New Discovery

[peacegirl]

Don’t need to negate it really, just show that it’s temporary, the present is more temporary than a past and future. It’s in pieces, never everlasting. They definitely exist in reality, both are observable.

It's the complete opposite. The present is all we have (each moment is a slice of life that is continually changing) which makes it feel as if the past causes the present, which it doesn't. We only get pieces of the past in our mind's eye, and imaginings of the future, but these thoughts and images are never everlasting because that's not where we live in reality.

But it is where we live in reality, it is where we have lived and where we will live. The present moment is always moving and changing, and is something temporary not usually illusory? The past is there I can see it, it’s not moving, only growing larger, and the future is inevitable as well but also changing too but not as quickly as the present moment.

The past is a memory in the mind's eye. That doesn't mean our past experiences didn't happen, but we reside in the eternal now. Time is not a dimension. The future is only a dream of something yet to come, and only becomes actualized in the present. I'm not sure how we got here, but the conversation has taken another detour. You might find this interesting.

https://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientist ... nsion.html

[iambiguous]

The terms "free", "greater satisfaction", "will", "choice", "cause", and "determinism" can create major problems in communication if they are not defined in accordance with the definitions being articulated.

What on earth does this mean? Well, whatever the definition of the words she uses to assert it say it means.

Right? Well, if up on the skyhooks that comprise their own intellectual contraptions in books. Or posts here.

WRONG

Now, of course, you will have to articulate how the author defines WRONG. Only then can we compare it to our own definition. In order to determine if it is in sync. And, if not, then, by defintion, ours is WRONG.

That, in my view, is basically how words work in the author's "discovery". They are attached through definitions to other words defending the meaning of more words still.

But where is the part where the meaning is intertwined in actual contexts in which it is demonstrated how human brains are either choosing things of our own volition or are "choosing" things [like definitions] that nature has compelled them to?

Thus:

Whole "discoveries" can then be created in the heads of some simply by insisting that only their own definitions count.

No iambiguous. This discovery was not created in his head. Well everything is in our heads actually, but his definition is much more accurate because it clarifies what determinism really means. It does not mean we don't have a choice. It does not mean nature is dictating what we MUST choose before we choose it, as if it has already been scripted.

See what I mean? How do you or the author demonstrate that any of this is true other than by insisting it is entirely in sync with the manner in which he defines the meaning of "free will"? Which is just another way of asserting that his own definition is not WRONG.

All the while insisting that none of this is not at the behest of nature's immutable laws.

That's like saying it's already been fated that I let my child get hit by a car, even though I can stop it. When a person says nature caused me...this implies that you had no choice in the matter because it was a choice that you didn't consent to. Of course you had a choice or you wouldn't be able to deliberate over options AND THEN CHOOSE. Isn't that why you create the false dichotomy in your head between nature causing (which gives no choice), and autonomy (free choice)? You can't have both because they contradict themselves, but you refuse to see it, of course not that you could have seen it differently. I'm not blaming you. Instead, you pooh pooh this knowledge by insisting that the way determinism is defined can't be improved upon. That's why you keep saying nature made me do this or that. Nature didn't make you do anything if you yourself didn't want it.

Same here. Somehow the laws of nature before, during and after someone makes a "choice" to stop their child from being hit by the car encompass your own defintion of "free will" and "fate" and "determined" and "want" and "greater satisfaction".

Okay, fine. These definitions work for you. They sustain your own psychological equanimity. But in the manner in which I understand the meaning of those words [given a universe wholly ordered mechanically be the laws of matter] they don't work for me. Then it becomes a matter of my demonstrating why they don't work for me. Why I don't embody the comfort and the consolation that your defintions alone provide you.

But: I have no such "discovery" up my own sleeve here. Nature has yet to compel me to go in that direction.

...that brings us to yet another quandary: What does it mean to speak of the "laws of matter" as "intended"?

By God perhaps?

Or, as some of us suspect, by whatever the final explanation for existence itself is.

In other words, if it's not God.

I've said this before, this question, although interesting, has nothing to do with the purpose of this discussion which is to share this major work for the benefit of humanity.

Your demonstration once again being that I am WRONG not to share your own definition of the words here that encompoass yet another assertion of the TRUTH.

As for the "benefit of humanity" what could that possibly have to do with pinning down the existence of God by pinning down the existence of existence itself. Besides...everything?

All those trivial pursuits just get in the way of nature compelling you to want to believe in a discovery that it compelled the author to make in order to sustain the greater satisfaction you both derived from a future that nature itself is compelled by the discovery to bestow upon humankind.

Then the part about where you and the author will be then. The part about the discovery "after the grave".

Iambiguous still doesn't understand that, and says it's an intellectual contraption in the author's head.

And yet in a way that still escapes me, I suspect she will argue in turn that I do not understand that only because nature has not [as of now] compelled me to.

So, I'm off the hook, but...but still able to be held responsible for "choosing" not to understand it.

You're off the hook because your will is not free. No one is holding you responsible.

Unless of course you are WRONG.

Still, the progressive future brimming with peace and prosperity can never be off the hook. That's guaranteed by the definition the author gives to the words in his discovery.

I am sorry if I missed some of your posts. I may not have seen them because I have been responding to quite a few people. Can you bump them?

You tell me: Can I?

Can I bump them autonomously? Or will they be bumped only if nature compels me to?

Think about it. Here and now in my head I have decided not to. But here and now in my head I am grappling to understand if what is unfolding here and now in my head is only ever what was ever able to unfold. How can I know that beyond all doubt?

How is this mental process encompassed in the discovery? Well, from my frame of mind [compelled or not], it is encompassed intellectually in a world of words. A world of abstract definitions intertwined in theoretical assumptions about how the brain "chooses" things.

And how "in your head" you then break that down into "before", "during" and "after" each choice is made. That's all still lost on me. For me no free will in a determined universe means inherently, necessarily intertwining them all in the laws of matter.

There would seem to be no exceptions throughout this entirely natural process.

Instead, the mystery still revolves [for me] around how mindless matter can evolve over billions of years into mindful matter able to become conscious of itself going all the way back to an understanding of why anything exist at all, and why it exists as it does and not some other way.

With or without God.

Well, my guess is that nature has compelled me to point out that [your] own narrative here is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist tract. What I keep pointing out to [you] is that it is not what [you] believe is true that matters nearly as much as that [you] believe that all others are obligated to share in that belief.

Another psychological embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

This has nothing to do with obligation. If people see the soundness of these principles, they will, of their own accord, desire to learn more. If not, then not. I have no control over what people are interested in. I'm hoping that there is interest and people will want to spread word about this knowledge so it can be carefully investigated. He even mentioned that at the end of the book.

But obligations themselves would have everything to do with nature evolving into minds evolving into mental, emotional and psychological states that are no less compelled by the laws of matter.

What you really have no control over is, well, anything at all. And that is because the laws of matter encompass the human brain pondering the things it is able to delude itself into believing that it does have some measure of control over. Like the words we are exchanging here.

What you hope for is only what you are compelled by nature to hope for. The dominoes in your brain are no less toppling over only as they must.

I merely note that I am myself no less unable to actually demonstrate that what I believe here is true. I am merely making the assumption that nature has compelled me to believe that the definition and the meaning of the words "I" "choose" here are more reasonable than yours.

But even that gets swallowed up in the staggering gap -- the blackest of black holes -- between "I" and "all there is".

[i]Can you see the problem I have with regard to my
discovery? If it took 2 thousand years to get the shape of the earth
scientifically confirmed so that all mankind would accept it, how
long do you think it will take to get this knowledge in my book
scientifically confirmed and accepted when 98% of mankind believe
that man’s will is free and when this belief hermetically seals a door
behind which is the discovery that will bring about this Great
Transition. However, two things are certain. This discovery must
come to light sooner or later because God is giving us no choice in
this matter. Until that time, however, every effort must be made to
bring this knowledge to light in whatever way possible. With the
public’s help, there is every reason to believe that the dawning of the
Golden Age will take place some time in the 21st century. And
when it finally arrives, we will all be here to celebrate the inception
of this wonderful new world.

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

Also, not only are there still but a tiny percentage of us who don't believe in free will, but what percentage of that tiny percentage actually believe in his own definition of "no free will"?

And the part about God...

Yeah, it's not the Christian or the Hindu or the Shinto God. Or [no doubt] the countless Gods that are believed to exist on other planets throughout the universe.

But, seriously, in some detail, how would it be "scientifically confirmed" that the manner in which he construes the meaning of God here as "giving us no choice in this matter" can, in fact, be confirmed?

What on earth does he mean by this in terms of the behaviors we choose/"choose" from day to day?

Finally, this part:

"Until that time, however, every effort must be made to
bring this knowledge to light in whatever way possible. With the
public’s help, there is every reason to believe that the dawning of the
Golden Age will take place some time in the 21st century."

I'm sorry, but I'm compelled to be honest: How seriously can I take this? Even if I did possess some measure of autonomy, this is basically the sort of la la land New Age conjecture that has been coming at us now for decades. Why? Because in a postmodern world where everyone is craving something -- anything -- that can take the place of all the old traditional, denominational Gods, stuff like this is just, well, "thought up".

Thought up in order to convince oneself that there really is a substitute for God in what may well be an essentially meaningless universe. The whole point is to feel comforted and consoled in believing it in and of itself.

It's really just another rendition of Scientology to me. Only its intention are more idealistic. It's not just something "thought up" to make a lot of money.

[Meno_]

Ambiguous: But the most general of all compilations of memory had to be excluded by deconstruction, because of the opposing trend of collected accumulations excluded the logical middle.

The reduction (phenomenological), treats the essential-(eidectic)- differently., hence Your basic presumption of the question of being or not being, bears an obligation backwards to forwards.

Hence , cosmological determinism transfers obligation for examination: by breaking this relevant problem down, into hands on , manageable quanta, and try to convince people of it's ascendance, be it versed on slippery sloped tangents of accountability.

That centerfold like searching for hidden meanings of variables as motivations or even inspirational cliches , has become worn out.
Exhausted , the jump from the cave, for the early man, had he known of the proximate consequences, of the meaning for his quest, may not ever had been attempted.

His means perceived proximately as inadequate to his ends, may not have been able to gather the power to will the sacrifice that would reversely been defined as obligatory.


There is absolutely no need for justifying the differential interpretations of absolute differences between the two, and in order to come to terms between absolitely well intended outcome from it's nemesis, revolves around the 'set' determinations of primordial choice expressed by Plato vs. Aristoteles.

That communal language is vastly indifferent toward understanding the language being used to justify it.

Had a friend in the 60's who used the I Ching for any action he had to part take in , regardless of it's simplistic complexity.

That he ultimately failed , prefigured his attempt as a 50-50 reoccurring daily test. The house odds defeated him.

[peacegirl]

The terms "free", "greater satisfaction", "will", "choice", "cause", and "determinism" can create major problems in communication if they are not defined in accordance with the definitions being articulated.

What on earth does this mean? Well, whatever the definition of the words she uses to assert it say it means.

Right? Well, if up on the skyhooks that comprise their own intellectual contraptions in books. Or posts here.

WRONG

Now, of course, you will have to articulate how the author defines WRONG. Only then can we compare it to our own definition. In order to determine if it is in sync. And, if not, then, by defintion, ours is WRONG.

Wrong in an objective sense, not in "nothing is wrong" if it's in sync with the laws of matter. I guess you think nothing can be wrong.

That, in my view, is basically how words work in the author's "discovery". They are attached through definitions to other words defending the meaning of more words still.

What makes up a definition, and who says your definition is the most accurate?

But where is the part where the meaning is intertwined in actual contexts in which it is demonstrated how human brains are either choosing things of our own volition or are "choosing" things [like definitions] that nature has compelled them to?

You're back to the same old false dichotomy that says either you are forced by nature, or you are doing things of your own volition. You are doing things of your own volition but that volition (or desire) but for the 100th time, that desire is not free to choose what it doesn't prefer.

Thus:

Whole "discoveries" can then be created in the heads of some simply by insisting that only their own definitions count.

I don't think it's that difficult to see the validity of his statement that we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It's not rocket science. What follows from this knowledge is amazing, but you'll never understand it because you don't want to. No blame here, but it's just the way it is. It appears that you want to make this out to be something made up in his head that could then be called a discovery. This is your intellectual contraption, not his.

No iambiguous. This discovery was not created in his head. Well everything is in our heads actually, but his definition is much more accurate because it clarifies what determinism really means. It does not mean we don't have a choice. It does not mean nature is dictating what we MUST choose before we choose it, as if it has already been scripted.

See what I mean? How do you or the author demonstrate that any of this is true other than by insisting it is entirely in sync with the manner in which he defines the meaning of "free will"? Which is just another way of asserting that his own definition is not WRONG.

If you listen to the philosophical argument, the definition of free will as it relates to the free will/determinism debate is that a person could have chosen otherwise (CHCO)

All the while insisting that none of this is not at the behest of nature's immutable laws.

He never said that. It is at the behest of nature's immutable laws but nature is not a separate entity that is forcing you, against your will. All this arguing over this ones simple and true statement. NOTHING CAN FORCE A PERSON TO DO ANYTHING, NOT EVEN NATURE, IF IT'S AGAINST HIS WILL TO DO.

That's like saying it's already been fated that I let my child get hit by a car, even though I can stop it. When a person says nature caused me...this implies that you had no choice in the matter because it was a choice that you didn't consent to. Of course you had a choice or you wouldn't be able to deliberate over options AND THEN CHOOSE. Isn't that why you create the false dichotomy in your head between nature causing (which gives no choice), and autonomy (free choice)? You can't have both because they contradict themselves, but you refuse to see it, of course not that you could have seen it differently. I'm not blaming you. Instead, you pooh pooh this knowledge by insisting that the way determinism is defined can't be improved upon. That's why you keep saying nature made me do this or that. Nature didn't make you do anything if you yourself didn't want it.

Same here. Somehow the laws of nature before, during and after someone makes a "choice" to stop their child from being hit by the car encompass your own defintion of "free will" and "fate" and "determined" and "want" and "greater satisfaction".

I'm saying that when you use the definition that the laws of matter made you do something, it implies that you cannot change your course of action because you're just following the dictates of some external force. You constantly say, "nature made me do this." No, nature did not make you do anything you didn't want to do.

Okay, fine. These definitions work for you. They sustain your own psychological equanimity. But in the manner in which I understand the meaning of those words [given a universe wholly ordered mechanically be the laws of matter] they don't work for me. Then it becomes a matter of my demonstrating why they don't work for me. Why I don't embody the comfort and the consolation that your defintions alone provide you.yo

It's really okay iambiguous. If his definition of determinism doesn't work for you because you believe your definition is more accurate, by all means stick to your definition.

But: I have no such "discovery" up my own sleeve here. Nature has yet to compel me to go in that direction.

...that brings us to yet another quandary: What does it mean to speak of the "laws of matter" as "intended"?

By God perhaps?

Or, as some of us suspect, by whatever the final explanation for existence itself is.

In other words, if it's not God.

I've said this before, this question, although interesting, has nothing to do with the purpose of this discussion which is to share this major work for the benefit of humanity.

Your demonstration once again being that I am WRONG not to share your own definition of the words here that encompoass yet another assertion of the TRUTH.

You're not wrong not to share this accurate definition that leads to the truth. Do what you must.

As for the "benefit of humanity" what could that possibly have to do with pinning down the existence of God by pinning down the existence of existence itself. Besides...everything?

That is an existential question. This is a practical solution.

All those trivial pursuits just get in the way of nature compelling you to want to believe in a discovery that it compelled the author to make in order to sustain the greater satisfaction you both derived from a future that nature itself is compelled by the discovery to bestow upon humankind.

Then the part about where you and the author will be then. The part about the discovery "after the grave".

What about it?

Iambiguous still doesn't understand that, and says it's an intellectual contraption in the author's head.

And yet in a way that still escapes me, I suspect she will argue in turn that I do not understand that only because nature has not [as of now] compelled me to.

So, I'm off the hook, but...but still able to be held responsible for "choosing" not to understand it.

You're off the hook because your will is not free. No one is holding you responsible.

Unless of course you are WRONG.

Still, the progressive future brimming with peace and prosperity can never be off the hook. That's guaranteed by the definition the author gives to the words in his discovery.

Obviously, if the principles are inaccurate, then the discovery would be false, but the principles are not wrong. If you think they are, stick with your definition and don't pursue this knowledge. I won't hold you responsible.

I am sorry if I missed some of your posts. I may not have seen them because I have been responding to quite a few people. Can you bump them?

You tell me: Can I?

Can I bump them autonomously? Or will they be bumped only if nature compels me to?

You're just a CD with a scratch in it. Sorry!

Think about it. Here and now in my head I have decided not to. But here and now in my head I am grappling to understand if what is unfolding here and now in my head is only ever what was ever able to unfold. How can I know that beyond all doubt?

It was only ever able to unfold the way it did because you chose not to. It's not a big secret.

How is this mental process encompassed in the discovery? Well, from my frame of mind [compelled or not], it is encompassed intellectually in a world of words. A world of abstract definitions intertwined in theoretical assumptions about how the brain "chooses" things.

Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is not an abstract definition. Point out where there are theoretical assumptions? There are only two main principles that lead to the two-sided equation. This is the most down to earth, practical book, ever.

And how "in your head" you then break that down into "before", "during" and "after" each choice is made. That's all still lost on me. For me no free will in a determined universe means inherently, necessarily intertwining them all in the laws of matter.

Yes, they are all intertwined but there is a difference between a choice that hasn't been made yet, and a choice that has been made. Both are part of the deterministic process.

There would seem to be no exceptions throughout this entirely natural process.

You're right. There are no exceptions. That's why it's an invariable law.

Instead, the mystery still revolves [for me] around how mindless matter can evolve over billions of years into mindful matter able to become conscious of itself going all the way back to an understanding of why anything exist at all, and why it exists as it does and not some other way.

With or without God.

Life is a mystery. Why we're here and why existence is the way it is and not some other way, we may never know.

Well, my guess is that nature has compelled me to point out that [your] own narrative here is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist tract. What I keep pointing out to [you] is that it is not what [you] believe is true that matters nearly as much as that [you] believe that all others are obligated to share in that belief.

Another psychological embodiment of this: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296

This has nothing to do with obligation. If people see the soundness of these principles, they will, of their own accord, desire to learn more. If not, then not. I have no control over what people are interested in. I'm hoping that there is interest and people will want to spread word about this knowledge so it can be carefully investigated. He even mentioned that at the end of the book.

But obligations themselves would have everything to do with nature evolving into minds evolving into mental, emotional and psychological states that are no less compelled by the laws of matter.

What you really have no control over is, well, anything at all. And that is because the laws of matter encompass the human brain pondering the things it is able to delude itself into believing that it does have some measure of control over. Like the words we are exchanging here.

We have no control over what gives us greater satisfaction, which is why will is not free.

What you hope for is only what you are compelled by nature to hope for. The dominoes in your brain are no less toppling over only as they must.

If you want to look at it that way, that's fine with me, but you cannot escape the fact that you, the I, makes the choice even though the choice is not free.

I merely note that I am myself no less unable to actually demonstrate that what I believe here is true. I am merely making the assumption that nature has compelled me to believe that the definition and the meaning of the words "I" "choose" here are more reasonable than yours.

But you do choose. The "I" that is you does choose but it's not free. There is no free will where somehow the "I" can be autonomous or free from the movement toward greater satisfaction.

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.

But even that gets swallowed up in the staggering gap -- the blackest of black holes -- between "I" and "all there is".

Can you see the problem I have with regard to my
discovery? If it took 2 thousand years to get the shape of the earth
scientifically confirmed so that all mankind would accept it, how
long do you think it will take to get this knowledge in my book
scientifically confirmed and accepted when 98% of mankind believe
that man’s will is free and when this belief hermetically seals a door
behind which is the discovery that will bring about this Great
Transition. However, two things are certain. This discovery must
come to light sooner or later because God is giving us no choice in
this matter. Until that time, however, every effort must be made to
bring this knowledge to light in whatever way possible. With the
public’s help, there is every reason to believe that the dawning of the
Golden Age will take place some time in the 21st century. And
when it finally arrives, we will all be here to celebrate the inception
of this wonderful new world.

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

For starters read the book. Maybe you will still have doubts but it will give you a much better understanding.

Also, not only are there still but a tiny percentage of us who don't believe in free will, but what percentage of that tiny percentage actually believe in his own definition of "no free will"?

A very small percentage because this book has not been distributed or investigated.

And the part about God...

Yeah, it's not the Christian or the Hindu or the Shinto God. Or [no doubt] the countless Gods that are believed to exist on other planets throughout the universe.

But, seriously, in some detail, how would it be "scientifically confirmed" that the manner in which he construes the meaning of God here as "giving us no choice in this matter" can, in fact, be confirmed?

He was not referring to any religion. The way God was used was the immutable laws that are guiding us.

What on earth does he mean by this in terms of the behaviors we choose/"choose" from day to day?

Finally, this part:

"Until that time, however, every effort must be made to
bring this knowledge to light in whatever way possible. With the
public’s help, there is every reason to believe that the dawning of the
Golden Age will take place some time in the 21st century."

This was at the very end of the book. He didn't know when this knowledge would be confirmed valid. To this day, a handful of people even know this discovery exists.

I'm sorry, but I'm compelled to be honest: How seriously can I take this? Even if I did possess some measure of autonomy, this is basically the sort of la la land New Age conjecture that has been coming at us now for decades. Why? Because in a postmodern world where everyone is craving something -- anything -- that can take the place of all the old traditional, denominational Gods, stuff like this is just, well, "thought up".

Thought up in order to convince oneself that there really is a substitute for God in what may well be an essentially meaningless universe. The whole point is to feel comforted and consoled in believing it in and of itself.

It's really just another rendition of Scientology to me. Only its intention are more idealistic. It's not just something "thought up" to make a lot of money.

This work has nothing to do with Scientology, which tells people what to do. This knowledge tells no one what to do. And it certainly isn't about making a lot of money.

[i]How many of
you recognized in Durant’s Mansions of Philosophy your own
wisdom, which now turns out to be ignorance? Another way of
building up one’s own feeling of superiority is by disagreeing, but the
great humor lies in the fact that the standards we used to judge
another were equally fallacious. Because 6 is closer to the answer of
the cow problem than 7 doesn’t make it less wrong, nor does a book
like Dianetics become more true because it is dedicated to Durant, or
less true because it was not accepted by psychiatry.

[iambiguous]

Ambiguous: But the most general of all compilations of memory had to be excluded by deconstruction, because of the opposing trend of collected accumulations excluded the logical middle.

The reduction (phenomenological), treats the essential-(eidectic)- differently., hence Your basic presumption of the question of being or not being, bears an obligation backwards to forwards.

Hence , cosmological determinism transfers obligation for examination: by breaking this relevant problem down, into hands on , manageable quanta, and try to convince people of it's ascendance, be it versed on slippery sloped tangents of accountability.

That centerfold like searching for hidden meanings of variables as motivations or even inspirational cliches , has become worn out.
Exhausted , the jump from the cave, for the early man, had he known of the proximate consequences, of the meaning for his quest, may not ever had been attempted.

His means perceived proximately as inadequate to his ends, may not have been able to gather the power to will the sacrifice that would reversely been defined as obligatory.


There is absolutely no need for justifying the differential interpretations of absolute differences between the two, and in order to come to terms between absolitely well intended outcome from it's nemesis, revolves around the 'set' determinations of primordial choice expressed by Plato vs. Aristoteles.

That communal language is vastly indifferent toward understanding the language being used to justify it.

Had a friend in the 60's who used the I Ching for any action he had to part take in , regardless of it's simplistic complexity.

That he ultimately failed , prefigured his attempt as a 50-50 reoccurring daily test. The house odds defeated him.

Sorry, I don't speak intellectual gibberish.

Seriously though, I have basically given up understanding anything that you post. In fact, a part of me is still convinced that you just make these "points" up as you go along.

Why? Because [I'm thinking] you are yourself intent on exposing just how irrelevant much of what the "serious philosophers" here convey to us really is.

In other words, "for all practical purposes".

An exercise in irony perhaps?

[Meno_]

Ambiguous: But the most general of all compilations of memory had to be excluded by deconstruction, because of the opposing trend of collected accumulations excluded the logical middle.

The reduction (phenomenological), treats the essential-(eidectic)- differently., hence Your basic presumption of the question of being or not being, bears an obligation backwards to forwards.

Hence , cosmological determinism transfers obligation for examination: by breaking this relevant problem down, into hands on , manageable quanta, and try to convince people of it's ascendance, be it versed on slippery sloped tangents of accountability.

That centerfold like searching for hidden meanings of variables as motivations or even inspirational cliches , has become worn out.
Exhausted , the jump from the cave, for the early man, had he known of the proximate consequences, of the meaning for his quest, may not ever had been attempted.

His means perceived proximately as inadequate to his ends, may not have been able to gather the power to will the sacrifice that would reversely been defined as obligatory.


There is absolutely no need for justifying the differential interpretations of absolute differences between the two, and in order to come to terms between absolitely well intended outcome from it's nemesis, revolves around the 'set' determinations of primordial choice expressed by Plato vs. Aristoteles.

That communal language is vastly indifferent toward understanding the language being used to justify it.

Had a friend in the 60's who used the I Ching for any action he had to part take in , regardless of it's simplistic complexity.

That he ultimately failed , prefigured his attempt as a 50-50 reoccurring daily test. The house odds defeated him.

Sorry, I don't speak intellectual gibberish.

Seriously though, I have basically given up understanding anything that you post. In fact, a part of me is still convinced that you just make these "points" up as you go along.

Why? Because [I'm thinking] you are yourself intent on exposing just how irrelevant much of what the "serious philosophers" here convey to us really is.

In other words, "for all practical purposes".

An exercise in irony perhaps?

Irony? Not really, except to try to separate the iron from the 'or'e
Partially you are descripively within Your rights to stay this side of the chasm, for the tissue appear to indicate an unwarranted gamble.

This side of paradise indicates unwarranted duplicity and thus a debt incurred, literally. An inauthentic reserve of a civilizational discontent.

I am there as well, at least admittedly of good faithed efforts.

However I'm bound , bound to by a philosophical image, of giving light, claiming discovery by stratified deep freeze unto outdated and worn out constructions.

For someone whose bells tolles by vintage eternal reminders , the jump would indicate a real suicidal death, whereby Jesus' prologue suffices:

You must die now, to be able to be with Me in heaven.


This partiality is witness to products of 2000 year's. construction, but such a short tear down as the last two centuries gave rise to, has given Oracle's power a grave deflation.


At least Your "part of me" , admits the possibility that a partial reconstruction may better then a total abandonment.

[Meno_]

Ambiguous: But the most general of all compilations of memory had to be excluded by deconstruction, because of the opposing trend of collected accumulations excluded the logical middle.

The reduction (phenomenological), treats the essential-(eidectic)- differently., hence Your basic presumption of the question of being or not being, bears an obligation backwards to forwards.

Hence , cosmological determinism transfers obligation for examination: by breaking this relevant problem down, into hands on , manageable quanta, and try to convince people of it's ascendance, be it versed on slippery sloped tangents of accountability.

That centerfold like searching for hidden meanings of variables as motivations or even inspirational cliches , has become worn out.
Exhausted , the jump from the cave, for the early man, had he known of the proximate consequences, of the meaning for his quest, may not ever had been attempted.

His means perceived proximately as inadequate to his ends, may not have been able to gather the power to will the sacrifice that would reversely been defined as obligatory.


There is absolutely no need for justifying the differential interpretations of absolute differences between the two, and in order to come to terms between absolitely well intended outcome from it's nemesis, revolves around the 'set' determinations of primordial choice expressed by Plato vs. Aristoteles.

That communal language is vastly indifferent toward understanding the language being used to justify it.

Had a friend in the 60's who used the I Ching for any action he had to part take in , regardless of it's simplistic complexity.

That he ultimately failed , prefigured his attempt as a 50-50 reoccurring daily test. The house odds defeated him.

Sorry, I don't speak intellectual gibberish.

Seriously though, I have basically given up understanding anything that you post. In fact, a part of me is still convinced that you just make these "points" up as you go along.

Why? Because [I'm thinking] you are yourself intent on exposing just how irrelevant much of what the "serious philosophers" here convey to us really is.

In other words, "for all practical purposes".

An exercise in irony perhaps?

Irony? Not really, except to try to separate the iron from the 'or'e
Partially, you are descripively within Your rights to stay this side of the chasm, for it appears to indicate an unwarranted gamble.

This side of paradise indicates unwarranted duplicity and thus a debt incurred, literally. An inauthentic reserve of a civilizational discontent.

I am there as well, at least admittedly despite good faithed efforts.

However I'm bound , bound to by a philosophical image, of giving light, claiming discovery by stratified deep freezes unto outdated and worn out construction.

For someone whose bells toll by vintage eternal reminders , the jump would indicate a real suicidal death, whereby Jesus' prologue suffices:

You must die now, to be able to be with Me in heaven.


This partiality is witness to products of 2000 year's construction, but such a short tear down as the last two centuries gave rise to, has given Oracle's power a grave deflation.


At least Your " a part of me" , admits the possibility that a partial reconstruction may better then a total abandonment.

.
even out of context.

Rather that, then seeking equiminity between conscious and unconscious elements within the architecture behind their intentional usage,

extracting it from the philosopher's stone is not quite as difficult as cutting a diamond in the rough.

That comes later, much later.

[Meno_]

Past present future ,are mere images contained other images.contained this in stance, in a stance a posture of contention , holding up that image just a few moments.

This holding up can last a few seconds at most, then torn from within on a flash.

Bring it back again and again look,
this way and that, turn around,
I don't want him to see me,
he really doesn't like me,in the present
his beat friend told me.

Just a second I didn't get that imagining some far.away island drink pina colada at sunset.

Go to work , no, Kropotkin, check out
that woman in the bright yellow hat
Ain't she peculiar?

This moment on:
Your on target,
You ain't one,
Just do Your thang,

Wait!
Tomorrow , pay check
& home, tv dinners the kids the grandkids bubbling with excitement but, god dann it it's not ad hominem

What made you go to Europe so sudden?
Last summer? Liz is dead.

Tenement square changed and now, as suddenly time has receeded flashy
Into tahiti huts and can Gogh
Dramatics one jealous ear.Still!
Hanging, by a.thread,
Oh it's a.crazy lazy dream
a dolly may have, it's all
Cut!
Cut!
Off!
Off!

The steamy native hits back,
Ward travel in time, collusive cults staring that way into dark,he points toward that god and this
Oh pleeeeaaaase do not go on stop time atop it , a stop it, prop it but don't drop it, lot it , bob it , got it.

his tool boring into soft.tissues,
angling this and that way, her old man
toward The sea went fishin' caught one lost it on the way back to shore,
Hasn't been seen back since mane drwnin of broken heart, or felled.by cranes asunder.flyin' back from clock fights , now seeking warmer climate.


Faint glow of.thunder within cascades of subdued mixture pf laughter and disdainful clapping of hands

This as min.'d (Ed) comic effect interrupt flowing thought images defining flow of time , may be placed elsewhere ,
Coitus interrupt us of faculties far and wide.


Count them: Arc cha rec ter, art through premise, mag (z) d her and her rhythm"n blues, barbaric acts and unfathomable presumptions, the labyrinths of ambiguity, the miseries of peace ,and course the guy in philosophers fixed in aspic onentiger eye shewn2 3 ways, iirreligiois, irreverent jacob and last not least not waiting for no time world war three gib's terrific oh happy our happy day, and deservedly deservedly d 63 mulling like the thinker aside in al-Qaida , a side of him , glossy film through darkness of the mirror darkly atlas, shrug! and not lastly or or save for.the beat# art themes.and beams of.hidden candles of.cathedral beams of ages.spiraling.spires, candles and hits on expired roaches.


And unmentionables like ; Carlos and
Delivery and anomaly. Few left out imclusovely pupiseleasly. , not willfully, and without that much determinance.




https://youtu.be/ehTsjtd-GAI


Oh, ech, ech, u2,
Peacegirl maybe should trans fore tis' peace of... to writing. ? If You concur will ask Magazine, jee.! Or Mike?




https://youtu.be/9ckv6-yhnIY



Time is not a dimension. The future is only a dream of something yet to come, & if they have no transcendental relation, them, collusion or overlap define it through absorptive effects of mutual self consumption.


& I like u2.



Now will follow relatively non specifically without boundaries. A while at any rate .
Of Chang.e.



---- ---

--


The past is a memory in the mind's eye. That doesn't mean our past experiences didn't happen, but we reside in the eternal now. Time is not a dimension. The future is only a dream of something yet to come, and only becomes actualized in the present. I'm not sure how we got here, but the conversation has taken another detour.  


The past is a memory, the future is a dream

Doesent mean a memory through mind's eye- but reside in the eternal now. (Significant)


That residence fades . with time/ in time. -is that fade within its own cogniscance or is able to recover it merely as a partial image ? (Memory of residence)

Is the partial image as represented become the control around which the significance between residence and the mind's eye are negotiated ? ( Can current residence be tied to in a real way to the past to signify change)?

What is the difference? Is there one, that we can apprehend, or, is it mere entertaining visual clues? (Connecting partially cut images and reassembling them like Picasso did? ( Better melt them like a doll.i (Eeeeeeeeek.)).



https://m.phys.org/news/2011-04-scienti ... nsion.html

Last not least Del , karpel silhouette , Phenominal Raptor, & Mowk! hope u accept this u are part my imagined family.


And probably Trixie ultimate and my long lost friends who will in all probability will return. As everything and every body ussully does. Especially the German guy who had so much under wraps, with needless reserve & course St. James

[Karpel Tunnel]

Last not least Del , karpel , Phenominal Raptor, & Mowk! hope u accept this u are part my imagined family

That's sweet of you, but I have to wonder about your own take on your posts. Sometimes there seems to be a English as Second Language issue, but I don't know. I find it so hard to understand your posts, I don't usually read them. Hardly something I want to do to a relative. Are you aware that the way you write is very hard to follow? Could you write the posts more clearly, but choose this way of writing for specific reasons?

[iambiguous]

The terms "free", "greater satisfaction", "will", "choice", "cause", and "determinism" can create major problems in communication if they are not defined in accordance with the definitions being articulated.

What on earth does this mean? Well, whatever the definition of the words she uses to assert it say it means.

Right? Well, if up on the skyhooks that comprise their own intellectual contraptions in books. Or posts here.

WRONG

Now, of course, you will have to articulate how the author defines WRONG. Only then can we compare it to our own definition. In order to determine if it is in sync. And, if not, then, by defintion, ours is WRONG.

Wrong in an objective sense, not in "nothing is wrong" if it's in sync with the laws of matter. I guess you think nothing can be wrong.

How can the laws of nature applicable to all matter not be in sync with objectivity regarding this matter unfolding from the past into the present into the future? Only as it must.

My point is that given our understanding of the laws of nature applicable to mindless matter, we can create things like the computer and the internet. You do the right things and they exists. You do the wrong things and they don't.

But what of mindful matter? What of human brains in the is/ought world and in discussions such as this? How do we demonstrate right and wrong then? How does the author demonstrate 1] that his own political prejudices regarding human interactions are necessarily in sync with progressive behavior and 2] that this progressive future will unfold [must unfold] when enough of us down the road "choose" to embrace his discovery...requiring nature itself to be in sync with his own understanding of the best of all possible worlds years -- decades? centuries? -- from now.

How does he actually demonstrate this in ways that experiments can be conducted, experiences can be probed, predictions can be made, results can be replicated by others, in the course of applying his discovery to the things that they either "choose" in a determined universe or choose in a world where some measure of autonomy does in fact exist.

Where's the proverbial beef?!

That, in my view, is basically how words work in the author's "discovery". They are attached through definitions to other words defending the meaning of more words still.

What makes up a definition, and who says your definition is the most accurate?

Again, a definition in regard to what? And my point is that there are definitions for the words we use here able to be linked to the world around us. Definitions that seem to be applicable to all of us.

But what about the definitions of "determinism" and "free will" and "compatibilism"? How do we pin down the one and only definition that all of us must use when confronting behaviors we either "choose" given the psychological illusion of free will or choose because somehow it can be demonstrated that the matter we call the human brain is qualitatively different from all other matter that comes before it.

It's like the words "freedom" and "justice". There are the objective dictionary definitions, and then the subjective interpretations we give to those definitions in regards to actual human interactions in particular contexts.

We just don't know if those subjective interpretations themselves are not in fact embedded/embodied as well in the illusion of human autonomy.

But where is the part where the meaning is intertwined in actual contexts in which it is demonstrated how human brains are either choosing things of our own volition or are "choosing" things [like definitions] that nature has compelled them to?

You're back to the same old false dichotomy that says either you are forced by nature, or you are doing things of your own volition. You are doing things of your own volition but that volition (or desire) but for the 100th time, that desire is not free to choose what it doesn't prefer.

Oh, indeed. Meaning we are back to the extent to which you and the author are able to demonstrate that what we prefer is not in turn only that which nature has compelled us to prefer.

You argue that...

I don't think it's that difficult to see the validity of his statement that we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It's not rocket science.

Okay, why can we only move in the direction of greater satisfaction if not because nature compels us to? Just as nature compelled us to invent rocket science.

You wish to give "I" here some mysterious quality/capacity not present in the interactions of mindless matter. At the moment of "choosing", this capacity becomes vital to you. And it makes "I" a very different kind of domino in nature. While at the same time you seem to concur that what does unfold involving "I" could not have unfolded any other way than how nature compels it to unfold.

I still don't grasp this distinction you make if the human brain is no less subject to the laws of matter.

I'm just willing to acknowledge myself that lifeless matter evolving into living matter evolving into brains evolving into the self-conscious "I" is truly mind-boggling. How to explain it?!!!

But that just takes me and my ilk back to the mystery of existence itself. Whereas you and your ilk just shrug off the biggest questions of all. No, we don't have answers for them but the answers have noting to do with what you know to be true about everything else.

And, besides, what you believe about everything else is the part that brings you comfort and consolation.

All the while insisting that none of this is not at the behest of nature's immutable laws.

He never said that. It is at the behest of nature's immutable laws but nature is not a separate entity that is forcing you, against your will. All this arguing over this ones simple and true statement. NOTHING CAN FORCE A PERSON TO DO ANYTHING, NOT EVEN NATURE, IF IT'S AGAINST HIS WILL TO DO.

Or: Your own "I" is necessarily intertwined in nature. Your "I" and nature are inherently inseparable from the laws of matter. And, as a result of that, nature compelled you to insist above that, NOTHING CAN FORCE A PERSON TO DO ANYTHING, NOT EVEN NATURE, IF IT'S AGAINST HIS WILL TO DO.

As though your "will" is, once again, defined by you as both a part of but not a part of nature.

It's really okay iambiguous. If his definition of determinism doesn't work for you because you believe your definition is more accurate, by all means stick to your definition.

So, nature has compelled you to be, what, condescending here?

It's not a question of my sticking to my definition so much as the extent to which the author is able to demonstrate that the manner in which he sticks to his own reflects a very different manifestation of nature. In other words, the extent to which his own movement in the direction of greater satisfaction reflects the way nature really works with respect to free will and the human brain.

So far his "demonstration" revolves around definitions and intellectual contraptions. Nothing able to be tested by, say, the folks who work with actual brains making actual choices in real time.

Still, the progressive future brimming with peace and prosperity can never be off the hook. That's guaranteed by the definition the author gives to the words in his discovery.

Obviously, if the principles are inaccurate, then the discovery would be false, but the principles are not wrong. If you think they are, stick with your definition and don't pursue this knowledge. I won't hold you responsible.

On the other hand, as I and others keep pointing out, the beauty of this sort of argument is that the proof will only become manifest long after we are all dead and gone.

So none of us are actually around to hold the others responsible. At least with the laws of matter relating to things like global warming we can imagine a considerably more tangible future. For our children, one side or the other will have shown to be closer to the objective truth. Definitions and intellectual assumptions give way to whatever the actual reality is. The liberal and conservative renditions of what constitutes a "progressive future" for humankind will be exposed once and for all.

Well, my guess is that nature has compelled me to point out that [your] own narrative here is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist tract. What I keep pointing out to [you] is that it is not what [you] believe is true that matters nearly as much as that [you] believe that all others are obligated to share in that belief.

Another psychological embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

This has nothing to do with obligation. If people see the soundness of these principles, they will, of their own accord, desire to learn more. If not, then not. I have no control over what people are interested in. I'm hoping that there is interest and people will want to spread word about this knowledge so it can be carefully investigated. He even mentioned that at the end of the book.

But obligations themselves would have everything to do with nature evolving into minds evolving into mental, emotional and psychological states that are no less compelled by the laws of matter.

What you really have no control over is, well, anything at all. And that is because the laws of matter encompass the human brain pondering the things it is able to delude itself into believing that it does have some measure of control over. Like the words we are exchanging here.

We have no control over what gives us greater satisfaction, which is why will is not free.

And here we are again. From my frame of mind, we have no control over what gives us greater satistifaction because...because control here is embedded in the laws of matter.

In nature itself.

I have no autononous control over the words that I am now typing. Instead, nature's laws have created a matter -- "I" -- able to deluded itself into believing that it does have autonomous control over the words it is now typing.

But what [so far] nature has not provided me with is an argument able to settle it once and for all. Though it has compelled others [like you] to be convinced that how they see everything is how everyone else is obligated to see it too.

Go figure nature, right?

Then back to the really nitty-gritty part here:

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

For starters read the book. Maybe you will still have doubts but it will give you a much better understanding.

No, for starters...

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

And then, finally, once again...

I'm sorry, but I'm compelled to be honest: How seriously can I take this? Even if I did possess some measure of autonomy, this is basically the sort of la la land New Age conjecture that has been coming at us now for decades. Why? Because in a postmodern world where everyone is craving something -- anything -- that can take the place of all the old traditional, denominational Gods, stuff like this is just, well, "thought up".

Thought up in order to convince oneself that there really is a substitute for God in what may well be an essentially meaningless universe. The whole point is to feel comforted and consoled in believing it in and of itself.

It's really just another rendition of Scientology to me. Only its intention are more idealistic. It's not just something "thought up" to make a lot of money.

This work has nothing to do with Scientology, which tells people what to do. This knowledge tells no one what to do. And it certainly isn't about making a lot of money.

It has everything to do with a frame of mind that makes startling assumptions about the past, present and future...and then offers up no hard evidence to confirm that what is believed to be true in the heads of the adherents, is able to be demonstrated such that all reasonable men and women have no choice but -- for all practical purposes -- to accept that the teachings are able to be made applicable to their day to day lives here and now.

[Meno_]

This is where partial divergence or, partial differentiation matters.
What is intentionally driven, what is not
?

What is driven with an objective or a plan-, perceives that there are good and bad intentions. That much should be obvious . regardless of where on continuum such issues are considered.
If You believe in the evolution of better attainment of measures toward self fulfillment, then the attempt to build an objective, sequentiality, using far off absolute notions, such as those by deus ex machina, in all his glory, then it will makes you a batter man.
But if you are greedy , jealous of your neighbor because he has more, more this and that, wisdom, looks, sex, money, community involvement, then the intention to improve becomes dimly lit . You suffer .

The gods abandon you, not because It is their intention, but because it becomes you.
The gods belittle you, because you have belittled and deconstructed them into your own image.
Then you say, that impervious Darwin, he ruined everyone's object, relations on you as some kind of specimen, might may act that part.
The partiality for one or the other reappears with a vengeance, and it becomes manyfast and tragically genetic. It invades profusely and aesthetically , clamoring all the way.
The object has been lost, Creative Nature has stood by with a dramatic yawn, and the idea has been clamped and covered.
The transcendental as understood in logic became a prostitution. against which special ones have warned about , in temples of wear and tear, so it's been a long time coming nothing new.
Not merely recently has it exploded, relatively speaking, and found to consist in nothingness no trace of glimmer or hope to recover remains.

This set the stage for grinding of teeth and the hate for good, a possibility for which, still.......stares back from below,
and even at this stage can be reset right, by one simple yet incredibly complex switcheroo.
That is the intentionality of existential repose of the very human worth of the most simple and elemental thing. not discarded as some useless artifact, but treasured as something wonderful in itself .
The problem of memory is that it's ideal preconstruction has been excluded into newer and newer particular adaptations, letting go of objective relational significance
That lapse, even if, glimpsed by stimulative attempts of reorganization -, loose sight of the spatial arrangements , the architecture of recognition.
Good and bad are condemned to be beyond God's articulation. as well, and it is Man himself , who is responsible for it by use of his stubborn transvaluations, which the present moment is regarded as having been transmitted by a necessarily evolved language pre-assigned language.
That opposites still sustain human values and worth, has been exempted by the contradiction of implying one thing in terms of the other.
That language cuts off the real meaning of constructing a future , for a proginy, which has ceased to be understood as holy and devine, for just another pup in the litter.
The intentions of all great thinkers has been short cutted: Jesus, Nietzche, Marx, Darwin, Freud, much contraversion
between intent and effect, where the object has been forgotten, the ideal sacrificed at the altar of insignificance.

At any moment , one, any one, in a flash, can be understood at an instance, as what has been lost, and why., and how it can again be recoverable.
Paradise lost once can be recovered.

[Arcturus Descending]

Artimas,

But the past created the now. So is it not due to the past that there is a present at all? I would argue the present is an illusion, it’s always gone. Everything is either recent past or near future. That’s why it’s a continuity.

Have you never lived in or experienced the "here and now"moment, Artimas, where there is no recent past or near future? It is almost like time stands still though that too is an illusion but a wonderful one.

Yes I have had moments as well that are like this. It would seem as if we truly are a timeless awareness. Always recycling and evolving and ability to access imagery and understand via a priori.

My quote was in response to your disregarding the present and seeing it as an illusion. If that is the case, could you not say that the past and the future are also illusions?

What I was trying to show is that the only time we can live in is the "instant" but you are correct. It does flow on by like a river...a zillion instances flowing onward. lol
Can you really say that it is the past which creates the "now", the "present"? It kind of goes before but it doesn't really create it. The flow of time does and we do unless you are speaking about how every action is capable of influencing what is to come.
We appear to live too much in the past but that is only memory and the future is only a thought filled with unending possibilies.

Did I actually say much of anything there?

Time is really an awesome concept to ponder, is it not?

[Arcturus Descending]

...., the present is more temporary than a past and future. It’s in pieces, never everlasting. They definitely exist in reality, both are observable.

Artimas, I think that we feel this way because we tend to spend so much time actually "dwelling" in our memories by thinking about them and contemplating our future, not even necessarily a better brighter one, because perhaps we do not like what we see of the here and now. Our so-called pasts and futures are kind of like "escapes" for us - anything so that we do not have to deal with what is going on NOW.

Focusing on the instant, being in the zone, being in the pocket, being mindful of what we are doing NOW - that is the present and that is really all we have except for memories and hope which waits in the wings.

Again, did I say anything here?

We have compartmentalized time because it is so vast. So many stars even dwell in the past not realizing that they are long gone but how wonderful it is to see their faded light. I think that this thread has kind of become derailed.

[peacegirl]

Artimas,

But the past created the now. So is it not due to the past that there is a present at all? I would argue the present is an illusion, it’s always gone. Everything is either recent past or near future. That’s why it’s a continuity.

Have you never lived in or experienced the "here and now"moment, Artimas, where there is no recent past or near future? It is almost like time stands still though that too is an illusion but a wonderful one.

Yes I have had moments as well that are like this. It would seem as if we truly are a timeless awareness. Always recycling and evolving and ability to access imagery and understand via a priori.

My quote was in response to your disregarding the present and seeing it as an illusion. If that is the case, could you not say that the past and the future are also illusions?

What I was trying to show is that the only time we can live in is the "instant" but you are correct. It does flow on by like a river...a zillion instances flowing onward. lol
Can you really say that it is the past which creates the "now", the "present"? It kind of goes before but it doesn't really create it. The flow of time does and we do unless you are speaking about how every action is capable of influencing what is to come.
We appear to live too much in the past but that is only memory and the future is only a thought filled with unending possibilies.

Did I actually say much of anything there?

Time is really an awesome concept to ponder, is it not?

You said a lot Arturus Descending. In fact, you are spot on! The past does not cause the present except to influence what is to come due to our memories of what occurred, but the past is not real. We only have this instant, the eternal now.

[peacegirl]

...., the present is more temporary than a past and future. It’s in pieces, never everlasting. They definitely exist in reality, both are observable.

Artimas, I think that we feel this way because we tend to spend so much time actually "dwelling" in our memories by thinking about them and contemplating our future, not even necessarily a better brighter one, because perhaps we do not like what we see of the here and now. Our so-called pasts and futures are kind of like "escapes" for us - anything so that we do not have to deal with what is going on NOW.

Focusing on the instant, being in the zone, being in the pocket, being mindful of what we are doing NOW - that is the present and that is really all we have except for memories and hope which waits in the wings.

Again, did I say anything here?

We have compartmentalized time because it is so vast. So many stars even dwell in the past not realizing that they are long gone but how wonderful it is to see their faded light. I think that this thread has kind of become derailed.

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

[peacegirl]

The terms "free", "greater satisfaction", "will", "choice", "cause", and "determinism" can create major problems in communication if they are not defined in accordance with the definitions being articulated.

What on earth does this mean? Well, whatever the definition of the words she uses to assert it say it means.

Right? Well, if up on the skyhooks that comprise their own intellectual contraptions in books. Or posts here.

WRONG

Now, of course, you will have to articulate how the author defines WRONG. Only then can we compare it to our own definition. In order to determine if it is in sync. And, if not, then, by defintion, ours is WRONG.

Wrong in an objective sense, not in "nothing is wrong" if it's in sync with the laws of matter. I guess you think nothing can be wrong.

How can the laws of nature applicable to all matter not be in sync with objectivity regarding this matter unfolding from the past into the present into the future? Only as it must.

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

My point is that given our understanding of the laws of nature applicable to mindless matter, we can create things like the computer and the internet. You do the right things and they exists. You do the wrong things and they don't.

But what of mindful matter? What of human brains in the is/ought world and in discussions such as this? How do we demonstrate right and wrong then?

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

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

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

How does the author demonstrate 1] that his own political prejudices regarding human interactions are necessarily in sync with progressive behavior and 2] that this progressive future will unfold [must unfold] when enough of us down the road "choose" to embrace his discovery...requiring nature itself to be in sync with his own understanding of the best of all possible worlds years -- decades? centuries? -- from now.

How does he actually demonstrate this in ways that experiments can be conducted, experiences can be probed, predictions can be made, results can be replicated by others, in the course of applying his discovery to the things that they either "choose" in a determined universe or choose in a world where some measure of autonomy does in fact exist.

Where's the proverbial beef?!

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

That, in my view, is basically how words work in the author's "discovery". They are attached through definitions to other words defending the meaning of more words still.

What makes up a definition, and who says your definition is the most accurate?

Again, a definition in regard to what? And my point is that there are definitions for the words we use here able to be linked to the world around us. Definitions that seem to be applicable to all of us.

But what about the definitions of "determinism" and "free will" and "compatibilism"? How do we pin down the one and only definition that all of us must use when confronting behaviors we either "choose" given the psychological illusion of free will or choose because somehow it can be demonstrated that the matter we call the human brain is qualitatively different from all other matter that comes before it.

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

It's like the words "freedom" and "justice". There are the objective dictionary definitions, and then the subjective interpretations we give to those definitions in regards to actual human interactions in particular contexts.

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

We just don't know if those subjective interpretations themselves are not in fact embedded/embodied as well in the illusion of human autonomy.

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

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.

But where is the part where the meaning is intertwined in actual contexts in which it is demonstrated how human brains are either choosing things of our own volition or are "choosing" things [like definitions] that nature has compelled them to?

You're back to the same old false dichotomy that says either you are forced by nature, or you are doing things of your own volition. You are doing things of your own volition but that volition (or desire) but for the 100th time, that desire is not free to choose what it doesn't prefer.

Oh, indeed. Meaning we are back to the extent to which you and the author are able to demonstrate that what we prefer is not in turn only that which nature has compelled us to prefer.

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

You argue that...

I don't think it's that difficult to see the validity of his statement that we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It's not rocket science.

Okay, why can we only move in the direction of greater satisfaction if not because nature compels us to? Just as nature compelled us to invent rocket science.

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

you wish to give "I" here some mysterious quality/capacity not present in the interactions of mindless matter. At the moment of "choosing", this capacity becomes vital to you. And it makes "I" a very different kind of domino in nature. While at the same time you seem to concur that what does unfold involving "I" could not have unfolded any other way than how nature compels it to unfold.

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

I still don't grasp this distinction you make if the human brain is no less subject to the laws of matter.

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

I'm just willing to acknowledge myself that lifeless matter evolving into living matter evolving into brains evolving into the self-conscious "I" is truly mind-boggling. How to explain it?!!!

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

But that just takes me and my ilk back to the mystery of existence itself. Whereas you and your ilk just shrug off the biggest questions of all. No, we don't have answers for them but the answers have noting to do with what you know to be true about everything else.

And, besides, what you believe about everything else is the part that brings you comfort and consolation.

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

All the while insisting that none of this is not at the behest of nature's immutable laws.

He never said that. It is at the behest of nature's immutable laws but nature is not a separate entity that is forcing you, against your will. All this arguing over this ones simple and true statement. NOTHING CAN FORCE A PERSON TO DO ANYTHING, NOT EVEN NATURE, IF IT'S AGAINST HIS WILL TO DO.

Or: Your own "I" is necessarily intertwined in nature. Your "I" and nature are inherently inseparable from the laws of matter. And, as a result of that, nature compelled you to insist above that, NOTHING CAN FORCE A PERSON TO DO ANYTHING, NOT EVEN NATURE, IF IT'S AGAINST HIS WILL TO DO.

As though your "will" is, once again, defined by you as both a part of but not a part of nature.

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

It's really okay iambiguous. If his definition of determinism doesn't work for you because you believe your definition is more accurate, by all means stick to your definition.

So, nature has compelled you to be, what, condescending here?

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

It's not a question of my sticking to my definition so much as the extent to which the author is able to demonstrate that the manner in which he sticks to his own reflects a very different manifestation of nature

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

In other words, the extent to which his own movement in the direction of greater satisfaction reflects the way nature really works with respect to free will and the human brain.

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

So far his "demonstration" revolves around definitions and intellectual contraptions. Nothing able to be tested by, say, the folks who work with actual brains making actual choices in real time.

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

Still, the progressive future brimming with peace and prosperity can never be off the hook. That's guaranteed by the definition the author gives to the words in his discovery.

Obviously, if the principles are inaccurate, then the discovery would be false, but the principles are not wrong. If you think they are, stick with your definition and don't pursue this knowledge. I won't hold you responsible.

On the other hand, as I and others keep pointing out, the beauty of this sort of argument is that the proof will only become manifest long after we are all dead and gone.

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

So none of us are actually around to hold the others responsible. At least with the laws of matter relating to things like global warming we can imagine a considerably more tangible future. For our children, one side or the other will have shown to be closer to the objective truth. Definitions and intellectual assumptions give way to whatever the actual reality is. The liberal and conservative renditions of what constitutes a "progressive future" for humankind will be exposed once and for all.

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

Well, my guess is that nature has compelled me to point out that [your] own narrative here is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist tract. What I keep pointing out to [you] is that it is not what [you] believe is true that matters nearly as much as that [you] believe that all others are obligated to share in that belief.

Another psychological embodiment of this: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296

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

This has nothing to do with obligation. If people see the soundness of these principles, they will, of their own accord, desire to learn more. If not, then not. I have no control over what people are interested in. I'm hoping that there is interest and people will want to spread word about this knowledge so it can be carefully investigated. He even mentioned that at the end of the book.

But obligations themselves would have everything to do with nature evolving into minds evolving into mental, emotional and psychological states that are no less compelled by the laws of matter.

What you really have no control over is, well, anything at all. And that is because the laws of matter encompass the human brain pondering the things it is able to delude itself into believing that it does have some measure of control over. Like the words we are exchanging here.

We have no control over what gives us greater satisfaction, which is why will is not free.

And here we are again. From my frame of mind, we have no control over what gives us greater satistifaction because...because control here is embedded in the laws of matter.

In nature itself.

I have no autononous control over the words that I am now typing.

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

Instead, nature's laws have created a matter -- "I" -- able to deluded itself into believing that it does have autonomous control over the words it is now typing.

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

But what [so far] nature has not provided me with is an argument able to settle it once and for all. Though it has compelled others [like you] to be convinced that how they see everything is how everyone else is obligated to see it too.

Go figure nature, right?

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

Then back to the really nitty-gritty part here:

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

For starters read the book. Maybe you will still have doubts but it will give you a much better understanding.

No, for starters...

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

And then, finally, once again...

I'm sorry, but I'm compelled to be honest: How seriously can I take this? Even if I did possess some measure of autonomy, this is basically the sort of la la land New Age conjecture that has been coming at us now for decades. Why? Because in a postmodern world where everyone is craving something -- anything -- that can take the place of all the old traditional, denominational Gods, stuff like this is just, well, "thought up".

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

Thought up in order to convince oneself that there really is a substitute for God in what may well be an essentially meaningless universe. The whole point is to feel comforted and consoled in believing it in and of itself.

It's really just another rendition of Scientology to me. Only its intention are more idealistic. It's not just something "thought up" to make a lot of money.

This work has nothing to do with Scientology, which tells people what to do. This knowledge tells no one what to do. And it certainly isn't about making a lot of money.

It has everything to do with a frame of mind that makes startling assumptions about the past, present and future...and then offers up no hard evidence to confirm that what is believed to be true in the heads of the adherents, is able to be demonstrated such that all reasonable men and women have no choice but -- for all practical purposes -- to accept that the teachings are able to be made applicable to their day to day lives here and now.

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

[Meno_]

...., the present is more temporary than a past and future. It’s in pieces, never everlasting. They definitely exist in reality, both are observable.

Artimas, I think that we feel this way because we tend to spend so much time actually "dwelling" in our memories by thinking about them and contemplating our future, not even necessarily a better brighter one, because perhaps we do not like what we see of the here and now. Our so-called pasts and futures are kind of like "escapes" for us - anything so that we do not have to deal with what is going on NOW.

Focusing on the instant, being in the zone, being in the pocket, being mindful of what we are doing NOW - that is the present and that is really all we have except for memories and hope which waits in the wings.

Again, did I say anything here?

We have compartmentalized time because it is so vast. So many stars even dwell in the past not realizing that they are long gone but how wonderful it is to see their faded light. I think that this thread has kind of become derailed.

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

A slight correction, Peacegirl ;

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

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


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

[surreptitious75]

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

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

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

[peacegirl]

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

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

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

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

I am hoping that when I am no longer here, those who understand
these principles will continue to carry the ball. It is important to
understand that my prediction of 25 years or that this great change
that would take place in the 20th century was based on my conviction that
there would be a thorough investigation and understanding of the
principles involved, but as yet it has not been. In other words, if
Gregor Mendel had predicted that his discovery about heredity would
come to light approximately 30 years after his death, he would have
been accurate, but he had no way of knowing when it would be
confirmed by science. He knew it was coming, but could not know
when. In my case, however, I was allowing 5-10 years for this
knowledge to be understood by science and the political world, taking
for granted that the intellectual capacity was available and would
thoroughly investigate what could not be denied. I still believe the
intellectual capacity to understand it exists today, but to quote
Morrison again, “Now we encounter the stubborn resistance of the
human mind which is reluctant to give up fixed ideas. The early
Greeks knew the earth was a sphere but it took 2000 years to convince
men that this fact is true. New ideas encounter opposition, ridicule
and abuse, but truth survives and is verified.”

Can you see the problem
I have with regard to my discovery? If it took 2 thousand years to get
the shape of the earth scientifically confirmed so that all mankind
would accept it, how long do you think it will take to get this
knowledge in my book scientifically confirmed and accepted when 98%
of mankind believe that man’s will is free and when this belief
hermetically seals a door behind which is the discovery that will bring
about this Great Transition. However, two things are certain. This
discovery must come to light sooner or later because God is giving us
no choice in this matter. Until that time, however, every effort must
be made to bring this knowledge to light in whatever way possible.
With the public’s help, there is every reason to believe that the dawning
of the Golden Age will take place some time in the 21st century. And
when it finally arrives, we will all be here to celebrate the inception of
this wonderful new world.

[peacegirl]

...., the present is more temporary than a past and future. It’s in pieces, never everlasting. They definitely exist in reality, both are observable.

Artimas, I think that we feel this way because we tend to spend so much time actually "dwelling" in our memories by thinking about them and contemplating our future, not even necessarily a better brighter one, because perhaps we do not like what we see of the here and now. Our so-called pasts and futures are kind of like "escapes" for us - anything so that we do not have to deal with what is going on NOW.

Focusing on the instant, being in the zone, being in the pocket, being mindful of what we are doing NOW - that is the present and that is really all we have except for memories and hope which waits in the wings.

Again, did I say anything here?

We have compartmentalized time because it is so vast. So many stars even dwell in the past not realizing that they are long gone but how wonderful it is to see their faded light. I think that this thread has kind of become derailed.

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

A slight correction, Peacegirl ;

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

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


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

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

[Meno_]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[surreptitious75]

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

[peacegirl]

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

That’s always a possibility.

[peacegirl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Meno_]

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

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

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




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

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


Many Mansions ref: Edgar Casey