I actually find walking my dog and watching the ducks in a pond near me, very relaxing. Smelling flowers too.
This is the problem sharing a discovery in a forum like this because so much is being left out.
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?
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.
…because so much is being left out.
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.
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.
[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]
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.
“The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.”
Marcel Proust
That is so true. Having new eyes to see things in a different way.
Do you think a discovery of this magnitude can be determined to be genuine without a thorough investigation which has never happened?
What to you determines a thorough investigation and how will you know when the investigation is complete?
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.
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 so-called truth.
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.
You are making a distinction between individuals who could not do harm, and those who could.
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!
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.
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.
True.
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.
What changed conditions?
Flowers…
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.