New Discovery

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. ”

----------‘’-----
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.

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. 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]

Does that self preservation include before life? And does it include greater satisfaction? If we come from it, where there was no direction for and in greater satisfaction, then that should show you it’s not a sound argument. Creations or manifestations are similar to that of which they come from. Self preservation isn’t greater satisfaction, it’s necessity. There’s a difference, which I already have shown.
What was harmful to pre-life existence? And what direction would it go in if there was no harm or satisfaction and how? Necessity.

How did we get here from it without those two aspects of ‘pain and gain’ yet we life are supposedly the epitome of movement toward direction of greater satisfaction? When we manifest from something without it? Satisfaction is merely a byproduct of necessity, not the ultimate goal/direction of choice and will.

What if you became conscious of that supposed movement then? I don’t think that is the case all the time, especially not for humans who are steps ahead in consciousness in terms of choice and thought, especially thought, should be apparent.

You say a free will has nothing to do with choice, yet you just used your example with choice. Satisfaction comes from choice. Not choice from satisfaction.

“Animals don’t think consciously when they move from one spot to another”

Then they do not have a will of which is free. “Animals don’t think consciously”

We think consciously of such and the unconscious/subconscious can surface to the conscious mind, this is what we call, know thyself and reflection from spiritual practice.

So then we’re all just on the same level of will then, there is no higher or lower, even if I can clearly see that there is. This is what you’re saying, by stating all processes are not free in any way. We aren’t compelled to move toward satisfaction, it’s usually necessity in self preservation and the opposite can occur as well consciously, of self preservation, with which your model in place that is ‘greater satisfaction’ is self destruction, that same very first opposite… I’m free to go to the bathroom on a commode instead of outside and wiping my ass on the ground… It seems as if you call the free aspect of will, “satisfaction” it’s not really for satisfaction, its common sense and necessity. Semantics. If you state it’s in my greater satisfaction to use the commode instead of outside I just have to respond with, what kind of idiot would want to wipe their ass on the ground when we invented, from a free will mind you, the commode. It’s literal common sense and necessity. It’s the contextual freedoms that cause the will to be free in different ways in different contexts.

The choosing is the only way to move in any direction, so I’m not quite sure what you mean when you said it doesn’t have to do with the will being free. The freedom is the availability of options… Our choice of one is our own free choice out of that availability. It’s about self discovery. Free to discover self, to align.

peacegirl,

So have you as of yet?!

What kind of a forum might be better suited for this discovery?
Well then, it is the responsibility and the obligation of the writer to spell it all out and to be exact – right?

At first I thought that perhaps you meant so much that the writer had put into it being left out but perhaps you meant what Isaac Asimov said. It does not matter, whether science or philosophy, it is about the discovery of truth and knowledge.

[b]“A number of years ago, when I was a freshly-appointed instructor, I met, for the first time, a certain eminent historian of science. At the time I could only regard him with tolerant condescension.

I was sorry of the man who, it seemed to me, was forced to hover about the edges of science. He was compelled to shiver endlessly in the outskirts, getting only feeble warmth from the distant sun of science- in-progress; while I, just beginning my research, was bathed in the heady liquid heat up at the very center of the glow.

In a lifetime of being wrong at many a point, I was never more wrong. It was I, not he, who was wandering in the periphery. It was he, not I, who lived in the blaze.

I had fallen victim to the fallacy of the ‘growing edge;’ the belief that only the very frontier of scientific advance counted; that everything that had been left behind by that advance was faded and dead.

But is that true? Because a tree in spring buds and comes greenly into leaf, are those leaves therefore the tree? If the newborn twigs and their leaves were all that existed, they would form a vague halo of green suspended in mid-air, but surely that is not the tree. The leaves, by themselves, are no more than trivial fluttering decoration. It is the trunk and limbs that give the tree its grandeur and the leaves themselves their meaning.

There is not a discovery in science, however revolutionary, however sparkling with insight, that does not arise out of what went before. ‘If I have seen further than other men,’ said Isaac Newton, 'it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.”
― Isaac Asimov, Adding a Dimension: Seventeen Essays on the History of Science
[/b]

“The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.”
Marcel Proust

What to you determines a thorough investigation and how will you know when the investigation is complete?

If the "thorough investigation has never happened, then why not call the discovery an hypothesis or a theory? Why take an absolutist position? What is it that Jung has stated: “Truth needs the concert of many voices.” though I am not so sure that that is true in light of much that has happened in human history due to so-called truth.

I think that under a particular set of circumstances every human being might be capable of doing harm and great harm. The thing which might stop them is the fact that they realize what they are capable of.
Know Thyself!

True.

What changed conditions?

Flowers…

Back from exhaustive duties.

With help from Your kind reductive cooperation I am prepared in the most simple way of demonstrating the appearance of the submerged contraidication.
Using that word insreasnofnxontradiction because it expresses more dynamic flow.

Its like a musical piece in two keys, and here my premise is not without tangent cause calculus was discovered on a musical theme.

The tangent source is so belabored that it really WAS an act of inspiration that the derivation was noticed. Or was like discovering of a different rising from musical and mathematical plumbers. The coincidence was exquisite.

On one andntje minor premise.
Then will to make a choice, regardless of the quantifiable power to do so and the availability of it, is nwbwr apparently a matter of predicated or determined process, or partly so, because itnosnpart of it, and independent of it simultaneously.
The simultainity offers a glimpse of its collusive nature, nature was able to collude its conscious and it’s dreamlike processes , intentionally and without reason at the same time.
That flows into the major premise, and here we see the contradiction building up a bubble, of awareness into it.

The bubble does burst at times, like when a thetic reasonalisation comes to light that sometime in the near infinite future , the earth will die, and Her death will either be out the natural realm of the process of evolution, or, that otnisnwithin it, however there is an endless cycle of reaffirmation and transcendence going on, which is able to overcome even the end.

Merely the major theme in the Copernicism which put an end to the limit as a function of perception.

This is no mere subjective perception of existential angst, as interpreted as the end of things, it is a reconfirmation of eternity based on what is an under lying major objective of Natural Process.

The minor key them become a tangential by moving toward the major, and , realizing within Its Self that the freedom to will, is a necessary part that has to be re-integrated partially into human nature, for it to enable IT to evolve it’s self conscious state, and become noted and self aware .

Hence the creation of anti logic itself flows from this, and life becomes not merely a dream, but the creation of self analysis through existence , as well.
The Dasain becomes at rest at times , not because it"s exhausted ( of power),but it needs the companionship of the existential connextion the It’s self as the function through which , it can apprehend it’self.
The moment of tangential touch, through this function, it reintegrated It-self into an appearent unity
and knows that though his will was satisfactorily applied as his only best choice, the connection to the requirements of Being, becomes, became , a universally binding ideal.