[quote =“peacegirl”]I also made it into an ebook so people wouldn’t have to pay much to read it. Is $4.99 for a 600 page book is too much money?
[quote=“Gdb”]No, but taking the time to read 600 pages is. You say that Lessans offers a different perspective on a longstanding debate: I assume the free will debate and its collaterals psychology and ethics. This supposes that you know the debate, and in what your father’s ideas differ: please mention these differences.
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.
[quote=“Gdb”]I’ve scanned through the first pages, and even that it is written in a calm tone, the first half is just the same rant we know of all kind of crackpots: established science does not want to hear what my ingenious theory is. “And the same happened with (fill in a list of geniuses that originally were not recognised by the science of their time)”. Most of the times however, when scientists do not want to listen, is because they recognise very quickly that the ideas are rubbish, or at least not new. Calling the ideas a ‘Revolution In Thought’ that will save humanity, increases the chance that the ideas are rubbish.
These ideas ARE new, and for you to depend on other people’s opinions of what constitutes rubbish is not independent thinking. It’s just copying what everyone else has said. Lessans knew the debate backward and forwards, so you cannot use this as a means of argument.
[quote=“peacegirl”]There is a huge difference in the definition of determinism itself. This is the crux of the problem. The conventional definition is not completely accurate.
[quote=“Gdb”] Compare e.g. with Daniel Dennett (‘Freedom evolves’,‘Elbow room’), or e.g. this online article. You know all the ideas of compatibilist and incompatibilist theories of free will, of those incompatibilists that argue we have free will, and those who argued we have not? If you don’t know all these ideas, how do you know your father’s ideas differ from them?
I can do that because I know the arguments. Compatibilism is just a way for philosophers to reconcile determinism with moral responsibility. The problem is we cannot have free will and determinism in the same sentence. They are mutually exclusive ideologies.
[quote=“Gdb”]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? This IS the stumbling block that he was up against in the 20th century and again in the 21st century. When are people going to really listen? 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.
[quote=“Gdb”]Given this way I see things, I won’t spend much more time on this, except you can convince me of the idea beforehand.
Sorry that I can’t convince you of giving him the benefit of the doubt before you start denouncing his reasoning. Without studying his work, how in the world can you determine whether to give this discovery more time? That was a rhetorical question; no need to answer.
Sorry 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.