Revolution in Thought

[Logik]

The yang and yin exist as "one".

Nobody ever notices the line that separates the two halves.

[Eodnhoj7]

The yang and yin exist as "one".

Nobody ever notices the line that separates the two halves.

The line is the two halves.

[peacegirl]

Neither the government or the murderer are to blame for what each judged
better under their particular set of circumstances; but whether they
will decide to think and react as before will depend not on any moral
values, not on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right
and wrong, but solely on whether the conditions under which they
were previously motivated remain the same, and they do not remain
as before because the knowledge that man’s will is not free reveals
facts never before understood. We can now see how the confusion of
words and the inability to perceive certain type relations have
compelled many thinkers who could not get beyond this impasse to
assume, as Durant did, that if man knew his will was not free it would
give him a perfect opportunity to take advantage of this knowledge.

This is far too particularist for my liking.

Not sure what you mean.

The reason why governments punish criminals is BECAUSE they believe punishing criminals reduces FUTURE crime rates.
The government (representing) the people want lower crime.

This is true at the social scale. This is true from a holistic (statistical) perspective.

Statistics does not tell us WHY something works. It just tells us THAT something works.

But that's just the point. Consequentially, threats of punishment are only a partial deterrent. Many people are willing to take risks in spite of these threats, and in spite of the fact that they could end up in jail.

But more to the point. What do you mean to "blame" something or somebody? Again - from a consequentialist perspective.

I blame gravity for my ankle...

When we are blamed or questioned, it allows us to shift that which is our responsibility to something or somebody else by the questioning itself. The advance knowledge that there will be consequences for "wrongdoing" (according to society's standard) gives someone the advance justification to go ahead and do it. He knows that if he is caught, and his excuses sound legitimate, the legal consequences for his actions will be diminished or thrown out. The risk of getting caught may be worth it to him in order to satisfy his desire, while also knowing that, if caught, he can plan ahead to come up with a reasonable excuse that will satisfy the law and get him off the hook. For example, when questioned he could say that someone else forced him to do what he did in an effort to shift his responsibility for the act, or he could attribute what happened to the fact that it wasn't even him, even if it really was. If the law believes his excuse, he is given a lesser sentence or none at all. If the crime was serious, and he is found guilty, the law may not accept any excuses and he will be prosecuted. That's how our system presently works.

[Logik]

But that's just the point. Consequentially, it's only a partial deterrent. It may reduce some crime, but it's far from the best method.

Yes.

And that's a choice.

We can choose NOT to blame criminals OR hold them "legally responsible" and give up partial deterrence.
OR we can choose TO blame criminals AND hold them "legally responsible" resulting in partial deterrence.

I am not saying that it's "the best" method. I am am not even sure there is such a thing as "best" method.

We are stuck in a relativistic world.

Either you have another method that is more effective. Or you don't.

Do you have a better method?

[Eodnhoj7]

But that's just the point. Consequentially, it's only a partial deterrent. It may reduce some crime, but it's far from the best method.

Yes.

And that's a choice.

We can choose NOT to blame criminals OR hold them "legally responsible" and give up partial deterrence.
OR we can choose TO blame criminals AND hold them "legally responsible" resulting in partial deterrence.

I am not saying that it's "the best" method. I am am not even sure there is such a thing as "best" method.

We are stuck in a relativistic world.

Either you have another method that is more effective. Or you don't.

Do you have a better method?

Actually the dual thetical/antithetical nature is not a choice.

[peacegirl]

But that's just the point. Consequentially, it's only a partial deterrent. It may reduce some crime, but it's far from the best method.

Yes.

And that's a choice.

It's a choice, true, but once we understand why not blaming will bring about a more peaceful and safer world, we will be given no choice but to move in this direction. This does not mean that we should suddenly stop blaming people. There are preconditions.

We can choose NOT to blame criminals OR hold them "legally responsible" and give up partial deterrence.

OR we can choose TO blame criminals AND hold them "legally responsible" resulting in partial deterrence.

I am not saying that it's "the best" method. I am am not even sure there is such a thing as "best" method.

We are stuck in a relativistic world.

Either you have another method that is more effective. Or you don't.

Do you have a better method?

From what you wrote you don't understand the method because it wasn't fully explained to you. How can you ask me do I have a better method when you don't understand the first method? This is what you don't understand. When the conditions change from a free will environment (an environment of blame and punishment) to a no free will environment (an environment of no blame and punishment [please don't take this out of context because we cannot stop blaming until this is done on a global scale]), we get complete deterrence. It is not a relativistic world, not where human conduct is concerned.

[Logik]

From what you wrote you don't understand the method because it wasn't fully explained to you. How can you ask me do I have a better method when you don't understand the first method?

This is what you don't understand. When the conditions change from a free will environment (an environment of blame and punishment) to a no free will environment (an environment of no blame and punishment [please don't take this out of context because we cannot stop blaming until this is done on a global scale]), we get complete deterrence. It is not a relativistic world, not where human conduct is concerned.

Let me restate what I think you are saying.

IF we stopped blaming and punishing bank robbers then they will be completely deterred from robbing banks?

Secondly. How do you plan on implementing your idea at global scale?
Thirdly. What scale have you tested our idea at?

[peacegirl]

From what you wrote you don't understand the method because it wasn't fully explained to you. How can you ask me do I have a better method when you don't understand the first method?

This is what you don't understand. When the conditions change from a free will environment (an environment of blame and punishment) to a no free will environment (an environment of no blame and punishment [please don't take this out of context because we cannot stop blaming until this is done on a global scale]), we get complete deterrence. It is not a relativistic world, not where human conduct is concerned.

Let me restate what I think you are saying.

IF we stopped blaming and punishing bank robbers then they will be completely deterred from robbing banks?

Of course not. They would take advantage and steal whatever wasn't nailed down. That's not what is being advocated AT ALL! Please don't get confused.

Secondly. How do you plan on implementing your idea at global scale?
Thirdly. What scale have you tested our idea at?

This idea can't be tested empirically unless there's a way to simulate this type of environment. But it wouldn't be necessary. If the premise is true that man's will is not free, and the corollary that follows can be shown to work hypothetically, then plans can be made to make this happen without any chance that something could go wrong. But in order for this great change to come to pass, the principles must be studied thoroughly and confirmed valid by scientists. This is a hard call but not impossible. It could take 5 years or 500 years or 5000 years. It all depends. Look how long it took for the knowledge that the earth was round to be accepted. We are definitely on the cusp of a new world, but the exact time frame when this new world can be launched will depend on the public to pass it on. Maybe you can help me reach well-known philosophers who would want to study the book.

[Eodnhoj7]

From what you wrote you don't understand the method because it wasn't fully explained to you. How can you ask me do I have a better method when you don't understand the first method?

This is what you don't understand. When the conditions change from a free will environment (an environment of blame and punishment) to a no free will environment (an environment of no blame and punishment [please don't take this out of context because we cannot stop blaming until this is done on a global scale]), we get complete deterrence. It is not a relativistic world, not where human conduct is concerned.

Let me restate what I think you are saying.

IF we stopped blaming and punishing bank robbers then they will be completely deterred from robbing banks?

Of course not. They would take advantage and steal whatever wasn't nailed down. That's not what is being advocated AT ALL! Please don't get confused.

Secondly. How do you plan on implementing your idea at global scale?
Thirdly. What scale have you tested our idea at?

This idea can't be tested empirically unless there's a way to simulate The extension of these principles are explained in the book. In order for this change to come to pass, the principles must be studied thoroughly and confirmed valid by scientists. This is a hard call but not impossible. It could take 5 years or 500 years or 5000 years. It all depends. Look how long it took for the knowledge that the earth was round to be accepted. We are definitely on the cusp of a new world, but the exact time frame when this new world can be launched will depend on the public to pass it on. Maybe you can help me reach well-known philosophers who would want to study the book.

Physicists are the "well-known" philosophers of a materialist culture.

[Logik]

Of course not. They would take advantage and steal whatever wasn't nailed down. That's not what is being advocated AT ALL! Please don't get confused.

Please don't be incoherent.

In the most concise language that I can possibly ask you.

IF the change that you propose was to happen overnight,
IF the principles that you propose were to become reality tomorrow morning.
AT global scale.

How would my experience of tomorrow be different from my experience of today?

This idea can't be tested empirically unless there's a way to simulate The extension of these principles are explained in the book. In order for this change to come to pass, the principles must be studied thoroughly and confirmed valid by scientists.

The extension? You mean the consequences of these principles? I am still asking you to elaborate the consequences of these principles.

How would scientists study these principles if they have no clear consequences e.g they can't be tested empirically?

[Logik]

Physicists are the "well-known" philosophers of a materialist culture.

Physicists are the philosophers of an empirical existence.

If something cannot be tested empirically - it's nonsense.

[Eodnhoj7]

Physicists are the "well-known" philosophers of a materialist culture.

Physicists are the philosophers of an empirical existence.

If something cannot be tested empirically - it's nonsense.

Last time I checked most tests are just pulled out of the air and are non-sense, competely spontaneous and random, sometimes not even following the base scientific method.

The continually changing nature of empirical phenomena effectively makes the knowledge non-sense.








Actually the author is very coherent.

[peacegirl]

Of course not. They would take advantage and steal whatever wasn't nailed down. That's not what is being advocated AT ALL! Please don't get confused.

Please don't be incoherent.

Who's being incoherent?

In the most concise language that I can possibly ask you.

IF the change that you propose was to happen overnight,
IF the principles that you propose were to become reality tomorrow morning.
AT global scale.

How would my experience of tomorrow be different from my experience of today?

Everything would be different. There would be very few accidents, the economic system would provide economic security without anyone desiring to cheat the system, there will be very few cases of adultery, children will love going to school, everyone will be treated with respect, there will be no more terrorism, no war, no crime, and no need for prisons when people stop doing things that hurt others. Do you want more?

This idea can't be tested empirically unless there's a way to simulate The extension of these principles are explained in the book. In order for this change to come to pass, the principles must be studied thoroughly and confirmed valid by scientists.

How would scientists study these principles if they can't be tested empirically?

Let me restate what I think you are saying.

IF we stopped blaming and punishing bank robbers then they will be completely deterred from robbing banks?

Of course not. They would take advantage and steal whatever wasn't nailed down. That's not what is being advocated AT ALL! Please don't get confused.

Secondly. How do you plan on implementing your idea at global scale?
Thirdly. What scale have you tested our idea at?

This idea can't be tested empirically until the transition takes place. A simulation would be hard to construct because we are living in a free will environment which would skew the test. In order for this change to come to pass, the principles must be studied thoroughly and confirmed valid by scientists. This is a hard call but not impossible. It could take 5 years or 500 years or 5000 years. It all depends. Look how long it took for the knowledge that the earth was round to be accepted. We are definitely on the cusp of a new world, but the exact time frame when this new world can be launched will depend on the public to pass it on. Maybe you can help me reach well-known philosophers who would want to study the book.

Physicists are the "well-known" philosophers of a materialist culture.

I am thinking more in terms of philosophers dealing in psychology and philosophy.

[Eodnhoj7]

Of course not. They would take advantage and steal whatever wasn't nailed down. That's not what is being advocated AT ALL! Please don't get confused.

Please don't be incoherent.

Who's being incoherent?

In the most concise language that I can possibly ask you.

IF the change that you propose was to happen overnight,
IF the principles that you propose were to become reality tomorrow morning.
AT global scale.

How would my experience of tomorrow be different from my experience of today?

Everything would be different. There would be very few accidents, the economic system would provide economic security without anyone desiring to cheat the system, there will be very few cases of adultery, children will love going to school, everyone will be treated with respect, there will be no more terrorism and no need for prisons when people stop doing things that hurt others. Do you want more?

This idea can't be tested empirically unless there's a way to simulate The extension of these principles are explained in the book. In order for this change to come to pass, the principles must be studied thoroughly and confirmed valid by scientists.

How would scientists study these principles if they can't be tested empirically?

Of course not. They would take advantage and steal whatever wasn't nailed down. That's not what is being advocated AT ALL! Please don't get confused.



This idea can't be tested empirically unless there's a way to simulate The extension of these principles are explained in the book. In order for this change to come to pass, the principles must be studied thoroughly and confirmed valid by scientists. This is a hard call but not impossible. It could take 5 years or 500 years or 5000 years. It all depends. Look how long it took for the knowledge that the earth was round to be accepted. We are definitely on the cusp of a new world, but the exact time frame when this new world can be launched will depend on the public to pass it on. Maybe you can help me reach well-known philosophers who would want to study the book.

Physicists are the "well-known" philosophers of a materialist culture.

[/quote]

Simple, they would have to look inside themselves and eachother. But that is not what physicists do, and view this as blasphemy. They become physicists because of there inability to "think" or "feel", not because they "can".

[Logik]

Who's being incoherent?

You.

Everything would be different. There would be very few accidents, the economic system would provide economic security without anyone desiring to cheat the system, there will be very few cases of adultery, children will love going to school, everyone will be treated with respect, there will be no more terrorism and no need for prisons when people stop doing things that hurt others. Do you want more?

No. That's enough. I like it.

What do we need to DO to get there?

This idea can't be tested empirically until the transition takes place.

I see. What does this "transition" entail? What is it that we need to change?