New Discovery

Peacegirl can’t respond to basic refutations:

viewtopic.php?p=2730251#p2730251

viewtopic.php?p=2729829#p2729829

Peacegirl has been disproven. If it’s a cosmic law, than like gravity, we should all have no choice but to obey it.

Peacegirl is just an absurd character, someone without freewill … oh, the irony!

His observations were correct. He didn’t use the scientific method starting with a hypothesis and then finding data to support it. That’s not how he came to these findings. Each person can see for himself by using themselves as the subject matter to see if these principles work as they think about how they would react when all blame is removed from the environment. It will be empirically proven that under these conditions no one will be able not only not to desire hurting a living soul but not to desire gaining at anyone’s expense, just as the bridge will be built. It’s just a matter of time.

This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity.

What does the fact that will is not free have to do with being objective? It doesn’t make sense. We still have a brain, we still can think, we still can do all the things that a person with free will could do, if there was such a thing. Maybe it’s back to the same mistaken definition that’s confusing you.

What does subconscious imagery about a future event negate the FACT that man’s will is not free? We can imagine all sorts of things. Sometimes I think we’re talking a different language. No one is listening to the other.

Yes, we often have multiple options to choose from. Every decision we make is a movement toward a more satisfactory position than where are now standing. If there are no good options, we are compelled to choose the lesser of two evils, or the least unfavorable choice.

You could have chosen the strawberry when comparing it to chocolate, if you had desired it, but you chose the chocolate, even if the choices were equally desired which is equivalent to choosing A and A. Not a meaningful difference. Looking back, you could NOT have chosen the strawberry. Later on, you may decide to eat the the strawberry rather than the chocolate, if that is your preference. We live in the present and each moment offers us a new set of possibilities. But that is different than saying you could have chosen otherwise, which is impossible.

You are right. That is a faulty definition of determinism. Each moment is new and continuous, and we get to choose “freely” (without external constraint), but we don’t have free will, as I explained, because we cannot move backward (in the direction of what would give us less satisfaction) when life itself pushes us always in the direction away from dissatisfaction.

We don’t have to IF WE DON’T WANT TO. Determinism is not prescriptive although once a choice is made we can say correctly that this choice could not have been otherwise because it is the only choice that could have been made per the laws of our nature. I said so many times that the conventional definition of determinism is faulty, not determinism itself. If you would hear me out, you would see that we are in agreement.

Responsibility is increased with this knowledge, but this judgment as to what a person should have chosen (CHCO) is part of the problem.

In the new world people will not desire to hurt anyone when there is no justification to do so. Right now, people have justification. As long as they feel justified conscience WILL permit the act. The word “immoral” is not applicable because it’s a judgment of good and bad. In actuality, no one is good or bad, just doing what they do in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is incredible because the change in environment causes a change in human conduct, rendering hurting others the least preferable choice among meaningful options. That’s the only thing that changes. People will be freer than ever to do whatever they find preferable with no one telling them what to do or what is best for them. Big government will be a thing of the past.

So you think it would be better if we had this choice as well just so that it could be demonstrated we really had free will ?
But what actual purpose would that have given that we would still want to choose the most satisfactory choice available ?

What if nothing gives us lasting satisfaction except that which we do out of true freedom?
I seem to experience this as being the case. I can’t be truly satisfied truly if I just “fulfill my carnal desires” or something like that. It satisfies a lack but it doesn’t satisfy justification of Being.

This is why I am such a good cook, among other things. I always make it a little better than it should technically be able to be.

So what Im saying is, your absolute, peacegirl, is not an exactitude. So you can’t use it as the crux of an argument.
Satisfaction could just mean the lowering of tensions. But that doesn’t give any qualia of the tension, it doesn’t give substance, it doesn’t predict.

Because satisfaction is a term that doesn’t differentiate into qualities.
Maybe thats too technical but Im just saying.

There’s a contradiction in what you state about the author of which you argue for his points/claims.

Because his clam is independent of religious symbolism, predetermination, teleology, self-consciousness, or even pleasure. The variables you are bringing in have nothing to do with the veracity of his claim. The only thing that would prove him wrong is if you can prove to me that we don’t move in the direction of greater satisfaction.”

If you claim the authors claim is independent of greater satisfaction or pleasure, then that is a contradiction and you have proven yourself wrong there. By yourself.

I have already shown that satisfaction is illusory, temporary. Always followed by fear/pain of loss or comfort and loss of new experience. Both are bad and against an evolutionary path for an individual.

Satisfaction don’t last, pretty sure even The Rolling Stones knew this and made a song “Can’t get no satisfaction”

There’s a contradiction in what you state about the author of which you argue for his points/claims.

Because his clam is independent of religious symbolism, predetermination, teleology, self-consciousness, or even pleasure. The variables you are bringing in have nothing to do with the veracity of his claim. The only thing that would prove him wrong is if you can prove to me that we don’t move in the direction of greater satisfaction.”

If you claim the authors claim is independent of greater satisfaction or pleasure, then that is a contradiction and you have proven yourself wrong there. By yourself.

So the author can make a claim without following the greater satisfaction or pleasure movement in that direction, but we can’t? Horse shit, not every movement is dictated by greater satisfaction. Some take no satisfaction, death isn’t satisfactory if one had to sacrifice life for someone else, it may be necessary to them, not satisfactory.

I never said that Artimas! I said that we don’t always move toward something pleasurable but we do move in the direction of greater satisfaction. For example, I may choose to give up my life for my child if only one of us had a chance of surviving. This would have given me greater satisfaction, but certainly not pleasure.

I would like to know what happens when this idea finally takes root in human consciousness and starts being accepted ?
Is it then inevitable that it will become accepted by absolutely everyone and will this be the end of suffering for ever ?
I am sceptical as no idea or belief in human history has ever had such acceptance so why should this be any different ?

We aren’t talking about what gives an individual satisfaction; it could be many things that drive an individual to choosing one thing over another. Regardless of what a person chooses, we are driven by our nature to move in this direction every moment of life.

I understand the skepticism, but this discovery really can rid the world of most of the evil (hurt) plaguing mankind. It’s inevitable because we cannot move against what is better for ourselves, and this world (which is absolutely possible) is the better choice. The sad part is that this discovery hasn’t been carefully investigated. The author died before he had a chance to prove his claims. I just hope this knowledge doesn’t get thrown into a slush pile along with of a lot of bad claims that are out there. The knowledge is here, it’s just a matter of getting it brought to light. Mankind has been developing and could not have reached this turning point until now. The author said this knowledge is part of the real world, not something he invented, so someone else could make the same discovery but it may take another thousand years and by that time we may destroy ourselves. :cry:

You are making so many assumptions here based on absolutely no evidence at all - how do you know people will not desire to hurt anyone in the future ?
How do you know there will be no justification for it ? How do you know people will be more free than ever ? Can you prove these statements are true ?

Will there be any laws in this brave new world ? Presumably not if people are free to do as they please and accountable to no one but has this ever been tried ?
Maybe in small isolated tribes that are entirely self governing but not the entire world ? And without any historical precedence you cannot say what will happen

You can certainly wish for a better future but wishing and predicting are not the same and you have no more idea what the future holds than anyone else does

Knowledge claims about the future cannot be accepted even if they turn out to be true and in that respect yours are no different to anyone elses
You have no more idea what the future will be like in a thousand years time no more than your ancestors of a thousand years ago had about today

I actually do. This is not wishful thinking.

I tend to agree with You now that I have a better grasp of where this ongoing, and coming from.

The attainment of the nuclear.age did not come about haphazardly by chance, it has had a 2000 year history of development. The development was predicated by no then knowledge of the future.

The philosophical swrivatiob is complex , but the general rationale can be primordially described. It is a fairly acceptable presumption to say, that a consensus of moral people in soxiwry5, may not wish to start a new world war, given that moat.probably every one on earth would be wiped out, in the event of large scale hostilities.

The containment of free will by the upper classes not a continuation of Greek Philosophy of intent, or a secret positing of am Oracle which foresaw the state of technological prowess, by which, supposedly, control down the line could be sustained.

If that above is fairly convincing, then the will, can to describe the superpositioning of objectives related to control. Control to sustain such an oracle , would need the intentionality below a transcendental unity for it’s sustenance or so imply the Philosophers , arguably understood at least among themselves.

The just of it is, that technological development , did not come about in a manner of planning it, and developing it, with knowledge of objective criteria; in mind.

So, the only conclusion that could be supported , is, that Natural determination was at.play, in atomism, or, in superimposing the Aristotelian method unto Platonic ideas.

Atomism is an early form of reductionism, which bypasses progressively complex forms, however this could not have happened a-priori, and neither aposteriori; by using the will to choose among the two possible routes to development .

Therefore it is safe.to say, that the nuclear.age, the atomic and.hydrogen and neutron bombs.were determined by other then non determinate means.

Since the atom bomb represents an either use it peacefully or perish scenario, the promise of not using it destructively has been a built in determinedly.

If this argument is wrong, then an ultimate premise of it, may be defeated. And that premise has been around for thousands of years!

Incidentally , the argument can not be defeated by a list of terrible events signifying intervening variables , because they are merely only that, and can not connect the the two ultimate.of Crearion with Extinction, whereby the whole reason of human survival would be reduced to absurdity.

Existence would really have no sense, and as life would seem to reduce to it’s ultimate self prescribed destructive. Essence- nuclear destruction would become inevitable.

It is unlikely that Natural Selection of natural selection could have been begun to operate under that kind of premise, and not in the sense of.self valuing, either.

these are reasonable inferences. so for instance, if we know that the vast majority of crimes, which are blue collar, are committed by those from the lower classes, we can draw a correlation between environment and behavior. once that correlation is made, we can go about trying to fix the problem in one of two ways. either we can continue to rely on hoping to make the criminal feel guilty to stop his behavior - we use religion to brainwash the dummies, and some variation of moral objectivism to brainwash the not-so-dummies - and keep the truth concealed by this centuries old, but extremely useful lie, or make a greater effort than ever before to modify the environment so we won’t have to have criminals we’ll have to lie to to make feel guilty (which is tasteless and rude) so we can better control them… or prevent what makes them, rather.

abolishing the doctrine of freewill is a big first step toward this, especially for those in power who rule over the criminal justice system. the system has to become strong enough not to need to continue lying in order to maintain justice. i mean it can keep lying, sure, but that’s corny and anticlimactic. we would hope that the very institutions that rule over us are not so weak, ignoble and degenerate that they have to lie to keep their power and authority.

we don’t need less authority, but more, better authority, by the people for the people. with the oncoming collapse of the present world order and all the ruling class philosophy underpinning the bullshit the world is under the spell of, maaaajor changes in intellectual infrastructure will occur. this won’t be some utopia, and there will still be hierarchies necessarily… but the promulgators that previously held their power (the bourgeois) via these systemic philosophical lies, will become obsolete. with this comes not only the abolition of the lie of freewill, but also the great bulk of circumstances responsible for creating the crime that had to be controlled by telling the lie. double whammy, dude. bada bing, bada boom.

I realize you are making a sketch, but this wouldn’t have prevented all the crimes and immoral behavior involved the 2008 crash, or the crimes involved in getting us to go to war in Iraq.

Well, if we don’t believe in objective morals, then one what basis do we decide criminals are criminals? And how do we come to agreement? Note: this is not an argument that there are objective morals. It just seems strange that you seem to presume that we all kinda agree what crimes are. As far as I can tell we don’t. And yes, crimes are not the same as immoral acts, but in both cases we are trying to prevent things we think of as bad or simply that we do not want: iow things with negative value to people. And since people have a wide range of values…`?

Which are also value laden words which makes them implicitly objectivist, since you are not explaining to whom. And once you do, then there are those who do not think so.

I don’t see the bourgeois as the ones in power. They have more power than some, but less then those with the real power.

[/quote]
So we prevent crimes but do not punish. What do we do with those who still commit crimes`? How do we make sure there are no crimes of jealousy and by the rich?