New Discovery

The discussion about whether there is a past or future, or whether we only have the present moment has important implications, and something the author addresses in his chapter on Our Posterity, as well as his chapter on Words, Not Reality. But the original discussion regarding determinism and what this means for our benefit has become derailed. No one even knows what his first discovery is, yet they think they have disproved it. How can someone disprove what they have yet to grasp?

The laws of nature are in sync only as they must, but by the way you are defining determinism, you are holding the past responsible for your actions, which is false since nothing from the past can cause you to do anything since we only have the present. IOW, how can the past make you do anything when this word doesn’t define anything real?

I answered this. There is no right and wrong except for this hurting of others.

[i]As these miraculous changes become a reality religion comes to an
end along with evil because one was the complement of the other.
Religion came into existence out of necessity, but when all evil
declines and falls and God reveals Himself as the creator as well as the
deliverer of all evil, it must also, out of necessity, come to an end.

It is important to recognize that religion gets displaced only because
mankind will no longer need its services since God, our Creator (this
world is no accident), is answering our prayers. Of what value is
having an institution that asks mankind to have faith in God, to have
faith that one day God will reveal that He is a reality, when He does
this by answering our prayers and delivering us from all evil? Is it
possible for a minister to preach against sin when there is no further
possibility of committing a sin? Is it possible to desire telling others
what is right, when it is mathematically impossible for them to do
what is wrong? However, there is no mathematical standard as to
what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of
others, and once this is removed, once it becomes impossible to desire
hurting another human being, then there will be no need for all those
schools, religious or otherwise, that have been teaching us how to cope
with a hostile environment that will no longer be.

[/i]

I gave you the first three chapters. Did you even attempt to read them? Can you explain the two-sided equation? I already explained that if the formula is correct, then the real life application is a step away and cannot fail whether it’s in a simulated environment, or the world environment.

The human brain is qualitatively different than other species but this has nothing to do with the fact that we are part of the natural world and function within it.

That is true. The more specific we are in defining these terms, the better we can communicate.

We have the autonomy, or freedom, to make choices when nothing external is constraining us. Call it autonomy if you will. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise. This has enormous implications FOR OUR BENEFIT.

[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.[/i]

Again, we could not not prefer what we prefer, but nature didn’t cause us to prefer it, just as the past didn’t cause us to prefer it. We preferred what we preferred because of the many things that influenced our choice at that moment including our heredity, our environment, our brain state, etc.

Our nature compels us to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. We can’t escape our nature, but nature, the way you’re defining it, doesn’t cause anything.

The “I” is important in the discussion of determinism. It’s inaccurate to say nature forced you make a particular choice. This is the problem with the definition since nothing can make you do what you make up your mind not to do. I’ve said this countless times. When you say nature made you choose this or that, you are shifting your responsibility to nature, as if you played no part in the decision.

It’s a subtle difference but an important one. If I get knocked down by a crane, I played no part in the decision. That’s similar to the domino example, but when I choose between options, I am making the decision in the direction of greater satisfaction, not something external to me (the way you describe nature forcing a decision on me).

I think your premise is preventing you from understanding the true definition. How do you know lifeless matter turned into living matter that turned into self-consciousness? I really don’t need you to answer this. Just something to think about.

What can I say iambiguous? Existence itself is a miracle in my view. It’s nice to ponder where we came from, why we’re here, and where we’re going but again just because we don’t have the answers (and we may never) does not mean this discovery can’t change our world for the better. Of course it brings me comfort and consolation, and hope for a better world but that’s not why I cling to it. I cling to it because it’s a genuine discovery.

It’s how you’re defining nature, once again. You are misconstruing the different meanings. It is obvious that we are obeying the laws of our nature, but “nature” (the way you’re defining it) isn’t holding the puppet strings, just like God isn’t holding the puppet strings that would cause me to do something without my consent.

I’m not being condescending. I’m being truthful. You keep telling me his definition is just another intellectual contraption. If you believe that, then please stick to the definition that you believe is correct. What more can I do?

It does not iambiguous. You’re creating something that isn’t there.

It works exactly the same except for the fact that he makes the point that nature doesn’t cause. The past doesn’t cause. God doesn’t cause. The Big Bang doesn’t cause. The first cause is misleading. We live in the present, and our choices are based on the considerations of the moment using our past memories to influence our choices in the here and now. This is a tougher concept to explain than I ever imagined.

Each individual can see for himself that he is always moving away from dissatisfaction of some kind to something that offers greater satisfaction even if it’s the lesser of two evils, or the least painful.

That’s true, but wouldn’t it be exciting to see this discovery gain traction? To know what’s possible because it’s being recognized? And don’t forget, you as iambiguous may not be here, just as I won’t, but “we” will be here. I know you don’t get it, but don’t blow him off just because you don’t get it at first.

Especially when there will be no need for government as we know it. Obviously science will confirm or deny man’s contribution to global warming. The difference between this world and the new world is that there will be no need for laws to enforce behavior that is for the greater good (the good for our planet as a whole), especially when no one will be held responsible or blamed for not doing their part.

Firstly, it’s not a belief. Secondly, no one is telling anyone what to believe if they don’t see it for themselves.

The word control is misleading as well as free and cause. We really have no control over any of our choices. We have options to pick from but our choice is never free. We can say yes or no over the words we have yet to type or not to type depending on what is our preference. It’s okay to say I chose to type this of my own free will as long as it’s qualified to mean nothing external was constraining me from making the choice to type. I chose this freely. We have NO choice over words that we’ve already typed because we could not have done otherwise now that the choice was made. If you choose right now to stop typing, if that’s your desire, you can stop because the choice is still under consideration.

But you do have control over the words you type only in the sense that you (the “I” that distinguishes you from everyone else) is not being forced by anything external. The "I"s ability to choose therefore (what you consider autonomous control) is not a delusion because it is YOU making the choice. You find this difficult because you are defining determinism as nature forcing you to choose what you might otherwise not, and therefore autonomy as a deception made up in our brains. Obviously, we are not autonomous in a free will sense, but we do have the ability to think, ponder, deliberate, contemplate, consider the pros and cons of each choice, all in the direction of greater satisfaction which offers us only one possible choice each and every moment of time.

Do you not see what you’re doing? You’re shifting your responsibility to nature, as if nature is this entity that is forcing a choice on you WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. That’s not how it works.

This is an unfair accusation because this knowledge was not just thought up. It was anything but just thought up. It took this man’s entire adult life to recognize the significance of what he discovered.

[i] INTRODUCTION

Who, in his right mind or with knowledge of history would believe
it possible that the 20 century will be the time when all war, crime,
and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a
permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in
the 20 century (1918-1991). Though we are well into the 21
century, this discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by
our world’s leading scientists]. When first hearing this prophesy,
shortly after Hitler had slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with
contempt because nothing appeared more ridiculous than such a
statement. But after 15 years (8 hours a day) of extensive reading
and thinking, my dissatisfaction with a certain theory that had gotten
a dogmatic hold on the mind compelled me to spend nine strenuous
months in the deepest analysis and I made a finding that was so
difficult to believe it took me two years to thoroughly understand its
full significance for all mankind and three additional years to put it
into the kind of language others could comprehend. It is the purpose
of this book to reveal this finding — a scientific discovery about the
nature of man whose life, as a direct consequence of this
mathematical revelation, will be completely revolutionized in every
way for his benefit bringing about a transition so utterly amazing that
if I were to tell you of all the changes soon to unfold, without
demonstrating the cause as to why these must come about, your
skepticism would be aroused sufficiently to consider this a work of
science fiction for who would believe it possible that all evil (every bit
of hurt that exists in human relation) must decline and fall the very
moment this discovery is thoroughly understood. This natural law,
which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully
behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the
development of our present age was required to find it.

By discovering
this well concealed law and demonstrating its power a catalyst, so to
speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic
change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing
what will be called miracles though they do not transcend the laws of
nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, and
all the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in a
different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and
their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in
such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If this is
difficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss what
I have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what I tried
to prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And the
reason must be that you judged such a permanent solution as
impossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, which
is a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed and
compared to our present understanding of human nature. War seems
to be an inescapable feature of the human condition which can only
be subdued, not eradicated. But we must insert a question mark
between the empirical fact that a feature is characteristic of human
life as we know it, and the empirical claim that this feature is a
sociological inevitability. Another reason that war is viewed as an
unfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due to
suffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream or
have the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace.
The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that his
mind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone who
dares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous and
unfounded.

Down through history there has always been this skepticism before
certain events were proven true. It is only natural to be skeptical, but
this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific
miracle. You may reason that many people have been positive that
they were right but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also
be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this
reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong
because I am positive. The first astronomer who observed the
mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that enabled him to
predict an eclipse was positive and right, as well as the space scientist
who foretold that one day man would land on the moon. Edison when
he first discovered the electric bulb was positive and right. Einstein
when he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive and right
— and so were many other scientists — but they proved that they
were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am
doing. If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then
only am I wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive
or dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive
over something that is undeniable such as two plus two equals four.
Just bear in mind how many times in the course of history has the
impossible (that which appeared to be) been made possible by
scientific discoveries which should make you desire to contain your
skepticism enough to investigate what this is all about.
[/i]

There’s enough hard evidence in the book for it to be given the attention it deserves. This has nothing to do with assumptions or what is believed to be true in the heads of the adherents.

A slight correction, Peacegirl ;

Have we taken a wrong turn? Is time not the essential form within and without , which , any discovery becomes unplausable?
IT does turn on time, and maybe it’s not primarily that the structural determinancy of time that has.gotten us this far, or it’s expressed free will.

But the flow and the structure of time are the two essential ways time is interpreted, and perhaps both Artemis and the Author of the invention are right, one way of looking at time does not negate the other. BOTH may be necessary and contingent. Forwards and backwards , constructed then at a point deconstructed , then an attempt to remember , and memory the use of partial deconstructed quanta, to form a closely reconstructed image.

Perhaps there are no wrong turns, only states of being with their own set images some more loosely connected to a central theme than others. .Memory is of the essence and memory is signals and signposts of the passage of. and through existence.

I notice that the very first sentence of the quoted extract actually falsifies the authors claim

As the twentieth century has already passed and we are still no nearer to solving the problem of evil assuming of course it can be solved
Even if the author had the solution to the problem it is not something that has been discovered within the specific time frame he stated

The third paragraph is wishful thinking of the highest order with not a single ounce of actual substance
What is the new revised date for the abolition of evil now that the twentieth century has already gone

I guess you didn’t read the following so I’ll post it again.

[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
that 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]

I’m not sure where I need correction. Memory is extremely important to our perception of time but there is only one truth. There is no arrow of time where we can locate the past or future on a timeline. We live in the present, the sun shines in the present, we sleep and wake in the present. Some of the confusion, I believe, comes from the idea that has been accepted as fact for centuries. It is believed that when light reaches our eyes, we are seeing the past since the image is delayed due to a time lapse. If the author is correct, then we could not be seeing the past, but in real time. This opens up a big can of worms. But this conversation is for another day.

Ok will converse about that another time.
But-my time is limited by pressing matters, so as not to inconvenience you, will prefunctorily advance that ’ another time.

Time present is incalculable as well as inconceivable in the present.

Therefore , in those times, time is no longer a presence.

As such, it is a timeless epoch of absolute lack of determination.

What can determine any and all events, thoughts or its various manifestations, a part of what came before or may come after?

In the present moment there is absolute freedom to act and think without any constraint by any agency, intrinsic or extrinsic?

The moment indicate a absolute suspension of any effective agency to determine anything at all.

Here is the contradiction implicit, whereas the Author insists in the immediate presence of the immediate present, at that presence and present now, there is no determination but an absolute free will of choice.

It is only at that time when the lAnguage of choice between one thing and it’s opposite becomes even a possibility not less a contingency.

I do not know when this breakthrough will occur and mankind will be able to save itself from evil from that point on
However I have to remain sceptical until it actually does occur even though I am not expecting it within my lifetime
Given as you are the only one who actually thinks that it will happen then no one can take over after you have gone
And without anyone pushing it it will simply fade into oblivion and mankind will be none the wiser as a consequence

That’s always a possibility.

Meno, I don’t think you read anything pertaining to this book. Much of what you’re saying about free will the author agrees with. It’s all about qualification.

And certainly a possibility so remote as to make it happen in an absolutely negative sense.

But , and here is the saving grace,
that absolute sense of dividing a scintilla of possibility approach negative certainty, is the same one as the myriad of Angels who dance on the head ofnthe pin, make the miraculous in the opposite sense of certainty possible, absolutely.
That is why I believe in the force of biblical verse surrounding the travails of hope for that.

Faith, justice, permanence, and beauty of wisdom are ALL predicated on the affinity between quantum and Cosmological ascendancy.
Hate to get philosophical about it, but that is the only possible vindication of Your Author’s Discovery.

And confradiction within IS tantamount of a total qualified tautology of Identity.
It appears then , that argument does require per-necessity this identical yet partially differentiated reality.

There are others, many mansions co training them, and all containment are self included.

Many Mansions ref: Edgar Casey

Who is calculating time present? He made one very accurate observation, and that is we do everything in the present. If you don’t believe that this is true, then that’s fine, but this was an astute observation that I believe is accurate.

There isn’t absolute freedom intrinsic or extrinsic because we have memory which is part of the process of evaluation and contemplation. Animals are also acting in accordance with the law of determinism, for although they are not contemplating their next move the way we do, they are still moving away from one position to the next. Life itself pushes all living things in this direction. This is not a conscious decision on the part of animals, nor does it come from the subconscious. These behaviors are instinctual. I gave an example of a bird pruning itself and suddenly taking off in flight. Obviously the bird wasn’t thinking in terms of the words “satisfaction” or “dissatisfaction” but they were moving in that direction nevertheless.

You misunderstood him. That’s why if you don’t care to read any of his writing you will be creating a lot of non-sequiturs.

We can’t identify anything that suggests the past IN REALITY. We can’t go back to the past IN REALITY because it doesn’t exist. Having only the present in no way means that we have free choice. Humans are able to remember events in the past which allow them to make choices that are contingent on those events held in memory. Once again, just because we live in the present and just because there is no such thing as the past IN REALITY does not mean we cannot choose what gives us greater satisfaction based on antecedent events. But this all comes from our memory bank and how we interpret those events. If we had amnesia we could not make choices based on the past. Our brains would only register the present which is why people that have electro shock therapy forget that they were depressed since they don’t have memory of their circumstances that led them to their emotional state.

I got it Peace Girl, the quantum state: Be present or aware, rather then try to evaluate what “IT” is that is aware to ‘it’
The latter changes the format preception Into it’s idea, and the idea of it can not represent It’s Self.
(In time).
Thanks for Your patience, if I understand correctly.

If not, per Your observation, it’s very close. My requirement of needing the absolute reflection of literal and figurative components has been satisfied.

Meno: I got it Peace Girl, the quantum state:

Peacegirl: No you don’t. Stop acting like you do. It’s insincere!

Meno: Be present or aware, rather then try to evaluate what “IT” is that is aware to ‘it’

Peacegirl: totally unrelated

Meno: The latter changes the format preception Into it’s idea, and the idea of it can not represent It’s Self.
(In time).
Thanks for Your patience, if I understand correctly.

Peacegirl: you understand nothing

Meno: If not, per Your observation, it’s very close. My requirement of needing the absolute reflection of literal and figurative components has been satisfied.

Peacegirl: nothing has been satisfied based on your input, sorry

Then back to the philosophical debate, which I shall not conclude , sans the idea of god. I was tempted to say that I will conclude with what has been said, but promised I was not a quitter.

You can quit if you want. None the worse for wear! lol

Your whole manner has changed that is understood in terms of some intangible thing , that is also obvious.

That two pages since, You or your Author have commended my view as similar in kind, is testamental. .

The provocative manner still haunts a non - quitter whch was again attested to.

What remains is Your direct disclosure as to Your own interpretation rather then simply repeating tendency of moving to better situations ,more pleasing places in time!

Finally, Your suggestion that I am free to quit, does not phase out the idea of expressing contraindicated signals, that can only be expressed in the language of determinancy.

That language is pseudo constructive, since it is processed as an entailment, of the inductive kind, effecting a reconstructive process.

Finally, You may disqualify me on some basis, other then the one given.

That is part and partial to any one seeking the truth., including using sense and no sense figuratively, with a broad spectrum effigy : non-sense.

Until you can tell me what the discovery is Meno, you have no basis to agree or disagree.

Even thought of an analogy, consisting of an extended koan.

The monk asks the Master if by the examples given, he thinks if he is enlightened. The Master in disbelief claps his hand and days : if you think you are, then you’re not.

But perhaps it’s another version of the ontological question as it relates to Nothingness: is it something?

What is enlightenment but knowing the truth. John 8:32: The truth shall set us free. O:) Sound thinking and reasoning based on careful observation are important elements of the scientific method. It’s not that reasoning is a poor method of finding truth; it’s whether the reasoning itself is sound. Enlightenment can come in many forms as Zen Buddhist monks have illustrated, but reasoning (based on accuracy) can’t be left out of the equation in our search for truth.