New Discovery

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.

I love the moral of the story. We really don’t know whether something bad will turn out good in unexpected ways, or something good will turn out bad. Unfortunately, most bad situations end up staying bad (with very little redeeming value) and good situations end up staying good (with lots of redeeming value). Most people, given the chance, would choose a good situation as seen from their perspective (obviously these terms are relative), with the hope that nothing bad will occur as a result. When I speak of “bad” I am speaking of the kind of things people call evil such as mass murder. There is always good that comes out of these situations, like betters laws, etc. but wouldn’t it be a better world if mass murder did not occur at all? (good).

The commentary is interesting (still reading) because we rarely have enough information to see the whole picture, and it is the wise person who is not attached to the outcome.

Hi Arc, nice to hear You !(of)

Hope to see You more but unsurprisingly, the ships passing at night is better then nothing, specially when most on board think telepathy is used. But again can’t be ruled out.

Peacegirl:

Time uncooperative, only focus now can be the contradiction .

The sense You are using makes it (sense) , in terms of , well the best analogy I can come up with is a differential gear. And please don’t assume that I’m a philosophical wunderkind of some kind, - sorry duty call a will resume at the earliest. Sorry.
but having having second thoughts about this analogy …

Try again: at the level of contrariness, contra meaning against, which is inclusive within a level of formative logic: reflective of ontological valuation like this:

When comparing two objects, separated by dis similarity ( based on the principle that no similar objects are absolutely identical) one says to another: this is this but not that
They are contrarily indicative toward each other. They presuppose a third, an object (objective) which cam describe both, on basis of their characteristics. The third object is am ideal object which more generally defines them, such as the ansolute spherical figure , that both contradictory figures resemble , albeit imperfectly.

Naxk in the early days of philosophy, talk was compelling to visualize in terms of such ideal object, as if, for instance, the more a polygon slides or partial sides become shorter and shorter, the more they will approximate an ideal circle or sphere.

This language implied the contra indicative image as imperfect up to the ideal . the language subordinated similar objects as dissimilar absolutely up until the partially differented sides loose their measure of extension. Ideally this never cam happen, and contrariness excluded the ideal.

So if the solution is by asserting the non existence of the ideal, the ontological representation of objects, including the self, become entangled with other partial representations, forming a language of variable meaning per representation of based on similarity, and the degree of similarity can not be assumed, except by a feed.back system between represented objects reflecting a cohesive recognition, most.particularly self representation via the other object.

The most general characteristics subordinate the least, therefore the system is reductive toward the most inclusive characteristic

The way I am using the way Peace girl is using it, is not by aumptive theoretical efforts, for that way the method will result in a circularity, the way it has been classocally, as.two closest image of similarity, where the two spheres cam not be distinguished from one another.

The contradiction. can be avoided by accepting the language of contradiction both literally and figuratively, both by assessing the intended meaning utilizing the objective, or the hypothetical ,meaning of the figure of speech which uses models of the closest latitides to escertain that meaning of the objective can correspond most exactly what is meant.

Reductionism into absolute value does not work this way, at a certain critical point, the way the object is apprehended splits from how it is described.

An example in Sartre’s Nausea, shows a.waiter in a role of acting in bad.faith, since he is merely acting like a waiter waiter, and not really being one.

The contradiction is appearent in roles or people in jobs for which they were.not properly trained, and as a.consequence they can not faithfully term the job as.one which they like to do, noatter how painfully try to act as if the.contrary was.true.

If a.person tries.to negate this assumption, he will show an inauthentic performance . He can not appreciate this, because it never was his objective to act in that role, he is unprepared and unhappy in trying to cover this left of clarity toward the implicit object of his attempt at self convincing.

If he.could be retrained because of his own volition. because he really would like to appreciate the work on itself it’self and not become a.clock watcher reduced into partial unfocused performances, them he.could.refocus unto the objective which ceases to be merely a wish to find some meaning along the way, becaisemall his time will be.consumed by repeated validations of.self validation. , lime self hypnosis

The fact that majority of.working people live for the paycheck , 11, they need to reconcile the two ways of trying to understand how to change their reasoning as.to accommodate to changing contexts within which they understand the meaning, the objective and upper level evaluations thereof their performance.
As most of evaliations are based on upper level authoritarian criteria, the level of transparency may be contingent upon more general assessment related to used standards (some of which are near disfuntional utilization ); and appear more as outer sourced determinancy , where the minimum use of self ontological valuing has less transparent motivational value.

The above effect may indicate a use of collusive effect of internal efforts to control ongoing operational suppression of employee insight into over the top modeling of employee productive capabilities.

I suggest, utilization of both systems, albeit conflicting, may pave the way toward not only better employee-employee relations, but may result in superior production and work morale.

Glad someone here has a little understanding. It gives me renewed hope. No one else is even close to getting it. This discovery will bring on such major changes to the environment that these systemic lies will become obsolete, and the circumstances that created criminality will be prevented. But this will be done without one ounce of authority over others which means no more ruling class, no more government as we know it, and no more criminal justice system. These institutions will be replaced by something far far better.

This was very interesting but I’m not sure where it fits in to the discussion. Could you break it down? I know you’re talking about motivation and language limitations, but I need further clarification. :confused:

Happy to oblige , and again time is my enemy, although I owe You some kind of preface, the elaboration of which is the meat around the skeletal essence around , which it tries to fill in the missing pieces You mention, that of re-integrating the partial differentiations of images playing a part.

I will really try to fill at least some of these , time permitted, hopefully very soon.

Partial differentiation reintegrated .

Im sorry but that comment doesn’t clarify anything for me. How does this “partial differentiation” as you call it, negate the author’s claim that we have no no free will? Or how does it support it? I just don’t see the connection and I am very cautious about getting off on tangents that are irrelevant.