New Discovery

[peacegirl]

Well then how do the Simpson’s do it? They predict shit on a cartoon and have several times with striking accuracy.

Futurama could even be considered a depiction of what our future could look like, as far fetched as it sounds.. it’s pretty similar to this society, consumed by consumerism, ignorant, etc.

There are a lot of variables to consider when predicting the future, the reason it is complicated is because there is an infinite of scenarios, which is the aspect of the will that is free by attribution of value.

Determinism does not mean we can predict everything. It's impossible, but considering there is an infinite of scenarios, there is only one that a person can choose, which is why will is not free. This infinite of scenarios is not an aspect of the will that is free by attribution of value. Your logic is wanting.

[peacegirl]

Well then how do the Simpson’s do it? They predict shit on a cartoon and have several times with striking accuracy.

Futurama could even be considered a depiction of what our future could look like, as far fetched as it sounds.. it’s pretty similar to this society, consumed by consumerism, ignorant, etc.

There are a lot of variables to consider when predicting the future, the reason it is complicated is because there is an infinite of scenarios, which is the aspect of the will that is free by attribution of value.

Determinism does not mean we can predict everything. It's impossible, but considering there is an infinite of scenarios, there is only one that a person can choose, which is why will is not free. This infinite of scenarios is not an aspect of the will that is free by attribution of value. Your logic is wanting.

https://breakingthefreewillillusion.com ... #more-1416

[Karpel Tunnel]

Well then how do the Simpson’s do it? They predict shit on a cartoon and have several times with striking accuracy.

You predict or seem to a lot of stuff, you are going to seem several times.

There are a lot of variables to consider when predicting the future, the reason it is complicated is because there is an infinite of scenarios, which is the aspect of the will that is free by attribution of value.

I can't blame someone for not getting their predictions right, unless they are presenting themselves with utter certainty despite making predictions that require the same kind of knowledge and insight that did not work out. It's a skill. If you don't demonstrate this skill, it opens one's ability up for question.

In this specific case we have someone responding to arguments with, basically,
I am not interested in opinions, my opinions are facts. I speak facts, you speak opinions.

Well, if one has been fallible and responds to others this way, it is arrogance.

We have several chapters of a book that shows some serious communcation problems, a seeming lack of awareness of epistemology, and some really unclear categories. Couple this with a major falied prediction directly related to the entire prediction of the book, and there are very solid grounds for being skeptical.

When this is pointed out and the arrogance related to the arguments and ideas of others continues anyway, it implies that we are dealing with a mind that cannot truly self-question.

[Artimas]

Well then how do the Simpson’s do it? They predict shit on a cartoon and have several times with striking accuracy.

Futurama could even be considered a depiction of what our future could look like, as far fetched as it sounds.. it’s pretty similar to this society, consumed by consumerism, ignorant, etc.

There are a lot of variables to consider when predicting the future, the reason it is complicated is because there is an infinite of scenarios, which is the aspect of the will that is free by attribution of value.

Determinism does not mean we can predict everything. It's impossible, but considering there is an infinite of scenarios, there is only one that a person can choose, which is why will is not free. This infinite of scenarios is not an aspect of the will that is free by attribution of value. Your logic is wanting.

I get to pick out of the infinity what I wish to do, regarding value placed, how isn’t that freedom?

You can choose multiple choices though. If you can only choose once, I’d be stuck on repeat forever. The present moment is a continuity, the scenarios are an infinite continuity, see how this matches and choices until death can and will be picking through and of those linked continuities/infinity by value attribution?

[peacegirl]

Well then how do the Simpson’s do it? They predict shit on a cartoon and have several times with striking accuracy.

Futurama could even be considered a depiction of what our future could look like, as far fetched as it sounds.. it’s pretty similar to this society, consumed by consumerism, ignorant, etc.

There are a lot of variables to consider when predicting the future, the reason it is complicated is because there is an infinite of scenarios, which is the aspect of the will that is free by attribution of value.

Determinism does not mean we can predict everything. It's impossible! But considering there is an infinite of scenarios, there is only one that a person can choose, which is why will is not free. This infinite of scenarios is not an aspect of the will that is free by attribution of value. Your logic is wanting.

I get to pick out of the infinity what I wish to do, regarding value placed, how isn’t that freedom?

Yes, you get to pick from among the scenarios that you are considering (these scenarios that come into your mind are not authored by you either). You can say I was able to choose this or that freely (without pressure or external constraint) , but we are constrained by this movement toward greater satisfaction, and it's a one way street. Having a myriad of options AT YOUR DISPOSAL at any given moment (how can there be an infinity?), and being able to choose freely (without external constraint), is what many people call freedom. How did philosophers get so confused between this freedom and freedom of will? I said earlier that the term freedom can be used correctly, without a person having freedom of the will. I can also say, as long as it's qualified: "I did this of my own free will because I wanted to do it." This also does not mean you did this of your own free will in the sense that you could have done otherwise."

You can choose multiple choices though. If you can only choose once, I’d be stuck on repeat forever.

I didn't say you could only choose once. Most of us make choices all day long, so how can we be stuck on repeat forever?

The present moment is a continuity, the scenarios are an infinite continuity, see how this matches and choices until death can and will be picking through and of those linked continuities/infinity by value attribution?

Life is a continuity, and scenarios are constantly changing (i.e., an infinite continuity), and we link those continuities by value attribution. Why did the author say we are compelled, AMONG MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCES (value attribution) that which gives us greater satisfaction than what the present position offers?

[Meno_]

What about two views of existence, One that believes that in the absolute inorganic beginning, a choice could not be spoken about, since a choice may be predetermined consciously.

If so, either choice has to be qualified at some continua at the beginning if self consciousness.

If that is the case, a circularity of differential alternating determinations may not accord determination at certain qualifiers.
Or, the other view may be more appropriate, is, to disqualify inorganic determination , where at those occurance, the continuum may not progress toward attainment of more pleasure, unless, the experience ce of pleasure can somehow be appropriated with other then feeling pleasure.
For example , a universal consciousness could be replaced for self consciousness, which takes pleasure in creating the self consciousness that was missing .

And that view has persisted in religion as the basis for the willful disobedience by man and his subsequent expulsion. He found the knowledge in the pleasure of the awareness if Creation.

However, if that knowledge is based in Creation, then, the difference between the idea of Creation as pleasurable,reduces to another change in defining how such act becomes intrinsic Within a oretermination, were it becomes a red river absolute if a predetermined and non quafiable pleasure within an absolute and bib differentiable motive .

This later view fits within a Gnostic interpretation of Creation.


If so, then how do the symbols follow each other determinantly, thus de-differentiating causality between conscious choice and teleological cause and effect?

Was this thesis developed from knowledge of such symbolism, or independent of them?

Because, to the best of Your knowledge, Peace gurl, the later was true, then it would seem, a difference may be construed from other then a causal chain; I. e. from intuition, for one.

The point I am trying to make is, that if Your friend intuitef the thesis, then, it would be proof of a credible claim, that a general and absolute notion of dwteemenamcy can be made.

If he was aware of the religious symbolism, differential qualification( such as organic and inorganic : & conscious and unconscious differentials can not present a general framework to the deterministic idea.

How can You, re: within Your understanding dispose of this previously not touched upon.idea?

[peacegirl]

What about two views of existence, One that believes that in the absolute inorganic beginning, a choice could not be spoken about, since a choice may be predetermined consciously.

If so, either choice has to be qualified at some continua at the beginning if self consciousness.

If that is the case, a circularity of differential alternating determinations may not accord determination at certain qualifiers.
Or, the other view may be more appropriate, is, to disqualify inorganic determination , where at those occurance, the continuum may not progress toward attainment of more pleasure, unless, the experience ce of pleasure can somehow be appropriated with other then feeling pleasure.
For example , a universal consciousness could be replaced for self consciousness, which takes pleasure in creating the self consciousness that was missing .

And that view has persisted in religion as the basis for the willful disobedience by man and his subsequent expulsion. He found the knowledge in the pleasure of the awareness if Creation.

However, if that knowledge is based in Creation, then, the difference between the idea of Creation as pleasurable,reduces to another change in defining how such act becomes intrinsic Within a oretermination, were it becomes a red river absolute if a predetermined and non quafiable pleasure within an absolute and bib differentiable motive .

This later view fits within a Gnostic interpretation of Creation.


If so, then how do the symbols follow each other determinantly, thus de-differentiating causality between conscious choice and teleological cause and effect?

Was this thesis developed from knowledge of such symbolism, or independent of them?

Because, to the best of Your knowledge, Peace gurl, the later was true, then it would seem, a difference may be construed from other then a causal chain; I. e. from intuition, for one.

The point I am trying to make is, that if Your friend intuitef the thesis, then, it would be proof of a credible claim, that a general and absolute notion of dwteemenamcy can be made.

If he was aware of the religious symbolism, differential qualification( such as organic and inorganic : & conscious and unconscious differentials can not present a general framework to the deterministic idea.

How can You, re: within Your understanding dispose of this previously not touched upon.idea?

Because his clam is independent of religious symbolism, predetermination, teleology, self-consciousness, or even pleasure. The variables you are bringing in have nothing to do with the veracity of his claim. The only thing that would prove him wrong is if you can prove to me that we don't move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.” So without any further ado, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under
his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to
be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But
take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice, consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control. Supposing a father is
desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job.

Let us assume he is living in the United
States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration
of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more
credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc.; what is he supposed to do? If
he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish
him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is
perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have
chosen an option which was good. In this case almost any other
alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual
preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in
comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because
it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of
the three that were available to him — so does this make his will free?
It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he
wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not
have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do
what they did under the circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible
for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an
inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now
call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of
clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now
standing on this present moment of time and space called here and
you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move
to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving
a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer...” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you
started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes
it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is
death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion
is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from
here to there is a movement away from that which dissatisfies,
otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you
would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly
moves away from here to there, which is an expression of
dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move
constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction.

It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction,
otherwise we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that
at any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life
obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to
make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are
available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself
and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a
discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to
candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being
alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress he always did
what he had to do because he had no choice.

Although this
demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not
be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.
Supposing you wanted very much of two alternatives A, which we
shall designate something considered evil by society, instead of B, the
humdrum of your regular routine; could you possibly pick B at that
particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative
when nothing could dissuade you from your decision, not even the
threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose
A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of
B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the
latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly
impossible to choose B in this comparison are they not compelled, by
their very nature, to prefer A; and how can they be free when the
favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their
choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction?
To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able
to prefer of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he
doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what
he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative
is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. In other words, if man
was free he could actually prefer of several alternatives the one that
gives him the least satisfaction, which would reverse the direction
of his life, and make him prefer the impossible.

[Meno_]

Ok again. I am still conflicted as to wanting to erase the above, since I thought of some thing, that may change the idea of which narrative would be more appropriate. So if I decide, to opt for a more simple and better understood version. HOPING THIS ONE, THEN THIS ONE SHOULD BE THE VERSION THAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE THE RIGHT ONE.

The will to choose is never a factor, even if, the many choices seem to suggest otherwise, and the final choice us the only measure of the veracity of its determination.

I think this is the preferred one , and it sits more comfortably.
But: no one knows what has been predetermined, until its determination becomes manifest.

Its the final battle, not in the sense of good against evil, but in the sense of man against himself.. His intention, toward the good, the light, is ore formed and performed at every moment, and in that performance lies his destiny, and the moment it is done, it changes all prior determinations.
It is the will, through power, !

( Preferrably for the good, though they are never known until their effects become manifest)

[Arcturus Descending]

peacegirl,

This post was meant for either Karpel Tunnel or Phyllo but...

This is what you are failing to understand. Responsibility increases with the knowledge that man's will is not free, not decreases. In fact, responsibility and conscience go up to a much higher degree. Aren't you interested in learning how that's possible or are you just so skeptical that you have closed your ears?

But I would say that that depends on the individual. So much depends on the individual and how he sees and responds to the world.

I may be wrong in how I see what you are saying above. I can imagine that the more self-conscious (not ego), self-aware, caring human being might, after coming to realize/discover that will, his will, is not so free and self-determined as he thought, might then be very careful with his decisions, strive to hone his sense of response ability and "to do no harm" to a greater degree.

But what of the other kind of individual? The psychopath, the sociopath, the rapist, the pedophile, et cetera?
Your "truth" might give them "just cause" within their own minds to do what they wanted - after all, they cannot be held responsible for their actions. This is what I meant before by a "slippery slope". Even the more balanced individual might begin to feel that way afterwards - we often come to convince ourselves of something which is more alluring and likable to us. Remember, one size does not fit all.

Feel free to take your time with the other post if you get swamped and do not forget to smell the flowers.

[Arcturus Descending]

Hi Meno,

But: no one knows what has been predetermined, until its determination becomes manifest.

Personally speaking, I just do not see it - that we have been pre-determined, like we have been written in the stars, fated or destined for this life or that life. the chosen one. I think it is ego and fatalism.

Even when something supposedly becomes manifest, does that necessarily spell the end of its journey?
Your words reminded me of this little poignant story. We never, never know, do we?

Who Knows? The Farmer's Son:
Fortune or Misfortune?

- and -

Commentary:What More Can Be Said?

http://www.rainbowbody.com/newarticles/farmerson.htm

[peacegirl]

Ok again. I am still conflicted as to wanting to erase the above, since I thought of some thing, that may change the idea of which narrative would be more appropriate. So if I decide, to opt for a more simple and better understood version. HOPING THIS ONE, THEN THIS ONE SHOULD BE THE VERSION THAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE THE RIGHT ONE.

The will to choose is never a factor, even if, the many choices seem to suggest otherwise, and the final choice us the only measure of the veracity of its determination.

I'm not sure what that means. I have a will and my will wants to choose, so how is the will not a factor?

I think this is the preferred one , and it sits more comfortably.
But: no one knows what has been predetermined, until its determination becomes manifest.

Right.

Its the final battle, not in the sense of good against evil, but in the sense of man against himself.. His intention, toward the good, the light, is ore formed and performed at every moment, and in that performance lies his destiny, and the moment it is done, it changes all prior determinations.
It is the will, through power, !

I never read Nietzsche, is that what you're referring to? The concept of the will to power is interesting, but what I am sharing is how to remove the hurt that exists in human relation. It's not good against evil, as if there's the good guys against the bad guys. But there is hurt in this world, and that's what this knowledge has the power to prevent.

( Preferrably for the good, though they are never known until their effects become manifest)

[/quote]

You're right, we can't know until the effects are manifest which takes place at every moment.

[Ecmandu]

Peacegirl can't respond to basic refutations:

viewtopic.php?p=2730251#p2730251

viewtopic.php?p=2729829#p2729829

Peacegirl has been disproven. If it's a cosmic law, than like gravity, we should all have no choice but to obey it.

Peacegirl is just an absurd character, someone without freewill ... oh, the irony!

[peacegirl]

Yes it is. It just can't be proven empirically because the Golden Age of man has not yet been built, but that doesn't mean the blueprint is inaccurate, just as it doesn't mean the formula to build a strong bridge is inaccurate just because the bridge hasn't yet been constructed.

Does he present any situations where it's shown to be true? Any tests? Any studies?

His observations were correct. He didn't use the scientific method starting with a hypothesis and then finding data to support it. That's not how he came to these findings. Each person can see for himself by using themselves as the subject matter to see if these principles work as they think about how they would react when all blame is removed from the environment. It will be empirically proven that under these conditions no one will be able not only not to desire hurting a living soul but not to desire gaining at anyone's expense, just as the bridge will be built. It's just a matter of time.

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.

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl said: Exactly!

Yet, oddly enough, in the "new world" everyone will start acting the same way. People will stop being immoral. They will all get the most satisfaction from being gentle and caring. "Somehow" an ideal social structure will be created.

Or coming at it from another angle, people's interests will no longer clash over resources and power and, well, love and sex. Well, I was glad to get approval around my understanding of determinism, at least this part. Earlier peacegirl did not seem to think I understood. And I share your skepticism that the fact that we are determined (if it is the case) necessarily leads to a utopia, and further how utterly determined creatures could know if they were being objective when they predicted this. I sometimes get tired of people who, it seems to me, get away with arguments they have convinced themselves with. I am not convinced there is determinism and I am not convinced there is free will. Though I find the explanations for free will seems less convincing. I get the not necessarily nice urge, sometimes, to take away people's xanax and join me in regions of less certainty. I'm not proud of that urge, but there it is.

What does the fact that will is not free have to do with being objective? It doesn't make sense. We still have a brain, we still can think, we still can do all the things that a person with free will could do, if there was such a thing. Maybe it's back to the same mistaken definition that's confusing you.

[peacegirl]

I think you should take into account.
From Carl Jung himself. Man and his symbols.

https://imgur.com/a/KHx2W5L

If I have an awareness of the future by subconscious imagery, that has yet to be determined by the past or present choice, then that shits all over your argument or proposition and we all know it, we’re timeless awareness.

What does subconscious imagery about a future event negate the FACT that man's will is not free? We can imagine all sorts of things. Sometimes I think we're talking a different language. No one is listening to the other.

There is no fooling me in what you have done with your argument. You know as well as I do that there are multiple options to choose from in a continuous present moment and our motives don’t matter when in terms of choosing (to anyone external), they only matter to the individual and I am telling you (I shouldn’t even have to tell you) that not every decision is made based on a satisfaction or fear of a lesser satisfactory position, biologically, mentally, etc.

Yes, we often have multiple options to choose from. Every decision we make is a movement toward a more satisfactory position than where are now standing. If there are no good options, we are compelled to choose the lesser of two evils, or the least unfavorable choice.

It only appears as “it can’t be proven” to someone external to you. So you look at me and I pick up a piece of chocolate instead of a strawberry and you automatically assume I could not have chosen the strawberry otherwise? That is utterly preposterous and I think you know it. Are You going to argue that we are bound by context/setting to determine a choice in the present? The very context/setting that we can choose.. literally.y

You could have chosen the strawberry when comparing it to chocolate, if you had desired it, but you chose the chocolate, even if the choices were equally desired which is equivalent to choosing A and A. Not a meaningful difference. Looking back, you could NOT have chosen the strawberry. Later on, you may decide to eat the the strawberry rather than the chocolate, if that is your preference. We live in the present and each moment offers us a new set of possibilities. But that is different than saying you could have chosen otherwise, which is impossible.

So I want you to explain to me, how can I have an idea not based around any experience, something completely new arise in the conscious mind from the unconscious/subconscious when the system of determinism has not yet been executed in a past or present moment of continuity? Is that free enough of a will for you?

You are right. That is a faulty definition of determinism. Each moment is new and continuous, and we get to choose "freely" (without external constraint), but we don't have free will, as I explained, because we cannot move backward (in the direction of what would give us less satisfaction) when life itself pushes us always in the direction away from dissatisfaction.

Oh and also

Carl Jung said we are free to do “gladly” that which we must do. He didn’t say we HAVE to.

We don't have to IF WE DON'T WANT TO. Determinism is not prescriptive although once a choice is made we can say correctly that this choice could not have been otherwise because it is the only choice that could have been made per the laws of our nature. I said so many times that the conventional definition of determinism is faulty, not determinism itself. If you would hear me out, you would see that we are in agreement.

Which means what Pg? That we can choose an option other than that which entails “gladly” which is what Pg? Is that not freedom? It’s common sense, why would anyone not want to feel better than down? That responsibility is dependent upon the individual, yet common sense seems lacking in this modern era, doesn’t it? Yet there are those whom feel down to be the victim, no satisfaction gained truly, the lack of common sense.

Responsibility is increased with this knowledge, but this judgment as to what a person should have chosen (CHCO) is part of the problem.

[peacegirl]

Two people entirely independent of each other are faced with exactly the same choice between two options [ A / B ]
Person A chooses option A and Person B chooses option B - what this demonstrates is that both options can be chosen
And another time they can choose the alternative option so Person A chooses option B and Person B chooses option A
So this disproves your claim - twice - that when the circumstances are repeated the option chosen is always the same

You do realize that determinists think that different people do different things, right? You do realize that determinists realize that on different times, due to different causes being involved, the same person will do different things, and that none of this disproves determinism. All it does is point out that the specific entities involved at the specific moments in time are different. The causes are different, since we do not remain absolutely the same through time, nor are different people driven by the same set of internal and external causes.

Exactly!

Yet, oddly enough, in the "new world" everyone will start acting the same way. People will stop being immoral. They will all get the most satisfaction from being gentle and caring. "Somehow" an ideal social structure will be created.

In the new world people will not desire to hurt anyone when there is no justification to do so. Right now, people have justification. As long as they feel justified conscience WILL permit the act. The word "immoral" is not applicable because it's a judgment of good and bad. In actuality, no one is good or bad, just doing what they do in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is incredible because the change in environment causes a change in human conduct, rendering hurting others the least preferable choice among meaningful options. That's the only thing that changes. People will be freer than ever to do whatever they find preferable with no one telling them what to do or what is best for them. Big government will be a thing of the past.

[surreptitious75]

Each moment is new and continuous and we get to choose freely ( without external constraint ) but we dont have free will as I explained because we can
not move backward ( in the direction of what would give us less satisfaction ) when life itself pushes us always in the direction away from dissatisfaction

So you think it would be better if we had this choice as well just so that it could be demonstrated we really had free will ?
But what actual purpose would that have given that we would still want to choose the most satisfactory choice available ?

[barbarianhorde]

What if nothing gives us lasting satisfaction except that which we do out of true freedom?
I seem to experience this as being the case. I can't be truly satisfied truly if I just "fulfill my carnal desires" or something like that. It satisfies a lack but it doesn't satisfy justification of Being.

This is why I am such a good cook, among other things. I always make it a little better than it should technically be able to be.

So what Im saying is, your absolute, peacegirl, is not an exactitude. So you can't use it as the crux of an argument.
Satisfaction could just mean the lowering of tensions. But that doesn't give any qualia of the tension, it doesn't give substance, it doesn't predict.

Because satisfaction is a term that doesn't differentiate into qualities.
Maybe thats too technical but Im just saying.

[Artimas]

There’s a contradiction in what you state about the author of which you argue for his points/claims.

“Because his clam is independent of religious symbolism, predetermination, teleology, self-consciousness, or even pleasure. The variables you are bringing in have nothing to do with the veracity of his claim. The only thing that would prove him wrong is if you can prove to me that we don't move in the direction of greater satisfaction.”

If you claim the authors claim is independent of greater satisfaction or pleasure, then that is a contradiction and you have proven yourself wrong there. By yourself.

[Artimas]

What if nothing gives us lasting satisfaction except that which we do out of true freedom?
I seem to experience this as being the case. I can't be truly satisfied truly if I just "fulfill my carnal desires" or something like that. It satisfies a lack but it doesn't satisfy justification of Being.

This is why I am such a good cook, among other things. I always make it a little better than it should technically be able to be.

So what Im saying is, your absolute, peacegirl, is not an exactitude. So you can't use it as the crux of an argument.
Satisfaction could just mean the lowering of tensions. But that doesn't give any qualia of the tension, it doesn't give substance, it doesn't predict.

Because satisfaction is a term that doesn't differentiate into qualities.
Maybe thats too technical but Im just saying.

I have already shown that satisfaction is illusory, temporary. Always followed by fear/pain of loss or comfort and loss of new experience. Both are bad and against an evolutionary path for an individual.

Satisfaction don’t last, pretty sure even The Rolling Stones knew this and made a song “Can’t get no satisfaction”

[Artimas]

There’s a contradiction in what you state about the author of which you argue for his points/claims.

“Because his clam is independent of religious symbolism, predetermination, teleology, self-consciousness, or even pleasure. The variables you are bringing in have nothing to do with the veracity of his claim. The only thing that would prove him wrong is if you can prove to me that we don't move in the direction of greater satisfaction.”

If you claim the authors claim is independent of greater satisfaction or pleasure, then that is a contradiction and you have proven yourself wrong there. By yourself.

So the author can make a claim without following the greater satisfaction or pleasure movement in that direction, but we can’t? Horse shit, not every movement is dictated by greater satisfaction. Some take no satisfaction, death isn’t satisfactory if one had to sacrifice life for someone else, it may be necessary to them, not satisfactory.

[peacegirl]

There’s a contradiction in what you state about the author of which you argue for his points/claims.

“Because his clam is independent of religious symbolism, predetermination, teleology, self-consciousness, or even pleasure. The variables you are bringing in have nothing to do with the veracity of his claim. The only thing that would prove him wrong is if you can prove to me that we don't move in the direction of greater satisfaction.”

If you claim the authors claim is independent of greater satisfaction or pleasure, then that is a contradiction and you have proven yourself wrong there. By yourself.

I never said that Artimas! I said that we don't always move toward something pleasurable but we do move in the direction of greater satisfaction. For example, I may choose to give up my life for my child if only one of us had a chance of surviving. This would have given me greater satisfaction, but certainly not pleasure.

[surreptitious75]

I would like to know what happens when this idea finally takes root in human consciousness and starts being accepted ?
Is it then inevitable that it will become accepted by absolutely everyone and will this be the end of suffering for ever ?
I am sceptical as no idea or belief in human history has ever had such acceptance so why should this be any different ?

[peacegirl]

What if nothing gives us lasting satisfaction except that which we do out of true freedom?
I seem to experience this as being the case. I can't be truly satisfied truly if I just "fulfill my carnal desires" or something like that. It satisfies a lack but it doesn't satisfy justification of Being.

This is why I am such a good cook, among other things. I always make it a little better than it should technically be able to be.

So what Im saying is, your absolute, peacegirl, is not an exactitude. So you can't use it as the crux of an argument.
Satisfaction could just mean the lowering of tensions. But that doesn't give any qualia of the tension, it doesn't give substance, it doesn't predict.

Because satisfaction is a term that doesn't differentiate into qualities.
Maybe thats too technical but Im just saying.

We aren't talking about what gives an individual satisfaction; it could be many things that drive an individual to choosing one thing over another. Regardless of what a person chooses, we are driven by our nature to move in this direction every moment of life.

[peacegirl]

I would like to know what happens when this idea finally takes root in human consciousness and starts being accepted ?
Is it then inevitable that it will become accepted by absolutely everyone and will this be the end of suffering for ever ?
I am sceptical as no idea or belief in human history has ever had such acceptance so why should this be any different ?

I understand the skepticism, but this discovery really can rid the world of most of the evil (hurt) plaguing mankind. It's inevitable because we cannot move against what is better for ourselves, and this world (which is absolutely possible) is the better choice. The sad part is that this discovery hasn't been carefully investigated. The author died before he had a chance to prove his claims. I just hope this knowledge doesn't get thrown into a slush pile along with of a lot of bad claims that are out there. The knowledge is here, it's just a matter of getting it brought to light. Mankind has been developing and could not have reached this turning point until now. The author said this knowledge is part of the real world, not something he invented, so someone else could make the same discovery but it may take another thousand years and by that time we may destroy ourselves.