New Discovery

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?

I am compelled to suggest that you will not be able to move beyond this with her unless nature compels her to be moved beyond making these incredible statements predicated solely on the political prejudices that the author was compelled by nature to think are true “in his head”.

Somehow not even the laws of nature themselves “can make a person do what they make up their mind not to do”.

That some determinists are then compelled to speculate that the part where they make up their mind here is only another manifestation of what can only ever be given that brain matter itself is no less the embodiment of, well, what can only ever be, never sinks in here with her.

Either because “nature’s way” simply hasn’t allowed for this yet or, in an autonomous universe, she recognizes all that she has to lose if her own objectivist narrative begins to crumble. She has just not recognized this consciously yet. Indeed, she may well take her own prized and precious comfort and consolation all the way to the grave with her.

The author’s “discovery” is, in my view, just another psychological manifestation of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

It has become but her very own font for anchoring “I”. Without it, she may well become just another fractured and fragmented rendition of…me?

You did say that, according to definitions of satisfaction. Necessity does not have to involve satisfaction or pleasure. What if one hates drinking water but they need to drink it? It’s value attribution, making a conscious choice to value other things over that continually present dissatisfaction, which is a will that is free in contextual valuing.

My sacrifice for a child is not for my satisfaction, it’s for the child’s. Which is necessary, not tied to any pleasure for me. Which is why it would be my ‘sacrifice’. There is no satisfaction in death, remember, satisfaction comes -after- the choice or action is made or happens during, so if death happens during, how am I to have that greater satisfaction at all? I wouldn’t because it was never for ‘my own’ greater satisfaction to begin with

Doesn’t say pleasure or satisfaction linked to need Or necessity/necessary.

You aren’t superior to anyone in terms of prediction. You can’t predict a system without understanding it and you can’t understand that there is a system without some form of a free will, which you argue against, and claim there being no such thing.

Ok well then if you do, then I do too. And I am telling you from the current events and current placement of where we are in terms of evolutionary path, you’re wrong. It will do no good to convince people they only move toward greater satisfaction when it is not the case all of the time and maybe for some, a lot of the time it may not be at all. The people in this world need to be more responsible for and with their free will and self/identity, not convinced that nothing is their fault because they “chdo”. How do you think we got to this position in the first place? Really? How do you think we got here to this position on our evolutionary path where we’re destroying ourselves effectively?

The thing about making statements about the future beyond your existence is that they cannot be falsified within your lifetime
So anyone can make predictions about what will happen in a thousand years and not be shown to be wrong for this very reason
But it doesnt advance the debate so deal with the present and leave future generations to deal with their time when it comes

This is to Artemis:

Contradiction works for the thesis not against it , for the reasons described.
Can sense be made out of that claim?

Meno, I can’t compete with your knowledge of philosophy. You’re amazing! I don’t know though whether your conclusions (please forgive me for not being an expert in the philosophers of time past) is correct. I hope you keep listening to what I have learned. If it’s wrong, then I will be the first to admit the error. If it’s right, we will achieve a new world of peace and harmony. I hope I’m right! :slight_smile:

The prediction is based on the knowledge behind determinism. Yes, we can predict the future if the formula (for lack of a better word) is correct.

Huh? There is no contradiction Meno. I don’t know what you’re referring to. Sorry if this was to Artimas but I must (of my own free will, of my own volition) correct a flaw in your comment because there is a danger of people throwing this knowledge out due to one person’s comment, especially if the person is looked up to. Unfortunately, many people will join the bandwagon of dissension without a clue to what they joining.

Which post? The one for satisfaction?

Sometimes some of us or sometimes some people do what is necessary, not for or out of any sort of satisfaction.

In my experience, whenever contradiction is experienced or presented it means there’s a missing step or a missing contrast, which in this case, it’s the will that is free in a contextual method of using it.,

Sometimes the what and the why may not be free, in some situations, but the where, when, how, who, is and we have a choice in regards to that and certain aspects of context… which i would argue we have more freedom in terms of context than not, 4 > 2.

Why do I have to take a shit? Because it’s biologically necessary to function. My freedom of will is in choosing the rest of the context regarding that function, which is the cause effect scenario in infinite cases of different contexts, which is where responsibility derives.

I know this wasn’t direct to me, but this is my thread so I feel obligated to answer when I see a problem. Actually, we are in agreement about different contexts. Please try to learn how your take on “the freedom to choose which encompasses moral responsibility” and the fact that man’s will is not free, is cohesive and not contradictory at all.

Some situations or contexts are less restrictive than others, so instead of saying more free, we should just change semantics and say less restricted? Or what?

Sometimes we don’t get to choose why, what or who, which is less contextual freedom. Depending on context and what’s going on, those change, The Who, why, etc, they swap between each other.

OMG, I don’t know how to make more clear than what I already have expressed, that context is everything since that’s how we make decisions, but there is no context that offers freedom of the will. You’ve been ingrained with the conventional definition of determinism, which causes you to fight back against the idea that we have no choice. This has to be undone for this knowledge to be understood. I don’t know if it’s possible given the responses here. Maybe in 100 years. :frowning:

I should be the one to apologise my plate is so full I can merely scribble here and there even without the time to edit, as this is appearent. But I honestly want to reply in a way that it is understandable, and I am compelled to stay with it for it’s a source of personal relevance as well.

Thanks for the reminder to smell the flowers! :slight_smile:

This is the problem sharing a discovery in a forum like this because so much is being left out. Do you think a discovery of this magnitude can be determined to be genuine without a thorough investigation which has never happened? You are making a distinction between individuals who could not do harm, and those who could. As I said earlier, the individuals you are alluding to may have a severed conscience. In that case, they may need to be institutionalized just like a mad dog would. But these individuals are a small percentage of the population. Most run of the mill criminals are not psychopaths or sociopaths but are willing to take advantage of others, or even kill, in order to get what they want. Under the changed conditions they would not find it alluring to do anything that could hurt others, that’s just the point. This IS a one size fits all in the sense that under the changed environment, no one (barring the extremely mentally ill; the mad dogs) would desire to strike a first blow (an unprovoked hurt to others) as a preferable choice. This is not a slippery slope although he was not suggesting to suddenly stop blaming which could cause more harm than good.