New Discovery

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.

Peacegirl -“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:

----------‘’-----
The limitation of. motivation and language imposed on contradictory bounded sets of ideas, is usually verified by due to in part by lack of appearing integration between the intent of those languages.

Intent is demonatratable by transitional objectives( psychologically) , which replace nominal objectives.(ontology)

The logic/mathematical interloper tries through tangential approximation to demonstrate the idea put forward by …that contradiction( based on exclusion of the middle) leaves it without an interloper. Interloper in ontology is similar to synthesis, an attempt to link object overly the two apparent contra-indications of motive, and more significantly reasons for it.

This appearance contradiction is a matter determined casually, or by linking through the use of changing the meaning of conceptual reality, by approximating variables, that remains the question.

That is why appearance and reality, will and causation remains indeterminate, except by reemphasizing the thesis on ground that it’s relevance to the unnamed author remains justifiably necessary.

I don’t insist to know who is the author, and I am in agreement of apparent contradiction, the only thing that is left to signify, is, how can the so called naturalistic phallasy be overcome?

That is why I brought up the moral versus factual relevance posed by the atomic example, of how atoms as an idea relates to the problem with the use of atom bombs, as that example brings onto focus the transcendental unity and the question imposes:

This: That determinism within and without the ideas of intentionality, or the use of human choice ,are implicit in the way that either is expressed. The traditional ontology, as supporting the framework of the premise, requires certain conditions to be met. These conditions must exemplify a thesis of either a substantial thetic object to sustain an objective progression of ideas, absent that, an implied collusive supposition will grow to merely an aproximal value, usually dictated by contextual variances: present at the time. They will sustain objectivity, but only until new standard specifications of objective value necessitate changes of venue.

The above may be described as partial re-integration of differentiated ideas, progressing at stages which , as approximations, can regress at uncurtain prior stages.

The certainty at these times to control reintegrated a priori differentials, ( prior in the sense of having dubious sources, I.e. those whose approximate nexus is inherently indeterminate)

So appearance has opened up a weakspot, and it necessitates a new determination of self valence, and thus, a change in value: language and context.

The objective asserts within the changed boundaries , such is the escape from freedom effected, and choices are diminished seductively, by a central control, reducing arguability per transcendental analysis.

This is Trumps political problem now, and the indeterminacy requiring more control and determination on an imminent field of many possibilities, is being contradicted by the effects of the many option, free will type of central organization, unwittingly, toward diminishing returns on that investment.

Peacegirl, this is the only way I could DI FAR support my, and incidentally a your referred author, and this generally shows the many ways that could be done.

Meaning by description of a reconstituted field, needs an object, and the problem here is, that shirt term institute will more quickly open the objective to doubt, if the objective is left undefined long term.

So called transcendence may not be held up, or the appearance of it, that there really is a willful attempt to connect the will with its determination, at least through understandable trickle down jurespondence.

Could you give me an example of lack of integration that is taking place here?

Can you pinpoint where in this thread is a partial derivative occurring? Language is a problem as we have seen. The term “free” is being used in a different way by many than the definition that is used in the free will/determinism debate. Even philosophers in the field are not talking the same language, so it’s not surprising that no one here is either. Where can your explanation of intent using transitional objectives help solve the communication problem we’re having?

Where is there an attempt to link object over the two apparent contra-indications of motive? The author was only demonstrating that regardless of one’s motive or the reasons behind it, we are compelled to move in the direction of greater preference. Also, where is an interloper, or synthesis, necessary to approximate the idea put forward? Please explain through example so it is more concrete.

Again, where is the author approximating variables? I need a concrete example.

Appearance and reality can be very different. Will and causation is indeterminate before the will chooses because nothing is dictating that we must make a particular choice beforehand. We cannot predict the future that hasn’t yet occurred, but this is not a prerequisite to the realization that we are compelled to move in the direction which offers us the choice that is the most favorable, in our eyes.

What fallacy? Where is the contradiction? Why must there be an interloper that must fill in the middle when there is no middle because he was not talking about intent? I’m not familiar with the language you’re using so you’re going to have to give me concrete examples that show this contradiction.

I must have missed that example. Of course factual relevance versus moral relevance are two different animals, but how does this difference cause a contradiction? The internet as an idea relates to the problem of hacking. If the intent is to do no harm (intent was not discussed in his demonstration thus far), hacking into computer systems for “evil” purposes will not occur and atom bombs will not be built for the purpose of destroying civilization.

Where is the contradiction?
It is not signified, it is always implied, as the socialist mantra implies, valu based on ability and need.
It’s a conjecture, no less credible what You are implying the Author You cited meant.
These are approached to appeare as contradictions, whereas they be merely suggestive of a lesser grade of logical inconsistency.
Most people still choose this OR that in a politicised field, never do they go to a third party, unless that choice is interpreted as some kind of manifest destiny.

But the vagrancas of history shows, people are weary of metaphisically constructed objectives.

The thing is, I do support Your Author, and it is not through a will ful decision, but a politically linked one , determined by how things appear AND how they 'really-are.

At this point I am resisting the challenge of saying that other examples would not serve well , because positivism through meaning, & meaning through a positive assertion of reintegrated differentials , long term holdings of meaningful processes of object relations which have met their match I resisted that and I am compelled as everyone , of that need, chosen out of the many leaks which made reality crack the codes within. This is perceived as feasably a prior, through a certain time since.

Of course factual relevance versus moral relevance are two different animals, but how does this difference cause a contradiction? The internet

[quote=“Peacegirl”]
Of course factual relevance versus moral relevance are two different animals, but how does this difference cause a contradiction? /quote]

-------------------’
This difference is not caused but implied, and implication/inference is becoming a well thought out yet failing cliche, that will loose with sense of objectivity that it has so far retained as a workable model

And that’s just the point, justification of controlling to wide an array of innuendo, undermines long term and riskily uncertain objectives. These may have been colluded with or rather, conflated with more certain simulated scenarios.

This difference is, an example of non intended but implicated festivity, of clarity, which a more recent partially derived context was programmed to receive.

Here then admittedly, I am sunk into the mire, as everyone else, everybody else is.

How can conjecture prove a contradiction?

Point out the logical inconsistency please.

How does this relate?

Where is this demonstration a metaphysically constructed objective?

You support the author but I don’t know what you support exactly.

Straightforward examples would certainly help to clear up any discrepancies.

Again, time just became my enemy, I hope to come back real soon, it would not serve You well, if I was to edit some on the spot reply.

What is implied exactly?

Where is the innuendo and partially derived context? What does any of this mean in regard to the invariable law that moves us in the direction of “greater satisfaction?”

You are sinking into the mire because you are stating that there are logical inconsistencies and you haven’t showed me where they are. Logic can be very seductive but have no substance. A dangerous combination.

Greteful for that reduction/ so as not to appear as though it was intentionally left out, or redacted.

The innuendo derived from partially derived contextual qualifiers, and the mire consists more from a lack of understanding how this knowledge was acquired, rather then through demonstration.

A hypothetical , generally more figurative way of dealing with the necessity of demonstrating through self valuations. ( at least, as oreceptuons and innuendos go)

I understand. :wink:

This knowledge was acquired through astute observation (of human behavior) and epistemic reasoning. I hope you give it a chance.

So I have something for ya.

So if determinism exists without an aspect of the will to which it is free, then how can there be anything at all from cause and effect pre-life if no satisfaction is involved? If you state that it is the motivator for existence and cause and effect (determinism). There was a point in time where there was no satisfaction. Which I call it the natural selection of natural selection. So how can there be a natural selection for life of which you deem as determinism in direction of greater satisfaction solely without the natural selection existing before it that did not have any motivator of satisfaction, at all?

See how your card tower falls down yet?

If you say there was no satisfaction, then you openly admit that you have been wrong in what you have been claiming here, if you say there is greater satisfaction still even then, then you admit to there being a higher being of which this satisfaction exists for and in order for determinism to function. So which is it?

Determinism doesn’t work based off of satisfaction. It works based off of trial and error, natural selection, which believing life is about greater satisfaction and only for that with no free will over cause and effect to use it, you become the error by being trapped in comfort and weakened, no adaptation.

If you state that it is because there was no will/consciousness before life then that shows that consciousness is freedom and there is an obvious differentiation, which there is but if you say that there was still a will, then you admit defeat by the obvious proof of there being no greater satisfaction pre-life.

All matter is alive, just at different levels of consciousness.

Good discussion.

One can always learn from another even if beyond a certain point discourse can no longer advance. The absolute certainty which comes from blind faith is a very fascinating topic in and of itself and arguably presents itself above. I say arguably because it does at least contain some degree of internal consistency even if the central premise cannot be demonstrated. Not holding on too rigidly to any perspective though is more beneficial because a ] the one which is being held might be wrong and b ] it is good to expose oneself to alternative ones because that is how an open mind actually functions

I have noticed peacegirl say that she has no problem with valid criticism but she appears to instinctively reject all of it irrespective of how valid it may be
The modus operandi it seems therefore is to present the premise in absolute terms and so sell it as a moral truth rather than critically assess it in any way

It didn’t fall. :slight_smile: Forget the word satisfaction. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. Just because many of these processes don’t involve conscious thought does not mean that life does not move in a direction that sustains it. This movement therefore must, out of necessity, go in a direction that is away from anything that would be harmful to it.

The word satisfaction and dissatisfaction are words that approximate what is going on in reality. We aren’t conscious of this movement either, but it’s embedded in every meaningful choice we make. Animals don’t think consciously when they move from one spot to another, but they are also moving away from a position that is not satisfying to a position that is more satisfying.

Again, all these processes are not free in any way. Plants grow, flowers bloom, etc. all under the control of deterministic processes, and although they don’t get to choose between options and we do this choosing does not in any way change the direction we are compelled to go.

[i]Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body
, indicates that life is
never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an
inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now
call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of
clarification, and the next moment coming up there.

[/i]