Revolution in Thought

[peacegirl]

I am posting first three chapters. Please don't skim. I will answer any questions you may have (to the best of my ability) after you have read it. Please pay careful attention to pages 54 and 55 where he explains why determinism was faced with an impossible task due to how it is defined. I also want to mention that he uses the word God throughout the book, but he meant that word to mean the laws that govern our universe. If you aren't religious, don't let that ruin it for you.

Okay, seriously, peacegirl... why would I want to read so much stuff about something I have NO summary about? You FIRST have to give me something to be interested in. My time and energy are valuable... and I don't commit myself to reading everyone's hair-brained idea they want to blab on and on about. You seem to expect a lot of people... while you don't answer their questions that are put to you. This tells me that you are likely intoxicated and obsessed with this idea. That's an indication that you're just going to rant on and on without actually connecting in a balanced exchange, right? I'm not interested. Good luck to you.

You are exactly the type of person who should not be reading this. You are arrogant. Good luck to you. I hope other people will desire to read this very important work.

[Lacewing]

You are exactly the type of person who should not be reading this. You are arrogant.

What's arrogant is for you to think that people should be interested in something that matters to you, when you show no interest in responding to them with the same commitment.

[peacegirl]

You are exactly the type of person who should not be reading this. You are arrogant.

What's arrogant is for you to think that people should be interested in something that matters to you, when you show no interest in responding to them with the same commitment.

You gotta be kidding Lacewing. I just told you that I cannot answer people in snippets. Things get taken out of context. If you don't want to take the time to read 100 pages that could actually benefit the world, then by all means don't read. I'm not telling you what to do. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

[Lacewing]

You gotta be kidding Lacewing. I just told you that I cannot answer people in snippets. Things get taken out of context.

Anything that can't be summarized in an intelligent and understandable way is just a bunch of babble. Perhaps you should focus on your own presentation skills instead of blaming people for not giving a crap.

[Belinda]

Peacegirl, I have scanned the preface and nearly two chapters and found them to be too long-winded for me to want to read any more. Spinoza, Determinism, freedom, and socialist ethics are more entertainingly portrayed elsewhere.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/hsts412/doel/dvs.htm

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, I have scanned the preface and nearly two chapters and found them to be too long-winded for me to want to read any more. Spinoza, Determinism, freedom, and socialist ethics are more entertainingly portrayed elsewhere.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/hsts412/doel/dvs.htm

Sorry if the form is not to your liking, but the form of something has nothing to do with the validity of the content. It's amazing how people find something that doesn't suit them and they turn their noses up. How can you compare socialist ethics to this? And how in the world can you think of entertainment as a prerequisite for knowledge that may just have something of value to offer?

[Belinda]

Peacegirl, I have scanned the preface and nearly two chapters and found them to be too long-winded for me to want to read any more. Spinoza, Determinism, freedom, and socialist ethics are more entertainingly portrayed elsewhere.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/hsts412/doel/dvs.htm

Sorry if the form is not to your liking, but the form of something has nothing to do with the validity of the content. It's amazing how people find something that doesn't suit them and they turn their noses up. How can you compare socialist ethics to this? And how in the world can you think of entertainment as a prerequisite for knowledge that may just have something of value to offer?

But the literary merit conduces me to read it. I'm not a masochist so the effort I devote to any activity has to at least promise some reward in the future. Spinoza's determinism as in his

Ethics

leads to the no-blame ethic of socialist thought.

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, I have scanned the preface and nearly two chapters and found them to be too long-winded for me to want to read any more. Spinoza, Determinism, freedom, and socialist ethics are more entertainingly portrayed elsewhere.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/hsts412/doel/dvs.htm

Sorry if the form is not to your liking, but the form of something has nothing to do with the validity of the content. It's amazing how people find something that doesn't suit them and they turn their noses up. How can you compare socialist ethics to this? And how in the world can you think of entertainment as a prerequisite for knowledge that may just have something of value to offer?

But the literary merit conduces me to read it. I'm not a masochist so the effort I devote to any activity has to at least promise some reward in the future. Spinoza's determinism as in his

Ethics

leads to the no-blame ethic of socialist thought.

You are making assumptions Belinda. You're all over the place. If the literary merit isn't to your liking and it doesn't conduce you to read it, then please don't read it.

[Logik]

If it was proven true that man's will is free, then he would be wrong obviously.

Too bad we have absolutely no epistemic framework for proving truths of any kind. But we have a great framework for dispelling bullshit. It's called science.

Suppose that we don't know whether man's will was free (which seems to be the case).
What would we observe if man's will was free?
What would we observe if it wasn't?

[peacegirl]

If it was proven true that man's will is free, then he would be wrong obviously.

Too bad we have absolutely no epistemic framework for proving truths of any kind. But we have a great framework for dispelling bullshit. It's called science.

Suppose that we don't know whether man's will was free (which seems to be the case).

But it is not the case Logik.

What would we observe if man's will was free?
What would we observe if it wasn't?

Free will would be the ability to choose A and B equally given meaningful differences. Determinism would be the inability to choose equally between options that are meaningfully different -- rendering one of those options an impossibility.

[Logik]

Free will would be the ability to choose A and B equally given meaningful differences. Determinism would be the inability to choose equally between options that are meaningfully different -- rendering one of those options an impossibility.

You mean like this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18408715 ?

There has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively 'free' decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.

[peacegirl]

Free will would be the ability to choose A and B equally given meaningful differences. Determinism would be the inability to choose equally between options that are meaningfully different -- rendering one of those options an impossibility.

You mean like this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18408715 ?

fMRI machine learning of brain activity (multivariate pattern analysis) has been used to predict the user choice of a button (left/right) up to 7 seconds before their reported will of having done so.

No not like that. Even if a prediction can be made 7 seconds before a user makes the actual choice does not absolve the user of responsibility. IOW, whether or not a prediction can be accurately made, it is the user who either says yes or no to a decision (i.e., in this case pushing a button that was predicted in advance). Interestingly, within that 7 seconds, a user could change his mind. He holds the ultimate responsibility for allowing a choice to be made.

[Logik]

No not like that. Even if a prediction can be made 7 seconds before a user makes the actual choice does not absolve the user of responsibility.

Well, it does - actually. If I only become aware of my "choices" 7 seconds after my brain does something then I was clearly not in control of the decision-making process.

It's much like becoming aware that you are taking a shower 7 seconds after I choose to pour a bucket of ice cold water over you.

IOW, whether or not a prediction can be accurately made, it is the user who either says yes or no to a decision (i.e., in this case pushing a button that was predicted in advance). Interestingly, within that 7 seconds, a user could change his mind. He holds the ultimate responsibility for allowing a choice to be made.

You are just moving the goal posts now.

First you said that "Free will would be the ability to choose A and B equally given meaningful differences.", now you are saying that Free Will would be the ability to make a different choice than the one your brain made for you.

Make up your mind. If you can...

[Walker]

Peacegirl, I have scanned the preface and nearly two chapters and found them to be too long-winded for me to want to read any more. Spinoza, Determinism, freedom, and socialist ethics are more entertainingly portrayed elsewhere.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/hsts412/doel/dvs.htm

Sorry if the form is not to your liking, but the form of something has nothing to do with the validity of the content. It's amazing how people find something that doesn't suit them and they turn their noses up. How can you compare socialist ethics to this? And how in the world can you think of entertainment as a prerequisite for knowledge that may just have something of value to offer?

Not so amazing.
The entertainment world is large.
Many selections compete for the time, attention, consideration, and life-force of the free-willers.

*

Please limit your summary to 26 words.
It ain't so very hard to do, if you understand the material.

Example: Ahimsa summary.

- Before doing anything, do no harm.
- After doing anything, do no harm.
- If doing involves harm, don’t do.

(18 words)

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, I have scanned the preface and nearly two chapters and found them to be too long-winded for me to want to read any more. Spinoza, Determinism, freedom, and socialist ethics are more entertainingly portrayed elsewhere.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/hsts412/doel/dvs.htm

Sorry if the form is not to your liking, but the form of something has nothing to do with the validity of the content. It's amazing how people find something that doesn't suit them and they turn their noses up. How can you compare socialist ethics to this? And how in the world can you think of entertainment as a prerequisite for knowledge that may just have something of value to offer?

Not so amazing.
The entertainment world is large.
Many selections compete for the time, attention, consideration, and life-force of the free-willers.

*

Please limit your summary to 26 words.
It ain't so very hard to do, if you understand the material.

Example: Ahimsa summary.

- Before doing anything, do no harm.
- After doing anything, do no harm.
- If doing involves harm, don’t do.

(18 words)

Your demand to limit a 600 page book to 18 words is not possible. I'll guarantee that you would never ask Nietzche to reduce his writing to 18 words, nor any well-known philosopher. Their works are taken seriously, dissected, discussed, analyzed, interpreted, until there is no more meaning that can be squeezed out. That's what this book deserves.