New Discovery

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.

[/quote]
Agreement by a solitary figure? An ultimatum? A single unified authority? Guilt/lack of responsibility? Reduction into a participation mystique of tribal organization? None of this applies. :-k

Not all criticism will be invalid and it is that that you should be paying attention to. You claim a clear demonstration but it is unfortunately only clear to you which means either you are wrong or you are not being clear enough in explaining your philosophy [ for want of a better word ] I actually have no idea if your discovery is right or wrong because that is only something that can become known in time. And so your absolute certainty that it is is not something that you can know for sure This demonstrates beyond all doubt that you are not as critical as you should be. You cannot know the future though you can fool yourself into thinking that you do

I don’t know the future, but I do know that this discovery will help to shape the trajectory of our world in amazing ways, once it is understood and applied on a global scale. To be fair to the author, do you even know what the discovery is? You’re the one, I believe, that read Chapter Two, right? You didn’t have one question so you must have understood it. So tell me, what is the discovery?

quote=“Meno_l”]

[/quote]
Agreement by a solitary figure? An ultimatum? A single unified authority? Guilt/lack of responsibility? Reduction into a participation mystique of tribal organization? None of this applies. :-k
[/quote]
----???------???-----???

But You are making this statement singularly, and that is exactly my point.
(And keep in mind I am in Partial agreement, only that a hypothetical begs for substantive reasoning, and as hypothetical as motivated reasoning-it may demand for justification down the line: referentiality requires it!

That is the only trace that is left unresolved, and even a minute amount of it is like taking a minute amount of poison.

That is why partially re-integrated difference, requires to be taken into account.

Maybe I’m negating a logical extension into this, what may be a secondary derivative, and You may wish not to go there, however I see plenty of pressing utilization , whereby to reduce what may turn into a bubble, based on Artemis’ idea of a reverse triangle.(pyramid); It’s a.concern, nevertheless.

Thanks. Peace

----???------???-----???

What statement are you talking about, and what difference does it make if I am making it singularly?

The reasoning couldn’t be any more substantive, and it’s justified. Referentially? In what way do you mean?

Huh? How can that be the only trace that is left unresolved when nothing has been explained? I’ll ask you the same question I asked surreptitious75. What is the discovery?

You keep talking about there being a difference that needs to be reintegrated. I’m still not sure what you’re referring to.

How can you negate a logical extension when there is no foundation upon which you can do this? What secondary derivative are you using that I may not want to go to? What pressing utilization do you see that could turn into a bubble? You speak very abstractly.

I need to read more because I have only read it once so I will read from the extracts you have posted here
I wish I had the book but after I ordered it it was not in stock so all I have are what you post on the forum

Agree, but everyone has to be on the same page with semantics or misinterpretations will occur really. Maybe not if an understanding is achieved, of what needs to be understood to progress.

Pg

I don’t want to speak for Meno but what I interpret from that, is that contrast or differentiation has to exist for the other to exist and he may mean for you to reintegrate that differentiation or contrast back into your philosophy so it can make sense logically/reasonably.

The only way we can exist is through balance of varying differentiations. Take ignorance and wisdom for example, can’t be wise if there is no ignorance to be wise over. There are two or more variables in any case. Same for Determinism, we can only discuss determinism because there is a contrast or differentiation to it. If that’s what he means, Do you get it?

He might mean you may be lacking a little vision if discussing singularly I think, though I am not completely sure because I’m not In Meno’s body and mind as my functioning identity. It only seems abstract, usually when thinking or discussing we think of the mass and collective of humanity, at least I do or in my own experience of discussing, it isn’t just me I think about. To evolve the species, you have to think and implement for the species collectively and figure what’s best. It may seem abstract, but it’s reasonable. If you think singularly then you only think for you and your perception is limited by you.

So before we progress we may need you to agree there is a differentiation/contrast and the semantics though they matter to an extent, won’t matter so much as long as it’s known and understood.

I’m working on getting that fixed. Are you able to read the first three chapters I gave a link to, or is the text too small?

You mean counterfactuals? Or showing a way to falsify it? It’s still very abstract for me. For me to do that, I need a concrete example of what in the book is not showing this contrast? He is speaking without any reference to the content.

But the differentiation was discussed thoroughly. If we had free will (differentiation from determinism), we would be able to choose what we don’t prefer in favor of what we do prefer when comparing alternatives. We could choose otherwise given the same exact scenario, but we know first of all that it is impossible to prove this. I’m not sure what I’m missing, but thank you for trying to explain.

It’s reasonable if it’s clearly explained. He is making assumptions that everyone should be able to understand his very confusing terminology. I asked him to give a concrete example. He hasn’t done that. I asked him what is the discovery. He didn’t answer. How can someone give any kind of critique without knowing what the discovery is? :-k

As I said, there is a differentiation between free will (the ability to choose either this option or that option equally when there are meaningful differences), and not having free will (being unable to choose what is less preferable or valuable to the individual given meaningful differences). He has proven that it is impossible to choose what offers the least satisfaction when something of greater value is offered as an alternative. Why are people making much to do out of this, when it is so obviously true using themselves as a reference. No one can judge what is good for the collective in this case since this is part of the problem; this constant judgment of what is right for everyone. The only thing this knowledge can do is remove any justification that would give someone permission to hurt others. How? By preventing all hurt to them, all critical judgment, and all blame from the environment. Obviously that’s not an easy task, which is why he did not say we should suddenly stop blaming. There’s much more to it than that. I agree that semantics is not a problem if it can be straightened out. The terms “free”, “greater satisfaction”, “will”, “choice”, “cause”, and “determinism” can create major problems in communication if they are not defined in accordance with the definitions being articulated. There is a definite problem with the conventional definition of determinism (which brings up a cascade of issues with all the other terms) since nothing causes us to do anything (which is implied in the definition) if we don’t want to, or against or will. Iambiguous still doesn’t understand that, and says it’s an intellectual contraption in the author’s head. :laughing:

What on earth does this mean? Well, whatever the definition of the words she uses to assert it say it means.

Right?

Whole “discoveries” can then be created in the heads of some simply by insisting that only their own definitions count.

Well, if up on the skyhooks that comprise their own intellectual contraptions in books. Or posts here.

Wow. The human will itself embedded [and then said to be embodied] in a cascade of definitions.

Though some suggest that nothing causes this argument to be made other than by way of nature compelling the one making it to define the words only as, well, nature intended her to.

Only that brings us to yet another quandary: What does it mean to speak of the “laws of matter” as “intended”?

By God perhaps?

Or, as some of us suspect, by whatever the final explanation for existence itself is.

In other words, if it’s not God.

And yet in a way that still escapes me, I suspect she will argue in turn that I do not understand that only because nature has not [as of now] compelled me to.

So, I’m off the hook, but…but still able to be held responsible for “choosing” not to understand it.

You tell me what this means. You know, for all practical purposes.

By the way…

Peacegirl [of late] has apparently been compelled by nature not to respond directly to the posts I create here. Our own exchange has been…terminated by her?

Why?

Well, my guess is that nature has compelled me to point out that her own narrative here is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist tract. What I keep pointing out to her is that it is not what she believes is true that matters nearly as much as that she believes that all others are obligated to share in that belief.

Another psychological embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

WRONG

No iambiguous. This discovery was not created in his head. Well everything is in our heads actually, but his definition is much more accurate because it clarifies what determinism really means. It does not mean we don’t have a choice. It does not mean nature is dictating what we MUST choose before we choose it, as if it has already been scripted. That’s like saying it’s already been fated that I let my child get hit by a car, even though I can stop it. When a person says nature caused me…this implies that you had no choice in the matter because it was a choice that you didn’t consent to. Of course you had a choice or you wouldn’t be able to deliberate over options AND THEN CHOOSE. Isn’t that why you create the false dichotomy in your head between nature causing (which gives no choice), and autonomy (free choice)? You can’t have both because they contradict themselves, but you refuse to see it, of course not that you could have seen it differently. I’m not blaming you. Instead, you pooh pooh this knowledge by insisting that the way determinism is defined can’t be improved upon. That’s why you keep saying nature made me do this or that. Nature didn’t make you do anything if you yourself didn’t want it.

Yes, that’s why he said, “I did something of my own free will” is perfectly fine if it means “I did something because I wanted to.” But this does not mean my will is free. Also, due to this more accurate definition, the word “cause” does not mean we are caused, against our will, to do anything. This has created so much confusion in this longstanding debate, it’s ruining the ability to reconcile “responsibility” with “determinism” and is preventing a major breakthrough that will change our world for the better.

I’ve said this before, this question, although interesting, has nothing to do with the purpose of this discussion which is to share this major work for the benefit of humanity.

You’re off the hook because your will is not free. No one is holding you responsible.

I am sorry if I missed some of your posts. I may not have seen them because I have been responding to quite a few people. Can you bump them?

This has nothing to do with obligation. If people see the soundness of these principles, they will, of their own accord, desire to learn more. If not, then not. I have no control over what people are interested in. I’m hoping that there is interest and people will want to spread word about this knowledge so it can be carefully investigated. He even mentioned that at the end of the book.

[i]I am hoping that when I am no longer here, those who
understand these principles will continue to carry the ball. It is
important to understand that my prediction of 25 years or that this
great change would take place in the 20th century was based on my
conviction that there would be a thorough investigation and
understanding of the principles involved, but as yet it has not been.
In other words, if Gregor Mendel had predicted that his discovery
about heredity would come to light approximately 30 years after his
death, he would have been accurate, but he had no way of knowing
when it would be confirmed by science. He knew it was coming, but
could not know when. In my case, however, I was allowing 5-10
years for this knowledge to be understood by science and the
political world, taking for granted that the intellectual capacity was
available and would thoroughly investigate what could not be denied.
I still believe the intellectual capacity to understand it exists today,
but to quote Morrison again, “Now we encounter the stubborn
resistance of the human mind which is reluctant to give up fixed
ideas. The early Greeks knew the earth was a sphere but it took
2000 years to convince men that this fact is true. New ideas
encounter opposition, ridicule and abuse, but truth survives and is
verified.”

Can you see the problem I have with regard to my
discovery? If it took 2 thousand years to get the shape of the earth
scientifically confirmed so that all mankind would accept it, how
long do you think it will take to get this knowledge in my book
scientifically confirmed and accepted when 98% of mankind believe
that man’s will is free and when this belief hermetically seals a door
behind which is the discovery that will bring about this Great
Transition. However, two things are certain. This discovery must
come to light sooner or later because God is giving us no choice in
this matter. Until that time, however, every effort must be made to
bring this knowledge to light in whatever way possible. With the
public’s help, there is every reason to believe that the dawning of the
Golden Age will take place some time in the 21st century. And
when it finally arrives, we will all be here to celebrate the inception
of this wonderful new world.

[/i]

Peace girl,

There are only a few loose ends remaining in this truly Messianic tribute, and I hope I do not come off as making my living by switching metaphors, or, by a sarcastic method they call switch and bait.

By God, I wish proof would convince everybody .

I just came across a thriving business and it is really strange that the birth of that business should take place in the birth place of the most admirable religion, the most spiritually promising and rational that ever was invented.

As a matter of fact. I was so petrified and putryfied by it that it almost struck me in the very cores of my being

Now You know, Peacegirl how Christ loved the little children and that Christ traveled the Silk Rpad, and picked up a lot of neat stuff there although it now contested.

And I personally loved children as well even before I had some before being a parent

But let me cut to the chase.
Advanced technology is certainly based on the appearance of hidden variable, but through these 2000 years of scientific development, it has become almost obvious, that it has progressed determinitely.

The pictures I am not about to show You some entrepreneur posted on some website that I repressed so far down into the subconscious, that I even red flagged it as never recoverable.

There is a thriving business in India which shows little children who have been kodnapped with throats cut , heads missing all body cavity cut open , with entrails slaughter animals display in butchery, blood everywhere.
You may get the picture.
That is if You can find it.

Now I’m cutting the reel here, the real, by asking the question , no. by intreducing the proposition that mean I g theory and subsequent arguing over the transcendence between man’s appearent cruel nature, has always shadowed his humble beginnings as the animals that they were once and, the animals WE are currently necoming deconstructed into.
The viral distribution of these pictures, provide not be some productions of overambitious art work, like some installations exhibited in the distant past:

A sculpture of an aids victim’s blood flowing out , visually captivating and horrifically tying into the SM culture of human life. No it did not pave way into the urban legends inspired by horror flicks, they were and still are the result of vicissitudes surrounding the death klnoll of representation.
Or posted beheadings by terrorists, and movies of deliberate murder, snuffing out any reservation about human value.

But this is not what reality should have evolved to. The freedom of will is alive and well both for better and for worse.

It is unimaginable that quick turnaround is feasable, and it is time and space that literally has become the most sudden apprehension of the awareness of the speedup of quantum time

The quantum of time is not like the 007 bravura as seen on the wide screen. It is related to the last frontier. Philosophy’s most recurrent and poignant preoccupation
involving with ontology. Vis., that suggests the following :

If the requisite time for God’s return. Whether it be Jesus or another Jewish Messiah, or be a Superman ;time has really shrunk reality , and with it , the experience of what it means to be human.

Cosmological time cam not determine whether this new , much wider Return, can come about in an eternal orbit of inconceivable circumference, before , this planet of ours the treasury box of all our joys and contentions, will not survive the death of our sun, or the ruinous use of similar energy nuclear.

The fact is planet suicide will occur before cosmological extinction.

So I do agree partially about Your Discovery, and it’s foundation of a reassertion of God’s will, It’s Absolute guaranty, but such guaranty is naawd on the very far sign post of understanding the real awareness of what Eternity is, how it develop universally . Science fiction can not even begin to see this and popular awareness , knowledge of it, as an understandable process, depends on a unified form, to see it sprout the seed.

That it is happening now in so Hemwral understanding of the forms of God’s Magnificence, is discounted by the above example of what is being done not for children, but with them

This is a.tickler that even puts to shame an adult crucifixion.

This and all cruelty must be overcome , with a new anti-over coming, and we all suspect we know how hard it is to. convince philosophers .

For those above minor premises. the major one. Yours, appears at the moment, inadequate.

Sure , all bets are on The Coming Singularity Singularity in perhaps another.generation, but that is 25 more years. and frankly in the quanta of a moment, such equovocation, is very tenuous.

Unless , all of us can truly start to appreciate the gift of living in the moment, even the most advanced connectors between real and simulated phases may not prevent cut off.

And lastly , I’m merely playing devil’s advocate here, short of such sire states of affairs, a war of worlds is inevitable in many forms, as advanced simulator stimulative high functioning intelligence will present the struggle between God, and His Fallen Angel.
Only His Absolute Intelligence can intercede. by partial reintegration of his source with It’s Promise.
All Relations between sources of this Promise with It’s manifold forms, must be made aware, so that the Will to choose will appear as determinedly on God’s Camp, and never fall to the auntlest of deceptions with which Satan is the master manipulator.

Closing remarks.(brief)

As I indicated to Artemis previously,
Time travel is possible to go back and start the.process of information enrichment , where it will really be possible to achieve social change through intercession at the minimum of individual entropy, and this way change the future .

This is so eclectic and without appearing merit, that if I were to tell You , in my case, it took a very long time of meditating on time to achieve it, while putting it to successful ‘temple’ test, to my knowledge 2 times, diminished my own self uncertainty diminish to reasonable levels.

That is why i am partially augmenting. Peace Girl’s Discovery, by forming a founsatio, that serves as the outflow of fear corresponding to the prevailing doubt of It’s Veracity.

Nietzche knew this, and his apparent
contradictory assertive narrative served only as a.stepping stone to the birth of the tragedy if , it were ultimately proved as the existence of necessary evil.
By going beyond difference we can later partially reintegrate the objects of transference.

Aim high and hit the mark

If you believe time travel is possible, then communication will be impossible. One of the premises regarding death is due to the fact that we live in the present. It’s impossible to go back in time in a time machine unless you are a science fiction writer. Time is not a dimension. We live in the present, the sun shines in the present, we do everything in the present. Light does not carry the past with it. I really don’t want to go off on another tangent, so let’s drop it.

Temple test??? To my knowledge 2 times, diminished my own self-uncertainty to reasonable levels? Can anyone translate what meno is saying? I can’t make heads or tails. :-"

Is founsatio a word? I looked it up and can’t find it.

Evil is not evil when seen in total perspective, which Spinoza knew. Everything was necessary but it isn’t necessary that evil continue anymore. We have aimed high and hit the mark! =D>