New Discovery

I just have to say that’s a good quote, Arc. Thanks for posting it and good seeing you again.

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

So what you’re saying is not only do I need to accept criticism, but I need to accept the criticism even if it is not valid. There is no MO, just a clear demonstration. The fact that will is not free is absolute. It has nothing to do with moral truth. I have critically assessed the arguments, so please don’t say I haven’t. Is there a possibility that this discovery could be right? You are assuming that this can’t be true.

Yes, the freedom is the availability of options, but that does not grant man freedom of the will, which is not the same thing. Free to discovery self is available only if someone sees that as an option and desires it. There is no conflict here.

[i]The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

“You must be kidding? Here you are in the process of
demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath
you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free
to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he
considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he
prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this
action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural
compulsion of his nature.
Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in
any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true man has
to make choices he must always prefer that which he considers good
not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative.

The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly. Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control.

[/i]

Someone else will have to translate for me because your writing can be understood only by those who are well versed in this philosophical language. My ignorance of your logic does not translate to ignorance of this discovery. For example, I don’t need to understand someone’s reasoning that one plus one is eleven, to know that one plus one is two. Please point out where you prove that we do not move away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, because that is what is at issue here.

We have the will to make a choice, and it’s not a determined process in the sense that the choice is already fated or prescribed in advance. This is the way determinism has been defined, which is lacking in accuracy.

Artimas:

That is why we should be focusing on the way the connections work rather then seeking new definitions of the constricts’ needing connection.
The Natural Selection’s choice in selecting underlying options is a good example of looking at it, in my opinion.
How this rebounds in terms of connective variables is not obvious , admittedly, but otherwise we get stuck in a harmonic no exit labyrinthic maze.
We will be forcefed information like rats.


Philosophical language its use is if necessity if one has to understand implications of understanding in a universal sense, of whete one is coming from : the source of it.

It is like trying to understand a woman with or without make up, not that understanding are in fact totally and arbitrarily contra indicative, albeit that actually may be the case; but that there remind a trace that most people can identify within , and retaining pretty similar evaluations.

The point is, topically, and semantical-desriptively are pretty similar, You don’t have to praise a great looking gal to high heaven in a bar ill lit , with loads of make up, and then demean her to help without it, tell, in the dawn of early light- without it.

The conjecture is there somewhere, and it has to be clarified, lest conceiving a mutually satisfactory appraisal.

Philosophical language is a must, but there are ways that a skillful rhetoritian may over come that obstacle.

An obstacle, incidentally, which can become so overwhelming that it quite interactively/sudden as to stop the flow and present an unnecessary block.

That said, I shall try to Your specific comments, which to or in my mind are of second tier necessity. Which in Your mind tells me, by some sort of functional psychic disability, to enable me to understand interfaced.

We have the will to make a choice, and it’s not a determined process in the sense that the choice is already fated or prescribed in advance. This is the way determinism has been defined, which is lacking in accuracy.

True enough. And I would never argue that peacegirl’s argument is inferior to my own. Not in the sense that I can actually demonstrate it.

My point is only to suggest that from my perspective, her perspective is rooted more in this – viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 – than in that which some might construe to be a more rigorous philosophical/scientific examination of the issue.

In my opinion, it is that she believes something in and of itself that allows her to anchor “I” to/in a more comforting and consoling outlook on life. Both regarding here and now and in her case the future.

But, again, I base this only on my own subjective experience with those I deem to be objectivist thinkers. I’m certainly not arguing that, based on different sets of assumptions, there are not other ways to think about it. Or other conclusions to be drawn.

I basically agree. But the complexities that revolve around individual motivation and intention here are always going to be beyond the capacity of anyone to really fathom. And thus to pin down. And about themselves as much as others.

There are just too many factors and variables in our life that predispose us to go in many different directions. Can we ever really grapple with them beyond a certain degree? For example, variables from our childhood alone that were either beyond our control or are now beyond that which we can even remember. People and experiences buried in our minds that now propel our behaviors largely subconsciously and unconsciously.

And that is assuming that “I” does in fact have some measure of autonomous control over the choices that are made. On the other hand, in a determined world [as I understand it], that would seem to reconfigure the psychological illusion of “free will” in the “choices” we make, into the imperatives of nature itself. We “choose” only that which we were never able to actually choose of our own volition.

Still, I have absolutely no capacity to demonstrate this as either one way or the other.

But: how comforting and consoling can that be, right?

That lack of accuracy determines the trace left behind, I call it a tangent, which is only quantifiable partially differentiated from the level of objectivity we intend to bound by it.
Aesthetic distance is not a far stretch, harmonically to it, in terms of comparative aesthetic distance.

I do hope this makes some sense, or at least with a partiality , that can derive some cohesion or assemblage, otherwise my optimism will fade in terms of relating to Your Author, via-a-bus Your interloping efforts.

No, I never thought that the choice is ether fated or prescribed.
I wrote that I agree with that, however once a choice has been made, it effects are felt if not understood, in future casual progressions, as well as past ones.

An incredible almost unbelievable pro position , right?

Maybe belonging more to the list of believe it or not rather then. the sensible real world in which we live. Maybe may be not.

The point is, that in a transcendental world, humans should be appreciated more akin to regressed types like ants or bugs, in stead of gods supermen and angels.

Transcendence equals suspending time, as a quantifiable index of the present moment.

Sure remembrances of things past can be evoked by a faint smell, but such effort is merely indicative of an imperfect simulation.

Wait when HG wells time machine becomes a reality and we can move back to a prior time, and evoke a conscious realization of a wrong choice, and in such back to the future, encompass a different, yet unrecognizable world from the prior one we left behind, and cannot compare it with the original, because it is a braver new world.

However from this past perfect world, there again there may be no exit, or escape from within that particularly defined world.

And usually unhappy within any and all such flow, we again as Sysiphus , try again and again, presuming falsely that by killing ourselves, we can do without a bat of the eye realize the terrible sin of shirtcutting the substantial and unrecognized meaning in God’s as some charity, of giving us up to but not inclusive chances to join him in harmony.

However the differentiation of major and minor themes are fixed as ideas as, the outmoded perceptual left over melody , that certain scenes intend to describe say in pasturals depicting a reaffirmed significance of visual clues, like Beethoven.

No wonder he grew deaf!

{(( .1( partially second that notion, and that fault not lies completely with her but her Author. ( of whom she constantly refers)2.)) }

I actually find walking my dog and watching the ducks in a pond near me, very relaxing. Smelling flowers too. :slight_smile:

Forums are not the right venue. I need to get this knowledge carefully analyzed by people in the field, especially those who lean in the direction of determinism. It’s very hard to start from scratch trying to convince people there is no free will because that’s not the discovery, and I haven’t been able to make headway.

I meant that the problem is that the way I’m going about it, in bits and pieces, is not doing the book justice. I also agree with the comment by Isaac Asimov. The attainment of truth and knowledge, regardless of the field, is what matters.

Love that, thank you!

Durant’s Story of Civilization, his Mansions of Philosophy, and
all the other books he wrote played just as important a role in this
discovery. My understanding of what it meant that man’s will is not
free was the end result of the knowledge given by everyone who ever
lived. Through the process of reading and studying I was privileged
to acquire information that led me to this answer. All knowledge is
a gigantic accumulation of what everybody does in his motion towards
greater satisfaction. Just because I happen to be at the end of the line
when everybody pushes me or sets the stage that induces me to find
answers that were never before possible does not allow me to take the
credit, nor is an individual to blame when everybody pushes him
towards murder and war. I am only obeying a law that forces me to
move in this direction because it gives me greater satisfaction. God
deserves the credit, not me. Before long tears will be flowing in
abundance, but happy tears, and the whole world will thank God for
this wonderful new world. I am just a child of God, like everyone else.
None of us are given a free choice.

That is so true. Having new eyes to see things in a different way.

That’s the problem, I don’t know where to turn. I am having a hard time reaching people who will give this discovery the attention it deserves.

Because this knowledge is not an hypothesis or a theory. I can’t dilute what is absolute just to avoid criticism. I know that one plus one is two. Have you ever heard the saying: “Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.” Leo Tolstoy

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
. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the If
you are sincerely interested in seeing this fantastic transition to a new
way of life which must come about the moment this discovery is
thoroughly understood, all I ask is that you do not judge what you are
about to read in terms of your present knowledge but do everything in
your power to understand what is written by following the
mathematical relations implicitly expressed throughout. Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark…the hour is getting late.
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8, so please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.

Yes, and part of knowing thyself is knowing that man’s will is not free and what this means for our benefit so that no one will desire to hurt others under changed conditions.

One of the most profound insights ever expressed by
Socrates was “Know Thyself,” but though he had a suspicion of its
significance it was only an intuitive feeling, not something he could
put his finger on. These two words have never been adequately
understood by mankind, including psychiatry and psychology, because
this observation is the key that unlocks the first door to another door
that requires its own key, and where the hiding place to this discovery
was finally uncovered. However, the problem here is so deep and so
involved that even those like your philosopher Spinoza, who
understood that man’s will is not free, didn’t even come close to the
solution, and others like your William James and John Calvin would
be willing to bet their life that will is free. Why do theologians treat
this as if it is an undeniable reality? And what made it so obvious to
Durant that man’s will is free? Durant is now deceased but over 20
years ago I phoned to tell him I had made a fantastic discovery that
was hidden behind the fallacious theory that man’s will is free. He
replied, “You must be on the wrong tack, but take what you think you
have to Johns Hopkins University for an analysis.” I not only
contacted that university but many others to no avail.

The changed conditions of the new world from a free will environment (an environment of blame and punishment) to a no free will environment (an environment devoid of blame and punishment). But remember, this doesn’t mean there will be no consequences; it’s just that the knowledge that there will be no consequences will be a worse consequence than any punishment society could offer. IOW, the knowledge that under no conditions will a person be blamed for anything that is done (under the new conditions obviously which require a transitional period; he didn’t say to suddenly stop blaming or it could make matters altogether worse) will be a much stronger deterrent not to do harm than any deterrent we now have. How this is accomplished is what this discovery is all about yet no one has even read Chapter Two, except for one person that I know of, who needs to read it again and maybe a third time. You cannot just gloss over it and expect to fully understand the magnitude of this discovery.

Do you think the need to institutionalized means a return to the anonymity of the institutionalized ref. to it’s authority, rather than the studies done on those who’ve who’se institutionalization is measured on opinion . let’s say of Szasz’s ?
Or is that still a behavioral/genetic controversy? And if it is, can it be hoped that the middle ground has already been attained? (Albiet bounderly -as merely by standards set bas borderline ? And as ascribed as a socially determined expectation compressed compressed by societal determinations?

As the transition from one world to the other is taking place there may be people who cannot control their impulses since their conscience has been severed. As a new generation is born into the new world, mental illness that leads to psychopathic behavior will be virtually wiped out. There may some individuals that are more prone to aggression genetically, but these aggressions will not be expressed when the triggers that activate them are gone. There may also be some opinion as to whether an individual who is already incarcerated could be released, given the type of crime he was engaged in. Remember, all of these societal determinations will continue until the transition comes to completion. Most professional criminals have a conscience that will control their behavior under the changed environmental conditions. Right now their conscience is at a 4 which is not enough to deter their criminal activities, but eventually their conscience will grow to a 10 which will be more than enough to deter any behavior that takes advantage or hurts another. I happened upon this article about Szasz. I haven’t read it yet but it looks interesting.

[i]https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/reality-play/201209/revisiting-the-myth-mental-illness-and-thomas-szasz

[/i]

As the transition from one world to the other is taking place there may be people who cannot control their impulses since their conscience has been severed. As a new generation is born into the new world, mental illness that leads to psychopathic behavior will be virtually wiped out. There may some individuals that are more prone to aggression genetically, but these aggressions will not be expressed when the triggers that activate them are gone. There may also be some opinion as to whether an individual who is already incarcerated could be released, given the type of crime he was engaged in. Remember, all of these societal determinations will continue until the transition comes to completion. Most professional criminals have a conscience that will control their behavior under the changed environmental conditions. Right now their conscience is at a 4 which is not enough to deter their criminal activities, but eventually their conscience will grow to a 10 which will be more than enough to deter any behavior that takes advantage or hurts another.[/quote

I get that as.an ideal.paradigm, based on the above noted idea , however what of those who according their expressed testimony showing that they , may prefer incertification / incarceration to freedom, based on having been less stress inducing to be institutionalised then be out?
And whereof their conscience 's development originates from, this subversive feeling or rationale?
Are partially differentiated clues testaments not prevy to any assumptions of the sort?

Of course you can ask any questions you want but many questions have been answered in the book. There may be tiny details that will need to be worked out, but this has nothing to do with the veracity of the knowledge. Prisoners will be the last to take the examination. If they don’t want to get out because they’re comfortable with prison life, they can stay there. But if they are guaranteed a standard of living, and there is no arrest conviction record that would prevent them from finding a job, they may find that living in a 6x9 cell will be less preferable than being free. I’m offering you these excerpts even though I’m pulling them out of context, which he urged not to do.

[i]Just as long as there will be
non-citizens, they must know they will be blamed and punished if
responsible for hurting others and this is why the portion of
government that protects the people during the transition will remain
in existence until the transition is complete. It is also interesting to
observe that if a motor vehicle operator wants to speed, go through red
lights, stop signs, or do any number of things that risk hurting others
without the police being on his back; or if someone wants to steal
without the possibility of going to prison, all he has to do is become
a citizen and he will be completely free of the laws. When he does
become a citizen he will be compelled by a superior law and the
guarantee which gives him financial security, to sacrifice any such
desires as that alternative which he finds better for himself. For the
first time he is truly free to do anything he wants but will never desire
to hurt others because his conscience will not allow it under the
changed conditions. This proves conclusively that just as soon as
science confirms this work as an undeniable blueprint of a world that
must come to pass out of absolute necessity when our political and
military leaders understand the principles, the inception of this
Golden Age can officially begin. The transition will be completed
when prisoners, the last ones to take the test, have passed the
examination. Remember, when prisoners are released after signing
the agreement, they will be entering a new world in which hurting
others as they did before whether in retaliation or a first blow will be
an impossible consideration. I know many of you will find this
difficult to believe, but only if you don’t understand the principles.

At first glance it may appear that non-citizens could take
advantage of the knowledge that they would be released from prison
after passing their examination should they get caught in breaking the
law. They could kill someone hated very much and not fear the
charge. They could successfully rob a bank of a million dollars, hide
the money, and if caught, take their examination and be released to
enjoy the fruits of their plan. You must remember that man must
always do what he thinks is better for himself which compels the non-
citizen to take into consideration the possible consequences. In trying
to kill somebody, he himself could become the victim. He could also
be killed while attempting to rob the bank. Furthermore, he must
also weigh the possible years he could spend in prison just waiting his
turn to take the examination which he might fail, with no one willing
to assume responsibility in his case. He might also be executed before
capital punishment becomes obsolete. Once the transition gets
officially launched, that is, once the leaders have set up their IBM
offices and become citizens by passing their examination, they will
forthwith abolish capital punishment. You have looked at a negative
possibility without comparing the positive benefits to the potential
citizen who is now a free man looking in, not looking out. Because
the comparison gives no free choice, everybody notwithstanding who
gets wind of this new world, so to speak, will desire to become a citizen
just as soon as possible. If a prisoner takes the examination and
passes, regardless of what he was in prison for, he will be a free man
because it will be mathematically impossible, under the changed
conditions, for him to ever desire hurting others again. But just as
the leaders of the world were first in taking the examination, so the
prisoners will be among the last.

“What about gangsters, racketeers, bookmakers, dope peddlers,
and those who are paid to commit murder; do they get out as well
even though they earn a living hurting others?”

Anybody who makes his living by doing something that hurts
others has a choice to make. He can pass his examination and
become a citizen which guarantees his standard of living and allows
him to change his job without losing as a result of this change, or he
can continue to hurt others to earn his income with the constant
possibility of earning less while ending up in prison. Is he really given
a choice? When a drug pusher becomes a citizen he will lose the
desire to push the sale of his products with misleading information
which means that once all available facts about drugs are made public,
and all blame withdrawn, the user will find very little satisfaction in
taking this chance of hurting himself, but if he wants to, this will be
his business. The citizen will not find any satisfaction in remaining
in a business that hurts others under the changed conditions, and the
non-citizen, knowing that his standard of living is guaranteed when
he becomes a citizen and also realizing that just as long as he
continues to engage in illicit activities he is subject to the full penalty
of the laws, will be very anxious to study and pass his examination.[/i]

peacegirl,

The below words are yours not Durant’s right?

Durant’s Story of Civilization, his Mansions of Philosophy, and
all the other books he wrote played just as important a role in this
discovery. My understanding of what it meant that man’s will is not
free was the end result of the knowledge given by everyone who ever
lived. Through the process of reading and studying I was privileged
to acquire information that led me to this answer. All knowledge is
a gigantic accumulation of what everybody does in his motion towards
greater satisfaction. Just because I happen to be at the end of the line
when everybody pushes me or sets the stage that induces me to find
answers that were never before possible does not allow me to take the
credit, nor is an individual to blame when everybody pushes him
towards murder and war. I am only obeying a law that forces me to
move in this direction because it gives me greater satisfaction. God
deserves the credit, not me. Before long tears will be flowing in
abundance, but happy tears, and the whole world will thank God for
this wonderful new world. I am just a child of God, like everyone else.
None of us are given a free choice.

These are Lessans’ words (the author), not Durant. These are not my words, I’m not the author.

Durant’s Story of Civilization, his Mansions of Philosophy, and
all the other books he wrote played just as important a role in this
discovery. My understanding of what it meant that man’s will is not
free was the end result of the knowledge given by everyone who ever
lived. Through the process of reading and studying I was privileged
to acquire information that led me to this answer. All knowledge is
a gigantic accumulation of what everybody does in his motion towards
greater satisfaction. Just because I happen to be at the end of the line
when everybody pushes me or sets the stage that induces me to find
answers that were never before possible does not allow me to take the
credit, nor is an individual to blame when everybody pushes him
towards murder and war. I am only obeying a law that forces me to
move in this direction because it gives me greater satisfaction. God
deserves the credit, not me. Before long tears will be flowing in
abundance, but happy tears, and the whole world will thank God for
this wonderful new world. I am just a child of God, like everyone else.
None of us are given a free choice.

Ok, Lessan. After all this has been satisfactorily found.
At the same time , the author’s interpretation is only one of many other philosophical treatises, and the idea of responsibility for one’s actions becomes a.paramount consideration in relating to his idea of applying , as.to the last man dealing with how he handles all the accumulated knowledge , which hypothetically landed him in the position of having to interpret and then male a choice for his actions.

So the problem of resting here is still outstanding , and prevy to the same reoccurring problems that were present at the beginning of the cycle , from cave man up.
What cicilization has done is to bring awareness so much nearer to the precipice.

The responsibility for one’s actions becomes of paramount importance in regard to the application of these principles. The change from a free will (blame filled) environment to a no free will (blame free) environment (of which there is no precedent), stops whatever accumulated knowledge led this person to hurting others in its tracks. The person cannot do what he did previously under these conditions. Civilization has done much to help prevent crime, hatred, war, and poverty, but now we are at the precipice. Let’s not lose this opportunity just because many believe it can’t be done.

Right, but, taking the last man argument and the prisoner’s dilemma in conjunction to necessity, it is not ascertained that ( and this is only for the sake of argument) the progression of knowledge to the last man, will consist of the most agreeable decision.

There can not be agreement by a solitary figure, however much useful information has been acquired.

The last man in his prison cell is prone to base his nest last argument not in terms of an objective way to solve his predicament, but on a differing one, namely having to make a choice of the very earliest argumentative type of understanding: in or out, a solitary quest between staying within the confines of his own barbaric feelings about containment or abandonment.
That is how his final responsibility introduced intontje realm of the unanswered question: either stay in or go out.

Reductionism and simplification, deconstruction, have signed , sealed , and delivered this ultimatum, and there may not be a single , unified authority to deliver the message singularly.

Time is of the essence , to go back to the arliest possible recycle, and change things there, and not leave it on the hands, of a single authority whose main concern is one to do with guilt / lack of responsibility. For that is what reduction entails: into a participation mystique of tribal organization.