of them.

Thus in my view...

iambiguous wrote:You untangle it all in your head by fitting it into the intellectual contraption that the author "discovered" to propel the abortion/animal rights conflicts here and now into a "progressive" future. At least for the mothers, if not for the dead babies.

At least for the animals not being slaughtered the way we do it now.


peacegirl wrote: You don't understand his chapter on death which proves that consciousness is not just an individual thing. This doesn't mean people will not care about abortion because it still hurts to lose a child growing inside of you. So people will still take precautions if they don't want more children. But this knowledge does take away the sting that this individual (which he has the potential of becoming) will not be born to see our wondrous world.


Clearly, we are in two very, very different discussions here. And imagine how embarrassed one of us would be if we did have some measure of autonomy.

peacegirl wrote: What the hell? Why is the sky blue? Why is the grass green? Why do birds chirp? Why are there so many species? Why do we wonder whether God exists?
Why Why Why? What do any of these questions have to do with what I'm sharing?


iambiguous wrote:There are scientists and others who can answer questions of this sort. But what do all of those things/relationships share in common? The fact that they exist in an overarching reality that is intertwined in all of the components of existence itself. As though the things that you are sharing here don't as well. Sure, convince yourself that all that you don't know about existence is irrelevant to all that you do know. After all, all that you think you do know is [for now] the psychological foundation for all that comforts and consoles you.


peacegirl wrote: Once again, we don't need to know all things to know that there are discoveries to be made in different fields that will help us progress. Edison didn't know all about existence itself but he certainly made discoveries that have helped humanity. Why you keep insisting that this is all about my comfort is upsetting to me because that's not what it is.


Yes, but his discoveries all unfolded given the laws of nature in the either/or world. He could demonstrate his own discoveries. Why? Because they did in fact reflect that part of nature which is true for all of us. But how would he have gone about demonstrating that he accomplished all of this autonomously? How would he have gone about demonstrating that an electric current used to, say, execute a prisoner was a "progressive" thing to do?

Then my own bottom line:

iambiguous wrote: Sure, convince yourself that all that you don't know about existence is irrelevant to all that you do know. After all, all that you think you do know is [for now] the psychological foundation for all that comforts and consoles you.

And that, in my view, is the motherlode here. That, above all else, must be protected. You are just one of many right here in ILP who have concocted these general descriptions of the human condition out of the endless assumptions that they make about things they have no real capacity to demonstrate at all. In part because there are far, far, far more things that they don't know about existence then they ever possibly could know.


peacegirl wrote: You aren't making sense. I have given the first three chapters that demonstrate why man's will is not free and why nothing can make man do what he makes up his mind not to do. You should read the chapters carefully and maybe you will realize that this is no joke.


Again: What does this have to do with the point I am making? Unless, of course, nature simply isn't able to take things like that into account.
Last edited by iambiguous on Sun May 26, 2019 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32746
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 26, 2019 12:25 am

phyllo wrote:
You think you think you think, yet you have absolutely no understanding of this discovery, which makes your opinion worth two cents.
I'm trying to discuss it and all I get is this sort of stuff.

It's like I have to accept the 'holy discovery' before I can have a 'valid' comment. Disagreement is automatically wrong. :evil:


What he said.

Or, rather, the way that I would spin it. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32746
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sun May 26, 2019 12:26 am

Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

More contradictions. So we have to judge before we become judgeless?!?!?

I see where you're going here...


Yes, we judge many things to determine if something is worth pursuing, but this is not the kind of judgment I'm talking about. Stop conflating this word to make it look like you're right when you're dead wrong. :P

Ecmandu wrote:If everybody just acts perfectly, there'll be no reason to judge, so you or this author sees, "well that means if we don't judge, everyone will be perfect.


It's the exact opposite. When we stop judging, everyone will be perfect. But remember this does not mean we suddenly stop judging just because we know FOR A FACT that man's will is not free. If you had read the chapters you would have known that. You know nothing about this knowledge, and it shows!

Ecmandu wrote:We have no choice but to judge... we are biological beings. Judgement is hardwired into DNA.


Thinking is hardwired. Judgment against someone because you judge him to be wrong and worthy of repercussions is not hardwired into anyone's DNA.

Ecmandu wrote:Psychopaths are determined to be born in this species,


Is English your second language or am I missing something? Psychopaths are not born to be psychopaths without the environment to trigger it.

Ecmandu wrote:without jobs like soldiers or firemen or police officers, they just kill innocent people, that's what they do. To get rid of them, you need a very sophisticated knowledge of the human genome.


Oh, so now you're a great scientist on top of being a great compatibilist. You know for a fact that every person that becomes psychopathic has something wrong in his genome? Shouldn't they have identified this genome already with such sophisticated technology?

Ecmandu wrote:Not someone who is themselves psychopathic saying, "if everyone obeys me the world will be at peace, obey me now!!"


Who said "obey me now"? You are just pissed because your logic does not prove that man has free will, let alone anything that can help our world. Sorry Ecmandu, you lose! :lol:
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sun May 26, 2019 12:39 am

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:
You think you think you think, yet you have absolutely no understanding of this discovery, which makes your opinion worth two cents.
I'm trying to discuss it and all I get is this sort of stuff.

It's like I have to accept the 'holy discovery' before I can have a 'valid' comment. Disagreement is automatically wrong. :evil:


What he said.
or, rather, the way that I would spin it. :wink:


You would not disagree with Einstein because he was recognized. You would listen quite attentively and if you didn't understand something you would question earnestly to get a clearer understanding. But you certainly wouldn't argue. You disagree because this author was an unknown, and because of this you don't take this knowledge seriously. But he did have a discovery and it will become recognized one day. Then, just like with Einstein, you would not even think of arguing. This can work in reverse if science says something is true. People accept it at face value and don't question any further. This can be dangerous and lead to apparent truths that have graduated into fact and no one dare criticize or ostracism is the name of the game.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sun May 26, 2019 12:49 am

surreptitious75 wrote:Excellent point you make about psychopaths Ecmandu and one that peacegirl would have failed to factor in to her Utopian vision

Psychopaths do not understand the difference between right and wrong and would behave exactly the same in a blameless world
They would not understand why such a world would be any different for them because they would still do whatever they want to


How do you know this surreptitious75? Prove to me that they would act the same being born in a world where not only no one blames, but no one is hurt by the many events in life that lead to hatred whether it's used against oneself or against others.

surreptitious75 wrote:In a perfect Utopia the criminally insane would still be themselves so everyone else being altruistic would have zero impact upon them
Psychopaths are not all of a sudden going to stop being psychopathic just because every one else has become entirely non judgemental


It's more than being non judgmental. It's changing the environment entirely. I did say that as we make the transition, there may be people who are so far gone that they cannot be rehabilitated at all. Therefore, they will need to be institutionalized just like a mad dog would, but this is a tiny percentage of the population. Why are you focusing on this when most criminals are run of the mill crooks? They are the professional thieves who know right from wrong. They would never desire to steal, rob, murder, under changed conditions that alter their preference not to take from others as that alternative that gives them greater satisfaction.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun May 26, 2019 1:00 am

peacegirl wrote:You would not disagree with Einstein because he was recognized.
1) I can't speak for Iambiguous, but I would certainly, if I ended up in a discussion with Einstein, question his ideas, point out what I thought did not make sense, probe and test, as well as I could. I have a suspicion Iambiguous would also. I think Einstein would have understood the need for such a process. That is part of learning. And since Einstein was not always correct, it is a part of his learning also, or was.
2) The writer, your father presumably, has not been recognized. So it makes sense that people will be skeptical and critical. Einstein's ideas and the math involved were scrutininzed by the smartest people in the relevent fields and then later tested empirically, where possible. This has not been done yet. So you are in a cart before the horse situation. And experts were skeptical of his ideas for quite a time. Anyone with new ideas can expect criticism and would understand the need to work maturely and respectfully with it. I notice that the predictions in the book about when humanity would come to understand the great discovery were not correct. IOW predictions about the speed with which these ideas would be accepted were incorrectly predicted by the author. Fine, he could be wrong about that, but right about other things. But since the predictions about how we will all get along if we believe in the ideas depend on knowledge of how humans react, the fact that he was significantly off about when the ideas would take over says something about his understanding of humans. And that calls into questions his ability to predict other things. Further it means that he and perhaps you have not be dealing with criticism in such a way that the scientific community and intellectuals in general have taken the ideas seriously. The fact that you think it should be treated like we would hypothetically treat Einstein's ideas even though we have no good reason to do this and criticism is treated poorly, does not bode well for any wide acceptance of the ideas in the near future.

3) Einstein was incorrect about some things. So everyone bowing down to even Einstein would not have been a good idea. That's why we have peer review. If you want to say no one here is your author's peer. Fine, but whoever is peers are, they are not listening, or you would not be pushing the book here amongst people who do not have the power, in the main, to get scientific consensus support.

You would listen quite attentively and if you didn't understand something you would question earnestly to get a clearer understanding. But you certainly wouldn't argue. You disagree because this author was an unknown, and because of this you don't take this knowledge seriously. But he did have a discovery and it will become recognized one day. Then, just like with Einstein, you would not even think of arguing. This can work in reverse if science says something is true. People accept it at face value and don't question any further. This can be dangerous and lead to apparent truths that have graduated into fact and no one dare criticize or ostracism is the name of the game.
Well,right. We aren't just bowing down. All we have now is your assertions and the authors assertions that everyone will be convinced. We have someone who think she/he should be treated by Einstein, despite the fact that Einstein ran a gauntlet of expert criticism, using incredible skill and discipline over a long period of time. IOW he knew what to do to get a wider acceptance of his ideas and who to go to and who to collaborate with. He earned it. You want it ahead of time, without doing the work.

How can you possibly not understand such basic things about how ideas come to be accepted

and at the same time be sure

these ideas will have the effects you claim they will have.

Right there I question even the chance of you having expertise.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun May 26, 2019 1:02 am

The number of psychopaths that exist in the general population is not actually relevant here
I also dont think that environment is the major cause for psychopathic behaviour but genetic
The brains of psychopaths are different to non psychopaths so they are already born that way
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun May 26, 2019 1:12 am

Einstein is a bad example because he spent the second half of his life trying to dismiss quantum mechanics
As reality at that level did not conform to his ontological [ not scientific ] expectations of how it should be
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Sun May 26, 2019 1:17 am

Peacegirl,

Let's come back to this:

You state that the deterministic law of world peace is the highest law in existence.

For millions of years, hominids have never been confused by a real law, the law of gravity ...

Yet, a law that you claim to be a higher law than the law of gravity is a law that NOBODY obeys !!!!

So there are one of two possibilities here for your "law"

1.) because it's the highest law in existence and nobody follows it, it's a proof of freewill

2.) it's not a law
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]