New Discovery

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun May 26, 2019 1:30 am

Remember what she is proposing cannot be proven at this point in time since it has yet to happen
This means there is no absolute guarantee it will happen and something else could happen instead
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Sun May 26, 2019 1:33 am

surreptitious75 wrote:Remember what she is proposing cannot be proven at this point in time since it has yet to happen
This means there is no absolute guarantee it will happen and something else could happen instead


Well put.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8255
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sun May 26, 2019 1:41 am

surreptitious75 wrote:The number of psychopaths that exist in the general population is not actually relevant here
I also dont think that environment is the major cause for psychopathic behaviour but genetic
The brains of psychopaths are different to non psychopaths so they are already born that way


It seems that people have certain predispositions that can manifest in anti-social behavior given the right conditions, but to say that people are born evil or psychopathic is without scientific proof.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sun May 26, 2019 1:50 am

Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

Let's come back to this:

You state that the deterministic law of world peace is the highest law in existence.


I didn't say that. I said that man's will is not free and that when the corollary to this invariable law is put into practice, world peace can be achieved.

Ecmandu wrote:For millions of years, hominids have never been confused by a real law, the law of gravity ...

Yet, a law that you claim to be a higher law than the law of gravity is a law that NOBODY obeys !!!!


That's only because we had to believe in free will as part of our development, even though man's will has never been free. Your comparison doesn't fly. Just because we were never confused about gravity and we were confused about free will, doesn't automatically negate determinism.

Ecmandu wrote:So there are one of two possibilities here for your "law"

1.) because it's the highest law in existence and nobody follows it, it's a proof of freewill


Once again, your premises are ridiculous. We don't follow it because the principle of no blame is counter-intuitive considering that our entire justice system (the best in the world) is based on the belief in free will. But the time has come where we have been given a better way. Why are you so resistant when you haven't even studied the principles? You are too sure of yourself.

Ecmandu wrote:2.) it's not a law

It is a natural invariable law that no one can escape because there are no exceptions. That's why it's a law.
Last edited by peacegirl on Sun May 26, 2019 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sun May 26, 2019 3:14 am

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:You are acknowledging that you are unable to fully explain and to demonstrate what and how and why conscious matter is and came to be.


I don't have to for the purposes of this discussion. Why do you keep bringing it up? If the thread was titled: How and why conscious matter is and came to be, that would be a different story.


How seriously can I take someone who actually believes this...unless I assume that they believe it only because they were never able not to?

Sure, can narrow this discussion down to the things that you assert are true and then just dismiss all the factors that don't actually reinforce your own point of view as irrelevant. As though understanding how matter evolved into life evolved into brains evolved into minds evolved into your own particular self-conscious "I" is completely incidental to the author's discovery.

It would be like physicists discovering that the multiverse does in fact exist, and someone insisting that, for the purposes of their own discussion, they want only this universe to be relevant. Even though the ecxistence of the multiverse might have profound implications for our own universe.

Or like someone living in Flatland able to demonstrate the existence of our own three dimensional world, and dismissing that as irrelevant to all that might be understood regarding the relationship between these two worlds.

Or like someone who was raised to believe their Christran beliefs were based only on the Old Testament alone, discovering that the New Testament existed...but then dismissing that is irrelevant to a discussion about Christianity.

That's how I see you in a nutshell. There is what you believe. There is the comfort and consolation that what you believe provides you. And you'll be damned if someone like me is going to insist on expanding the reach of the discussion if that might mean chipping away at this discovery. A world of words that, in my view, has become the psychological foundation [defense mechanism] onto which you anchor "I".

iambiguous wrote:You don't know why it is what is and not something else. But this gigantic gap between the knowledge encompassed in your author's discovery and all the knowledge there actually is to be known about these relationships is not something we should take into account when reacting to this discovery.


peacegirl wrote:Where is the gap? Where are we ever free from moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, which offers us only one choice each and every moment of time? The two principles that comprise the two-sided equation (not math per se) lead to this discovery, but we haven't even gotten to the discovery yet. If these two principles are accurate (which they are), then when we extend them into all areas of human relation, we get a sound result.


Note to others:

Do you not see the gap I am talking about here? Do you not see how our own understanding of these relationships [including mine] can only be but considerably short of all that can possibly be known about existence itself?

peacegirl wrote: As I said, a person can argue that one plus one is three but you cannot tell me he's closer to the truth, or equal in truth value to the person who says that one plus one is two.


iambiguous wrote:But here you are basically telling me that whether I tell you this or not I am not compelled by nature to tell you only what I must. Telling you or not telling you is beyond my autonomous control.


peacegirl wrote:I am not saying that at all. You are compelled to think and say and do what you think and say and do. What I am saying is that the person who says one plus one is three is not as close to the truth as the person who says one plus one is two.


Who cares? If the person who says 1 + 1 = 2 and the person who says 1 + 1 = 3 are equally compelled by nature to say only what they must? And if somebody caring or not caring is equally compelled by nature to care or not to care...?

The truth is ever and always the embodied of natural laws. If, in fact, that is actually true itself.

iambiguous wrote:I see you somehow putting the author over and above all this and being able to grasp nature in such a way that even nature itself is eventually compelled to be in sync with that which he construes to be "progressive" behaviors.


peacegirl wrote:How can nature be compelled to do anything when nature is not an entity that can think.


Clearly, in order to understand that you would have to understand what or who is responsible for nature [existence] itself. But you won't go there for all the reasons I noted above. That and the fact that [so far] nature hasn't compelled you to go there.

peacegirl wrote: Nature is ourselves and how we behave according to immutable laws.


Back to this: I couldn't have said it better myself!

iambiguous wrote:No, the conflict revolves around whether I was ever able not to make points that you concluded were mumbo jimbo, and whether you were ever able not to now conclude that I couldn't help myself.

It's either all necessarily intertwined in the only possible reality or autonomy on some level does exist and it may be possible to distinguish which frame of mind here is in fact more reasonable.


peacegirl wrote:You keep going back to autonomy as if this means we can extricate ourselves from the laws that we are part of. That's like saying we can extricate ourselves from being human.


You forgot [again] to point out that nature compelled me to go back to autonomy.

Only you are adament that in order to understand fully what "being human" entails others must be wholly in sync with the assumptions embedded in that particular "intellectual contraption" you call The Discovery.

peacegirl wrote:That's not the point. We already know you couldn't help yourself, so why do you keep repeating it?


iambiguous wrote:But that is my point: I keep repeating it because I do not possess the free will to stop repeating it. Why? Because nature compels me to keep repeating it. Just as nature compels you [in this exchange] to keep pointing out that to me.


peacegirl wrote:Nature doesn't compel you. You, as part of nature's law, are compelled to keep repeating yourself, because it gives you greater satisfaction.


Note to others:

In different words, please explain to me how, if "I" is necessarily, inherently a part of nature, this doesn't compel me to keep repeating myself. Please explain to me in turn how my embodiment of "greater satisfaction" is not as well the embodiment only of nature itself.

peacegirl wrote:There you go again. This is not the issue because we already know that. Repeat repeat repeat. That's why we're getting nowhere.


iambiguous wrote:No, the reason we are not getting anywhere is that nature has yet to compel me to agree with your own intellectual contraptions embedded in your own definitions and word meaning. Unless of course it is because nature has not compelled you to agree with mine.


peacegirl wrote:That could be the case. What don't you agree with? Do you believe we can move in the direction of less satisfaction when an option of greater satisfaction is available to us? Do you disagree that we have to give consent to any choice that we make?


Sigh...

What difference does it make [for all practical purposes] what I agree or disagree with here when [for all practical purposes] I am always being compelled to by nature? We clearly understand the [for all practical purposes] relationship between "I" and nature in very different ways.

peacegirl wrote:No, it's not the most important thing because the foundational principle that man's will is not free, which was demonstrated, IS the first premise.


iambiguous wrote:Note for us the clearest example of where this has been demonstrated. How has the author set up a set of circumstances in which he was able to show us beyond all doubt that man's will is not free. What actual experiments did he conduct in regard particular chosen behaviors in a particular context such that others can replicate the same results.


peacegirl wrote:Greater satisfaction is not something that can be replicated through an experiment but the proof comes when it is shown that humans cannot desire to hurt one another when not to hurt them becomes the preferable choice.


Over and again, when I ask you to bring this all down to earth and note how the author has actually demonstrated why his principled assessment works in regards to actual human interactions -- actual choices, actual behaviors -- I am told that the "proof" will become clear only in the future when "it is shown that humans cannot desire to hurt one another when not to hurt them becomes the preferable choice."

peacegirl wrote: Even if you believe there could be an element of free will, you really need to put it aside so we can move forward.


iambiguous wrote:And how would I do that unless and until nature compels me to?


peacegirl wrote: It depends. If you want to continue making progress, you will put it aside. You are able to if you want to iambiguous. If you don't want to, then you won't, in the direction of what gives you greater satisfaction and we will make no progress.


And how will I do that unless and until nature compels me to want to continue to make progress?

peacegirl wrote:It's like the mathematical principle of 1+1=2 is the basis that allows a bridge to be built but you keep saying that this is not important.


iambiguous wrote:No, I said that a bridge is not able to be built by engineers who insist they can ignore mathematical truths.


peacegirl wrote: Same here. Peace and brotherhood cannot be achieved by libertarians and compatibilists who insist they can ignore the law of determinism, but remember, the conventional definition leaves much to be desired because we are not caused by a past event.


Oh, like 1 + 1 = 2, is the same as peace + brotherhood = the author's own prescription for a progressive future. Value judgments as mathematical equations.

iambiguous wrote:But that one of them might be compelled by nature to try to anyway. What is important however is the extent to which one is able to choose to build a bridge. Whether it stays up or not.


peacegirl wrote: We don't have a choice as to the extent we are able to choose to build a bridge. That's not of our doing. But once the desire is there, I think most architects would desire building a sturdy bridge because it is in his best interest and the interest of others to know what he is doing. We have seen when people don't take important safety precautions because they don't see the risks (maybe they aren't experienced enough), they don't think the corrections are necessary, or they skimp on safety for economic reasons. Whatever the case, people are killed as a result. But what if we could create a world where people would never take a chance where safety is concerned, and where these tragedies don't continue. Wouldn't that be nice?

These issues can be easily solved just like they are today. If more than person is involved, they can take a vote. These are not serious issues and can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The serious issues have to do with creating a world where there is no economic insecurity and where the desire to hurt another is the result of being a loser if one doesn't hurt someone in the process.


All I can note here is nature compels me to note that, from my frame of mind, this frame of mind is so incredibly naive, I wouldn't even know where to begin in responding to it.

Then back to this knot:

peacegirl wrote: Obviously, the consenting of toppling the domino, once you make this decision, is not of your own free will. We know that so don't repeat it.


iambiguous wrote:I am compelled to make this decision.


peacegirl wrote: This is the crux of the problem. You are not compelled before you do it.


iambiguous wrote: I have no free will not to make it. But it seems from your frame of mind that only after I make it does the "no free will" part kick in.


peacegirl wrote: That is very true. You cannot say "out of necessity" I must repeat myself before you even make the choice. You repeat yourself because you get satisfaction out of repeating yourself. Maybe you think that by repeating yourself, I will get it. I do get it but there's a flaw in your analysis. Before you do something, you have a choice. You do not have to repeat yourself if you don't want to. Nature isn't causing you in advance to make the choice to repeat. You are repeating, once again, because it gives you greater satisfaction. Once you choose this option as a preferable alternative, you could not not have chosen this option. #-o


If everything I think and feel and say and do and want and desire is necessarily a manifestation of nature's laws, then how does time here get broken into "before I decide" and "after I decide"? How does the author demonstrate this other than by merely asserting it to be true? How could this actually be proven in a particular context? Other than by understanding the defintions and the meaning he gives to the words in his world or words discovery as he does?

Somehow in your head you make this before and after distinction between "I" desiring something and nature. As though "I" really does have some control over what it wants and desires.

Whereas I see all aspects of the brain -- the more and the less primitive parts -- as coordinating everything to be wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

peacegirl wrote:You don't have the free will to not "not get it" but you could get it later if the laws of your nature compel you to want to get it.


iambiguous wrote:Back again to this: That is what I am compelled to argue too! "Get it" or "not get it" -- past, present, future -- nature is behind it all. But: What is behind nature?


peacegirl wrote: You are changing topics again. It doesn't matter what or who is behind it all. You can ask this question until the cows come home. A more important question is if the claims are true and this discovery can change our world for the better, it needs to be brought to light sooner rather than later.


iambiguous wrote:I'm sorry, but when you note things like this I can't help but wonder if you are altogether there from the neck up. All of this is smply presposterous given the manner in which "I" construe determinism out in the "for all practical purposes" world of actual human interactions.


peacegirl wrote: That is the disconnect; it's preposterous because of the way you construe determinism but you refuse to allow this author to explain why the present definition is creating problems that could be resolved. But no, you won't budge, not even to hear the explanation.


Always, the way someone thinks about all this. Always about the definitions. Why? Because [in my view] this allows you keep the discussion up in the clouds of abstraction, and general description, and "principles".

iambiguous wrote: I can only presume you are compelled to note things like this. Either because nature is literally in charge here or given some measure of autonomy your own particular "I" is utterly locked into believing what you do about the present begetting a future in sync with your author's own political prejudices. Why? Because, in my view -- compelled or not -- that is how you attain a foundation for "I" psychologically; and then sustain a comforting and consoling frame of mind by believing it in a world filled with so many terrible things.


peacegirl wrote: That is the problem. You are making determinism a forced prescription where the choice is made for you, which would necessitate an "I" that only believes the illusion of having a choice to have a choice. But this is not necessary. The problem is with the definition. Once it is made clear that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, but that we have a choice although not a free one, we can move to the two-sided equation. I really don't know if it's possible because you are convinced that his definition is made up, and you won't let go of your definition. So we're deadlocked.


Indeed. But, in my view, the laws of nature compelled you to conclude that before you in fact did. But only if, in turn, the laws of nature compelled me to conclude that before I did.

peacegirl wrote: You are in sync but, once again, by saying nature's law MADE you step on the accelerator is misleading because nothing outside of YOU made you choose this.


iambiguous wrote:Here again [to me] this mysterious, incomprehensible manner in which you insert this [to me] unexplained "break" between "I" and nature. "I" to me is just another necessary manifestation of a material nature unfolding only as it must. Mindful matter that cannot be fully grasped other than as you and the author are compelled to. Why? Because there is no true break between nature and your "selves".


peacegirl wrote: Exactly my point, but what you are not grasping for whatever reason, is that nothing but you makes the decision, even though your brain is pushing you in that direction.


Whatever reason can there be in a wholly determined universe but that nature compels my brain/"I" to not grasp it here and now? I see no break between "I" before concluding I don't grasp it, and "I" after concluding I don't grasp it. It's all nature...past, present and future.

peacegirl wrote: Nature isn't separate from you, but that's how you're making it sound. "I couldn't help myself because nature made me do it." See what I mean? This is the problem with language as a tool since it always needs clarification when discussing topics that require people to be using the same definition.


iambiguous wrote:But if nature compels me to make it sound that way, then how could I help but -- naturally -- to be in sync with that?


peacegirl wrote: I'm not saying you could help it, but let's try to be more clear with our definitions. You can try a little harder, nature is not forcing you to give up.


This is basically either 1] nonsensical or 2] unintelligable to me. I can't help but sound as I do. Why? Becasue nature compels me to. But: if I do try a little harder how is that not also because nature compels me to? Nature may not be forcing me to as when we imagine someone forcing another to do something with a gun to his head, but that is because we cannot point to nature as we can the man with the gun. But if nature compels the man to point the gun how can we say that he is to blame for doing so? How can we hold him responsible as you seem to hold me responsible for not trying harder?

iambiguous wrote: Apparently there is this universal "standard" for differentiating right from wrong behavior and it just so happens to be entirely in sync with human behaviors in the author's own "peace and prosperity" future.


peacegirl wrote: Differentiating right from wrong is basically differentiating between what is a hurt to another and what is not. Obviously abortion is one of those gray areas where a fetus doesn't have a say, so it must be the mother's choice.


iamiguous wrote:And then those who argue that since it surely hurts the unborn to be literally shredded alive, to die, the living must be there to take that hurt away. It must be the unborn's natural right to life that prevails. Ah, but that's not in sync with your own political prejudice so you just "think" the unborn out of the equation and insist/assert that it must be the mother's choice that counts. All the while admitting that throughout the entire sequence you were never able to freely choose any of this.


peacegirl wrote: I am saying that once conscience reaches a higher level (due to the fact that no one will blame anyone for anything, and this will be known in advance) where the mere thought of causing pain to any sentient being would be a terrible thing to contemplate, people will want to reduce pain and suffering wherever it occurs.


What on earth does that have to do with my point though? Even in the future, if a woman becomes pregnant and doesn't want to be, there's the pain and grievences embedded in shredding the unborn or in forcing the woman to give birth.

Similarly:

peacegirl wrote: Some people think that killing animals for food is wrong. Some people don't. In this case, people will have to use their own feelings regarding this to determine if they want to eat meat, but they will not tell others what to do. The biggest change is how an animal will be slaughtered if they are being used for food. In the Jewish religion they have very strict laws so that the animal will feel no pain at all.


This in no way really addresses my point regarding conflicting goods in your so-called "progressive" future. It's just a frame of mind that you have concocted in order to feel good about the author, his discovery and all the peace and prosperity heading our way as a result of them.

Thus in my view...

iambiguous wrote:You untangle it all in your head by fitting it into the intellectual contraption that the author "discovered" to propel the abortion/animal rights conflicts here and now into a "progressive" future. At least for the mothers, if not for the dead babies.

At least for the animals not being slaughtered the way we do it now.


peacegirl wrote: You don't understand his chapter on death which proves that consciousness is not just an individual thing. This doesn't mean people will not care about abortion because it still hurts to lose a child growing inside of you. So people will still take precautions if they don't want more children. But this knowledge does take away the sting that this individual (which he has the potential of becoming) will not be born to see our wondrous world.


Clearly, we are in two very, very different discussions here. And imagine how embarrassed one of us would be if we did have some measure of autonomy.

peacegirl wrote: What the hell? Why is the sky blue? Why is the grass green? Why do birds chirp? Why are there so many species? Why do we wonder whether God exists?
Why Why Why? What do any of these questions have to do with what I'm sharing?


iambiguous wrote:There are scientists and others who can answer questions of this sort. But what do all of those things/relationships share in common? The fact that they exist in an overarching reality that is intertwined in all of the components of existence itself. As though the things that you are sharing here don't as well. Sure, convince yourself that all that you don't know about existence is irrelevant to all that you do know. After all, all that you think you do know is [for now] the psychological foundation for all that comforts and consoles you.


peacegirl wrote: Once again, we don't need to know all things to know that there are discoveries to be made in different fields that will help us progress. Edison didn't know all about existence itself but he certainly made discoveries that have helped humanity. Why you keep insisting that this is all about my comfort is upsetting to me because that's not what it is.


Yes, but his discoveries all unfolded given the laws of nature in the either/or world. He could demonstrate his own discoveries. Why? Because they did in fact reflect that part of nature which is true for all of us. But how would he have gone about demonstrating that he accomplished all of this autonomously? How would he have gone about demonstrating that an electric current used to, say, execute a prisoner was a "progressive" thing to do?

Then my own bottom line:

iambiguous wrote: Sure, convince yourself that all that you don't know about existence is irrelevant to all that you do know. After all, all that you think you do know is [for now] the psychological foundation for all that comforts and consoles you.

And that, in my view, is the motherlode here. That, above all else, must be protected. You are just one of many right here in ILP who have concocted these general descriptions of the human condition out of the endless assumptions that they make about things they have no real capacity to demonstrate at all. In part because there are far, far, far more things that they don't know about existence then they ever possibly could know.


peacegirl wrote: You aren't making sense. I have given the first three chapters that demonstrate why man's will is not free and why nothing can make man do what he makes up his mind not to do. You should read the chapters carefully and maybe you will realize that this is no joke.


Again: What does this have to do with the point I am making? Unless, of course, nature simply isn't able to take things like that into account.


I appreciate the time it took to respond to this long post, but I am going to take a pass. A lot of it is repetitive and we just don't see eye to eye. You keep saying I blame you, and I don't. You keep saying these are assumptions that have no real capacity to demonstrate, which is false. Chapter Three gives a clear demonstration of how this law works when applied to the environment. You keep saying this discovery has no foundation without understanding what is behind existence itself, which is not true. You keep bringing up autonomy (free will) as if we can step outside of the laws that created us. I keep saying that it's a false dichotomy because we can have determinism and be autonomous according to the definition given in most dictionaries. You keep talking about conflicts that you believe can never be resolved. You say it's just a frame of mind that I have concocted in order to feel good about the author, his discovery and all the peace and prosperity heading our way as a result of them, which is completely bogus. I have concocted nothing. You haven't shown a shred of interest in the book which is why you don't understand a shred of it. I know nature didn't allow you to, and that's okay. But because we have such different perspectives, I don't think there is any way we can move forward, therefore I'm bowing out of our discussion. It was a good run and I wish you the best. :wink:
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 26, 2019 6:29 pm

peacegirl wrote:
You would not disagree with Einstein because he was recognized. You would listen quite attentively and if you didn't understand something you would question earnestly to get a clearer understanding.

But you certainly wouldn't argue.



First of all, given that Einstein is described here ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... #Free_will

...as a "strict determinist", I would ask him if he believed the discussion we were having would and could only unfold as it must. Given how he is said to believe that "human behavior was completely determined by causal laws."

I would then probe his thoughts regarding Hitler and the Manhattan Project. If human behavior is in fact completely determined by causal laws, was not the entire Second World War [up to the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki] inherently and necessarily in sync with the laws of matter? Going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself?

Besides, try as I might, I still don't really understand all the technical arguments he made in his arguments/theories regarding the "space-time continuum".

But the thing about Einstein is that his arguments could be tested empirically. Experiments could be conducted, predictions could be made, results could be replicated.

And your author? Where on earth is the equivalent of this in his own work? How has he taken his world of words, intellectual contraption assumptions about free will, determinism and a "progressive" future and provided us with an assessment that can in fact be brought down to earth and shown to be applicable to the behaviors that we really do "choose"?

The fact that you are so obsessed with "definitions" speaks volumes to me. In my view, you believe that words mean only what they must mean in order to sustain [psychologically] the comfort and security you derive from this meaning "in your head".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sun May 26, 2019 7:28 pm

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
You would not disagree with Einstein because he was recognized. You would listen quite attentively and if you didn't understand something you would question earnestly to get a clearer understanding.

But you certainly wouldn't argue.



First of all, given that Einstein is described here ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... #Free_will

...as a "strict determinist", I would ask him if he believed the discussion we were having would and could only unfold as it must. Given how he is said to believe that "human behavior was completely determined by causal laws."

I would then probe his thoughts regarding Hitler and the Manhattan Project. If human behavior is in fact completely determined by causal laws, was not the entire Second World War [up to the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki] inherently and necessarily in sync with the laws of matter? Going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself?


No one is disputing this, but the word "cause" is misleading. I'm not going to repeat myself.

iambiguous wrote:Besides, try as I might, I still don't really understand all the technical arguments he made in his arguments/theories regarding the "space-time continuum".

But the thing about Einstein is that his arguments could be tested empirically. Experiments could be conducted, predictions could be made, results could be replicated.


The results of this knowledge can be replicated although its difficult due to the fact that we cannot easily isolate the variables in a free will environment. But it can be falsified. If, under the changed conditions (which involves much more than not blaming) people can move in the direction of striking a first blow, then it will be proven wrong.

iambiguous wrote:And your author? Where on earth is the equivalent of this in his own work? How has he taken his world of words, intellectual contraption assumptions about free will, determinism and a "progressive" future and provided us with an assessment that can in fact be brought down to earth and shown to be applicable to the behaviors that we really do "choose"?


This author made no assumptions. None whatsoever iambiguous. He was correct about determinism and the book is exactly that: an assessment that can in fact be brought down to earth and shown to be applicable to the behaviors that we really do "choose". You haven't read it so you can't respond to my comment intelligently.

iambiguous wrote:The fact that you are so obsessed with "definitions" speaks volumes to me. In my view, you believe that words mean only what they must mean in order to sustain [psychologically] the comfort and security you derive from this meaning "in your head".


Give it up! All he did was clarify a definition that is more exact. He was a stickler for clarity. His definition of determinism is correct because it reflects what is actually going on in reality. By saying nature made me answer this way, you are relinquishing the agent or "I" that made the choice. I've said this over and over. It's all about clarification which is important in this important discussion. It's more accurate to say I was compelled to make this choice, not nature made me which implies you weren't a participant. We know that once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise but that doesn't mean that before something is done the choice has already been pre-planned by an external force called nature. What if you don't like the plan? You can change it, but that doesn't mean your will is free. You keep abdicating your responsibility, as if nature is this thing that forces you to do what you can't help but do. But you can help but do, if that is not the choice you want to make. Where is this a world of words iambiguous? You are accusing him of things he is not guilty of. The entire book is a practical application of how these principles work.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 26, 2019 8:10 pm

peacegirl wrote:
I appreciate the time it took to respond to this long post, but I am going to take a pass.


The first thing some will note about this point is that it reflects precisely the sort of thing that would be raised by those who do believe in free will. You appreciate the time I took because you had the option not to appreciate it but chose instead to appreciate it. You have now decided to take a pass on continuing the exchange because you were able to think through the discussion and, of your own volition, decided it's time to end it.

Whereas from my frame of mind, given my own understanding of a wholly determined universe, not a single letter of a single word that I am typing here and now could ever have not been typed.

Only, sure, another part of "me" scoffs at this, convinced that, in a manner no one really understands fully, "I" am capable of choosing the words that I type. Even if I am compelled [by the laws of spelling] to chose particular sets of letters to comprise them.

peacegirl wrote:A lot of it is repetitive and we just don't see eye to eye.


Again, as though in the moment before I repeat myself "I" am somehow crucial to bringing that about. But the moment after I repeat myself, my free will is really gone.

Maybe someone else might be more successful in explaining this to me, but, until then, it remains nonsensical.

peacegirl wrote:You keep saying I blame you, and I don't. You keep saying these are assumptions that have no real capacity to demonstrate, which is false.


I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves the extent to which you do in fact hold others responsible for not completely agreeing with the author's discovery.

They can't of their own free will choose to read his book, but it clearly seems to exasperate you to no end that many of us here don't "choose" to read it.

Maybe it just comes down to how we define "blame".

And note just one example of where the author his demonstrated that his discoveries are on par with the manner in which folks like Edison and Einstein demonstrated both the use value and the exchange value of their own discoveries.

You claim this...

peacegirl wrote:Chapter Three gives a clear demonstration of how this law works when applied to the environment.


Sum up the manner in which this is demonstrated. Note an argument that is free of the mere assumptions he makes, of the definitions that others must first agree to accept.

peacegirl wrote: You keep saying this discovery has no foundation without understanding what is behind existence itself, which is not true.


In my view, only someone very, very naive could possibly believe this. Or are wholly compelled by nature to believe it.

This part:

It would be like physicists discovering that the multiverse does in fact exist, and someone insisting that, for the purposes of their own discussion, they want only this universe to be relevant. Even though the existence of the multiverse might have profound implications for our own universe.

Or like someone living in Flatland able to demonstrate the existence of our own three dimensional world, and dismissing that as irrelevant to all that might be understood regarding the relationship between these two worlds.

Or like someone who was raised to believe their Christian beliefs were based only on the Old Testament alone, discovering that the New Testament existed...but then dismissing that is irrelevant to a discussion about Christianity.


How is this not applicable to your claim about the discovery in the context of all that can be known about existence itself?

peacegirl wrote:You keep bringing up autonomy (free will) as if we can step outside of the laws that created us.


No, that is what you do. You posit the laws of nature but somehow "I" is able tweak them. And then eventually enough of them will have been tweaked to usher in the author's own rendition of the Brave New World. Only this time with real "peace and prosperity".

peacegirl wrote: I keep saying that it's a false dichotomy because we can have determinism and be autonomous according to the definition given in most dictionaries.


The dictionary. The ultimate world of words.

Then back to the extent to which any of the words you "chose" here...

peacegirl wrote: You keep talking about conflicts that you believe can never be resolved. You say it's just a frame of mind that I have concocted in order to feel good about the author, his discovery and all the peace and prosperity heading our way as a result of them, which is completely bogus. I have concocted nothing. You haven't shown a shred of interest in the book which is why you don't understand a shred of it. I know nature didn't allow you to, and that's okay.


...had any possibility whatsoever of either not existing at all or of being different words.

Was there that mysterious moment "before" you chose them when it might have become something other than what it, in fact, now is...or was nature wholly embedded in the sequence of experiences that is your own particular "I" going all the way back to the day that you were conceived.

peacegirl wrote: ...because we have such different perspectives, I don't think there is any way we can move forward, therefore I'm bowing out of our discussion. It was a good run and I wish you the best. :wink:


So, are you choosing to bow out here as those who embrace autonomy might construe this juncture, or has nature compelled you to "choose" to do what you were only ever able to.

From my frame of mind [and that's all it is], you are just another in a long string of objectivists I have come across over the years in venues like this one.

Your arguments are construed by me to be but another existential rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Though, of course, my own narrative here can only be seen in much the same way.

Anyway, to the extent that I have not been able to convince you that "I" is largely an existential contraption down in a hole all busted up, you remain intact. You are still able to think yourself into believing something that, in the end, comforts and consoles you. And in a world that is bursting at the seams with so many fucking things that do anything but.

Whatever works I always say.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sun May 26, 2019 9:35 pm

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
I appreciate the time it took to respond to this long post, but I am going to take a pass.


The first thing some will note about this point is that it reflects precisely the sort of thing that would be raised by those who do believe in free will. You appreciate the time I took because you had the option not to appreciate it but chose instead to appreciate it. You have now decided to take a pass on continuing the exchange because you were able to think through the discussion and, of your own volition, decided it's time to end it.


peacegirl wrote:Saying I appreciate something does not reflect the sort of thing that would be raised by those who just believe in free will. I can still say "I appreciate" without turning it into language that I can't use.

iambiguous wrote:Whereas from my frame of mind, given my own understanding of a wholly determined universe, not a single letter of a single word that I am typing here and now could ever have not been typed.


We know that.

iambiguous wrote:Only, sure, another part of "me" scoffs at this, convinced that, in a manner no one really understands fully, "I" am capable of choosing the words that I type. Even if I am compelled [by the laws of spelling] to chose particular sets of letters to comprise.


You ARE capable of choosing the words that you type. Capability means you have the capacity to choose.
peacegirl wrote:A lot of it is repetitive and we just don't see eye to eye.


iambiguous wrote:Again, as though in the moment before I repeat myself "I" am somehow crucial to bringing that about. But the moment after I repeat myself, my free will is really gone.


Before you do something that involves options, you have a choice. Once you make a choice you are responsible for that choice. Most choices are benign. It only becomes a problem when your choices impinge on others.

peacegirl wrote:You keep saying I blame you, and I don't. You keep saying these are assumptions that have no real capacity to demonstrate, which is false.


iambiguous wrote:I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves the extent to which you do in fact hold others responsible for not completely agreeing with the author's discovery.


I can't blame you for neglecting to read the first three chapters and acting like you know what it's about. It doesn't mean I have to like your accusations.

iambiguous wrote:They can't of their own free will choose to read his book, but it clearly seems to exasperate you to no end that many of us here don't "choose" to read it.


You can, of your own free will (or desire) choose to read his book, but only IF YOU WANT TO. If you don't want to, then your desire will move you in another direction. Your individual preference is the key as to which direction you are compelled to take.

iambiguous wrote:Maybe it just comes down to how we define "blame".

And note just one example of where the author his demonstrated that his discoveries are on par with the manner in which folks like Edison and Einstein demonstrated both the use value and the exchange value of their own discoveries.

You claim this...

peacegirl wrote:Chapter Three gives a clear demonstration of how this law works when applied to the environment.


Sum up the manner in which this is demonstrated. Note an argument that is free of the mere assumptions he makes, of the definitions that others must first agree to accept.


I don't feel like summing it up. If you're interested, read it. If not, don't read it.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-2-13-2019-THREE-CHAPTERS.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1ehH5XaQCSCFcNYvHvC_pxbvcl8vpSTDYkkKxNDMECqrpIBpmaLKH88Yo

peacegirl wrote: You keep saying this discovery has no foundation without understanding what is behind existence itself, which is not true.


iambiguous wrote:In my view, only someone very, very naive could possibly believe this. Or are wholly compelled by nature to believe it.

This part:

It would be like physicists discovering that the multiverse does in fact exist, and someone insisting that, for the purposes of their own discussion, they want only this universe to be relevant. Even though the existence of the multiverse might have profound implications for our own universe.

Or like someone living in Flatland able to demonstrate the existence of our own three dimensional world, and dismissing that as irrelevant to all that might be understood regarding the relationship between these two worlds.

Or like someone who was raised to believe their Christian beliefs were based only on the Old Testament alone, discovering that the New Testament existed...but then dismissing that is irrelevant to a discussion about Christianity.


How is this not applicable to your claim about the discovery in the context of all that can be known about existence itself?


If something was necessary for the application of these principles to work on our planet, then it would be necessary to know what that something is. But we have enough knowledge without having to know every detail about existence itself in order for it to work.

peacegirl wrote:You keep bringing up autonomy (free will) as if we can step outside of the laws that created us.


iambiguous wrote:No, that is what you do. You posit the laws of nature but somehow "I" is able tweak them.


I never said that the "I" can step out of natural law. But I do have agency. The "I" that is me is not just embedded in the laws of matter where "I" am a passive recipient. Who wants to just be embedded in what nature dictates without me (or I) having a say in the choices that give me greater satisfaction? Not me.

iambiguous wrote:And then eventually enough of them will have been tweaked to usher in the author's own rendition of the Brave New World. Only this time with real "peace and prosperity".


Nothing is being tweaked other than to say that the agent exists and is responsible for his choices because he is the one, no one else, who is making them. Nature isn't forcing his choices on him. This is only due to the standard definition, and when the definition given is more accurate, you call it his world of words. #-o

peacegirl wrote: I keep saying that it's a false dichotomy because we can have determinism and be autonomous according to the definition given in most dictionaries.


iambiguous wrote:The dictionary. The ultimate world of words.


What is wrong with the dictionary that allows us to communicate? Why do words bother you so much as long as the words being used are clear and precise?

The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly. Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage.

These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice.

But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already.

As long as history has been recorded, these two
opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and
desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which
makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;
but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.


iambiguous wrote:Then back to the extent to which any of the words you "chose" here...

peacegirl wrote: You keep talking about conflicts that you believe can never be resolved. You say it's just a frame of mind that I have concocted in order to feel good about the author, his discovery and all the peace and prosperity heading our way as a result of them, which is completely bogus. I have concocted nothing. You haven't shown a shred of interest in the book which is why you don't understand a shred of it. I know nature didn't allow you to, and that's okay.


iambiguous wrote:...had any possibility whatsoever of either not existing at all or of being different words.


Nope, they had no other possibility.

iambiguous wrote:Was there that mysterious moment "before" you chose them when it might have become something other than what it, in fact, now is...or was nature wholly embedded in the sequence of experiences that is your own particular "I" going all the way back to the day that you were conceived.


You can't go backward and say I could have made a different choice because we know you couldn't. This discovery deals with prevention, which takes place before a "wrongdoing" (or hurt to another), not after.

peacegirl wrote: ...because we have such different perspectives, I don't think there is any way we can move forward, therefore I'm bowing out of our discussion. It was a good run and I wish you the best. :wink:


iambiguous wrote:So, are you choosing to bow out here as those who embrace autonomy might construe this juncture, or has nature compelled you to "choose" to do what you were only ever able to.


I, as the agent, said I was bowing out because it's my preference --- in the direction of greater satisfaction --- when I can't make any headway. Your posts are also way too long. Maybe if you break them up, I'll reconsider. I realize I didn't bow out yet. I took the time to respond to this post.

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind [and that's all it is], you are just another in a long string of objectivists I have come across over the years in venues like this one.

Your arguments are construed by me to be but another existential rendition of this: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296

Though, of course, my own narrative here can only be seen in much the same way.

Anyway, to the extent that I have not been able to convince you that "I" is largely an existential contraption down in a hole all busted up, you remain intact. You are still able to think yourself into believing something that, in the end, comforts and consoles you. And in a world that is bursting at the seams with so many fucking things that do anything but.

Whatever works I always say.

I'll have to look at the links. I'm not an objectivist. So many things are subjective and relative. The "I" or self gets to choose, although the choice is never free because life can only take us in one direction. The "I" is not a contraption down a hole all busted up. The "I" is part of the causal chain, but remember the word "cause" is misleading since nothing can cause us to do anything we (the "I" that we use to identify ourselves) choose not to do. Moreover, we can't go back to one cause that has one effect, like a domino. When it comes to human choice, there are many factors that affect choice, which we consider every time we deliberate. Bottom line: We are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not less satisfaction, from moment to moment. He explains this in more detail in Chapter One.
Last edited by peacegirl on Mon May 27, 2019 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Sun May 26, 2019 10:59 pm

Peacegirl,

To be respected, there are three things you must represent:

You must be logical
You must be reasonable
You must be sympathetic

You have neither of those three traits.

This whole philosophy will be dumped in the wastebin of human output
Last edited by Ecmandu on Sun May 26, 2019 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8255
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby Jakob » Sun May 26, 2019 10:59 pm

Your individual preference is the key as to which direction you are compelled to take.

Which is why all entities and particles and quanta are "valuings".
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6919
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon May 27, 2019 1:19 am

Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

To be respected, there are three things you must represent:

You must be logical
You must be reasonable
You must be sympathetic

You have neither of those three traits.

This whole philosophy will be dumped in the wastebin of human output


What a sore loser! :mrgreen:
Last edited by peacegirl on Mon May 27, 2019 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon May 27, 2019 1:20 am

Jakob wrote:
Your individual preference is the key as to which direction you are compelled to take.

Which is why all entities and particles and quanta are "valuings".


Interesting and very relevant!! :)
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby promethean75 » Mon May 27, 2019 2:05 am

This whole philosophy will be dumped in the wastebin of human output


never happen. this is the way of the future. you just can't comprehend the strange wisdom of the girl in the magnesium dress.
promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Mon May 27, 2019 3:18 am

promethean75 wrote:
This whole philosophy will be dumped in the wastebin of human output


never happen. this is the way of the future. you just can't comprehend the strange wisdom of the girl in the magnesium dress.


Frank Zappa was never a good philosopher and composer.

Beethoven was.

Beethoven accomplished two amazing feats in his life:

He separated music from the church.

He facilitated musicians to be supported by their own works.

Even people like Bach and Mozart were commanded by the church to only play certain notes together ...

Beethoven moved the church so much with his music, that it changed its policy.

Now get this: Beethoven was still in the generation of patrons, he was dirt poor...

His music was so good that even a generation later, through both concerts and selling his music, Liszt lived like a king.

Beethoven modernized, to a large extent, by himself, all of western culture ...

Compared to that, frank zappa contributed nothing except experimental music ... lots of people have done that.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8255
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby Jakob » Mon May 27, 2019 11:44 am

peacegirl wrote:
Jakob wrote:
Your individual preference is the key as to which direction you are compelled to take.

Which is why all entities and particles and quanta are "valuings".


Interesting and very relevant!! :)

Im glad you think so Peacegirl. I hope this concept will be of use to you in the development of your theory. I think we are somewhat likeminded.

Hey, awesome, this happened to me a few times too:

peacegirl wrote:
phyllo wrote:
When we are hurt we have two options; we can strike back 'an eye for an eye' or we can turn the other cheek. This knowledge prevents the first cheek from ever being struck, so there will be no need to do either.
So if a person has this knowledge, then he/she will never do anything hurtful/bad/wrong?

I find that astonishing and unrealistic.


It's unrealistic because it feels like it's an impossible feat. I get it.
I'm not asking people to read the entire book but I am asking them to meet me half way by reading the first three chapters. If this is a true discovery, 130 pages is not that much to devote your time to.


phyllo wrote:There are only so many hours in a day/lifetime and some many demands for attention. One has to pick and choose where to spend one's time. And unfortunately, the decision is based on some small and perhaps superficial fragments which pique interest.


I'm really trying my best. You are right. It's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I can't keep repeating the same thing over and over.
phyllo wrote:We live in a cut and paste world.


Very true.
Would you ever think of demanding a synopsis of Nietzsche's work, or any famous philosopher for that matter?
]
phyllo"Yes I would. There are lots of very short books and even graphic books which are introductions to philosophers and philosophies.
For example:
http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Nietz ... 1848310099


Maybe so, but if you're a serious philosophy student this wouldn't be enough. I can't do more than I'm doing. If I can't people to read even if they skip the introduction, then I guess they won't learn what this is about. I am bending over backwards already.
[quote] Any of the great philosophers have been carefully studied and their work analyzed and dissected backward and forward.
If somebody is a professor who is teaching philosophy, then he/she would do that. But most people are not going to invest that much time because they have other interests and other things to do.
[quote] This is that kind of book. It deals with a serious topic and it's a new perspective which does not permit a quick skim. I know that's what everyone wants but it won't do the book justice although I've been trying to cater to everyone's wants since I've been here. I have said all along that this is not the best venue for introducing something new, but unfortunately I have been unable to reach philosophers interested in this topic who could be more instrumental.


[quote="phyllo wrote:If you can't get people interested, then this important "discovery" will be lost.


True, and I'm not getting any younger.

phyllo wrote:So make it interesting and accessible. Make it easy.


I'm trying my best. I've already gone over why man's will is not free, but when it is accepted to be true, once and for all, then we can reap the benefits as we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame.
I've explained why man's will is not free. No one seems to understand that the conventional definition of determinism is a problem.
I'm not asking about that.

phyllo wrote:I'm asking for an explanation of an effective deterrent.

Mr X kills Ms A.

What reduces the likelihood of that happening in the first place? What do you do with Mr X afterwards?


If this law is immutable, there will be no afterwards because no one will desire to strike a first blow without justification. But in order for this to work, we must remove all of the things that justify retaliation, and there are many.

phyllo wrote:The way it works now : if Mr X thinks about it prior to acting, then the risk of being caught, imprisoned or executed will reduce the appeal of killing Ms A.


Number one, he won't desire to kill her, but in this world he may desire this and may take the chance if he believes he won't get caught. But for us to get to the point where no one wants to kill anyone, we have to remove the hurt that allow people to justify what they're about to do.

phyllo wrote:If he does kill her, then he is removed from society so that he doesn't kill anyone else. Seeing Mr X punished, discourages Mr Y from killing Ms B.


It is a deterrent to know that the serious consequences of going to jail or the death penalty will be enforced, if caught, but not everyone heeds these threats.

phyllo wrote:So what happens in your "new world"?


These things will not occur because the environment in which children are raised will be so different that the thought of gaining at someone's expense or hurting someone in any way will not even enter their minds. There are some mentally ill people and they may be so far gone that their conscience no longer can control their behavior therefore they may need to be institutionalized, but as a new generation is born into this new world, mental illness will be virtually wiped out.[/quote]
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6919
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon May 27, 2019 6:00 pm

duplicate
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 27, 2019 6:38 pm

peacegirl wrote: You would not disagree with Einstein because he was recognized. You would listen quite attentively and if you didn't understand something you would question earnestly to get a clearer understanding.

But you certainly wouldn't argue.



iambiguous wrote:First of all, given that Einstein is described here ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... #Free_will

...as a "strict determinist", I would ask him if he believed the discussion we were having would and could only unfold as it must. Given how he is said to believe that "human behavior was completely determined by causal laws."

I would then probe his thoughts regarding Hitler and the Manhattan Project. If human behavior is in fact completely determined by causal laws, was not the entire Second World War [up to the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki] inherently and necessarily in sync with the laws of matter? Going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself?


peacegirl wrote: No one is disputing this, but the word "cause" is misleading. I'm not going to repeat myself.


On the contrary, you'll repeat yourself if nature compels you to. On the other hand, how could you possibly know here and now what nature will compel you to do tomorrow or next week?

Yet, as is often the case here, you speak of yourself doing something in the same manner as those who embrace free will would!

Sure, just as I do. But that's because I recognize how profoundly problematic my own understanding of all this must be. How on earth could I possibly know for sure that my arguments on this thread reflect some "final truth" about a conundrum that has baffled our species now for thousands of years?!

But, okay, what is your own rendition of cause and effect in regards to Einstein's participation in the Manhattan Project? Was he or was he not determined by the laws of matter to write that letter to Roosevelt? What caused him to? Was there ever a possibility that he could have chosen not to? Was there ever the possibility that, given your own understanding of cause and effect in the human brain, the decisions made by all of those involved leading up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have resulted in a different outcome?

iambiguous wrote:...the thing about Einstein is that his arguments could be tested empirically. Experiments could be conducted, predictions could be made, results could be replicated.


peacegirl wrote: The results of this knowledge can be replicated although its difficult due to the fact that we cannot easily isolate the variables in a free will environment. But it can be falsified. If, under the changed conditions (which involves much more than not blaming) people can move in the direction of striking a first blow, then it will be proven wrong.


What on earth are you talking about here? Einstein's knowledge or the author's? Note an actual context involving human interactions that might allow others to actually substantiate your claims here

iambiguous wrote:And your author? Where on earth is the equivalent of this in his own work? How has he taken his world of words, intellectual contraption assumptions about free will, determinism and a "progressive" future and provided us with an assessment that can in fact be brought down to earth and shown to be applicable to the behaviors that we really do "choose"?


peacegirl wrote: This author made no assumptions. None whatsoever iambiguous. He was correct about determinism and the book is exactly that: an assessment that can in fact be brought down to earth and shown to be applicable to the behaviors that we really do "choose". You haven't read it so you can't respond to my comment intelligently.


Yet more baldfaced assertions about him without a shred of documentation to back them up.

Let's try this: Note what you construe to be his most convincing argument such that others do not have to fall back on either the intellectual assumptions he makes about free will or on the definitions that he gives to the words in the argument itself.

And note how cause and effect works inside human brains involved in interactions with others in which value judgments come into conflict. My own "thing" here. Imagine, for example, arguments before the Supreme Court in which it is being decided if Roe V. Wade is to be struck down. Here in America.

How might this...

"...an assessment that can in fact be brought down to earth and shown to be applicable to the behaviors that we really do 'choose'".

...be demonstrated in that courtroom to be true? In regard to behaviors being chosen by women who see themselves as burdened with unwanted pregnancies.

And I readily agree that human brains will be compelled by nature to "choose" particular thoughts and feelings and behaviors in that room. But will anyone there actually have chosen anything at all that is not entirely in sync with the laws of matter?

Is there something crucial about the matter that comprises the human brain begetting consciousness begetting "I" that makes it very, very different from all other matter?

That's the part that still utterly stumps us. Or, rather, stumps those of us who haven't concocted one or another intellectual contraption to neatly explain "everything".

In my view, the author's narrative is just another rendition of James Saint's RA/AO TOE. Or the stuff being accumulated here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195009

Or the dogmatic assumptions about how nature always trumps nurture embedded in Satyr's declamations over at the Know Thyself clique/claque.

Objectivist mentalities of this sort are everywhere on philosophy boards.

It's all about believing in some overarching human reality -- it can be anything! -- that allows you to anchor "I" into/onto one or another psychological foundation. It's about how believing it in and of itself is the whole point.

That's the font for whatever comfort and consolation it brings you. In my view, you're just one of the few who don't take the more standard leap to one or another denominational God.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

Note to nature:

Compel me to admit that I am wrong. That she is right. And soon please.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon May 27, 2019 9:31 pm

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote: You would not disagree with Einstein because he was recognized. You would listen quite attentively and if you didn't understand something you would question earnestly to get a clearer understanding.

But you certainly wouldn't argue.



iambiguous wrote:First of all, given that Einstein is described here ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... #Free_will

...as a "strict determinist", I would ask him if he believed the discussion we were having would and could only unfold as it must. Given how he is said to believe that "human behavior was completely determined by causal laws."

I would then probe his thoughts regarding Hitler and the Manhattan Project. If human behavior is in fact completely determined by causal laws, was not the entire Second World War [up to the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki] inherently and necessarily in sync with the laws of matter? Going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself?


peacegirl wrote: No one is disputing this, but the word "cause" is misleading. I'm not going to repeat myself.


On the contrary, you'll repeat yourself if nature compels you to.


You're wrong. Nature can't compel me if I don't want to repeat myself.

iambiguous wrote: On the other hand, how could you possibly know here and now what nature will compel you to do tomorrow or next week?


I don't know what will give me greater satisfaction at every moment until that moment arrives.

iambiguous wrote:Yet, as is often the case here, you speak of yourself doing something in the same manner as those who embrace free will would!


Maybe so, because many philosophers believe if you have a choice, that is the definition of free will, although it's not.

iambiguous wrote:Sure, just as I do. But that's because I recognize how profoundly problematic my own understanding of all this must be. How on earth could I possibly know for sure that my arguments on this thread reflect some "final truth" about a conundrum that has baffled our species now for thousands of years?!


It's a conundrum because you didn't make a discovery. He did. Are you going to resent him for this and call his discovery an intellectual contraption because you can't believe it's possible?

iambiguous wrote:But, okay, what is your own rendition of cause and effect in regards to Einstein's participation in the Manhattan Project? Was he or was he not determined by the laws of matter to write that letter to Roosevelt? What caused him to? Was there ever a possibility that he could have chosen not to? Was there ever the possibility that, given your own understanding of cause and effect in the human brain, the decisions made by all of those involved leading up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have resulted in a different outcome?


I have always maintained that nothing could have been done any differently.

iambiguous wrote:...the thing about Einstein is that his arguments could be tested empirically. Experiments could be conducted, predictions could be made, results could be replicated.


peacegirl wrote: The results of this knowledge can be replicated although its difficult due to the fact that we cannot easily isolate the variables in a free will environment. But it can be falsified. If, under the changed conditions (which involves much more than not blaming) people can move in the direction of striking a first blow, then it will be proven wrong.


iambiguous wrote:What on earth are you talking about here? Einstein's knowledge or the author's? Note an actual context involving human interactions that might allow others to actually substantiate your claims here.


I told you that this knowledge can be substantiated when the bridge is built, so to speak. If people can still hurt others under the changed conditions, then this discovery would be false.

iambiguous wrote:And your author? Where on earth is the equivalent of this in his own work? How has he taken his world of words, intellectual contraption assumptions about free will, determinism and a "progressive" future and provided us with an assessment that can in fact be brought down to earth and shown to be applicable to the behaviors that we really do "choose"?


peacegirl wrote: This author made no assumptions. None whatsoever iambiguous. He was correct about determinism and the book is exactly that: an assessment that can in fact be brought down to earth and shown to be applicable to the behaviors that we really do "choose". You haven't read it so you can't respond to my comment intelligently.


iambiguous wrote:Yet more baldfaced assertions about him without a shred of documentation to back them up.


You're right, it can't be documented because we are not in the new world. We live in a free will society of blame and punishment. There could always be a simulation on a small scale, although it would be hard to set up since it would involve finding a community that would incorporate these principles. Applying the corollary, as well as removing the hurt and economic insecurity that now exists, will result in a new world based on an accurate blueprint, just like having the right mathematical equation to build a bridge, (even without the bridge having been built yet) will support the cars crossing it.

iambiguous wrote:Let's try this: Note what you construe to be his most convincing argument such that others do not have to fall back on either the intellectual assumptions he makes about free will or on the definitions that he gives to the words in the argument itself.


OMG, they are not assumptions. They are inferences based on astute observation. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that there is no autonomy if you mean by this word, FREE WILL.

iambiguous wrote:And note how cause and effect works inside human brains involved in interactions with others in which value judgments come into conflict. My own "thing" here. Imagine, for example, arguments before the Supreme Court in which it is being decided if Roe V. Wade is to be struck down. Here in America.

How might this...

"...an assessment that can in fact be brought down to earth and shown to be applicable to the behaviors that we really do 'choose'".

Again, in the new world no one is going to tell you what to do. There is no right and wrong in many of these gray areas and, just like abortion, it will be be up to the mother because no one will tell her what she must do. There will be no Supreme Court run by a few humans that make these decisions. But like I said, people will not be in the same position they are today where abortion becomes the lesser of two evils.

iambiguous wrote:...be demonstrated in that courtroom to be true? In regard to behaviors being chosen by women who see themselves as burdened with unwanted pregnancies.


You are projecting what you believe will be an issue in the new world based on what is happening today. You can't do that.

iambiguous wrote:And I readily agree that human brains will be compelled by nature to "choose" particular thoughts and feelings and behaviors in that room. But will anyone there actually have chosen anything at all that is not entirely in sync with the laws of matter?


No iambiguous. Please stop making it seem that I am describing anything other than determinism.

iambiguous wrote:Is there something crucial about the matter that comprises the human brain begetting consciousness begetting "I" that makes it very, very different from all other matter?


You still don't get it and I'm tired of trying to get you to get it.

iambiguous wrote:That's the part that still utterly stumps us. Or, rather, stumps those of us who haven't concocted one or another intellectual contraption to neatly explain "everything".


Just because he explains that nothing external can cause us to do anything against our will, and that we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction (which is why our will is not free), does not make it an intellectual contraption. You are trying to put him in some kind of box.

iambiguous wrote:In my view, the author's narrative is just another rendition of James Saint's RA/AO TOE. Or the stuff being accumulated here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195009

Or the dogmatic assumptions about how nature always trumps nurture embedded in Satyr's declamations over at the Know Thyself clique/claque.


Who said nature always trumps nurture? I think it's the other way around. We have a certain nature and when it's nurtured, we get a healthier environment.

iambiguous wrote:Objectivist mentalities of this sort are everywhere on philosophy boards.

It's all about believing in some overarching human reality -- it can be anything! -- that allows you to anchor "I" into/onto one or another psychological foundation. It's about how believing it in and of itself is the whole point.


But this is more than a belief. The only overarching human reality that is important here is that man's will is not free and what this means for our benefit.

iambiguous wrote:That's the font for whatever comfort and consolation it brings you. In my view, you're just one of the few who don't take the more standard leap to one or another denominational God.


It is definitely comforting to know that we are moving toward a world of peace, but that does not mean the discovery is false just because it makes me feel good.

iambiguous wrote:Unless of course I'm wrong.


You are!

iambiguous wrote:Note to nature:

Compel me to admit that I am wrong. That she is right. And soon please.


You don't have to admit you are wrong if you don't think you're wrong. If you read the chapters, you might prefer of your own free will or desire, to admit you were wrong after a better understanding of what this law can actually accomplish.

Thanks for shortening your post.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Mon May 27, 2019 10:58 pm

Peacegirl, erasing my post, seems like censure, and all I said that I seconded in big in PART. After all You duplicated the other view as well! If peace is tantamount with censorship I don't want it!
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4796
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Mon May 27, 2019 10:59 pm

Meno_ wrote:Peacegirl, erasing my post, seems like censure, and all I said that I seconded in big in PART. After all You duplicated the other view as well! If peace is tantamount with censorship I don't want it!

Duplicate.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4796
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Mon May 27, 2019 11:58 pm

This very divisive post is a semblance of what is going on in the world today.
We are mere replicas, and it's working.
Apologies to both sides. But in the deal politocal world there are no apologies, only increased hyper vigilance and paranoia.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4796
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 28, 2019 12:14 am

Meno_ wrote:Peacegirl, erasing my post, seems like censure, and all I said that I seconded in big in PART. After all You duplicated the other view as well! If peace is tantamount with censorship I don't want it!


I didn't censor you. I didn't censure you. And I didn't erase your post. I'm at a loss. I duplicated a post by accident that I was editing. It would be nice to check with me first before accusing me. I have no idea what you mean by "all I said that I seconded in big in PART." Makes no sense to me. What am I missing?
Last edited by peacegirl on Tue May 28, 2019 3:02 am, edited 3 times in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby promethean75 » Tue May 28, 2019 12:41 am

Compared to that, frank zappa contributed nothing


that nigga beet ain't got shit on his majesty Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus and the Grand Wazoo

promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Tue May 28, 2019 5:57 am

peacegirl wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Peacegirl, erasing my post, seems like censure, and all I said that I seconded in big in PART. After all You duplicated the other view as well! If peace is tantamount with censorship I don't want it!


I didn't censor you. I didn't censure you. And I didn't erase your post. I'm at a loss. I duplicated a post by accident that I was editing. It would be nice to check with me first before accusing me. I have no idea what you mean by "all I said that I seconded in big in PART." Makes no sense to me. What am I missing?



After You put 'duplicate' , ambig posted , and then I posted Right, and followed it partly, by asserting some points he made. I noted that it was indeed posted, and wondered how it came to be deleted, for even if I had, I would have had to fill the post with something.

But never mind Peacegirl, and things happen, nevertheless it made me wonder, and may have been caused by a technical quirk.
Last edited by Meno_ on Tue May 28, 2019 6:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4796
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]

cron