New Discovery

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.

Ok. Rationalism .Reason is a method to acquire the real, as opposed to fantasy, supernatural sources are excluded or disallowed to play a part in the formation of the interpretation through which language plays a part.

This is an important point because this is where Descartes still haunts the halls of illusion with which wise ones grappled to find the philosopher’s stone.

The real is rational and the rational is real.

Modernism has rescinded this type of reality to the places of technocracy, where Enilightement of the historic Western kind , found a kissing cousin in the East. But so different.

The two are like the interweaving of two coiling snakes, the one primordial, the other thoroughly modern.

Are they working together or perpetually at war? Are they even aware of what is behind their mutual level of trust or distrust?

If not, only a collusive emptying of content , of denial by memory lapse can salvage their relationship.

Their perception of their relationship is understood by an adaptation to increasing rates of ‘process’ de-differentiation.

The super duper computered man, the savior tech avenger can do what no one before.

But how rational can he become, within the constraints of a passing literacy? His vision of very long lasting and exemplified timescapes have receeded .

If the laws of nature encompass all matter [including brain matter] unfolding from the past into the present into the future only as these laws compel it to, what isn’t nature responsible for?

And how would not the laws of matter be wholly responsible for any definitions that any particular brains – as matter – are compelled by nature to think up?

I’m still perplexed [compelled or otherwise] by how you reconfigure [compelled or otherwise] these relationships “in your head” into the “choices” that we make that “for all practical purposes” would seem to unfold only as they must.

There you go again making these “exceptions”. This mysterious “choice” that “I” makes in the present that is both somehow compelled by nature and not compelled by nature. And over and over and over again, it can be pointed out that in regard to human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments, what some construe to be right behaviors others construe to be wrong behaviors. And precisely because in behaving either way someone gets hurt.

I challenge you to bring this part…

…down to earth. Note a particular context in which behaviors come into conflict over hurting others and note how this might be “removed” by the author’s discovery.

In other words, assuming that we do possess some measure of autonomy and all of these words that we are typing back and forth were not only as they ever could have been typed back and forth.

My only recourse here is to repeat myself:

Now, nature will either compel you to wiggle out of actually responding to these points once again, or it won’t.

So these qualitative differences exist but for all practical purposes nothing changes. The matter in our brain is still no less a necessary part of the natural world unfolding per the immutable laws of matter.

Only “I” get to “choose” to type these words that I was never able not to type.

What you mean of course is that the more nature compels us to define words more specifically the more nature will still unfold only as it ever could have.

In other words…

Again and again: even in a world where free will prevails, once a choice is made it stays made. That’s just common sense. But if we are a part of nature and nature unfolds in sync with its own inherent material laws, than nothing can be external to it. Yet somehow you and the author [b]in the moment of “choosing” itself[/b] are external to it. Or, rather, so it seems to me.

But that is “demonstrated” to us in a world of words said to be defined only as all the rest of us are obligated to define them in turn. Even though obligations themselves are but another inherent manifestion of nature having evolved into human brains compelled to make them.

Your own brain being compelled to note things like this:

And all of those things that influence us…how are they not in turn but more manifestations of nature and the laws that propel it?

You got knocked down by the crane because nature compelled you to “choose” to be where the crane could knock you down. And you “chose” to be there because nature compelled you to think/feel/believe that being there embodied your greater satisfaction.

Now the crane operator was compelled by nature to knock you down. But some are compelled by nature to think that he knocked you down on purpose. Nature then compels them to go to the police who are in turn compelled to arrest him so that nature can compel the court system to put him on trial.

And yet in the midst of all these “choices” there is a flicker of “I” that is somehow “external” to nature.

Which nature has now complelled you to fail to demonstrate. Or so nature now compels me to insist.

How can I not but stick to the meaning that nature has compelled me here and now to believe is correct? I don’t profess this capacity at the moment of “choosing” itself to be external to nature.

But if you are compelled to believe by nature that the author was compelled by nature to define all of his words such that no further demonstrations are needed to insure our “progressive future”, then you’re the lucky one. Nature has provided you with a frame of mind that comforts and consoles you. It has provided me with no such thing at all. Quite the opposite. At least until someday [perhaps] when, in the moment of “choosing”, nature will compel me to be outside of it long enough to delude myself into believing that I am not just another of its dominoes.

In other words, nature has yet to compel me to define cause here as it has compelled you to.

Look, as long as you keep your arguments revolving around “concepts” all you’ll ever need are words to define.

Only when nature compels you to understand that how you insist it all works when your brain as an inherent component of nature compels you to shift the blame to me will you recognize that what you construe to be your “permission” at the moment of “choice” here is really just the psychological illusion of choice that nature has in turn compelled you to embody.

Only I’m at least willing to acknowledge that I have no capacity to demonstrate that this is true. Why? Well, because, among other things, I am not a neuroscientist probing actual brains functioning in the the act of choosing. I [like you] am stuck instead with a world of words that define and defend other words in that gap between what “I” think I know here and now and all that there actually is to be known about all of this.

Then you post another “world of words” assessment from the author.

But, again, in all those words…

“I challenge you to note even one thing here that folks like us [here and now] can do to verify this account. Something that is beyond all doubt “scientifically confirmed” to be true about this future.”

How is his “scientific miracle” manifested in a way that becomes clearer to us? How is it described in such a way that we can grasp its application to and implication for our own lives?

All the while demonstrating in turn how, at the moment in which we “choose” to react to it, we are somehow both at one with nature and simultaneously beyond nature compelling us to choose only what the laws of matter propel us to.

Then provide us with that which you construe to be the best examples of this.

Note to others who have read parts or all of the book:

Does the author [in your view] provide hard evidence to back up his theoretical assumptions about this progressive future?

I don’t believe the words rational and reason (not reasonable) are synonymous. You speak in very generic terms. In your last post you said if someone claims to be right about something, that’s an indication they are wrong. How absurd! I wish you would try to understand his writing rather than find reasons to dispute what you have no knowledge of.

Nothing at all.

Nothing at all. I’ve said it countless times that we have no control over what we think up and what we choose.

That’s true. I’m just clarifying what happens when we make a choice. You can’t tell me that you aren’t the one making the choice, can you?

All he said was that there is no behavior that can be judged in a moralistic way. The problem is this hurting of others even though he said in actuality there is no right or wrong when seen in total perspective because we have no control over what gives us greater satisfaction.

There are ways to determine which person is doing the hurting, and when they know they are at fault (striking a first blow), they will find it unsatisfactory to continue.

Firstly, all hurt in the economic system must be removed. IOW, as long as we are justified in hurting others so that we are not losers, this principle won’t be effective because the hurt to us that justifies us hurting them has not been removed. But when the hurt to us is removed, then hurting someone would become a first blow which could not be justified under the changed conditions.

I already told you that this blueprint of a better world is difficult to simulate because we live in a free will environment of blame and punishment therefore we can’t easily separate the variables to prove that a no blame environment would produce the results that we’re looking for, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. We could also jump right to the Great Transition (which would take place worldwide) when scientists recognize that these principles are correct.

I’m not trying to wiggle out of anything. I’m trying to answer you as best as I can.

Nothing changes in our brain, but our choices change — all in accordance with natural law and what gives us greater satisfaction — when the environment changes. You have no idea of all the changes that are going to take place to produce this worldwide paradigm shift that will benefit everyone.

Actually the fact that you continue to speak of nature as if you have no “I” or agency, is confounding the issue.

[/quote]

Not according to some people. They believe we could have made a different choice which is why they feel justified in blaming the individual for his bad choices.

In actuality, unless we are prevented from making a choice by force, we have the ability to choose. The compatibilists define choices that are constrained by external conditions such as having a gun to your head or having OCD, which is an internal constraint, as being less free than people who are not constrained by these conditions. But these made up definitions are artificial because regardless of the difficulty of the choices we make, we are not free in any way, shape, or form.

And maybe due to the fact that people want to stick with a definition that is embedded in their brains, this discovery may take many more years to come to light.

I never said they weren’t. That’s why I can’t blame you or anyone else for not being interested. I have to accept what is because no one can prefer what they don’t prefer, or want to learn more about what they don’t want to learn more about.

And maybe it was just a matter of luck that I was at the wrong place at the wrong time even though we know that nothing really happens by chance.

There is nothing external to nature. Whatever would unfold would unfold naturally, but the difference is that in the new world there would be no blame even if the company was at fault and even if I broke my neck, no police calls blaming the operator, no insurance claims other than no fault. No accusations whatsoever.

I am at a disadvantage because you have not met me halfway. I am stuck trying to explain a major discovery without you actually taking the time to read the first three chapters CAREFULLY. Yet you are more than quick to tell me what this discovery is not. #-o

I don’t either. That’s why determinism is a NATURAL law, but when you say nature compelled me to do this or that, you are making it sound as if you are not making the choice. You are shifting all of your responsibility for making the choice (not moral responsibility) to nature, as if nature isn’t embedded in you. You are part of the law, not separate from it. Nature can’t make you choose what you yourself don’t want to choose. Maybe if I say this enough times, you’ll get it but I’m not banking on it.

It’s probably easier for me to grasp because I grew up with this knowledge without the burden of the conventional definition, but you have to deconstruct what you have learned to embrace something new, which is difficult.

True. A lot of deconstruction needs to occur but it won’t if you don’t understand the two undeniable principles that we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction (which you have yet to disprove) and that nothing can force us to do what we make up our mind not to do. If you want to give a rebuttal to these two principles, go right ahead. If you can’t prove him wrong, then the accuracy of these two principles holds. These principles lead to the two-sided equation (the actual discovery) which is in Chapter Two. I predict we will never get there because you are so sure that his writing is an assumption and an intellectual contraption. =;

Words that reflect what is going on in reality. Definitions mean nothing otherwise.

I’m not shifting the blame to you iambiguous. You can’t help yourself, and I know that, but when you say nature made you…you are shifting your responsibility (your choice) to something else. I hit the accelerator of the car. I am responsible for hitting the accelerator, although I can’t be blamed for killing two children because I did this in the direction of greater satisfaction, over which I had no control. But this is not the end of the story. We can prevent the desire to take chances that lead to this kind of tragedy. But you’re not interested. What can I say?

So now you’re setting up a precondition that only neuroscientists can make a discovery? You’re so off base. Your logic is getting you in trouble. Yes, you are stuck in a world of words where you can’t escape.

There’s not one person who has read these three chapters CAREFULLY. NOT ONE. There has been not one relevant question in all of this time. No rigorous analysis at all. This is a big problem with philosophy forums since I doubt there has ever been a time that someone would come online and espouse that they are sharing a genuine discovery. Even if they did read the first three chapters carefully, this is just the beginning of understanding how this new world can actually come about, which is explained in the economic chapter. Think about this: Assuming that the discovery is valid and sound, but people are treating it like junk because they are jumping to the conclusion that it can’t be true (without studying the work), how can it be brought to light if this is the general consensus of those whose opinions count more than the actual proof? You might say, “Where is the proof”? The proof comes from astute observation (through many years of studying human behavior) and accurate inductive reasoning. Epistemology includes this path to truth as one of the methods that can be used. Obviously, empirical evidence is the ultimate judge and when it is shown to work, it will be the biggest news event in history. I know that’s a bold statement but I’m that confident that we are on the precipice of a new world that will change history in a huge way. :slight_smile:

No he does not but that is simply because no actual evidence about future events can be provided even if the predictions turn out to be true
However the future will be progressive as this is how morality develops over time but it will never reach the absolute state he hoped it would

Moral advancement is similar to technological advancement in that it develops slowly and incrementally [ but sometimes not even this ]
There is no point at which it magically stops simply because someone is convinced their particular model for Utopia is the definitive one

Between them religion and philosophy have been providing Utopias since forever yet suffering still exists so colour me sceptical
I think suffering is part of existence so any attempt to eradicate it is doomed to failure simply because you cannot fight Nature

How successful have we been in this respect ? We have certainly made phenomenal advances over time but suffering will always be here
The only sure thing that will eradicate it will be the total extinction of the human species but until then we have to accept its existence

Emotional attachment to concepts that are demonstrably incompatible with Nature is not good at all
Instead both understanding and accepting reality for what it is should be the natural default position

Again, philosophically, which is really the only language I learned, besides common vernacular, I must restate my illusionary time travel analogy, that in fact the contra indication based on appearent contradiction, by passes objective (or object related) construction -deconstruction in order to leave that to the reasonable assessment of the future of the most probable course.(objective)

That is to say , that an a priori sense of transcendence is sustained, reductive ly, where reduction is limited by a Libnetzian scintilla of indeterminacy.
This is how the feeling or the flow of the present time can be apprehended aposteriori.

Causation is the partial reintegration of elements, which results in probable quantification through transcendence of the missing elements.

To me this makes good sense, as it befits a general requirement to fuse and make sense of data which have no other foundation , logically.

You can oppose this on any ground by reading the Author, however , even the author would be required to answer as generally as required by sensible argument.

The philosophical understanding required even minimally a correspondence between psychological and ontological relevance, otherwise philosophy would need to evoke a posture of defensiveness about a feature of thought which preferred it, and encompassed it.

That has predominantly been overlooked as mode of operation, or functional equivalent between sense and non-sense.

Generality precedes particularity by thousands of years, and it would be preposterous to cut it, and immature at worst.