Atla wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 6:31 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 4:20 pm
You just think the claim is impossible, which is understandable, but you need to contain your skepticism long enough to hear what the author has to say. You haven't done that.
Well I've read most of chapter 1 and half of chapter 2, after barely surviving the prefaces and introductions which were one tedious red flag as expected.
I guess you're here because you want to know why the author's work is nonsense, you know it deep down, so you can put this whole thing to rest.
Completely wrong.
Atla wrote:But you can't or don't want to figure it out on your own and others couldn't be bothered to look at it. Well okay let's see some of his tricks that stood out imo (tell me if I misunderstood something he said), I'm sure there are more but this was the most I could handle at once.
Later, I tried to engage a pastor in a discussion about free will, and he responded to me by asking, “If man’s will is not free, then you can’t blame or punish anything he does, is that correct?” And when I answered, “Right,”
What? Determinism only means here that we can't reasonably blame people for making the wrong choices out of free will, because they have no free will. But we can still totally blame them otherwise, and often should imo. Do you know what determinism is? It can't do away with blame in general. Unless you use an odd, outdated definition for determinism that's no longer relevant today.
This is not an outdated definition of determinism. It is reflective of a more accurate definition. It is obvious that everyone is doing what they cannot not do. For example, the robbers rob, and the cops catch them, and the criminal justice system punishes them. This is the world we are living in but there is a better way. Have you not noticed that blame and punishment are only partial deterrents? Look at the mess the world is in.
Therefore, it is imperative that you know, well in advance, that my reasoning will be completely mathematical, scientific, and undeniable
Atla wrote:I haven't seen anything really "scientific" in the one and half chapters I've read, which could be because the author didn't learn much about science during his 7 grades at school and just uses the word. Nor have I seen anything complete or undeniable. The author tells us in advance to just trust him and accept the impossible.
He never said to just trust him. Neverrrrr. If you read one and a half chapters, that means you were well into chapter two, correct? Can you tell me what you understood?
Atla wrote:Anyway, more importantly, determinism obviously can't be proven mathematically, what would that even mean? I say this as a determinist.
Of course it can be proven to be true mathematically, and he proved it. The term "mathematical" doesn't mean a math equation, although it involves two sides of this human interaction.
he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all.
Atla wrote:This is nonsense, not an undeniable mathemathical law. Yes 4 billion years of life did roughly one thing: do what is best for the organism/colony/tribe. That's what life is basically. But it's still possible to deviate from this. It almost, almost never happens, but it CAN be done. You think of two options, and then do what's worse for you, not to prove a point, but simply because you've chosen to. Doing what's worse for you causes you immense suffering, imo some people can't get around this suffering and so they can't do this, but some people can.
You are confused here. When someone does something uncharacteristic that looks like he's choosing what is worse for himself, he is actually moving in the direction of greater satisfaction if you would analyze his reasoning. Our choices aren't always the greater of two or more goods but rather the lesser of two or more evils. Sometimes we don't have enough information, which could cause us to suffer the consequences of a choice poorly made. But none of this means we can choose what is worse for us when there is something better within our grasp. But again, the word "better" can be misleading. It might be better for someone to sacrifice his life in order to save another. It doesn't always mean we are moving toward pleasure.
Atla wrote:I did a choice like this a few weeks ago too, I really knew in advance that considering everything it was more bad than good for me, but I did it anyway (and now I probably lost that money I lent as expected, while making a bit of a fool of myself). Looks like your "law" is broken.
This is not MY LAW. Geeze. In your situation, you believed that lending this person money was a nice thing to do, but this person wasn't truthful, so you got burnt. I want to correct you here: You were moving in the direction of what gave you greater satisfaction at that moment because you trusted this person and you wanted to help. You did not make a fool of yourself. You didn't know he wouldn't return the money. Unfortunately, the saying "no good deeds go unpunished" is often the case. This would not occur in the new world.
Atla wrote:Also, and more importantly, DUH, even if the law WAS true, that wouldn't prove determinism, actually now that I think about it, it may disprove it (it would prove that the universe has a strange embedded psychological law that's distinct from determinism and can go against it). Nor would breaking your law, like I've done, disprove determinism. You and the author seem to be confused, neither of you seem to know what determinism means.
He understood more than you will ever know. You did not disprove "greater satisfaction" which is why will is not free. You did no such thing. This is an invariable law that cannot be broken, and it's not mine, so stop saying it's my law.
Therefore, we must begin our reasoning where he left off, which means that we are going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will — corollary, slide rule, or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME
Atla wrote:Terrible advice imo. As a determinist I firmly think that we should continue to blame people, as I said above. We can blame or not blame, and hold people responsible or not hold people responsible under determinism (just not reasonably blame them for free will stuff), these things aren't fixed like the author claims.
We have to blame people at this time in history until there's a better way. He is showing us a better way, but until this law is applied worldwide, we have no choice but to live in a free will environment of blame and punishment.
If you sock me, I might get greater satisfaction in socking you back. However, once man understands what it means that his will is not free, this desire to sock me is prevented by your realization that I will never blame you for hurting me.
Atla wrote:This has to be the craziest/dumbest/most dangerous claim of the book so far, I stopped somewhere here. Many offenders don't give a flying .. whether or not they'll be blamed, they are concentrating on their crime, so their behaviour won't change. Obviously some offenders will get worse and there will also be new offenders too, because they won't be blamed for their crimes so that makes it easier for them to commit crimes.
It sounds dumb to you now coming from your vantage point of the world we are living in. It's no surprise. But you haven't seen how this new world can become a reality where criminals will not desire to take advantage of others at their expense. I hope you read the economic chapter. It's so interesting.
Atla wrote:Really, how many people commit crimes because they need attention, even if bad attention, so not blaming them will make them feel sad and neglected?
Not many I think. If that's how you see offenders then such naivity could be seen as a danger in itself.
You are projecting what you think it will be like, but you can't do that until you see the full picture. You didn't even read Chapter Three and only half of Chapter Two. How can you expect to understand how this plays out?
Atla wrote:Then the author started saying something about blame being in the past and responsibility in the future, but it's just another personal philosophy that time should play a fundamental dicisive role, not an undeniable fact. Time is rather irrelevant here.
You misunderstood. He said the past is gone, the future isn't here, but you will be responsible for what you do in the present since there will be no way to shift what is your responsibility away from yourself when no one is holding you responsible. That is why if you hurt someone by being negligent in some way, it would be hard to live with this burden of responsibility knowing that you can't come up with excuses since you are already excused, not only by the world, but by the person you harmed.
Atla wrote:You and the author said something about a step-by-step proof or something, so far I've only found a bunch of non-sequituurs, half-truths, some falsehoods.
I'm trying to clarify things for you. There is a step-by-step proof but you are prematurely concluding that there is no proof and you stopped reading. He even said the second time around will be much easier. You haven't gotten close to getting through the first time around.
