I just would like to state for the record that you’re seeing light from eight min 20 seconds ago… NOW.
But consider it takes even longer for light from the furthest reaches of the visible universe to get to NOW.
I mean.
to HERE.
And if you want him to accept the premise that the past is in the mind only, you will have to convince him that the premise is true. Otherwise, he won’t accept it ( because he sees no reason to do so ), so he won’t move forward.
If, on the other hand, you’re asking him to move forward even though he doesn’t agree with the premise, then I have to ask: what’s the point? Sure, he’d get to see Lessans’s process of reasoning in its entirety but he still won’t be able to endorse it since it’s based on premises he did not accept.
I hope you can tentatively accept his premise. I don’t want to get off track. I’ll just give you the first couple of paragraphs. I hope you won’t harp on this as I do not want to change the subject regarding determinism.
[i]CHAPTER FOUR
WORDS, NOT REALITY
Our problem of hurting each other is very deep-rooted and begins with words through which we have not been allowed to see reality for what it really is. Supposing I stood up in one of our universities and said — “Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to prove that man does not have five senses, which has nothing to do with a sixth sense,” wouldn’t all the professors laugh and say, “Are you serious or are you being funny? You can’t be serious because everybody knows man has five senses. This is an established fact.” The definition of epistemology is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity. For the modern empiricist, the only way knowledge becomes “stamped” onto the human conscience is through internal and external sensations, or through sense experience. But there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that the eyes functioned like the other senses so he included them in the definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange and potato, five fruit. The names given to these foods describe differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly could not call them five fruit since this word excludes the potato which is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit. Believe it or not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were classified in a category they did not belong. We cannot name the organs with which we communicate with the outside world, five senses, when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this. His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost unanimous agreement. To disagree was so presumptuous that nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is not a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this comment as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change what we are. Whether we call them 5 senses, or 4 senses and a pair of eyes is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them. Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later we have an additional problem which is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth.[/i]
Why would someone tentatively accept his premises? That’s the question I asked. And that’s the question you didn’t answer. All you said is “I hope you will” and then you went on to quote a passage from Chapter 4.
Because if he is right, there’s a lot at stake. It’s okay if you’re not sure whether his premises are correct, and I can’t promise you that you ever will be sure, but the only way to understand his observations is to carefully study his work. You’re not obligated to tentatively accept his premises if you don’t think it’s worth it. Totally up to you.
Does his premise entail nowA-me cannot determine what nowB-me will think, feel, or do?
If so, I reject it.
So you decide to jump.
How is THAT determined?
So you admit that some people have free-will, and others do not. How do you qualify the difference? Is it a matter of faith? Does God ordain it? God chooses, ‘determines’ who has free-will and who does not?
That’s fine, you can retreat if you want. You’ve already demonstrated that you do not believe in free-will, because you have no free-will, and believe that your status applies to everyone else although it doesn’t. Furthermore, you take your Author (Lessan) as your Authority. I guess whichever book you choose, is objectively true for all time and everybody else? As-if your (ir)rationalization cannot be questioned?
So-called “evil people” would not want that. And I side with them on this. You have not shown any modicum of ability to correctly judge the characters of others, given your position on Determinism. Why should anybody believe you, when you openly admit that you are not free?
Your conflation between free-will and morality, is noted. I already understand the opposition of Free-Will and Determinism. Determinism is based on an Abrahamic faith-based system, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. Determinism is based on Creationism, or the secular form of Big Bang Theory and Science-ism. It posits a “First Cause” from which all things source, representing a Mono-theistic metaphysics. “All come from One/God.” This is all common sense. Everybody knows this. So you’re not really saying much new, other than that it is your belief system, and you correctly conclude that you are not free. Your mistake is believing that your lack of freedom applies to others, when it doesn’t.
So the Author holds you hostage from the premise?
That if you don’t agree with him, that you’re hurting people, and are therefore evil? Right??
Is that the best you got, peacegirl? That doesn’t sound very peaceful.
Unwrong:So the Author holds you hostage from the premise?
Peacegirl: He holds no one hostage. The craziest thing I’ve heard yet.
Unwrong: That if you don’t agree with him, that you’re hurting people, and are therefore evil? Right??
Peacegirl: No, but if he’s demonstrating a way to prevent war, crime and poverty on a global scale, and people won’t take the time to study his work, it is preventing what could save many lives at a quicker rate than if we wait another 100 years. It’s not about him which you seem to be focused on. It’s about the knowledge.
Unwrong: Is that the best you got, peacegirl? That doesn’t sound very peaceful.
Peacegirl: I guess that’s all I got. 
It looks like you don’t have much then. Holding the reader hostage, and “saving the world”, has little to do with Truth.
Truth is, violence is inherent in Nature. Removing it, is removing self-defense, and therefore removing life.
I’m certain that what you believe to be ‘Evil’ is purely subjective and from your own, personal, selfish perspective. You aren’t in the position to judge Good from Evil.
[quote=“Urwrongx1000”]
It looks like you don’t have much then. Holding the reader hostage, and “saving the world”, has little to do with Truth.
Peacegirl: If you conclude that there is no way to prevent war and crime, therefore it’s not truth, you will never study his findings. That’s not up to me.
Unwrong: Truth is, violence is inherent in Nature. Removing it, is removing self-defense, and therefore removing life.
Peacegirl: He never once said you can’t defend yourself if you are being hurt. This just exposes YOUR ignorance.
Unwrong: I’m certain that what you believe to be ‘Evil’ is purely subjective and from your own, personal, selfish perspective. You aren’t in the position to judge Good from Evil.
Peacegirl: No one is intrinsically evil, but we live in a world of hurt, or science and religion would not be trying to find so hard to find solutions to this escalating danger which is very real.
Your idea of Determinism, and hence Free-Will, is tied up completely with your notion of Morality. This is not philosophy nor philosophical. You have your conclusion, before your premise, that violence is “bad” and “evil” is not innate. Again this proves how you have no free-will, but you’re still not demonstrating much about others. This demonstrates your selfishness and self-centeredness. You haven’t proven, really anything regarding your case. All you’ve shown is your obsession with Moral Goodness, not Truth, and definitely not Determinism / Free-Will.
Hypothetically, according to your own morality (Christianity / Abrahamism), God still requires that humans make the Choice to become Good or Evil, and it is a Choice, hence mankind is free. This is the conclusion of your morality. Without these premises, you don’t even have a notion of good or evil.
It sounds like you need a dose of Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. You’ve already been disputed, hundreds of years ago.
Nietzsche disowned his will. Hence identifying with others he wasn’t.
Nonsense
- Peacegirl: If you conclude that there is no way to prevent war and crime, therefore it’s not truth, you will never study his findings. That’s not up to me.
Unwrong: Truth is, violence is inherent in Nature. Removing it, is removing self-defense, and therefore removing life.
Peacegirl: What? Truth doesn’t change our need to use self-defense. But we are not going to keep war and murder going in order to use it.
- Peacegirl: He never once said you can’t defend yourself if you are being hurt. This just exposes YOUR ignorance.
Unwrong: I’m certain that what you believe to be ‘Evil’ is purely subjective and from your own, personal, selfish perspective. You aren’t in the position to judge Good from Evil.
Peacegirl: I’m not the judge. I even said what is good to one person may be evil or bad to another. But there is an objective standard that defines evil (I.e., hurt) and that is anything that you don’t want done to yourself. Wouldn’t you rather live in a place that isn’t being bombed? Be honest.
- Peacegirl: No one is intrinsically evil, but we live in a world of hurt, or science and religion would not be trying to find so hard to find solutions to this escalating danger which is very real.
Unwrong: Your idea of Determinism, and hence Free-Will, is tied up completely with your notion of Morality. This is not philosophy nor philosophical.
Peacegirl: This knowledge is about no judgment, so how can my “idea” of determinism have to do with free will when it proves we don’t have any? And how can my “idea” of determinism be tied up with my notion of morality when the word itself implies a judgment by others as to what is right and wrong? You’re right that this is not philosophical. It is a psychological law of our nature, but this topic was borne out of philosophical thought.
Unwrong: You have your conclusion, before your premise, that violence is “bad” and “evil” is not innate.
Peacegirl: Again, what is evil to you might be good to me. It is a normal reaction to be violent if you are retaliating against someone that hurt you.
Unwrong: Again this proves how you have no free-will, but you’re still not demonstrating much about others. This demonstrates your selfishness and self-centeredness. You haven’t proven, really anything regarding your case. All you’ve shown is your obsession with Moral Goodness, not Truth, and definitely not Determinism / Free-Will.
Peacegirl: Not at all. Goodness can only come from the desire to be good (i. e., not hurt) because there is no reason to be bad.
Unwrong: Hypothetically, according to your own morality (Christianity / Abrahamism), God still requires that humans make the Choice to become Good or Evil, and it is a Choice, hence mankind is free.
Peacegirl: False! Being able to contemplate options does not grant you free will. You’ve listened to nothing. You don’t have a clue what this author is demonstrating.
Unwrong: This is the conclusion of your morality. Without these premises, you don’t even have a notion of good or evil.
Peacegirl: What morality are you talking about? We are born with the seeds of conscience. If our environment is unfavorable to normal development, we will end up serial killers and mass murderers. Serial killers and mass murderers are not born evil.
Unwrong: It sounds like you need a dose of Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. You’ve already been disputed, hundreds of years ago.
Peacegirl: This discovery has nothing to do with moral judgment of good and evil. It only deals with what no one wants and can now be prevented.
Yep
You can’t prevent all the bad stuff, but you can love folks despite it and help them do better once it comes to light.
Yes, Peacegirl’s massive failures are her own, and none else. I would point out here, that if somebody ever wanted to do ‘Good’ by the world, then you should at least begin to understand the difference between what is ‘Good’ and what is, hypothetically, ‘Evil’. Because it’s apparent now that Peacegirl does not know the difference, or to the best of her ability, it would expose her ignorance about both.
Moral Good cannot be premised upon Subjective, personal desires, and emotional whims. Never, otherwise it is easily revealed as Evil. Because what is more Evil than disguising one’s own “Pure and Innocent” motivations as Good, when it is not, and when it is only self-serving??