peacegirl wrote:Meno_ wrote: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.meno wrote: 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.
iambiguous wrote:I am compelled to suggest that you will not be able to move beyond this with [peacegirl] 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
surreptitious75 wrote: One can always learn from another even if beyond a certain point discourse can no longer advance.
surreptitious75 wrote: 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.
Freegirl wrote: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.
iambiguous wrote:iambiguous wrote:I am compelled to suggest that you will not be able to move beyond this with [peacegirl] 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 headsurreptitious75 wrote: One can always learn from another even if beyond a certain point discourse can no longer advance.
True enough. And I would never argue that peacegirl's argument is inferior to my own. Not in the sense that I can actually demonstrate it.
My point is only to suggest that from my perspective, her perspective is rooted more in this -- viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 -- than in that which some might construe to be a more rigorous philosophical/scientific examination of the issue.
In my opinion, it is that she believes something in and of itself that allows her to anchor "I" to/in a more comforting and consoling outlook on life. Both regarding here and now and in her case the future.
But, again, I base this only on my own subjective experience with those I deem to be objectivist thinkers. I'm certainly not arguing that, based on different sets of assumptions, there are not other ways to think about it. Or other conclusions to be drawn.surreptitious75 wrote: 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 basically agree. But the complexities that revolve around individual motivation and intention here are always going to be beyond the capacity of anyone to really fathom. And thus to pin down. And about themselves as much as others.
There are just too many factors and variables in our life that predispose us to go in many different directions. Can we ever really grapple with them beyond a certain degree? For example, variables from our childhood alone that were either beyond our control or are now beyond that which we can even remember. People and experiences buried in our minds that now propel our behaviors largely subconsciously and unconsciously.
And that is assuming that "I" does in fact have some measure of autonomous control over the choices that are made. On the other hand, in a determined world [as I understand it], that would seem to reconfigure the psychological illusion of "free will" in the "choices" we make, into the imperatives of nature itself. We "choose" only that which we were never able to actually choose of our own volition.
Still, I have absolutely no capacity to demonstrate this as either one way or the other.
But: how comforting and consoling can that be, right?
Arcturus Descending wrote: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.
Arcturus Descending wrote: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.
Arcturus Descending wrote: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.
Arcturus Descending wrote:“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
Arcturus Descending wrote:“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?
Arcturus Descending wrote:What to you determines a thorough investigation and how will you know when the investigation is complete?
Arcturus Descending wrote: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 so-called truth.
You are making a distinction between individuals who could not do harm, and those who could.
Arcturus Descending wrote: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.
Arcturus Descending wrote: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.
Arcturus Descending wrote:What changed conditions?
Flowers...
Meno_ wrote:Do you think the need to institutionalized means a return to the anonymity of the institutionalized ref. to it's authority, rather than the studies done on those who've who'se institutionalization is measured on opinion . let's say of Szasz's ?
Or is that still a behavioral/genetic controversy? And if it is, can it be hoped that the middle ground has already been attained? (Albiet bounderly -as merely by standards set bas borderline ? And as ascribed as a socially determined expectation compressed compressed by societal determinations?
peacegirl wrote:Meno_ wrote:Do you think the need to institutionalized means a return to the anonymity of the institutionalized ref. to it's authority, rather than the studies done on those who've who'se institutionalization is measured on opinion . let's say of Szasz's ?
Or is that still a behavioral/genetic controversy? And if it is, can it be hoped that the middle ground has already been attained? (Albiet bounderly -as merely by standards set bas borderline ? And as ascribed as a socially determined expectation compressed compressed by societal determinations?
Meno_ wrote:peacegirl wrote:Meno_ wrote:Do you think the need to institutionalized means a return to the anonymity of the institutionalized ref. to it's authority, rather than the studies done on those who've who'se institutionalization is measured on opinion . let's say of Szasz's ?
Or is that still a behavioral/genetic controversy? And if it is, can it be hoped that the middle ground has already been attained? (Albiet bounderly -as merely by standards set bas borderline ? And as ascribed as a socially determined expectation compressed compressed by societal determinations?
As the transition from one world to the other is taking place there may be people who cannot control their impulses since their conscience has been severed. As a new generation is born into the new world, mental illness that leads to psychopathic behavior will be virtually wiped out. There may some individuals that are more prone to aggression genetically, but these aggressions will not be expressed when the triggers that activate them are gone. There may also be some opinion as to whether an individual who is already incarcerated could be released, given the type of crime he was engaged in. Remember, all of these societal determinations will continue until the transition comes to completion. Most professional criminals have a conscience that will control their behavior under the changed environmental conditions. Right now their conscience is at a 4 which is not enough to deter their criminal activities, but eventually their conscience will grow to a 10 which will be more than enough to deter any behavior that takes advantage or hurts another.
Meno wrote:I get that as.an ideal.paradigm, based on the above noted idea , however what of those who according their expressed testimony showing that they , may prefer incertification / incarceration to freedom, based on having been less stress inducing to be institutionalised then be out?
And whereof their conscience 's development originates from, this subversive feeling or rationale?
Are partially differentiated clues testaments not prevy to any assumptions of the sort?
Arcturus Descending wrote:peacegirl,
The below words are yours not Durant's right?
Meno_ wrote:Ok, Lessan. After all this has been satisfactorily found.
At the same time , the author's interpretation is only one of many other philosophical treatises, and the idea of responsibility for one's actions becomes a.paramount consideration in relating to his idea of applying , as.to the last man dealing with how he handles all the accumulated knowledge , which hypothetically landed him in the position of having to interpret and then male a choice for his actions.
So the problem of resting here is still outstanding , and prevy to the same reoccurring problems that were present at the beginning of the cycle , from cave man up.
What cicilization has done is to bring awareness so much nearer to the precipice.
peacegirl wrote:Meno_ wrote:Ok, Lessan. After all this has been satisfactorily found.
At the same time , the author's interpretation is only one of many other philosophical treatises, and the idea of responsibility for one's actions becomes a.paramount consideration in relating to his idea of applying , as.to the last man dealing with how he handles all the accumulated knowledge , which hypothetically landed him in the position of having to interpret and then male a choice for his actions.
So the problem of resting here is still outstanding , and prevy to the same reoccurring problems that were present at the beginning of the cycle , from cave man up.
What cicilization has done is to bring awareness so much nearer to the precipice.
The responsibility for one's actions becomes of paramount importance in regard to the application of these principles. The change from a free will (blame filled) environment to a no free will (blame free) environment (of which there is no precedent), stops whatever accumulated knowledge led this person to hurting others in its tracks. The person cannot do what he did previously under these conditions. Civilization has done much to help prevent crime, hatred, war, and poverty, but now we are at the precipice. Let's not lose this opportunity just because many believe it can't be done.
Meno_ wrote:peacegirl wrote:Meno_ wrote:Ok, Lessan. After all this has been satisfactorily found.
At the same time , the author's interpretation is only one of many other philosophical treatises, and the idea of responsibility for one's actions becomes a.paramount consideration in relating to his idea of applying , as.to the last man dealing with how he handles all the accumulated knowledge , which hypothetically landed him in the position of having to interpret and then male a choice for his actions.
So the problem of resting here is still outstanding , and prevy to the same reoccurring problems that were present at the beginning of the cycle , from cave man up.
What cicilization has done is to bring awareness so much nearer to the precipice.
The responsibility for one's actions becomes of paramount importance in regard to the application of these principles. The change from a free will (blame filled) environment to a no free will (blame free) environment (of which there is no precedent), stops whatever accumulated knowledge led this person to hurting others in its tracks. The person cannot do what he did previously under these conditions. Civilization has done much to help prevent crime, hatred, war, and poverty, but now we are at the precipice. Let's not lose this opportunity just because many believe it can't be done.
[/quote]Meno wrote:Right, but, taking the last man argument and the prisoner's dilemma in conjunction to necessity, it is not ascertained that ( and this is only for the sake of argument) the progression of knowledge to the last man, will consist of the most agreeable decision.
There can not be agreement by a solitary figure, however much useful information has been acquired.
The last man in his prison cell is prone to base his nest last argument not in terms of an objective way to solve his predicament, but on a differing one, namely having to make a choice of the very earliest argumentative type of understanding: in or out, a solitary quest between staying within the confines of his own barbaric feelings about containment or abandonment.
That is how his final responsibility introduced intontje realm of the unanswered question: either stay in or go out.
Reductionism and simplification, deconstruction, have signed , sealed , and delivered this ultimatum, and there may not be a single , unified authority to deliver the message singularly.
Time is of the essence , to go back to the arliest possible recycle, and change things there, and not leave it on the hands, of a single authority whose main concern is one to do with guilt / lack of responsibility. For that is what reduction entails: into a participation mystique of tribal organization.
peacegirl wrote:surreptitious75 wrote:
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 dont say I havent. Is there a possibility that this discovery could be right ? You are assuming that this cant be true
surreptitious75 wrote:peacegirl wrote:surreptitious75 wrote:
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 dont say I havent. Is there a possibility that this discovery could be right ? You are assuming that this cant be truesurreptitious75 wrote:Not all criticism will be invalid and it is this that you should be paying attention to. You claim a clear demonstration but it is unfortunately only clear to you
How could it have been a clear demonstration surreptitious75 when I never got to Chapter Two.surreptitious75 wrote: - which means either you are wrong or you are not being clear enough in explaining your philosophy [ for want of a better word ] I actually have no idea if your discovery is right or wrong because that is only something that can become known in time.
If the premises are correct, the outcome will be a safer world even though it isn't here yet, just as the person who formulated how to build a bridge knows that the bridge will be able to carry a certain amount of weight (due to his accurate mathematical formulation) even though it hasn't been built yet. The same can be said for mathematical calculations as to how to land men on the moon, and many others that first started out with an equation. Do you think they weren't absolutely sure, based on their calculations, that the astronauts would land the moon (barring anything unforeseen) or do you think it was just hit or miss? Not knowing whether this discovery (not my discovery) is right or wrong just because it hasn't been actualized yet is an invalid statement due to skepticism, not accuracy. If you think this is all in the author's head, and there's nothing to it, no one is forcing you to be here. I wouldn't hang around if I didn't think for a second that there was any value to being here. My time is too precious.surreptitious75 wrote:And so your absolute certainty that it is is not something that you can know for sure This demonstrates beyond all doubt that you are not as critical as you should be. You cannot know the future though you can fool yourself into thinking that you do
Peacegirl wrote:peacegirl wrote:Meno_ wrote:Ok, Lessan. After all this has been satisfactorily found.
At the same time , the author's interpretation is only one of many other philosophical treatises, and the idea of responsibility for one's actions becomes a.paramount consideration in relating to his idea of applying , as.to the last man dealing with how he handles all the accumulated knowledge , which hypothetically landed him in the position of having to interpret and then male a choice for his actions.
So the problem of resting here is still outstanding , and prevy to the same reoccurring problems that were present at the beginning of the cycle , from cave man up.
What cicilization has done is to bring awareness so much nearer to the precipice.
The responsibility for one's actions becomes of paramount importance in regard to the application of these principles. The change from a free will (blame filled) environment to a no free will (blame free) environment (of which there is no precedent), stops whatever accumulated knowledge led this person to hurting others in its tracks. The person cannot do what he did previously under these conditions. Civilization has done much to help prevent crime, hatred, war, and poverty, but now we are at the precipice. Let's not lose this opportunity just because many believe it can't be done.
[/quote]Meno wrote:Right, but, taking the last man argument and the prisoner's dilemma in conjunction to necessity, it is not ascertained that ( and this is only for the sake of argument) the progression of knowledge to the last man, will consist of the most agreeable decision.
There can not be agreement by a solitary figure, however much useful information has been acquired.
The last man in his prison cell is prone to base his nest last argument not in terms of an objective way to solve his predicament, but on a differing one, namely having to make a choice of the very earliest argumentative type of understanding: in or out, a solitary quest between staying within the confines of his own barbaric feelings about containment or abandonment.
That is how his final responsibility introduced into the realm of the unanswered question: either stay in or go out.
Reductionism and simplification, deconstruction, have signed , sealed , and delivered this ultimatum, and there may not be a single , unified authority to deliver the message singularly.
Time is of the essence , to go back to the earliest possible recycle, and change things there, and not leave it on the hands, of a single authority whose main concern is one to do with guilt / lack of responsibility. For that is what reduction entails: into a participation mystique of tribal organization.
Peacegirl wrote:peacegirl wrote:Meno_ wrote:Ok, Lessan. After all this has been satisfactorily found.
At the same time , the author's interpretation is only one of many other philosophical treatises, and the idea of responsibility for one's actions becomes a.paramount consideration in relating to his idea of applying , as.to the last man dealing with how he handles all the accumulated knowledge , which hypothetically landed him in the position of having to interpret and then male a choice for his actions.
So the problem of resting here is still outstanding , and prevy to the same reoccurring problems that were present at the beginning of the cycle , from cave man up.
What cicilization has done is to bring awareness so much nearer to the precipice.
The responsibility for one's actions becomes of paramount importance in regard to the application of these principles. The change from a free will (blame filled) environment to a no free will (blame free) environment (of which there is no precedent), stops whatever accumulated knowledge led this person to hurting others in its tracks. The person cannot do what he did previously under these conditions. Civilization has done much to help prevent crime, hatred, war, and poverty, but now we are at the precipice. Let's not lose this opportunity just because many believe it can't be done.
Meno wrote:Right, but, taking the last man argument and the prisoner's dilemma in conjunction to necessity, it is not ascertained that ( and this is only for the sake of argument) the progression of knowledge to the last man, will consist of the most agreeable decision.
There can not be agreement by a solitary figure, however much useful information has been acquired.
The last man in his prison cell is prone to base his nest last argument not in terms of an objective way to solve his predicament, but on a differing one, namely having to make a choice of the very earliest argumentative type of understanding: in or out, a solitary quest between staying within the confines of his own barbaric feelings about containment or abandonment.
That is how his final responsibility introduced into the realm of the unanswered question: either stay in or go out.
Reductionism and simplification, deconstruction, have signed , sealed , and delivered this ultimatum, and there may not be a single , unified authority to deliver the message singularly.
Time is of the essence , to go back to the earliest possible recycle, and change things there, and not leave it on the hands, of a single authority whose main concern is one to do with guilt / lack of responsibility. For that is what reduction entails: into a participation mystique of tribal organization.
peacegirl wrote:Agreement by a solitary figure? An ultimatum? A single unified authority? Guilt/lack of responsibility? Reduction into a participation mystique of tribal organization? None of this applies.
Meno wrote:But You are making this statement singularly, and that is exactly my point.
Meno wrote:(And keep in mind I am in Partial agreement, only that a hypothetical begs for substantive reasoning, and as hypothetical as motivated reasoning-it may demand for justification down the line: referentiality requires it!
Meno wrote:That is the only trace that is left unresolved, and even a minute amount of it is like taking a minute amount of poison.
Meno wrote:That is why partially re-integrated difference, requires to be taken into account.
Meno wrote:Maybe I'm negating a logical extension into this, what may be a secondary derivative, and You may wish not to go there, however I see plenty of pressing utilization , whereby to reduce what may turn into a bubble, based on Artemis' idea of a reverse triangle.(pyramid); It's a.concern, nevertheless.
Thanks. Peace
peacegirl wrote:
I do know that this discovery will help to shape the trajectory of our world in amazing ways once it is understood and applied on a global scale
To be fair to the author do you even know what the discovery is ? You are the one I believe that read Chapter Two right ? You did not have one
question so you must have understood it So tell me what is the discovery ?
Meno_ wrote:Artimas:
That is why we should be focusing on the way the connections work rather then seeking new definitions of the constricts' needing connection.
The Natural Selection's choice in selecting underlying options is a good example of looking at it, in my opinion.
How this rebounds in terms of connective variables is not obvious , admittedly, but otherwise we get stuck in a harmonic no exit labyrinthic maze.
We will be forcefed information like rats.
surreptitious75 wrote:peacegirl wrote:
I do know that this discovery will help to shape the trajectory of our world in amazing ways once it is understood and applied on a global scale
To be fair to the author do you even know what the discovery is ? You are the one I believe that read Chapter Two right ? You did not have one
question so you must have understood it So tell me what is the discovery ?
I need to read more because I have only read it once so I will read from the extracts you have posted here
I wish I had the book but after I ordered it it was not in stock so all I have are what you post on the forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users