New Discovery

[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.

Who is calculating time present? He made one very accurate observation, and that is we do everything in the present. If you don't believe that this is true, then that's fine, but this was an astute observation that I believe is accurate.

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?

There isn't absolute freedom intrinsic or extrinsic because we have memory which is part of the process of evaluation and contemplation. Animals are also acting in accordance with the law of determinism, for although they are not contemplating their next move the way we do, they are still moving away from one position to the next. Life itself pushes all living things in this direction. This is not a conscious decision on the part of animals, nor does it come from the subconscious. These behaviors are instinctual. I gave an example of a bird pruning itself and suddenly taking off in flight. Obviously the bird wasn't thinking in terms of the words "satisfaction" or "dissatisfaction" but they were moving in that direction nevertheless.

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

You misunderstood him. That's why if you don't care to read any of his writing you will be creating a lot of non-sequiturs.

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.

We can't identify anything that suggests the past IN REALITY. We can't go back to the past IN REALITY because it doesn't exist. Having only the present in no way means that we have free choice. Humans are able to remember events in the past which allow them to make choices that are contingent on those events held in memory. Once again, just because we live in the present and just because there is no such thing as the past IN REALITY does not mean we cannot choose what gives us greater satisfaction based on antecedent events. But this all comes from our memory bank and how we interpret those events. If we had amnesia we could not make choices based on the past. Our brains would only register the present which is why people that have electro shock therapy forget that they were depressed since they don't have memory of their circumstances that led them to their emotional state.

[Meno_]

I got it Peace Girl, the quantum state: Be present or aware, rather then try to evaluate what "IT" is that is aware to 'it'
The latter changes the format preception Into it's idea, and the idea of it can not represent It's Self.
(In time).
Thanks for Your patience, if I understand correctly.

If not, per Your observation, it's very close. My requirement of needing the absolute reflection of literal and figurative components has been satisfied.

[peacegirl]

Meno: I got it Peace Girl, the quantum state:

Peacegirl: No you don’t. Stop acting like you do. It’s insincere!

Meno: Be present or aware, rather then try to evaluate what "IT" is that is aware to 'it'

Peacegirl: totally unrelated


Meno: The latter changes the format preception Into it's idea, and the idea of it can not represent It's Self.
(In time).
Thanks for Your patience, if I understand correctly.

Peacegirl: you understand nothing

Meno: If not, per Your observation, it's very close. My requirement of needing the absolute reflection of literal and figurative components has been satisfied.

Peacegirl: nothing has been satisfied based on your input, sorry

[Meno_]

Then back to the philosophical debate, which I shall not conclude , sans the idea of god. I was tempted to say that I will conclude with what has been said, but promised I was not a quitter.

[peacegirl]

Then back to the philosophical debate, which I shall not conclude , sans the idea of god. I was tempted to say that I will conclude with what has been said, but promised I was not a quitter.

You can quit if you want. None the worse for wear! lol

[Meno_]

Then back to the philosophical debate, which I shall not conclude , sans the idea of god. I was tempted to say that I will conclude with what has been said, but promised I was not a quitter.

You can quit if you want. None the worse for wear! lol

Your whole manner has changed that is understood in terms of some intangible thing , that is also obvious.

That two pages since, You or your Author have commended my view as similar in kind, is testamental. .

The provocative manner still haunts a non - quitter whch was again attested to.

What remains is Your direct disclosure as to Your own interpretation rather then simply repeating tendency of moving to better situations ,more pleasing places in time!

Finally, Your suggestion that I am free to quit, does not phase out the idea of expressing contraindicated signals, that can only be expressed in the language of determinancy.

That language is pseudo constructive, since it is processed as an entailment, of the inductive kind, effecting a reconstructive process.

Finally, You may disqualify me on some basis, other then the one given.

That is part and partial to any one seeking the truth., including using sense and no sense figuratively, with a broad spectrum effigy : non-sense.

[peacegirl]

Then back to the philosophical debate, which I shall not conclude , sans the idea of god. I was tempted to say that I will conclude with what has been said, but promised I was not a quitter.

You can quit if you want. None the worse for wear! lol

Your whole manner has changed that is understood in terms of some intangible thing , that is also obvious.

That two pages since, You or your Author have commended my view as similar in kind, is testamental. .

The provocative manner still haunts a non - quitter whch was again attested to.

What remains is Your direct disclosure as to Your own interpretation rather then simply repeating tendency of moving to better situations ,more pleasing places in time!

Finally, Your suggestion that I am free to quit, does not phase out the idea of expressing contraindicated signals, that can only be expressed in the language of determinancy.

That language is pseudo constructive, since it is processed as an entailment, of the inductive kind, effecting a reconstructive process.

Finally, You may disqualify me on some basis, other then the one given.

That is part and partial to any one seeking the truth., including using sense and no sense figuratively, with a broad spectrum effigy : non-sense.

Until you can tell me what the discovery is Meno, you have no basis to agree or disagree.

[Meno_]

Even thought of an analogy, consisting of an extended koan.

The monk asks the Master if by the examples given, he thinks if he is enlightened. The Master in disbelief claps his hand and days : if you think you are, then you're not.

But perhaps it's another version of the ontological question as it relates to Nothingness: is it something?

[peacegirl]

Even thought of an analogy, consisting of an extended koan.

The monk asks the Master if by the examples given, he thinks if he is enlightened. The Master in disbelief claps his hand and days : if you think you are, then you're not.

But perhaps it's another version of the ontological question as it relates to Nothingness: is it something?

What is enlightenment but knowing the truth. John 8:32: The truth shall set us free. Sound thinking and reasoning based on careful observation are important elements of the scientific method. It's not that reasoning is a poor method of finding truth; it's whether the reasoning itself is sound. Enlightenment can come in many forms as Zen Buddhist monks have illustrated, but reasoning (based on accuracy) can't be left out of the equation in our search for truth.

[Meno_]

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

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

The real is rational and the rational is real.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[iambiguous]

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

I challenge you to bring this part...

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.

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

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

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.

My only recourse here is to repeat myself:

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

In other words...

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.

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

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

Your own brain being compelled to note things like this:

...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.

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

The past doesn't cause. God doesn't cause. The Big Bang doesn't cause.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

Then 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."

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.

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

But, again, in all those words...

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

[peacegirl]

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

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

The real is rational and the rational is real.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[peacegirl]

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?

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

Nothing at all.

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

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

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

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

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.

There you go again making these "exceptions".

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

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

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

I challenge you to bring this part...

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.

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

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

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

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.

My only recourse here is to repeat myself:

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words...

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.

[/quote]

Again and again: even in a world where free will prevails, once a choice is made it stays made. That's just common sense

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

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

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

Your own brain being compelled to note things like this:

...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.

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

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

The past doesn't cause. God doesn't cause. The Big Bang doesn't cause.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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."

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

Then you post another "world of words" assessment from the author.[/qutoe]

How can we communicate with each other without words? Yes, language is limited but we can get close enough to what we are tying to express through clear and precise definitions of every word we are using. That's what this author did. He actually has an entire chapter called Words, Not Reality. He knew the danger of using words that were not reflective of anything real.

But, again, in all those words...

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

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

It can't change the world until this discovery is brought to light. Then plans can be implemented to get the Great Transition (from a free will environment to a no free will environment) started. But it can still benefit you by the realization that none of us are to blame. It invokes true compassion for everybody without giving up rehabilitative action if necessary, including incarceration to protect the public. This new world can't come about quickly. It will be done gradually as more people become citizens of the new world where they will be controlled by a much higher law than the manmade laws now in use.

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

We are not beyond the laws of our nature that compel us to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Where did you get the idea that before a choice is made it somehow both at one with nature and beyond nature. That's a false interpretation.

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.

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

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

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

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

[surreptitious75]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Meno_]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[peacegirl]

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

Your time travel analogy does not show a contradiction. Who is talking about whether we have a reasonable assessment of the future? This is completely unrelated.

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

It may be that our a priori sense of transcedence is sustained, and that reduction is limited by a Libnetzian scintilla of indeterminacy. Where does this negate the fact that we live in the present?

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

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

Missing elements may help in a reintegration of elements, which results in probably quantification through transcendence of the missing elements. And it may also help to make good sense of data which have no other foundation logically. But what does this have to do with the fact that we live in the present and that the word "cause" is misleading (in this very important debate) since nothing from the past (which doesn't exist) can cause something to occur in the present when we ONLY have the present. Our memory makes sense of the data from the past, which we then use to make decisions based on that data.

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

I think he has done a superb job of demonstrating the two undeniable principles based on astute observation.

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

Where is there no correspondence in his demonstration that causes a gap between psychological and ontological relevance that then requires philosophy to evoke a posture of defensiveness?

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

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

Generality has its place, but particularity is essential. No one is saying to cut it, but if you leave it in the abstract and don't bring it down to earth, you are speaking non-sense.

[Meno_]

So are You, if, You admit the question of time is arguable , as You are taking issue with it, as to what the present indicates.
You are confirming the Janis understanding of the present.
Of course there is no past or future, the present is a set of an imminent domain . of absolute content.
The present contains all three essential modes of understanding time. I never said that transcendence is fixed in real time, but it is essential to understand imminance by understanding it's transcendent a-priori development.

Here I am absolutely not ad odds with the Author, and if You contradict this notion then Your denial of the basic con tra diction speaks for it's self, for the present flow of time can not be illustrated except by the contradiction inherent between 'set' (measurable) time and biologically appearant time.
The appearance of time can be inferred by perceiving aging as a tool.
Set time is using relational objective criteria, such as the watch, the sundial indicate but these tools infer time as immeasurable except by pattern recognition of infinite repetition.

There fore the pro position that time exists is fallacious on it's face, and does not need any objectively linked example.

Time offers no examples because all examples are nominally begging it's own existence.

Being swallows transcendetial time into a set immimate domain.

[Artimas]

Past Change exists and was executed from what was a present moment, we call this the past. The present moment is where we may interact or observe change in a current moment to create past. Future is the thought of what will or could Change before it has, which can be controlled, estimated, manipulated, etc.

Time is the measurement of change, time doesn’t exist outside of being a tool for man to measure reoccurring change.

I am not sure how anyone can say the past doesn’t exist, that’s beyond foolish.. time travel exists, it doesn’t mean we physically go back to prevent change, not yet.. you misconstrue and misconceive the idea we are explaining, Pg.

[peacegirl]

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

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

You're just making comments based on your own doubts. There is actual evidence to show that given this change in environment, a huge paradigm shift is possible that will catapult us to a different kind of world, a world of peace and prosperity. You seem to be saying that man does not have an inborn morality or the ability to know right from wrong, but given the right environment all people will be moral which only means they will not desire to cause harm to others.

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

Moral advancement is a term to denote someone's ability to know right from wrong. Most people know right from wrong but still desire to hurt others. The advancement therefore has to do with a change in environment. Nothing happens overnight, not even the Great Transition when it is put into effect. We are creating a better world slowly and incrementally but this knowledge is revolutionary and consequently will create a revolutionary change for everyone's benefit, not just a few.

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

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

You are making a lot of assumptions. You are saying that because religion and philosophy have not been able to figure out how to prevent war and crime, no one can. You're also stating that suffering will always exist unless man is eradicated, which is a really strong statement based on what? How do you know suffering will always exist, especially the kind that man has imposed on his fellowman? We can't always predict the future based on the past. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but skepticism alone shouldn't cause you to conclude that this couldn't be a real discovery.

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

How do you know we will always suffer? This knowledge doesn't stop all suffering, but it does stop a lot. Who knows what new discoveries will be made in the future to eradicate the rest of suffering such as genetic diseases, etc especially when more money will be available for research and development.

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

You may choose to fall back on the default position, but don't tell that to the visionaries and discoverers who are the movers and shakers of the world due to to their dissatisfaction with the status quo and their never ending pursuit to make the world a better place.

[peacegirl]

So are You, if, You admit the question of time is arguable , as You are taking issue with it, as to what the present indicates.
You are confirming the Janis understanding of the present.
Of course there is no past or future, the present is a set of an imminent domain . of absolute content.
The present contains all three essential modes of understanding time. I never said that transcendence is fixed in real time, but it is essential to understand imminance by understanding it's transcendent a-priori development.

I was expressing one fact only, and that is we only live in the present which leads to certain important observations not discussed.

Here I am absolutely not ad odds with the Author, and if You contradict this notion then Your denial of the basic con tra diction speaks for it's self, for the present flow of time can not be illustrated except by the contradiction inherent between 'set' (measurable) time and biologically appearant time.
The appearance of time can be inferred by perceiving aging as a tool.
Set time is using relational objective criteria, such as the watch, the sundial indicate but these tools infer time as immeasurable except by pattern recognition of infinite repetition.

There fore the pro position that time exists is fallacious on it's face, and does not need any objectively linked example.

Time offers no examples because all examples are nominally begging it's own existence.

Being swallows transcendetial time into a set immimate domain.

Thanks for that.

[peacegirl]

Past Change exists and was executed from what was a present moment, we call this the past. The present moment is where we may interact or observe change in a current moment to create past. Future is the thought of what will or could Change before it has, which can be controlled, estimated, manipulated, etc.

Time is the measurement of change, time doesn’t exist outside of being a tool for man to measure reoccurring change.

That is true. Time measures change, but it isn't a dimension where we can go to on a timeline since the past and future don't exist.

I am not sure how anyone can say the past doesn’t exist, that’s beyond foolish.. time travel exists, it doesn’t mean we physically go back to prevent change, not yet.. you misconstrue and misconceive the idea we are explaining, Pg.

Look, there are things we can achieve scientifically and things that will remain science fiction. Going back in time [in a time machine] is one of those science fictions that seem to have people entranced. The past, or what has happened in our lives, is recorded in our brain which we use to make decisions about the future, but there is no such thing in reality as the past. Can you locate the past anywhere on the planet? Can you locate anything that exists in the past? It's a word that has confused people because they believe that there is such a thing as the past that is more than just their memory of what has occurred. The truth is we do everything from morning until night in the present.

[Meno_]

Ok . Here, the immanence of the eternal now comes to be perceived via deconstruction, where the constructed object of the ages is short circuited in a drastic deconstruction, where the transcendental schematics are realized as a material entity of utilization.

The look, the concern of many modern philosophers , and primarily of Sartre's look, concerns not with the being and /nor the nothingness of objective relations in the modern sense, as encompassing it in a presence of a limited suspension of a further fall.

These are merely notes to build on to specify the problem of understanding rather then perceiving partially differentiated 'sensed data' in the metaphor of a negated and contradictory travel through an illusionary time .o

Is this really the end, (of history ) in that sense?


The metaphor of transcendent time-travel (of crossing the Styx of the river of no return) can actualize in a present future, where all relativity of resembling multiple families of other universes as they may encompass an absolute presence.

Can an angry god become the evil genius who by his own absolute exstatic being, create partial universes of ever repeating imminance?

The above is toward the idea of the absolute imminent present, where
millions of incarnations may slowly change the grossly determined Way, where individual possibilities are mere ant like antics in a universe of positions in the grand design , which like a magnet gave the compass of moving toward increasingly more frightful and cataclysmic positions.(Resulting in faithless fear of non recovery from the fall?)

The repetitions of infinite frequencied, positions on an infinitely extended and durable field, make the question of a sustained identity a fallacious endeavor.

Only partial differentiated memory chips , can save a total meltdown of remembrance, and the problem with that is, that for most , that is inconceivable.
Materialism is the requisite border from which a leap is totally perceptible as catastrophic.

That is the time travel of the transcended object, that can not be traversed into the object of the immanent mind. (Nietzche)

Science will never convince of the energy base of matter, because then god would become the evil genius
and ecce homo would be right to return eternally with little chance of changing that determination.



---- ---
-- --
--
Here comes the contradiction, : appearance would defeat reality, if left to it-s own devices in this metaphoric time travel which is in fact becoming real. How?

Knowledge, and unremembered memory, ( not quote the same as forgotten) will leave longer and longer spatial associations between the partial chips of .traces. of even traces of shortcuts, so simulations (bases in games of.similar cognative nexus, of meaning, will, in due course, regress or reduce in quantum jumps toward the next culpable leap, and in relative time, such will appear as variable and haphazardly chosen, (as the move toward the most.pleasurable step)
However all the universal steps in simultainity will appear as violating temporal sequencing.

In fact there will be sensible data which is perceived as having happened before the event or idea became approximately available for a reconstructive of partial differentiatiated appearance. .

As matter of fact it is possible that a prior event will become one that has passed later , in the hierarchy.of becoming , and interpreted as having happened before it was noted, and perhaps changed the varial outcome as changed differently.

As Artemis suggested , this metaphoric journey through time may will actually cause a utilization of technical production in actuality of time travsling as having been changed, for instance the present imminance of a practitioner of Vedic Law, by practice undo the karmic effects brought on by his predecessors, therefore liberating him from it's effects .

The reductive limits sustaining the eidectic threshold, will descend toward chaos, and simulated controls will take up the slack.
Society will become segmented into various pockets of partially organized units of autonomy, and controlled social networks under the guidance of big brother will determine limits.

The robot man of the Android is an inevitable product in daily life very soon, maybe in another generation.
The fiction of science has become reality and science fiction will be keyed to gross linkage of inter connected
predictions of reasonable casual objectives .

Humanity will loose it's soul, considering a self contained illusion .

The illusion of self consciousness lifts the objectless relational component of the 'look'; by revealing the subjugation. of the self as a necessary part of determining the self from self anhiliation through faithless fear of depersonalization, caused not by the eventual erosion of historical artifacts , reflective ofnthe past, but the reduction of phenomenal awareness of their significance, will cause the primary reassertion of the plain of the imminance ofnthe past within the presence. of consciousness.

The phenomenological reduction will tangle with self awareness, as defensive natural measure to save mankind from the futility of social madness and chaos. The artificial consciousness will see to it, as it becomes more and more.able to store , the intentionality inherent in superior containment of memory[,( to be able to overcome the limitations imposed by the opposite): the contrary ever shrinking storages of 'natural' memory banks shortcutting deconstructed and simplified awareness.] ; - to save the intentional repetition of a transcendent motive of The Object, that make necessary the ultimate reason of existence , as a formal and necessary key to the ultimate transcendental Being of something greater then the appearent nothingness of existence.

[surreptitious75]

The past or what has happened in our lives is recorded in our brain which we use to make decisions about the future but there is no such thing in reality as the past. Can you locate the past anywhere on the planet? Can you locate anything that exists in the past? It s a word that has confused people because they believe that there is such a thing as the past that is more than just their memory of what has occurred

The past is everywhere because absolutely everything that you see is from there. You cannot experience the present beyond your mind and body
The entire physical world that exists outside of your mind and body is only something you see as it was even though it may appear instantaneous

The past therefore exists because we spend our whole lives looking at it because it is literally all that we can see

[peacegirl]

Ok . Here, the immanence of the eternal now comes to be perceived via deconstruction, where the constructed object of the ages is short circuited in a drastic deconstruction, where the transcendental schematics are realized as a material entity of utilization.

The look, the concern of many modern philosophers , and primarily of Sartre's look, concerns not with the being and /nor the nothingness of objective relations in the modern sense, as encompassing it in a presence of a limited suspension of a further fall.

These are merely notes to build on to specify the problem of understanding rather then perceiving partially differentiated 'sensed data' in the metaphor of a negated and contradictory travel through an illusionary time .o

Is this really the end, (of history ) in that sense?


The metaphor of transcendent time-travel (of crossing the Styx of the river of no return) can actualize in a present future, where all relativity of resembling multiple families of other universes as they may encompass an absolute presence.

Can an angry god become the evil genius who by his own absolute exstatic being, create partial universes of ever repeating imminance?

The above is toward the idea of the absolute imminent present, where
millions of incarnations may slowly change the grossly determined Way, where individual possibilities are mere ant like antics in a universe of positions in the grand design , which like a magnet gave the compass of moving toward increasingly more frightful and cataclysmic positions.(Resulting in faithless fear of non recovery from the fall?)

The repetitions of infinite frequencied, positions on an infinitely extended and durable field, make the question of a sustained identity a fallacious endeavor.

Only partial differentiated memory chips , can save a total meltdown of remembrance, and the problem with that is, that for most , that is inconceivable.
Materialism is the requisite border from which a leap is totally perceptible as catastrophic.

That is the time travel of the transcended object, that can not be traversed into the object of the immanent mind. (Nietzche)

Science will never convince of the energy base of matter, because then god would become the evil genius
and ecce homo would be right to return eternally with little chance of changing that determination.



---- ---
-- --
--
Here comes the contradiction, : appearance would defeat reality, if left to it-s own devices in this metaphoric time travel which is in fact becoming real. How?

Knowledge, and unremembered memory, ( not quote the same as forgotten) will leave longer and longer spatial associations between the partial chips of .traces. of even traces of shortcuts, so simulations (bases in games of.similar cognative nexus, of meaning, will, in due course, regress or reduce in quantum jumps toward the next culpable leap, and in relative time, such will appear as variable and haphazardly chosen, (as the move toward the most.pleasurable step)
However all the universal steps in simultainity will appear as violating temporal sequencing.

In fact there will be sensible data which is perceived as having happened before the event or idea became approximately available for a reconstructive of partial differentiatiated appearance. .

As matter of fact it is possible that a prior event will become one that has passed later , in the hierarchy.of becoming , and interpreted as having happened before it was noted, and perhaps changed the varial outcome as changed differently.

As Artemis suggested , this metaphoric journey through time may will actually cause a utilization of technical production in actuality of time travsling as having been changed, for instance the present imminance of a practitioner of Vedic Law, by practice undo the karmic effects brought on by his predecessors, therefore liberating him from it's effects .

The reductive limits sustaining the eidectic threshold, will descend toward chaos, and simulated controls will take up the slack.
Society will become segmented into various pockets of partially organized units of autonomy, and controlled social networks under the guidance of big brother will determine limits.

The robot man of the Android is an inevitable product in daily life very soon, maybe in another generation.
The fiction of science has become reality and science fiction will be keyed to gross linkage of inter connected
predictions of reasonable casual objectives .

Humanity will loose it's soul, considering a self contained illusion .

The illusion of self consciousness lifts the objectless relational component of the 'look'; by revealing the subjugation. of the self as a necessary part of determining the self from self anhiliation through faithless fear of depersonalization, caused not by the eventual erosion of historical artifacts , reflective ofnthe past, but the reduction of phenomenal awareness of their significance, will cause the primary reassertion of the plain of the imminance ofnthe past within the presence. of consciousness.

The phenomenological reduction will tangle with self awareness, as defensive natural measure to save mankind from the futility of social madness and chaos. The artificial consciousness will see to it, as it becomes more and more.able to store , the intentionality inherent in superior containment of memory[,( to be able to overcome the limitations imposed by the opposite): the contrary ever shrinking storages of 'natural' memory banks shortcutting deconstructed and simplified awareness.] ; - to save the intentional repetition of a transcendent motive of The Object, that make necessary the ultimate reason of existence , as a formal and necessary key to the ultimate transcendental Being of something greater then the appearent nothingness of existence.

I'm trying to understand your explanation of how you think the world will be saved or at the very least a world worth saving. I certainly don't believe your prediction below:

The robot man of the Android is an inevitable product in daily life very soon, maybe in another generation.
The fiction of science has become reality and science fiction will be keyed to gross linkage of inter connected
predictions of reasonable casual objectives .

Humanity will loose it's soul, considering a self contained illusion .


Your logic may be valid (not that I understand your philosophy), but I don't believe it's sound. If you want to elaborate, be my guest.

[peacegirl]

The past or what has happened in our lives is recorded in our brain which we use to make decisions about the future but there is no such thing in reality as the past. Can you locate the past anywhere on the planet? Can you locate anything that exists in the past? It s a word that has confused people because they believe that there is such a thing as the past that is more than just their memory of what has occurred

The past is everywhere because absolutely everything that you see is from there. You cannot experience the present beyond your mind and body
The entire physical world that exists outside of your mind and body is only something you see as it was even though it may appear instantaneous

The past therefore exists because we spend our whole lives looking at it because it is literally all that we can see

All I'm saying is that we live in the present. The past is a memory. An animal doesn't register the past because he lives in the present without the kind of language that is required to remember the past and to think in terms of the past. When you say that we see only the past even though it may appear instantaneous, this is based on theory not fact. It's been made into a fact because it is believed that light carries the image over space/time and therefore there's a delay. But this author believes that light does not carry the image at all. IOW, we not only live in the present but we see in the present. This relates to his second discovery regarding how the eyes work but I'm not ready to get into that at the moment.