Revolution in Thought

[-1-]

So if all people were fearless, then they still would not commit crimes, because fearlessness is a lack of fear, but not a lack of foresight.

That argument only works if the legal system was perfect. And every crime resulted it punishment.

It doesn't. Depending on the country you live in the efficiency of the legal system is between 8 and 40%. So there's still 60% to 92% chance of getting away with murder!

Yes, it works, because most people, about 78% to 93% percent, have limited foresight.

They can't fathom the law's inefficiency.

That's A.

B. is that it's a risk that some people find to be too high for the return. "Crime does not pay."

If foresight was ideally perfect, then people still would not commit crimes, because the law enforcement agencies would also have perfect fore, hind, and lateral sight.

Whether it's perfect, the foresight, or not, the bulk of the population still would not commit crimes, because the risk is not worth it.

Of course our debate can only be decided by empirical measurements of how many criminals get away with performing crimes. And that is immeasurable. Estimates exist, but they mean squat all.

[Logik]

Of course our debate can only be decided by empirical measurements of how many criminals get away with performing crimes. And that is immeasurable. Estimates exist, but they mean squat all.

It can be decided by proxy.

Count the number of poor vs rich people in prisons.

And if correlation exists between intellect and foresight, rich people are number-runners...

[Atla]

That's what this discovery is about. It can't be explained in a few words. Why don't you read the first three chapters? Then you'll understand what I'm talking about.

Most people will behave the way they always have unless there is a change in the environment. Punishment and blame are aspects of our present environment, but as I said, there is a better way. This discovery brings about a huge paradigm shift.

Fairly obvious why I won't. Anyway I did glimpse into the book, I'll comment on just this one below since you won't give a summary.

Once it is discovered through mathematical reasoning that man’s will is definitely not free, then it becomes impossible to blame an individual for what he is compelled to do; consequently, it is imperative that we discover a way to prevent his desire to do the very things for which blame and punishment were previously necessary, as the lesser of two evils.

So much nonsense. I know very well that technically there is no free will (and that technically there are no individuals either), and yet in the everyday life I can still blame and punish individuals all the same. Not really impossible.
There is this classical dumb mistake of taking some very deep or abstract or whatever understanding and mixing it into the everyday life. Yes technically it's true but so what, doesn't affect most people.

And we can go further, there is no free will, there is no individual, there is no blaming, there is no non-blaming either, we could just as well say that we should blame absolutely everyone for everything. Talking about the ethical consequences of determinism is just babble.

And oh wow you came up with the idea that we should prevent malignant desire, like a billion other people haven't already thought of that one.

By the way to change our ways, we would need free will right? Even then it wouldn't work since a lot of "evil" isn't caused by desire, and most "evil" caused by desire isn't seen as evil by the ones causing them. Nor would they want to change, and many of them can't change even if they want to. Etc.

Anyone who thinks that there is a simple solution to the human condition, doesn't understand the human condition very much (or determinism).

[-1-]

Of course our debate can only be decided by empirical measurements of how many criminals get away with performing crimes. And that is immeasurable. Estimates exist, but they mean squat all.

It can be decided by proxy.

Count the number of poor vs rich people in prisons.

And if correlation exists between intellect and foresight, rich people are number-runners...

Which still does not settle the debate of how large a proportion of any population commits crime and gets away with it.

There is certainly more thought put into crime by smart people. And rich people do not need to resort to crime to make more money. The law of illegality applies to them too: the rich can make much more money illegally than they can legally. But their perceived risk is heightened by the returns' diminishing value.

At any rate, if you pick a person at random, and s/he hasn't got a criminal record, you DO NOT KNOW it's because s/he escaped detection of her or his criminal act, or else they never have committed a criminal act. That is an impossible task to accomplish, to tell the difference. Whether they are poor or rich, smart or dumb, fat or lean, white or black, upside down or right side up, Repbulicant or Democrap, man or woman, post-op or pre-op, but I'm overlabouring the point as you can see.

Final point is, you can't tell what fraction of a population has committed crime, and what fraction has not.

[Walker]

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.

We're not talking about a distillation, but rather we're talking about an initial summary to whet the appetite for further exposition promised to the paying reader who is so fascinated by the short summary, that not shelling out the dough to know the rest of the philosophy is simply out of the question.

For instance, ahimsa can be expanded to specify the practioner of the philosophy doing no harm, for who can answer for another?

For fidelity to the material you are obligated to provide more cause to read than, "cause I say so."

[Walker]

I was going to reply but instead I decided to be advised by Ahimsa Summary.

You’ve probably heard about the three gates for words.
Before passing from thought to speech, all words should pass through three gates, and they will if they must.

Truthgate, Kindnessgate, and Necessitygate.
Any of these three gates should stop the migration of thoughts into speech.
Watergate only stopped a presidency.
Threegates will stop civilization ... from getting held back.
(30 words)*

This could be fleshed out for many pages explaining how truth is absolute, kindness is a function of intent, necessity is relative to need, and Nixon was railroaded.

Intellectual entertainment dictates that a cohesive unity of meaning is the thrill of philosophy.

* More than 26 words requires more than promises to lead today’s information-saturated readers to the next line, paragraph, page, chapter (each rendezvous larger than the last).

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, are you the same user as prof, in sheep's clothing?

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... tQkenlw6ek

Prof's been pushing his publication forever about a better, brighter tomorrow by victory of his theory over all evil in this world.

I would like to read this book you are promoting, but I can't read more than three sentences stuck together, end-to-end.

I have an audio of the first chapter, if you'd like to hear the author speak. I converted a tape he recorded in the 1970s to an mp3.

[peacegirl]

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.

We're not talking about a distillation, but rather we're talking about an initial summary to whet the appetite for further exposition promised to the paying reader who is so fascinated by the short summary, that not shelling out the dough to know the rest of the philosophy is simply out of the question.

For instance, ahimsa can be expanded to specify the practioner of the philosophy doing no harm, for who can answer for another?

For fidelity to the material you are obligated to provide more cause to read than, "cause I say so."

I can't spell out this very important knowledge in a few words, especially when we're dealing with a subject matter that's been debated for centuries and has the power to change our world for the better. It wouldn't be fair you or the author because it wouldn't do this knowledge justice. If you're not interested because there is not enough to whet your appetite, you are not obligated to read anything.

[Belinda]

I can't spell out this very important knowledge in a few words,

wrote Peacegirl.

I accept that you can't however it's usual for books to be accompanied by a precis to help the reader as to the content before the reader buys or reads to book.
If you want to enlighten about this very important knowledge then you need to do some work on a precis like what others do.

[peacegirl]

I can't spell out this very important knowledge in a few words,

wrote Peacegirl.

I accept that you can't however it's usual for books to be accompanied by a precis to help the reader as to the content before the reader buys or reads to book.
If you want to enlighten about this very important knowledge then you need to do some work on a precis like what others do.

Well accept this as an exception. It almost feels like a stand-off. If you don’t it do my way, and distill the info into a few words, I am too busy to give you the time of day. It’s sad to think that because I don’t do it your way, you refuse to read a few pages that would be much clearer in its explanation than me trying to satisfy you by offering snippets. If it’s too hard for you because it’s not entertaining enough, as I already said, don’t read what I’m sharing but then don’t tell how wrong the author was because you are so positive we have free will.

[Logik]

Well accept this as an exception. It almost feels like a stand-off. If you don’t do my way, forget it. It’s cray to think that because I don’t do it your way, you refuse to read a few pages that would be much clear in is explanation than me trying to satisfy you by offering snippets. If it’s too hard for you because it’s not entertaining enough, as I already said, don’t read but then don’t tell how wrong the author was because you are positive we have free will.

If you can't do an elevator pitch on the value of your idea, it's probably worthless.

Great ideas are easy to sell.

I have a problem (X).
You have a solution (Y).

You tell me how Y fixes X. 30 seconds max.

[Belinda]

Peacegirl wrote:

Well accept this as an exception. It almost feels like a stand-off. If you don’t do my way, and distill the info into a few words, I am too busy to give you the time of day. It’s sad to think that because I don’t do it your way, you refuse to read a few pages that would be much clearer in is it’s explanation than me trying to satisfy you by offering snippets. If it’s too hard for you because it’s not entertaining enough, as I already said, don’t read what I’m sharing but then don’t tell how wrong the author was because you are so positive we have free will.

The author is laboriously discovering and longwindedly explaining ideas that have already been explained by better writers than he. This is one of the benefits of higher education; that the graduate is familiar with ideas and is experienced in communicating them. I'm not surprised that the author failed to get a lot of interest. Was the book 's publication financed by himself?

[peacegirl]

Well accept this as an exception. It almost feels like a stand-off. If you don’t do my way, forget it. It’s cray to think that because I don’t do it your way, you refuse to read a few pages that would be much clear in is explanation than me trying to satisfy you by offering snippets. If it’s too hard for you because it’s not entertaining enough, as I already said, don’t read but then don’t tell how wrong the author was because you are positive we have free will.

If you can't do an elevator pitch on the value of your idea, it's probably worthless.

Great ideas are easy to sell.

I have a problem (X).
You have a solution (Y).

You tell me how Y fixes X. 30 seconds max.

What you are saying is a syllogism which has no truth if the premise is false, which it is.

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl wrote:

Well accept this as an exception. It almost feels like a stand-off. If you don’t do my way, and distill the info into a few words, I am too busy to give you the time of day. It’s sad to think that because I don’t do it your way, you refuse to read a few pages that would be much clearer in is it’s explanation than me trying to satisfy you by offering snippets. If it’s too hard for you because it’s not entertaining enough, as I already said, don’t read what I’m sharing but then don’t tell how wrong the author was because you are so positive we have free will.

The author is laboriously discovering and longwindedly explaining ideas that have already been explained by better writers than he. This is one of the benefits of higher education; that the graduate is familiar with ideas and is experienced in communicating them. I'm not surprised that the author failed to get a lot of interest. Was the book 's publication financed by himself?

Belinda it is you that is acting like a big shot because you feel you are in a position to criticize what you have no knowledge about. You haven’t read a word of his 30 year work and now you are acting like an authority? This is nuts!!

[Logik]

What you are saying is a syllogism which has no truth if the premise is false, which it is.

And what you are saying by rejecting the truth-value of my premise is that I am unable to decide for myself whether any of your ideas are valuable to me; or whether they are going to "revolutionise" my way of thought.

To spell it out for you: You promise to revolutionise thought, but you can't explain HOW. Why is your way better than what we have now?

Alas. I have no time or patience to debate (yet another) dogmatic Aristotelian.