Revolution In Thought

Philosophy
41

peacegirl, I just googled a little, and found this], dated February 13, 2013.

This guy was on one of the forums and did not like his second discovery, so he went behind my back and gave this horrible review without even reading the book. He misrepresented a lot of what the author was saying. If you’re going to use this one review to reject this discovery, then be my guest. In time, there will be a lot of good reviews so I’m not worried.
'This guy' is the critic] on Amazon of your father's book. Since then only one contentless positive review was written.
42
Why are you defending what you can't defend because you have no idea what you're talking about in reference to this knowledge? I feel like I'm in a twilight zone. How can I even begin to discuss this knowledge with you when you have already concluded that this is nothing more than the Golden Rule?
Well, one strategy would be to tell kkwan what the difference of your father's ideas with the Golden Rule is.
43
How can I even begin to discuss this knowledge with you when you have already concluded that this is nothing more than the Golden Rule?
Most people offer some sort of outline of their idea. Also some poignant quotes from the author. Something less than a demand that we read 600 pages of a book that has never garnered any attention in the past. If I see something brown and smelly on the sidewalk, I don't pick it up. What do you mean by that? That you smell something fishy just because I can't spit it out in the way you demand? I am not asking you to read 600 pages. I am asking you to read the first chapter for starters. Or you could listen to the author read and elaborate on the first chapter. It's not like I'm not giving you something to sink your teeth into. If I had nothing to offer, that's another story. But I have something of great value to offer. The only thing I resent is that people expect me to break this knowledge down into a few sentences, which will cause a lot of confusion. Okay, how about if I meet you half way. I will cut and paste some of the first chapter so that you don't have to go to another site to read it.
44
peacegirl, I just googled a little, and found this], dated February 13, 2013.
This guy was on one of the forums and did not like his second discovery, so he went behind my back and gave this horrible review without even reading the book. He misrepresented a lot of what the author was saying. If you’re going to use this one review to reject this discovery, then be my guest. In time, there will be a lot of good reviews so I’m not worried.
'This guy' is the critic] on Amazon of your father's book. Since then only one contentless positive review was written.
This guy completely misrepresented the book. He didn't like Lessans' claim regarding light and sight, which motivated him to give this awful review. I was almost in tears when I read it because he never even purchased the book. He talked about force. He manufactured this because there is no talk of force in the entire book. I have to admit that I sometimes am influenced by negative reviews and will not buy a product because of it. My hope is that when this book is marketed and read by people interested in this topic, there will be plenty of positive reviews.
45
Why are you defending what you can't defend because you have no idea what you're talking about in reference to this knowledge? I feel like I'm in a twilight zone. How can I even begin to discuss this knowledge with you when you have already concluded that this is nothing more than the Golden Rule?
Well, one strategy would be to tell kkwan what the difference of your father's ideas with the Golden Rule is. The Golden Rule states "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is a good rule to follow but it doesn't always work. What if you are in need of food to feed your family and no one will give you any. The only option you have is to steal it from a grocery store. Obviously, you wouldn't want someone to do that to you if you were the grocery store owner, but you feel that you must do it in order to survive.
46
I can, and I've done it but I know that reading the text gives you a more clear picture. If it's too concise it won't do this knowledge justice, as I've already said. Why is it so difficult for you to go to the website and listen for a half hour. Then come back and we can talk more. http://www.declineandfallofallevil.org
I went to the website and read the first chapter. There was nothing to listen. Go to the website and click on the heading Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought. Scroll down and you will see the audio.
47
That's the excuse everyone gives. I can't do more than I've done. It took me over ten years to compile this work and if your skepticism is such that it is too difficult to read because it takes up too much of your precious time, then so be it.
It is not an excuse. As you said yourself, I am in no obligation to read your father's book, so I don't need an excuse. I am just wondering why you don't just tell us what the differences with the philosophical debate about free will and responsibility are.
These ideas ARE new, and for you to depend on other people's opinions of what constitutes rubbish is not independent thinking.
So an independent thinker should read every book that contains 'revolutionary new thought' and that needs a foreword that complains about not being heard by the scientific community? Why not just go ahead with the essential idea, so the reader really gets interested? He wasn't complaining. He was sharing what he went through. There's nothing wrong with that.
I can do that because I know the arguments. Compatibilism is just a way for philosophers to reconcile determinism with moral responsibility.
No, no. Not 'reconcile'. Without determinism, our actions would reduce to random events, instead of expressions of what we really are, as products of our biology and biography. Determinism is a necessary condition for free will. If you don't think so (but first read further), then tell me why. Or what your father would have answered.
He would have said that we are products of both biology and biography, but he would have disagreed that determinism is a necessary condition for free will, as we have no free will. Having the ability to choose is the standard definition of free will, but this does not mean we actually have freedom of the will.
The problem is we cannot have free will and determinism in the same sentence.
Well you just did! :roll:
Where?
They are mutually exclusive ideologies.
So if your actions arise from your wishes, feelings and beliefs, then you are not free? And if what you wish, feel and believe is separate from your biology and biography, then that is being free? What remains is that what I am is randomness, or what I do is randomness, or even both. What is your father's (or your) reaction on this?
Again, the fact that your actions arise from your wishes, feelings and beliefs does not grant you free will because free will states that you can choose A over B or B over A equally when there are meaningful differences between the available options. This can't be done.
And then: a rational idea does not necessary abolishes all evil. Of course, if all people share the same universal ethics, there will be peace. But that will be true for any universal ethics. Just to say that 'if all people would recognise the idea, then we will get rid of all evil' is pretty empty, because many ideas will do. We will have peace when I can convince all people that they should stop hurting each other. That is quite obvious, isn't it?
That is ridiculous GdB. That's not his proof. OMG, how can you assume that this is what he's saying?
I didn't say it is his proof. I said that every idea of a universal ethics, when accepted by everybody, would bring peace. Which means that whatever your father's idea is, it cannot be that special as you think it is.
How do you know before you even know what his discovery is about?
I don't mind questions but when you tell me right off the bat that he didn't know the argument, you have crossed the line.
I hope you see that I did not cross the line. I ask questions. But you do not give real answers.
When people at the very outset challenge me and tell me that they won't attempt to learn what this is about unless I do things their way, it turns into a power struggle which I don't want to be a part of.
ISorry that I'm having problems with the quote button. Every forum is different and this one does not even show that I ended a quote. I can't even take the time to figure it out. People will just have to bear with the fact that the post doesn't follow the rules.
It was clear what paragraph was of whom.
I'm glad.
48
How can I even begin to discuss this knowledge with you when you have already concluded that this is nothing more than the Golden Rule?
Most people offer some sort of outline of their idea. Also some poignant quotes from the author. Something less than a demand that we read 600 pages of a book that has never garnered any attention in the past. If I see something brown and smelly on the sidewalk, I don't pick it up. What do you mean by that? That you smell something fishy just because I can't spit it out in the way you demand? I am not asking you to read 600 pages. I am asking you to read the first chapter for starters. Or you could listen to the author read and elaborate on the first chapter. It's not like I'm not giving you something to sink your teeth into. If I had nothing to offer, that's another story. But I have something of great value to offer. The only thing I resent is that people expect me to break this knowledge down into a few sentences, which will cause a lot of confusion. Okay, how about if I meet you half way. I will cut and paste some of the first chapter so that you don't have to go to another site to read it. I didn't demand anything or ask you break down anything. I made some suggestions that are perfectly in line with every other marketing plan of any book I've ever read. You're the one who comes here and gets all huffy when we tell you what you think.
49
How can I even begin to discuss this knowledge with you when you have already concluded that this is nothing more than the Golden Rule?
Most people offer some sort of outline of their idea. Also some poignant quotes from the author. Something less than a demand that we read 600 pages of a book that has never garnered any attention in the past. If I see something brown and smelly on the sidewalk, I don't pick it up. What do you mean by that? That you smell something fishy just because I can't spit it out in the way you demand? I am not asking you to read 600 pages. I am asking you to read the first chapter for starters. Or you could listen to the author read and elaborate on the first chapter. It's not like I'm not giving you something to sink your teeth into. If I had nothing to offer, that's another story. But I have something of great value to offer. The only thing I resent is that people expect me to break this knowledge down into a few sentences, which will cause a lot of confusion. Okay, how about if I meet you half way. I will cut and paste some of the first chapter so that you don't have to go to another site to read it. I didn't demand anything or ask you break down anything. I made some suggestions that are perfectly in line with every other marketing plan of any book I've ever read. You're the one who comes here and gets all huffy when we tell you what you think. Didn't mean to get huffy. I don't know if this thread is going to make any headway unfortunately. I offered people two ways they can learn about the book without reading 600 pages. It doesn't seem that anyone is interested in what this man has discovered. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
50
Didn't mean to get huffy. I don't know if this thread is going to make any headway unfortunately. I offered people two ways they can learn about the book without reading 600 pages. It doesn't seem that anyone is interested in what this man has discovered. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Really, what I saw is people went to the sight, read some, listened some and gave you feedback. It seems you are the one uninterested in dialog.
51
Didn't mean to get huffy. I don't know if this thread is going to make any headway unfortunately. I offered people two ways they can learn about the book without reading 600 pages. It doesn't seem that anyone is interested in what this man has discovered. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Really, what I saw is people went to the sight, read some, listened some and gave you feedback. It seems you are the one uninterested in dialog. What kind of feedback? I don't believe they listened to the author reading, nor do I believe they read Chapter One, for if they had they would have had some questions related to the content.
52
Why are you defending what you can't defend because you have no idea what you're talking about in reference to this knowledge? I feel like I'm in a twilight zone. How can I even begin to discuss this knowledge with you when you have already concluded that this is nothing more than the Golden Rule?
What am I defending? If it is not the Golden Rule, kindly explain what it is "in a nutshell".
53
Why are you defending what you can't defend because you have no idea what you're talking about in reference to this knowledge? I feel like I'm in a twilight zone. How can I even begin to discuss this knowledge with you when you have already concluded that this is nothing more than the Golden Rule?
What am I defending? The idea that this is nothing more than the Golden Rule.
If it is not the Golden Rule, kindly explain what it is "in a nutshell".
You said you read the first chapter so tell me, according to the author, why is man's will is not free? You should be able to answer that.
54
Go to the website and click on the heading Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought. Scroll down and you will see the audio.
I did. The audio is chapter 1, which I have read. He promised revelation, but nothing was revealed at all. :cheese: BTW, if strict determinism holds, there is no free will. However, in the real world, there is macro adequate determinism, hence compatibilist "free will". OTOH, from this article here]
Our Cogito model assumes causality and adequate determinism in the critical apparatus of the Macro Mind. From the Micro Mind however, as well as from the external world including other minds, come surprising and unpredictable events to feed the Agenda of possible thoughts and actions. The Cogito is compatibile with both determinism and uncertainty. It lives in Eddington's "halfway house." Compatibilism explains the will. It cannot explain free. Our new mind model gets us both free (randomness) and will (adequately determined). The Cogito is genuine free will.
Bold added by me. The Cognito Model:
The Cogito Model of human freedom locates randomness (either ancient chance or modern quantum indeterminacy) in the mind, in a way that breaks the causal chain of strict physical determinism, while doing no harm to responsibility. The Cogito Model combines indeterminacy - first microscopic quantum randomness and unpredictability, then "adequate" determinism and macroscopic predictability, in a temporal sequence that creates information.
It is a process:
The Cogito model is not a mechanism. It is a process, and information philosophy is a process philosophy.
Free will:
In our Cogito model, "Free Will" combines two distinct concepts. Free is the chance and randomness of the Micro Mind. Will is the adequately determined choice of the Macro Mind. And these occur in a temporal sequence.
Q.E.D.? :-)
55
The idea that this is nothing more than the Golden Rule.
My understanding was, what was proposed was the Golden Rule, after reading chapter 1. I did not say it "is nothing more than the Golden Rule". There could be more, but it was the only chapter I could read.
You said you read the first chapter so tell me, according to the author, why is man's will is not free? You should be able to answer that.
With strict determinism, there is no free will.
56
peacegirl, I just googled a little, and found this], dated February 13, 2013. Since then only one contentless positive review was written.
This guy completely misrepresented the book. He didn't like Lessans' claim regarding light and sight, which motivated him to give this awful review. I was almost in tears when I read it because he never even purchased the book. He talked about force. He manufactured this because there is no talk of force in the entire book. I have to admit that I sometimes am influenced by negative reviews and will not buy a product because of it. My hope is that when this book is marketed and read by people interested in this topic, there will be plenty of positive reviews. You missed the gist of my intention: it is 2 years later now, and there is only one short and contentless positive review. You claimed that there would be many. For years you are trying to get attention for your father's work at fora like these. You get the same kind of reactions again and again, even by people who looked into this first chapter. Your strategy (or should I say marketing?) does not work. I am open to discuss your (father's) ideas. But here. In this forum.
The Golden Rule states "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is a good rule to follow but it doesn't always work. What if you are in need of food to feed your family and no one will give you any. The only option you have is to steal it from a grocery store. Obviously, you wouldn't want someone to do that to you if you were the grocery store owner, but you feel that you must do it in order to survive.
Right, that is a rational argument against the Golden Rule (which does not necessary mean it is a valid argument). But you did not answer my question: what is the difference between the Golden Rule and the ideas of your father? You are great in avoiding to really present your father's ideas. This raises my suspicion that it is not the ideas you want to convince us of, but to buy the book.
He wasn't complaining. He was sharing what he went through. There's nothing wrong with that.
There is nothing morally wrong with that. But it is wrong as a strategy, because it lets the 'crackpot-alarm' go off in most people.
He would have said that we are products of both biology and biography, but he would have disagreed that determinism is a necessary condition for free will, as we have no free will. Having the ability to choose is the standard definition of free will, but this does not mean we actually have freedom of the will.
To say that we have no free will because we are determined is not a strong argument against compatibilists who say that in order to have free will we need determinism. I am not sure what you are saying: you say that the standard definition of free will is the ability to choose. Do you deny that we have this ability, or are you saying that free will is something else, but this' something else' does not exist?
The problem is we cannot have free will and determinism in the same sentence.
Well you just did! :roll:
Where? In your sentence! Sorry, it was just a joke. The sentence 'The problem is we cannot have free will and determinism in the same sentence' contains 'free will' and 'determinism' in the same sentence. If you know what I mean.
Again, the fact that your actions arise from your wishes, feelings and beliefs does not grant you free will because free will states that you can choose A over B or B over A equally when there are meaningful differences between the available options. This can't be done.
Why can't this be done? If I prefer cauliflower over brussels sprouts, and I have the choice, I can take the cauliflower. Would free will mean that, even that I find brussels sprouts disgusting, I take it, and not the cauliflower? Can you explain what you mean using this simple example?
How do you know before you even know what his discovery is about?
It simply means that I am not impressed at all by the promise that if everybody would adapt this idea, we would abolish all evil. You need to do more to get me really interested.
When people at the very outset challenge me and tell me that they won't attempt to learn what this is about unless I do things their way, it turns into a power struggle which I don't want to be a part of.
I am prepared to discuss your father's ideas. But only here, in this forum. Only when you can show me here that he is really at something I will read his book.
57
Hello friends, I titled this thread the way I did because what I am sharing is truly a revolution in thought which has major implications for the betterment of mankind. Before you read further, I need to let everyone know that this knowledge lies locked behind the door of determinism. The idea that man's will is not free is a difficult concept for some people to swallow but it actually is the answer to many of the ills plaguing our world. I hope people contain their skepticism enough to learn what this is about.
I'm guessing what your father realised is that there are malignant versions of CHDO, Free Will and Moral Responsibility which people generally believe in which block us from making moral progress. Lot's of us agree.
58
BTW, if strict determinism holds, there is no free will.
This depends upon how you define free will. The biggest problem in this debate, or at least a big problem is there is an insistence that free will means only one thing. Clearly it doesn't clearly it's used to mean more than one thing. So compatibilists and incompatibilists who disbelieve in free will basically agree, whilst appearing not to. The problem with determinism is that to behave differently we'd need a different (distant) past. So to have the sort of free will you believe in we'd have to control the past, which is why you say if determinism holds there is no free will, would you agree with that?
59
Go to the website and click on the heading Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought. Scroll down and you will see the audio.
I did. The audio is chapter 1, which I have read. He promised revelation, but nothing was revealed at all. :cheese: I asked you to tell me why man's will is not free, according to Lessans. You said you listened to the first chapter and there was nothing revealed. That is totally false and makes me realize that either you don't want to hear what he has to say because you want to believe free will exists, or it went over your head completely.
BTW, if strict determinism holds, there is no free will. However, in the real world, there is macro adequate determinism, hence compatibilist "free will". OTOH, from this article here]
Our Cogito model assumes causality and adequate determinism in the critical apparatus of the Macro Mind. From the Micro Mind however, as well as from the external world including other minds, come surprising and unpredictable events to feed the Agenda of possible thoughts and actions. The Cogito is compatibile with both determinism and uncertainty. It lives in Eddington's "halfway house."
What kind of events are undetermined? Just because an event feels random doesn't mean there isn't a cause. This is gobbledygook.
Compatibilism explains the will. It cannot explain free.
Of course it can't. There is no such thing.
Our new mind model gets us both free (randomness) and will (adequately determined). The Cogito is genuine free will. Bold added by me. The Cognito Model:
The Cogito Model of human freedom locates randomness (either ancient chance or modern quantum indeterminacy) in the mind, in a way that breaks the causal chain of strict physical determinism, while doing no harm to responsibility. The Cogito Model combines indeterminacy - first microscopic quantum randomness and unpredictability, then "adequate" determinism and macroscopic predictability, in a temporal sequence that creates information.
That is the whole point of compatibilism; to try to hold onto moral responsibility in a determined world. It can't be done, yet they are trying to make it all fit without there being any contradiction. But their logic is false. No matter how they try it doesn't add up because determinism and freedom of the will (I am not talking about other types of freedom so defining the words are necessary in order to have a basis for communication) are mutually exclusive concepts.
It is a process:
The Cogito model is not a mechanism. It is a process, and information philosophy is a process philosophy.
How does this negate determinism? Philosophy is a process. So what! Thinking is a process. So what!
Free will:
In our Cogito model, "Free Will" combines two distinct concepts. Free is the chance and randomness of the Micro Mind. Will is the adequately determined choice of the Macro Mind. And these occur in a temporal sequence.
Q.E.D.? :-)
When we throw dice it is impossible to know how it's going to land so we call it random. But there are laws behind the apparent randomness and it is arrogant to think that just because man can't figure out the cause of certain micro phenomena, that his conclusions about indeterminism must be correct.
60
The idea that this is nothing more than the Golden Rule.
My understanding was, what was proposed was the Golden Rule, after reading chapter 1. I did not say it "is nothing more than the Golden Rule". There could be more, but it was the only chapter I could read.
You said you read the first chapter so tell me, according to the author, why is man's will is not free? You should be able to answer that.
With strict determinism, there is no free will. You just gave yourself away. You could not have studied or even skimmed the first chapter.