New Discovery

[Meno_]

Partial differentiation reintegrated .

[peacegirl]

Partial differentiation reintegrated .

Im sorry but that comment doesn’t clarify anything for me. How does this “partial differentiation” as you call it, negate the author’s claim that we have no no free will? Or how does it support it? I just don’t see the connection and I am very cautious about getting off on tangents that are irrelevant.

[Meno_]

Peacegirl -"This was very interesting but I'm not sure where it fits in to the discussion. Could you break it down? I know you're talking about motivation and language limitations, but I need further clarification. "

----------''-----
The limitation of. motivation and language imposed on contradictory bounded sets of ideas, is usually verified by due to in part by lack of appearing integration between the intent of those languages.

Intent is demonatratable by transitional objectives( psychologically) , which replace nominal objectives.(ontology)


The logic/mathematical interloper tries through tangential approximation to demonstrate the idea put forward by .....that contradiction( based on exclusion of the middle) leaves it without an interloper. Interloper in ontology is similar to synthesis, an attempt to link object overly the two apparent contra-indications of motive, and more significantly reasons for it.

This appearance contradiction is a matter determined casually, or by linking through the use of changing the meaning of conceptual reality, by approximating variables, that remains the question.

That is why appearance and reality, will and causation remains indeterminate, except by reemphasizing the thesis on ground that it's relevance to the unnamed author remains justifiably necessary.

I don't insist to know who is the author, and I am in agreement of apparent contradiction, the only thing that is left to signify, is, how can the so called naturalistic phallasy be overcome?

That is why I brought up the moral versus factual relevance posed by the atomic example, of how atoms as an idea relates to the problem with the use of atom bombs, as that example brings onto focus the transcendental unity and the question imposes:


This: That determinism within and without the ideas of intentionality, or the use of human choice ,are implicit in the way that either is expressed. The traditional ontology, as supporting the framework of the premise, requires certain conditions to be met. These conditions must exemplify a thesis of either a substantial thetic object to sustain an objective progression of ideas, absent that, an implied collusive supposition will grow to merely an aproximal value, usually dictated by contextual variances: present at the time. They will sustain objectivity, but only until new standard specifications of objective value necessitate changes of venue.

The above may be described as partial re-integration of differentiated ideas, progressing at stages which , as approximations, can regress at uncurtain prior stages.

The certainty at these times to control reintegrated a priori differentials, ( prior in the sense of having dubious sources, I.e. those whose approximate nexus is inherently indeterminate)

So appearance has opened up a weakspot, and it necessitates a new determination of self valence, and thus, a change in value: language and context.

The objective asserts within the changed boundaries , such is the escape from freedom effected, and choices are diminished seductively, by a central control, reducing arguability per transcendental analysis.

This is Trumps political problem now, and the indeterminacy requiring more control and determination on an imminent field of many possibilities, is being contradicted by the effects of the many option, free will type of central organization, unwittingly, toward diminishing returns on that investment.

Peacegirl, this is the only way I could DI FAR support my, and incidentally a your referred author, and this generally shows the many ways that could be done.

Meaning by description of a reconstituted field, needs an object, and the problem here is, that shirt term institute will more quickly open the objective to doubt, if the objective is left undefined long term.

So called transcendence may not be held up, or the appearance of it, that there really is a willful attempt to connect the will with its determination, at least through understandable trickle down jurespondence.

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl -"This was very interesting but I'm not sure where it fits in to the discussion. Could you break it down? I know you're talking about motivation and language limitations, but I need further clarification. "


The limitation of. motivation and language imposed on contradictory bounded sets of ideas, is usually verified by due to in part by lack of appearing integration between the intent of those languages.

Intent is demonatratable by transitional objectives , which replace nominal objectives.

Could you give me an example of lack of integration that is taking place here?

Duty calls the above is merely a fragment, a partial derivitive- sorry will come back to this later today

Can you pinpoint where in this thread is a partial derivative occurring? Language is a problem as we have seen. The term "free" is being used in a different way by many than the definition that is used in the free will/determinism debate. Even philosophers in the field are not talking the same language, so it's not surprising that no one here is either. Where can your explanation of intent using transitional objectives help solve the communication problem we're having?

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl -"This was very interesting but I'm not sure where it fits in to the discussion. Could you break it down? I know you're talking about motivation and language limitations, but I need further clarification. "

----------''-----
The limitation of. motivation and language imposed on contradictory bounded sets of ideas, is usually verified by due to in part by lack of appearing integration between the intent of those languages.

Intent is demonatratable by transitional objectives( psychologically) , which replace nominal objectives.(ontology)


The logic/mathematical interloper tries through tangential approximation to demonstrate the idea put forward by .....that contradiction( based on exclusion of the middle) leaves it without an interloper. Interloper in ontology is similar to synthesis, an attempt to link object overly the two apparent contra-indications of motive, and more significantly reasons for it.

Where is there an attempt to link object over the two apparent contra-indications of motive? The author was only demonstrating that regardless of one's motive or the reasons behind it, we are compelled to move in the direction of greater preference. Also, where is an interloper, or synthesis, necessary to approximate the idea put forward? Please explain through example so it is more concrete.

This appearance contradiction is a matter determined casually, or by linking through the use of changing the meaning of conceptual reality, by approximating variables, that remains the question.

Again, where is the author approximating variables? I need a concrete example.

That is why appearance and reality, will and causation remains indeterminate, except by reemphasizing the thesis on ground that it's relevance to the unnamed author remains justifiably necessary.

Appearance and reality can be very different. Will and causation is indeterminate before the will chooses because nothing is dictating that we must make a particular choice beforehand. We cannot predict the future that hasn't yet occurred, but this is not a prerequisite to the realization that we are compelled to move in the direction which offers us the choice that is the most favorable, in our eyes.

I don't insist to know who is the author, and I am in agreement of apparent contradiction, the only thing that is left to signify, is, how can the so called naturalistic phallasy be overcome?

What fallacy? Where is the contradiction? Why must there be an interloper that must fill in the middle when there is no middle because he was not talking about intent? I'm not familiar with the language you're using so you're going to have to give me concrete examples that show this contradiction.

That is why I brought up the moral versus factual relevance posed by the atomic example, of how atoms as an idea relates to the problem with the use of atom bombs, as that example brings onto focus the transcendental unity and the question imposes:


This:

I must have missed that example. Of course factual relevance versus moral relevance are two different animals, but how does this difference cause a contradiction? The internet as an idea relates to the problem of hacking. If the intent is to do no harm (intent was not discussed in his demonstration thus far), hacking into computer systems for "evil" purposes will not occur and atom bombs will not be built for the purpose of destroying civilization.

[Meno_]

Where is the contradiction?
It is not signified, it is always implied, as the socialist mantra implies, valu based on ability and need.
It's a conjecture, no less credible what You are implying the Author You cited meant.
These are approached to appeare as contradictions, whereas they be merely suggestive of a lesser grade of logical inconsistency.
Most people still choose this OR that in a politicised field, never do they go to a third party, unless that choice is interpreted as some kind of manifest destiny.

But the vagrancas of history shows, people are weary of metaphisically constructed objectives.

The thing is, I do support Your Author, and it is not through a will ful decision, but a politically linked one , determined by how things appear AND how they 'really-are.

At this point I am resisting the challenge of saying that other examples would not serve well , because positivism through meaning, & meaning through a positive assertion of reintegrated differentials , long term holdings of meaningful processes of object relations which have met their match I resisted that and I am compelled as everyone , of that need, chosen out of the many leaks which made reality crack the codes within. This is perceived as feasably a prior, through a certain time since.

[Meno_]

Of course factual relevance versus moral relevance are two different animals, but how does this difference cause a contradiction? The internet

[Meno_]

[quote="Peacegirl"]Of course factual relevance versus moral relevance are two different animals, but how does this difference cause a contradiction? /quote]

-------------------'
This difference is not caused but implied, and implication/inference is becoming a well thought out yet failing cliche, that will loose with sense of objectivity that it has so far retained as a workable model

And that's just the point, justification of controlling to wide an array of innuendo, undermines long term and riskily uncertain objectives. These may have been colluded with or rather, conflated with more certain simulated scenarios.

This difference is,,,, an example of non intended but implicated festivity, of clarity, which a more recent partially derived context was programmed to receive.

Here then admittedly, I am sunk into the mire, as everyone else, everybody else is.

[peacegirl]

Where is the contradiction?
It is not signified, it is always implied, as the socialist mantra implies, valu based on ability and need.

Where is the contradiction, implied or not, due to value based on ability and need?

It's a conjecture, no less credible that what You are implying the Author You cited meant.

How can conjecture prove a contradiction?

These are approached to appearing contradictions, whereas the be merely be suggestive of a lesser grade of logical inconsistency.

Point out the logical inconsistency please.

Mist people still choose this OR that in a politicised field, never do they go to a third party, unless that choice is interpreted as some kind of manifest destiny.

How does this relate?

But the vagrancas of history shows, people are weary of metaphisically constructed objectives.

Where is this demonstration a metaphysically constructed objective?

The thing is, I do support Your Author, and it is not through a will ful decision, but a politically linked one determined by how things appear AND how they appear , together.

You support the author but I don't know what you support exactly.

At this point I am resisting the challenge of saying that other examples would not serve well , because positivism through meaning & meaning through a positive assertion of reintegration of differential , long term holdings of meaningful processes of object relations have met their match, but resisted that and I am compelled as everyone should of the many leaks which made reality crack the codes within which this was seen as feasable a prior, a certain time prior.

Straightforward examples would certainly help to clear up any discrepancies.

[Meno_]

Again, time just became my enemy, I hope to come back real soon, it would not serve You well, if I was to edit some on the spot reply.

[peacegirl]

Of course factual relevance versus moral relevance are two different animals, but how does this difference cause a contradiction? /quote]

-------------------'
This difference is not caused but implied, and implication/inference is becoming a well thought out yet failing cliche, that will loose with sense of objectivity that it has so far retained as a workable model

What is implied exactly?

And that's just the point, justification of controlling to wide an array of innuendo, undermines long term and riskily uncertain objectives. These may have been colluded with or rather, conflated with more certain simulated scenarios.

This difference is,,,, an example of non intended but implicated festivity, of clarity, which a more recent partially derived context was programmed to receive.

Where is the innuendo and partially derived context? What does any of this mean in regard to the invariable law that moves us in the direction of "greater satisfaction?"

Here then admittedly, I am sunk into the mire, as everyone else, everybody else is.

You are sinking into the mire because you are stating that there are logical inconsistencies and you haven't showed me where they are. Logic can be very seductive but have no substance. A dangerous combination.

[Meno_]

Of course factual relevance versus moral relevance are two different animals, but how does this difference cause a contradiction? /quote]

-------------------'
This difference is not caused but implied, and implication/inference is becoming a well thought out yet failing cliche, that will loose with sense of objectivity that it has so far retained as a workable model

What is implied exactly?

And that's just the point, justification of controlling to wide an array of innuendo, undermines long term and riskily uncertain objectives. These may have been colluded with or rather, conflated with more certain simulated scenarios.

This difference is,,,, an example of non intended but implicated festivity, of clarity, which a more recent partially derived context was programmed to receive.

Where is the innuendo and partially derived context? What does any of this mean in regard to the invariable law that moves us in the direction of "greater satisfaction?"

Here then admittedly, I am sunk into the mire, as everyone else, everybody else is.

Greteful for that reduction/ so as not to appear as though it was intentionally left out, or redacted.

The innuendo derived from partially derived contextual qualifiers, and the mire consists more from a lack of understanding how this knowledge was acquired, rather then through demonstration.

A hypothetical , generally more figurative way of dealing with the necessity of demonstrating through self valuations. ( at least, as oreceptuons and innuendos go)

[peacegirl]

Again, time just became my enemy, I hope to come back real soon, it would not serve You well, if I was to edit some on the spot reply.

I understand.

[peacegirl]

Of course factual relevance versus moral relevance are two different animals, but how does this difference cause a contradiction? /quote]

-------------------'
This difference is not caused but implied, and implication/inference is becoming a well thought out yet failing cliche, that will loose with sense of objectivity that it has so far retained as a workable model

What is implied exactly?

And that's just the point, justification of controlling to wide an array of innuendo, undermines long term and riskily uncertain objectives. These may have been colluded with or rather, conflated with more certain simulated scenarios.

This difference is,,,, an example of non intended but implicated festivity, of clarity, which a more recent partially derived context was programmed to receive.

Where is the innuendo and partially derived context? What does any of this mean in regard to the invariable law that moves us in the direction of "greater satisfaction?"

Here then admittedly, I am sunk into the mire, as everyone else, everybody else is.

Greteful for that reduction/ so as not to appear as though it was intentionally left out, or redacted.

The innuendo derived from partially derived contextual qualifiers, and the mire consists more from a lack of understanding how this knowledge was acquired, rather then through demonstration.

A hypothetical , generally more figurative way of dealing with the necessity of demonstrating through self valuations. ( at least, as oreceptuons and innuendos go)

This knowledge was acquired through astute observation (of human behavior) and epistemic reasoning. I hope you give it a chance.

[Artimas]

So I have something for ya.

So if determinism exists without an aspect of the will to which it is free, then how can there be anything at all from cause and effect pre-life if no satisfaction is involved? If you state that it is the motivator for existence and cause and effect (determinism). There was a point in time where there was no satisfaction. Which I call it the natural selection of natural selection. So how can there be a natural selection for life of which you deem as determinism in direction of greater satisfaction solely without the natural selection existing before it that did not have any motivator of satisfaction, at all?

See how your card tower falls down yet?

If you say there was no satisfaction, then you openly admit that you have been wrong in what you have been claiming here, if you say there is greater satisfaction still even then, then you admit to there being a higher being of which this satisfaction exists for and in order for determinism to function. So which is it?

Determinism doesn't work based off of satisfaction. It works based off of trial and error, natural selection, which believing life is about greater satisfaction and only for that with no free will over cause and effect to use it, you become the error by being trapped in comfort and weakened, no adaptation.

If you state that it is because there was no will/consciousness before life then that shows that consciousness is freedom and there is an obvious differentiation, which there is but if you say that there was still a will, then you admit defeat by the obvious proof of there being no greater satisfaction pre-life.

All matter is alive, just at different levels of consciousness.

Good discussion.

[surreptitious75]

You are making so many assumptions here based on absolutely no evidence at all - how do you know people will not desire to hurt anyone in the future ?
How do you know there will be no justification for it ? How do you know people will be more free than ever ? Can you prove these statements are true ?

But there IS evidence. Do you understand why mans will is not free ? Do you understand that nothing can make a person do what they make up their mind not to do ? That is the first step. If we cant get beyond that I cant get further. Furthermore if you are looking for data from a hypothesis you wont find it here but that does not mean his observations and reasoning were flawed in any way

I am compelled to suggest that you will not be able to move beyond this with her unless nature compels her to be moved beyond making these incredible statements predicated solely on the political prejudices that the author was compelled by nature to think are true in his head

One can always learn from another even if beyond a certain point discourse can no longer advance. The absolute certainty which comes from blind faith is a very fascinating topic in and of itself and arguably presents itself above. I say arguably because it does at least contain some degree of internal consistency even if the central premise cannot be demonstrated. Not holding on too rigidly to any perspective though is more beneficial because a ] the one which is being held might be wrong and b ] it is good to expose oneself to alternative ones because that is how an open mind actually functions

I have noticed peacegirl say that she has no problem with valid criticism but she appears to instinctively reject all of it irrespective of how valid it may be
The modus operandi it seems therefore is to present the premise in absolute terms and so sell it as a moral truth rather than critically assess it in any way

[peacegirl]

So I have something for ya.

So if determinism exists without an aspect of the will to which it is free, then how can there be anything at all from cause and effect pre-life if no satisfaction is involved? If you state that it is the motivator for existence and cause and effect (determinism). There was a point in time where there was no satisfaction. Which I call it the natural selection of natural selection. So how can there be a natural selection for life of which you deem as determinism in direction of greater satisfaction solely without the natural selection existing before it that did not have any motivator of satisfaction, at all?

See how your card tower falls down yet?

It didn't fall. Forget the word satisfaction. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. Just because many of these processes don't involve conscious thought does not mean that life does not move in a direction that sustains it. This movement therefore must, out of necessity, go in a direction that is away from anything that would be harmful to it.

If you say there was no satisfaction, then you openly admit that you have been wrong in what you have been claiming here, if you say there is greater satisfaction still even then, then you admit to there being a higher being of which this satisfaction exists for and in order for determinism to function. So which is it?

Determinism doesn't work based off of satisfaction. It works based off of trial and error, natural selection, which believing life is about greater satisfaction and only for that with no free will over cause and effect to use it, you become the error by being trapped in comfort and weakened, no adaptation.

The word satisfaction and dissatisfaction are words that approximate what is going on in reality. We aren't conscious of this movement either, but it's embedded in every meaningful choice we make. Animals don't think consciously when they move from one spot to another, but they are also moving away from a position that is not satisfying to a position that is more satisfying.

If you state that it is because there was no will/consciousness before life then that shows that consciousness is freedom and there is an obvious differentiation, which there is but if you say that there was still a will, then you admit defeat by the obvious proof of there being no greater satisfaction pre-life.

All matter is alive, just at different levels of consciousness.

Good discussion.

Again, all these processes are not free in any way. Plants grow, flowers bloom, etc. all under the control of deterministic processes, and although they don't get to choose between options and we do this choosing does not in any way change the direction we are compelled to go.

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.

[Artimas]

So I have something for ya.

So if determinism exists without an aspect of the will to which it is free, then how can there be anything at all from cause and effect pre-life if no satisfaction is involved? If you state that it is the motivator for existence and cause and effect (determinism). There was a point in time where there was no satisfaction. Which I call it the natural selection of natural selection. So how can there be a natural selection for life of which you deem as determinism in direction of greater satisfaction solely without the natural selection existing before it that did not have any motivator of satisfaction, at all?

See how your card tower falls down yet?

It didn't fall. Forget the word satisfaction. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. Just because many of these processes don't involve conscious thought does not mean that life does not move in a direction that sustains it. This movement therefore must, out of necessity, go in a direction that is away from anything that would be harmful to it.

If you say there was no satisfaction, then you openly admit that you have been wrong in what you have been claiming here, if you say there is greater satisfaction still even then, then you admit to there being a higher being of which this satisfaction exists for and in order for determinism to function. So which is it?

Determinism doesn't work based off of satisfaction. It works based off of trial and error, natural selection, which believing life is about greater satisfaction and only for that with no free will over cause and effect to use it, you become the error by being trapped in comfort and weakened, no adaptation.

The word satisfaction and dissatisfaction are words that approximate what is going on in reality. We aren't conscious of this movement either, but it's embedded in every meaningful choice we make. Animals don't think consciously when they move from one spot to another, but they are also moving away from a position that is not satisfying to a position that is more satisfying.

If you state that it is because there was no will/consciousness before life then that shows that consciousness is freedom and there is an obvious differentiation, which there is but if you say that there was still a will, then you admit defeat by the obvious proof of there being no greater satisfaction pre-life.

All matter is alive, just at different levels of consciousness.

Good discussion.

Again, all these processes are not free in any way. Plants grow, flowers bloom, etc. all under the control of deterministic processes, and although they don't get to choose between options and we do this choosing does not in any way change the direction we are compelled to go.

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.

Does that self preservation include before life? And does it include greater satisfaction? If we come from it, where there was no direction for and in greater satisfaction, then that should show you it's not a sound argument. Creations or manifestations are similar to that of which they come from. Self preservation isn't greater satisfaction, it's necessity. There's a difference, which I already have shown.
What was harmful to pre-life existence? And what direction would it go in if there was no harm or satisfaction and how? Necessity.

How did we get here from it without those two aspects of 'pain and gain' yet we life are supposedly the epitome of movement toward direction of greater satisfaction? When we manifest from something without it? Satisfaction is merely a byproduct of necessity, not the ultimate goal/direction of choice and will.


What if you became conscious of that supposed movement then? I don't think that is the case all the time, especially not for humans who are steps ahead in consciousness in terms of choice and thought, especially thought, should be apparent.

You say a free will has nothing to do with choice, yet you just used your example with choice. Satisfaction comes from choice. Not choice from satisfaction.

"Animals don't think consciously when they move from one spot to another"

Then they do not have a will of which is free. "Animals don't think consciously"

We think consciously of such and the unconscious/subconscious can surface to the conscious mind, this is what we call, know thyself and reflection from spiritual practice.


So then we're all just on the same level of will then, there is no higher or lower, even if I can clearly see that there is. This is what you're saying, by stating all processes are not free in any way. We aren't compelled to move toward satisfaction, it's usually necessity in self preservation and the opposite can occur as well consciously, of self preservation, with which your model in place that is 'greater satisfaction' is self destruction, that same very first opposite... I'm free to go to the bathroom on a commode instead of outside and wiping my ass on the ground.. It seems as if you call the free aspect of will, "satisfaction" it's not really for satisfaction, its common sense and necessity. Semantics. If you state it's in my greater satisfaction to use the commode instead of outside I just have to respond with, what kind of idiot would want to wipe their ass on the ground when we invented, from a free will mind you, the commode. It's literal common sense and necessity. It's the contextual freedoms that cause the will to be free in different ways in different contexts.

The choosing is the only way to move in any direction, so I'm not quite sure what you mean when you said it doesn't have to do with the will being free. The freedom is the availability of options... Our choice of one is our own free choice out of that availability. It's about self discovery. Free to discover self, to align.

[Arcturus Descending]

peacegirl,

Thanks for the reminder to smell the flowers!

So have you as of yet?!

This is the problem sharing a discovery in a forum like this because so much is being left out.

What kind of a forum might be better suited for this discovery?
Well then, it is the responsibility and the obligation of the writer to spell it all out and to be exact -- right?

...because so much is being left out.

At first I thought that perhaps you meant so much that the writer had put into it being left out but perhaps you meant what Isaac Asimov said. It does not matter, whether science or philosophy, it is about the discovery of truth and knowledge.


“A number of years ago, when I was a freshly-appointed instructor, I met, for the first time, a certain eminent historian of science. At the time I could only regard him with tolerant condescension.

I was sorry of the man who, it seemed to me, was forced to hover about the edges of science. He was compelled to shiver endlessly in the outskirts, getting only feeble warmth from the distant sun of science- in-progress; while I, just beginning my research, was bathed in the heady liquid heat up at the very center of the glow.

In a lifetime of being wrong at many a point, I was never more wrong. It was I, not he, who was wandering in the periphery. It was he, not I, who lived in the blaze.

I had fallen victim to the fallacy of the 'growing edge;' the belief that only the very frontier of scientific advance counted; that everything that had been left behind by that advance was faded and dead.

But is that true? Because a tree in spring buds and comes greenly into leaf, are those leaves therefore the tree? If the newborn twigs and their leaves were all that existed, they would form a vague halo of green suspended in mid-air, but surely that is not the tree. The leaves, by themselves, are no more than trivial fluttering decoration. It is the trunk and limbs that give the tree its grandeur and the leaves themselves their meaning.

There is not a discovery in science, however revolutionary, however sparkling with insight, that does not arise out of what went before. 'If I have seen further than other men,' said Isaac Newton, 'it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.”
― Isaac Asimov, Adding a Dimension: Seventeen Essays on the History of Science



“The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.”
Marcel Proust

Do you think a discovery of this magnitude can be determined to be genuine without a thorough investigation which has never happened?

What to you determines a thorough investigation and how will you know when the investigation is complete?

If the "thorough investigation has never happened, then why not call the discovery an hypothesis or a theory? Why take an absolutist position? What is it that Jung has stated: "Truth needs the concert of many voices." though I am not so sure that that is true in light of much that has happened in human history due to so-called truth.

You are making a distinction between individuals who could not do harm, and those who could.

I think that under a particular set of circumstances every human being might be capable of doing harm and great harm. The thing which might stop them is the fact that they realize what they are capable of.
Know Thyself!

As I said earlier, the individuals you are alluding to may have a severed conscience. In that case, they may need to be institutionalized just like a mad dog would. But these individuals are a small percentage of the population.

True.

Most run of the mill criminals are not psychopaths or sociopaths but are willing to take advantage of others, or even kill, in order to get what they want. Under the changed conditions they would not find it alluring to do anything that could hurt others, that's just the point.

This IS a one size fits all in the sense that under the changed environment, no one (barring the extremely mentally ill; the mad dogs) would desire to strike a first blow (an unprovoked hurt to others) as a preferable choice. This is not a slippery slope although he was not suggesting to suddenly stop blaming which could cause more harm than good.

What changed conditions?


Flowers...

[Meno_]

Back from exhaustive duties.

With help from Your kind reductive cooperation I am prepared in the most simple way of demonstrating the appearance of the submerged contraidication.
Using that word insreasnofnxontradiction because it expresses more dynamic flow.

Its like a musical piece in two keys, and here my premise is not without tangent cause calculus was discovered on a musical theme.

The tangent source is so belabored that it really WAS an act of inspiration that the derivation was noticed. Or was like discovering of a different rising from musical and mathematical plumbers. The coincidence was exquisite.

On one andntje minor premise.
Then will to make a choice, regardless of the quantifiable power to do so and the availability of it, is nwbwr apparently a matter of predicated or determined process, or partly so, because itnosnpart of it, and independent of it simultaneously.
The simultainity offers a glimpse of its collusive nature, nature was able to collude its conscious and it's dreamlike processes , intentionally and without reason at the same time.
That flows into the major premise, and here we see the contradiction building up a bubble, of awareness into it.

The bubble does burst at times, like when a thetic reasonalisation comes to light that sometime in the near infinite future , the earth will die, and Her death will either be out the natural realm of the process of evolution, or, that otnisnwithin it, however there is an endless cycle of reaffirmation and transcendence going on, which is able to overcome even the end.

Merely the major theme in the Copernicism which put an end to the limit as a function of perception.

This is no mere subjective perception of existential angst, as interpreted as the end of things, it is a reconfirmation of eternity based on what is an under lying major objective of Natural Process.

The minor key them become a tangential by moving toward the major, and , realizing within Its Self that the freedom to will, is a necessary part that has to be re-integrated partially into human nature, for it to enable IT to evolve it's self conscious state, and become noted and self aware .

Hence the creation of anti logic itself flows from this, and life becomes not merely a dream, but the creation of self analysis through existence , as well.
The Dasain becomes at rest at times , not because it"s exhausted ( of power),but it needs the companionship of the existential connextion the It's self as the function through which , it can apprehend it'self.
The moment of tangential touch, through this function, it reintegrated It-self into an appearent unity
and knows that though his will was satisfactorily applied as his only best choice, the connection to the requirements of Being, becomes, became , a universally binding ideal.

[Meno_]

Acrcturus: Apologise for posting the above and giving the impression of pre tempting, but we wrote approximately in simultainity, and I just had.to write it down, or in would have lost it.

If I require forgiveness, please grant it, never the less.

[Artimas]

I just have to say that's a good quote, Arc. Thanks for posting it and good seeing you again.

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.”
Marcel Proust

[peacegirl]

You are making so many assumptions here based on absolutely no evidence at all - how do you know people will not desire to hurt anyone in the future ?
How do you know there will be no justification for it ? How do you know people will be more free than ever ? Can you prove these statements are true ?

But there IS evidence. Do you understand why mans will is not free ? Do you understand that nothing can make a person do what they make up their mind not to do ? That is the first step. If we cant get beyond that I cant get further. Furthermore if you are looking for data from a hypothesis you wont find it here but that does not mean his observations and reasoning were flawed in any way

I am compelled to suggest that you will not be able to move beyond this with her unless nature compels her to be moved beyond making these incredible statements predicated solely on the political prejudices that the author was compelled by nature to think are true in his head

One can always learn from another even if beyond a certain point discourse can no longer advance. The absolute certainty which comes from blind faith is a very fascinating topic in and of itself and arguably presents itself above. I say arguably because it does at least contain some degree of internal consistency even if the central premise cannot be demonstrated. Not holding on too rigidly to any perspective though is more beneficial because a ] the one which is being held might be wrong and b ] it is good to expose oneself to alternative ones because that is how an open mind actually functions

I have noticed peacegirl say that she has no problem with valid criticism but she appears to instinctively reject all of it irrespective of how valid it may be
The modus operandi it seems therefore is to present the premise in absolute terms and so sell it as a moral truth rather than critically assess it in any way

So what you're saying is not only do I need to accept criticism, but I need to accept the criticism even if it is not valid. There is no MO, just a clear demonstration. The fact that will is not free is absolute. It has nothing to do with moral truth. I have critically assessed the arguments, so please don't say I haven't. Is there a possibility that this discovery could be right? You are assuming that this can't be true.

[peacegirl]

So I have something for ya.

So if determinism exists without an aspect of the will to which it is free, then how can there be anything at all from cause and effect pre-life if no satisfaction is involved? If you state that it is the motivator for existence and cause and effect (determinism). There was a point in time where there was no satisfaction. Which I call it the natural selection of natural selection. So how can there be a natural selection for life of which you deem as determinism in direction of greater satisfaction solely without the natural selection existing before it that did not have any motivator of satisfaction, at all?

See how your card tower falls down yet?

It didn't fall. Forget the word satisfaction. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. Just because many of these processes don't involve conscious thought does not mean that life does not move in a direction that sustains it. This movement therefore must, out of necessity, go in a direction that is away from anything that would be harmful to it.

If you say there was no satisfaction, then you openly admit that you have been wrong in what you have been claiming here, if you say there is greater satisfaction still even then, then you admit to there being a higher being of which this satisfaction exists for and in order for determinism to function. So which is it?

Determinism doesn't work based off of satisfaction. It works based off of trial and error, natural selection, which believing life is about greater satisfaction and only for that with no free will over cause and effect to use it, you become the error by being trapped in comfort and weakened, no adaptation.

The word satisfaction and dissatisfaction are words that approximate what is going on in reality. We aren't always conscious of this movement (we don't say to ourselves "am I satisfied with this choice over that one", but it's embedded in every meaningful choice we make. Animals don't think consciously when they move from one spot to another, but they are also moving away from a position that is not satisfying to a position that is more satisfying.

If you state that it is because there was no will/consciousness before life then that shows that consciousness is freedom and there is an obvious differentiation, which there is but if you say that there was still a will, then you admit defeat by the obvious proof of there being no greater satisfaction pre-life.

All matter is alive, just at different levels of consciousness.

Good discussion.

Again, all these processes are not free in any way. Plants grow, flowers bloom, etc. all under the control of deterministic processes, and although they don't get to choose between options, and we do, this choosing does not in any way change the direction we are compelled to go.

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.

Does that self preservation include before life? And does it include greater satisfaction? If we come from it, where there was no direction for and in greater satisfaction, then that should show you it's not a sound argument. Creations or manifestations are similar to that of which they come from. Self preservation isn't greater satisfaction, it's necessity. There's a difference, which I already have shown.
What was harmful to pre-life existence? And what direction would it go in if there was no harm or satisfaction and how? Necessity.

What gives a person greater satisfaction is usually tied to self-preservation, but not always. Sadly, there are times, given a person's circumstances, that he doesn't want to self-preserve and that's when suicide becomes the better option but still in the direction of greater satisfaction.

How did we get here from it without those two aspects of 'pain and gain' yet we life are supposedly the epitome of movement toward direction of greater satisfaction? When we manifest from something without it? Satisfaction is merely a byproduct of necessity, not the ultimate goal/direction of choice and will.

You are defining satisfaction not in the way I'm using it. It's not a goal. It's not about pain to gain. I am not satisfied with a lot of things, but that is a different definition than how I'm using it here, just like the word free is being used to mean something entirely different than freedom of the will. It's a language problem that is causing this mess.

What if you became conscious of that supposed movement then? I don't think that is the case all the time, especially not for humans who are steps ahead in consciousness in terms of choice and thought, especially thought, should be apparent.

Some people are not as thoughtful or contemplative as others. All of this is just a manifestation of their background, their heredity and their immediate experiences. We move in the direction of greater satisfaction every moment of our lives. No one is ahead of anyone else in terms of this movement although we all have different upbringing, different ways of thinking based on what we have been taught, and different personalities. This leads us to having different preferences.

You say a free will has nothing to do with choice, yet you just used your example with choice. Satisfaction comes from choice. Not choice from satisfaction.

I have said over and over that it's fine to say I had a free choice if it means there was nothing external constraining you, but you are constrained internally by the fact that you cannot choose an option that is less satisfying when a better option is available. It is false to think that most options being carefully considered are of equal value, and even if they are, that only means it's like choosing A or A. It has no meaningful difference so either one can be chosen such as vanilla ice cream or strawberry ice cream. Sometimes a thought will enter one's mind that will tip the scale in favor of one or the other. For example, I'm almost out of strawberry ice cream and I know that my husband likes it, so that will help me make my decision to choose the vanilla. See what I mean?

"Animals don't think consciously when they move from one spot to another"

That is true but just as their heart beats, which is done without conscious control, here too, animals just follow their instinct moving from one spot to another when the urge hits them. I see birds pruning themselves on a branch when suddenly they stop and fly away. As it relates to this discussion, if they were satisfied to continue pruning themselves, they would have stayed on the branch and never have flown away. Then, when they are ready to perch themselves on a branch and are tired of flying, that is what they are compelled to do by their very nature.

Then they do not have a will of which is free. "Animals don't think consciously"

We think consciously of such and the unconscious/subconscious can surface to the conscious mind, this is what we call, know thyself and reflection from spiritual practice.

Animal's brains are not the same as humans. Spiritual practice might be something a person might try (in the direction of greater satisfaction) after learning that it could help bring the unconscious to the surface and help him to know himself. Where is the conflict?

So then we're all just on the same level of will then, there is no higher or lower, even if I can clearly see that there is.

I never said that people are on the same level intellectually or spiritually.

This is what you're saying, by stating all processes are not free in any way. We aren't compelled to move toward satisfaction, it's usually necessity in self preservation and the opposite can occur as well consciously, of self preservation, with which your model in place that is 'greater satisfaction' is self destruction, that same very first opposite... I'm free to go to the bathroom on a commode instead of outside and wiping my ass on the ground.. It seems as if you call the free aspect of will, "satisfaction" it's not really for satisfaction, its common sense and necessity. Semantics. If you state it's in my greater satisfaction to use the commode instead of outside I just have to respond with, what kind of idiot would want to wipe their ass on the ground when we invented, from a free will mind you, the commode. It's literal common sense and necessity. It's the contextual freedoms that cause the will to be free in different ways in different contexts.

Artimas, I am stating a simple concept. You are adding lots of stuff to it that doesn't belong --- due to semantics. Greater satisfaction can lead to destruction if a person only has a choice between the lesser of two evils. We know that. This discovery can create the kind of environment where everyone will have an opportunity to choose between the greater of two goods. Common sense usually occurs when people see the sense in what is common, which means that most people would go to the commode. For what reason would they choose to wipe their ass on the ground unless there are reasons we are unaware of. That's the issue. We often judge other people's choices without knowing the reasoning behind their choices, and then we judge them when they don't meet our standards. Could it be that the commode was dirty and this person was afraid of contracting a disease? Could it be that this person was allergic to the toilet paper and he already had a rash that was causing him pain? I'm just following your example.

The choosing is the only way to move in any direction, so I'm not quite sure what you mean when you said it doesn't have to do with the will being free. The freedom is the availability of options... Our choice of one is our own free choice out of that availability. It's about self discovery. Free to discover self, to align.

Yes, the freedom is the availability of options, but that does not grant man freedom of the will, which is not the same thing. Free to discovery self is available only if someone sees that as an option and desires it. There is no conflict here.

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. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control.

[peacegirl]

Back from exhaustive duties.

With help from Your kind reductive cooperation I am prepared in the most simple way of demonstrating the appearance of the submerged contraidication.
Using that word insreasnofnxontradiction because it expresses more dynamic flow.

Its like a musical piece in two keys, and here my premise is not without tangent cause calculus was discovered on a musical theme.

The tangent source is so belabored that it really WAS an act of inspiration that the derivation was noticed. Or was like discovering of a different rising from musical and mathematical plumbers. The coincidence was exquisite.

On one andntje minor premise.
Then will to make a choice, regardless of the quantifiable power to do so and the availability of it, is nwbwr apparently a matter of predicated or determined process, or partly so, because itnosnpart of it, and independent of it simultaneously.
The simultainity offers a glimpse of its collusive nature, nature was able to collude its conscious and it's dreamlike processes , intentionally and without reason at the same time.
That flows into the major premise, and here we see the contradiction building up a bubble, of awareness into it.

The bubble does burst at times, like when a thetic reasonalisation comes to light that sometime in the near infinite future , the earth will die, and Her death will either be out the natural realm of the process of evolution, or, that otnisnwithin it, however there is an endless cycle of reaffirmation and transcendence going on, which is able to overcome even the end.

Merely the major theme in the Copernicism which put an end to the limit as a function of perception.

This is no mere subjective perception of existential angst, as interpreted as the end of things, it is a reconfirmation of eternity based on what is an under lying major objective of Natural Process.

The minor key them become a tangential by moving toward the major, and , realizing within Its Self that the freedom to will, is a necessary part that has to be re-integrated partially into human nature, for it to enable IT to evolve it's self conscious state, and become noted and self aware .

Hence the creation of anti logic itself flows from this, and life becomes not merely a dream, but the creation of self analysis through existence , as well.
The Dasain becomes at rest at times , not because it"s exhausted ( of power),but it needs the companionship of the existential connextion the It's self as the function through which , it can apprehend it'self.
The moment of tangential touch, through this function, it reintegrated It-self into an appearent unity
and knows that though his will was satisfactorily applied as his only best choice, the connection to the requirements of Being, becomes, became , a universally binding ideal.

Someone else will have to translate for me because your writing can be understood only by those who are well versed in this philosophical language. My ignorance of your logic does not translate to ignorance of this discovery. For example, I don't need to understand someone's reasoning that one plus one is eleven, to know that one plus one is two. Please point out where you prove that we do not move away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, because that is what is at issue here.

On one andntje minor premise.
Then will to make a choice, regardless of the quantifiable power to do so and the availability of it, is nwbwr apparently a matter of predicated or determined process, or partly so, because itnosnpart of it, and independent of it simultaneously.

We have the will to make a choice, and it's not a determined process in the sense that the choice is already fated or prescribed in advance. This is the way determinism has been defined, which is lacking in accuracy.