New Discovery

[peacegirl]

Yeah but this is the kind of thing you gotta present to the whole world all of a sudden and at once, for it to have any impact. All educational systems the world over would have to integrate this into their curriculum to prevent the next generation from becoming the liars, or imbeciles, or both, that the former generation was. And with this revolution would come drastic changes in the superstructures of government.... namely at an economic, sociological level. The first thing you'd notice would be a magnificent rejection of the thesis by those who profit from the criminal justice system and the prison industries. Next you'd be forced to contend with conservatives who reject the interference of government in social engineering. The upper classes won't like the idea of their taxes being used to raise the quality of life and education for what would otherwise be the criminal class... which would then be followed by the capitalists' protest against the same. Blue collar crime would decrease in proportion to the improvement of the quality of life for the proletariat/lumpen-proletariat... and this, obviously, would follow the intervention of government into the private sector. Lower and middle classes would be more wealthy, and therefore less prone to commit crime.

Yeah the whole thing would shake the present paradigm at it's very core. We're talkin' maaaajor change, homegirl.

You have no conception of how amazing this paradigm shift is, and as the author stated many times, this shift has nothing to do with him. He just happened to see the laws that govern our behavior in a more crystallized fashion. What will compel people to become citizens of this new world is that the benefits will outweigh anything that they have in their present life. It will be a maaaajor change, and I'm glad someone here appreciates how big this really is. The biggest thing of all is that it can be achieved. This is not pie in the sky wishful thinking. No one can be hurt when transitioning from the old world of free will (blame and punishment) to the new world of no free will (no blame and punishment) because no one will lose their wealth nor will people whose profession is becoming extinct, such as floor walkers and locksmiths or anything that is redolent of blame, lose one penny of their accustomed income. They will be guaranteed their standard of living never to go down.

[promethean75]

i once told the doc over in the ethics thread that i had lost faith in this, but you've given me new courage, peacegirl, and i look toward a future brought to light by the beacon of hope that you shine so brightly.

can i buy you a coke?

[Meno_]

Yeah but this is the kind of thing you gotta present to the whole world all of a sudden and at once, for it to have any impact. All educational systems the world over would have to integrate this into their curriculum to prevent the next generation from becoming the liars, or imbeciles, or both, that the former generation was. And with this revolution would come drastic changes in the superstructures of government.... namely at an economic, sociological level. The first thing you'd notice would be a magnificent rejection of the thesis by those who profit from the criminal justice system and the prison industries. Next you'd be forced to contend with conservatives who reject the interference of government in social engineering. The upper classes won't like the idea of their taxes being used to raise the quality of life and education for what would otherwise be the criminal class... which would then be followed by the capitalists' protest against the same. Blue collar crime would decrease in proportion to the improvement of the quality of life for the proletariat/lumpen-proletariat... and this, obviously, would follow the intervention of government into the private sector. Lower and middle classes would be more wealthy, and therefore less prone to commit crime.

Yeah the whole thing would shake the present paradigm at it's very core. We're talkin' maaaajor change, homegirl.

You have no conception of how amazing this paradigm shift is, and as the author stated many times, this shift has nothing to do with him. He just happened to see the laws that govern our behavior in a more crystallized fashion. What will compel people to become citizens of this new world is that the benefits will outweigh anything that they have in their present life. It will be a maaaajor change, and I'm glad someone here appreciates how big this really is. The biggest thing of all is that it can be achieved. This is not pie in the sky wishful thinking. No one can be hurt when transitioning from the old world of free will (blame and punishment) to the new world of no free will (no blame and punishment) because no one will lose their wealth nor will people whose profession is becoming extinct, such as floor walkers and locksmiths or anything that is redolent of blame, lose one penny of their accustomed income. They will be guaranteed their standard of living never to go down.

Yes it's exciting to be at an age where old world hostilities may be a thing of a past long forgotten, and participate in the new world, where liberty has sprung from the dark ages of oppression.

Can't wait to get the book. I can really relate to the possibilities of the coming transition, which if the author is right , is happening as we are talking.

[peacegirl]

Yeah but this is the kind of thing you gotta present to the whole world all of a sudden and at once, for it to have any impact. All educational systems the world over would have to integrate this into their curriculum to prevent the next generation from becoming the liars, or imbeciles, or both, that the former generation was. And with this revolution would come drastic changes in the superstructures of government.... namely at an economic, sociological level. The first thing you'd notice would be a magnificent rejection of the thesis by those who profit from the criminal justice system and the prison industries. Next you'd be forced to contend with conservatives who reject the interference of government in social engineering. The upper classes won't like the idea of their taxes being used to raise the quality of life and education for what would otherwise be the criminal class... which would then be followed by the capitalists' protest against the same. Blue collar crime would decrease in proportion to the improvement of the quality of life for the proletariat/lumpen-proletariat... and this, obviously, would follow the intervention of government into the private sector. Lower and middle classes would be more wealthy, and therefore less prone to commit crime.

Yeah the whole thing would shake the present paradigm at it's very core. We're talkin' maaaajor change, homegirl.

You have no conception of how amazing this paradigm shift is, and as the author stated many times, this shift has nothing to do with him. He just happened to see the laws that govern our behavior in a more crystallized fashion. What will compel people to become citizens of this new world is that the benefits will outweigh anything that they have in their present life. It will be a maaaajor change, and I'm glad someone here appreciates how big this really is. The biggest thing of all is that it can be achieved. This is not pie in the sky wishful thinking. No one can be hurt when transitioning from the old world of free will (blame and punishment) to the new world of no free will (no blame and punishment) because no one will lose their wealth nor will people whose profession is becoming extinct, such as floor walkers and locksmiths or anything that is redolent of blame, lose one penny of their accustomed income. They will be guaranteed their standard of living never to go down.

Yes it's exciting to be at an age where old world hostilities may be a thing of a past long forgotten, and participate in the new world, where liberty has sprung from the dark ages of oppression.

Can't wait to get the book. I can really relate to the possibilities of the coming transition, which if the author is right , is happening as we are talking.

Yes, we are evolving as a human race every minute of every day. Look how far we've come, but this formal transition will catapult us into the Golden Age of man --- an age where there is no war, crime, or poverty --- more quickly than anything heretofore. I'm glad you're interested in the book. If you find it compelling, I hope you will join me in the mission to get this knowledge thoroughly investigated and brought to light. I want to warn you that his chapter on Words, Not Reality (Chapter Four) has caused some people to react harshly since he claims that the eyes are not a sense organ and why this knowledge matters. Anything that challenges established science is going to be ridiculed at first. There's no getting around it. I just hope you keep an open mind.

[Meno_]

That does sound challenging , but am used to such , and because of the aforementioned , am willing to make allowances to benefit hope through faith.

[promethean75]

Look how far we've come, but this formal transition will catapult us into the Golden Age of man --- an age where there is no war, crime, or poverty

excellent. now that the human species has finally stopped bullshitting around, we can focus our collective efforts on space colonization, exploration and expansion.

the headlines will read: the year two-thousand-something... when humans got their shit together and finally stopped behaving like monkeys.

[peacegirl]

That does sound challenging , but am used to such , and because of the aforementioned , am willing to make allowances to benefit hope through faith.

I believe you'll see the value of this knowledge once you grasp the fundamentals. It's okay to have some doubt until all questions are answered to your satisfaction. What's not okay is when people disregard someone's work because he didn't have the "right" credentials. The author urges people to read the book more than once because there's a lot to digest. I also want to remind you that this is not a religious work. I hope that doesn't discourage you.

[peacegirl]

Look how far we've come, but this formal transition will catapult us into the Golden Age of man --- an age where there is no war, crime, or poverty

excellent. now that the human species has finally stopped bullshitting around, we can focus our collective efforts on space colonization, exploration and expansion.

the headlines will read: the year two-thousand-something... when humans got their shit together and finally stopped behaving like monkeys.

Just remember we couldn't help but go through the necessary stages of evil to reach this turning point in history!

[promethean75]

yeah but 80,000 years? i'da done it in 40,000 if they put me in charge.

[peacegirl]

yeah but 80,000 years? i'da done it in 40,000 if they put me in charge.

[Meno_]

That does sound challenging , but am used to such , and because of the aforementioned , am willing to make allowances to benefit hope through faith.

I believe you'll see the value of this knowledge once you grasp the fundamentals. It's okay to have some doubt until all questions are answered to your satisfaction. What's not okay is when people disregard someone's work because he didn't have the "right" credentials. The author urges people to read the book more than once because there's a lot to digest. I also want to remind you that this is not a religious work. I hope that doesn't discourage you.

Not at all, I consider organized religion somewhere between opium and ecstasy but not for the lucid mind but for the people.

However , fluctuations and overlaps can make that pronouncement probably self effacing.

[iambiguous]

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.

But: You still got to "choose" to type those words, right? So, even though your own particular "I" is but one more thing that nature is wholly responsible for, it's not completely intertwined in...what?

Somehow "in your head" the relationship that nature compels you to believe in regard to this relationship with nature is different from that which nature compels me to believe about it "in my head".

In other words, me "choosing" [anything] is no less a necessary component of nature. There is no being external to it because nature is, well, "all there is".

So, when you say "we have no control over what we think up and what we choose" you are still able to "choose" to say that in a way that...

Well, damned if I know what you mean by it.

And every attempt on my part to yank that out of you...

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.

...results in just more obfuscation.

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?

Okay, but you can't tell me that I'm not making only the "choice" that the laws of matter [embodied in my brain] compel me to make. Your clarification then being no less compelled by nature itself.

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.

John rapes Jane. Jane becomes pregnant. Jane aborts the unborn baby. What part of this existential sequence is not essentially compelled by nature? Hurt abounds here. Make it all go away in the author's "progressive future". Only this time actually demonstrate how it can be made to go away [in a world of conflicting goods and conflicting hurts] without all of the theoretical assumptions about how the "discovery" itself makes it all go away in the author's head.

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.

In other words, you can't. Instead just another "general description" "assessment" in which words define and defend the meaning of other words that go around and around and around in circles. If only as nature complels it to.

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 only idea that I can have [in a determined universe] would seem to be the idea that nature compels me to have. Thus my "agency" is but another component of nature. And that is no less applicable to you. In other words, our choices change only because our brain matter is compelled to change in order to remain in sync with all of the other mindless/mindful matter it comes into contact with. The mystery is still mind. Matter like no other matter before it.

That's what the hard guys and gals in the scientific community are still struggling to come to grips with. But, unlike with you and I and the author, it's not all just a "world of words" for them.

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.

Yes, some believe the choice that they make is a manifestation of their free will. Others believe there is no free will and they "choose" only what they could never have not chosen. But either way once the choice itself is made, it can't be unmade.

I can only presume that I must be compelled by nature to misunderstand what nature compels you to believe here.

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.

Luck? How, in a wholly determined universe that is unfolding only as it ever can unfold -- re the laws of matter -- does "luck" ever come into play? Something might seem to be luck to you and I but there was never any possibility that it would not seem that way.

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.

All I can note once again is how fortunate you are that nature has compelled you to think this way. Thus providing you with a comforting peek into a future that only has to exist inside the head of you and the author to be true. In the interim however nature seems more content to let things unfold in an entirely more problematic manner.

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.

Or: Nature compels you to believe that you are at a disadvantage because it compels me not to meet you halfway. It compels you to be stuck trying to explain to me something that it compels me not to do in regard to those chapters. In other words, it has yet to compel me to read them.

You will no doubt concur with this. And yet somehow I am still the one who is responsible for the impasse between us.

In other words [somehow]:

I am being compelled by nature to make the "choice" not to read the chapters by, in turn, being compelled by nature to shift the blame to nature.

Not to get too technical here, but...huh?!

Which I am now compelled by nature to bring back around to this:

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.

Or it is probably eaisier for you because nature has necessarily paved the way for it to be only as it ever could have been for you. And only as it ever could have been for me.

Then what?

On the other hand:

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.

Words are only another manifestation of nature embodied in the brains of matter able to become conscious of itself as matter able to define things. But: This doesn't change the fact that the definitions [like our perceptions of reality itself] are only as they every could have been.

No less so than the manner in which you attempt to make "choice" here both of nature and not of nature. Whereas I don't pretend that my own frame of mind is grasped as either wholly determined or autonomous.

I make certain assumptions [always subject to change] and...leap.

But, again, in all those words [from the author]...

"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?

And, again...

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.

You simply duck the question. Another "general description" assessment that in no way brings us any closer to closing the gap between the author's "world of words" future and the world we actually live in here and now. A world in which we are making choices over and over an over again.

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.

Instead....

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.

Ever and always you are stuck here. The only possible escape being that nature compels you to be stuck here.

You provide me with very, very little in the way of encouraging me to read the book from cover to cover.

What truly substantive points has he raised that might allow me or others to at least imagine a way in which evidence might be accumulated, experiements conducted, predictions made and results replicated.

Just one then. That which you deem to be the best example from the book.

[peacegirl]

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.

But: You still got to "choose" to type those words, right? So, even though your own particular "I" is but one more thing that nature is wholly responsible for, it's not completely intertwined in...what?

Somehow "in your head" the relationship that nature compels you to believe in regard to this relationship with nature is different from that which nature compels me to believe about it "in my head".

In other words, me "choosing" [anything] is no less a necessary component of nature. There is no being external to it because nature is, well, "all there is".

So, when you say "we have no control over what we think up and what we choose" you are still able to "choose" to say that in a way that...

Well, damned if I know what you mean by it.

And every attempt on my part to yank that out of you...

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.

...results in just more obfuscation.

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?

Okay, but you can't tell me that I'm not making only the "choice" that the laws of matter [embodied in my brain] compel me to make. Your clarification then being no less compelled by nature itself.

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.

John rapes Jane. Jane becomes pregnant. Jane aborts the unborn baby. What part of this existential sequence is not essentially compelled by nature? Hurt abounds here. Make it all go away in the author's "progressive future". Only this time actually demonstrate how it can be made to go away [in a world of conflicting goods and conflicting hurts] without all of the theoretical assumptions about how the "discovery" itself makes it all go away in the author's head.

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.

In other words, you can't. Instead just another "general description" "assessment" in which words define and defend the meaning of other words that go around and around and around in circles. If only as nature complels it to.

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 only idea that I can have [in a determined universe] would seem to be the idea that nature compels me to have. Thus my "agency" is but another component of nature. And that is no less applicable to you. In other words, our choices change only because our brain matter is compelled to change in order to remain in sync with all of the other mindless/mindful matter it comes into contact with. The mystery is still mind. Matter like no other matter before it.

That's what the hard guys and gals in the scientific community are still struggling to come to grips with. But, unlike with you and I and the author, it's not all just a "world of words" for them.

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.

Yes, some believe the choice that they make is a manifestation of their free will. Others believe there is no free will and they "choose" only what they could never have not chosen. But either way once the choice itself is made, it can't be unmade.

I can only presume that I must be compelled by nature to misunderstand what nature compels you to believe here.

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.

Luck? How, in a wholly determined universe that is unfolding only as it ever can unfold -- re the laws of matter -- does "luck" ever come into play? Something might seem to be luck to you and I but there was never any possibility that it would not seem that way.

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.

All I can note once again is how fortunate you are that nature has compelled you to think this way. Thus providing you with a comforting peek into a future that only has to exist inside the head of you and the author to be true. In the interim however nature seems more content to let things unfold in an entirely more problematic manner.

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.

Or: Nature compels you to believe that you are at a disadvantage because it compels me not to meet you halfway. It compels you to be stuck trying to explain to me something that it compels me not to do in regard to those chapters. In other words, it has yet to compel me to read them.

You will no doubt concur with this. And yet somehow I am still the one who is responsible for the impasse between us.

In other words [somehow]:

I am being compelled by nature to make the "choice" not to read the chapters by, in turn, being compelled by nature to shift the blame to nature.

Not to get too technical here, but...huh?!

Which I am now compelled by nature to bring back around to this:

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.

Or it is probably eaisier for you because nature has necessarily paved the way for it to be only as it ever could have been for you. And only as it ever could have been for me.

Then what?

On the other hand:

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.

Words are only another manifestation of nature embodied in the brains of matter able to become conscious of itself as matter able to define things. But: This doesn't change the fact that the definitions [like our perceptions of reality itself] are only as they every could have been.

No less so than the manner in which you attempt to make "choice" here both of nature and not of nature. Whereas I don't pretend that my own frame of mind is grasped as either wholly determined or autonomous.

I make certain assumptions [always subject to change] and...leap.

But, again, in all those words [from the author]...

"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?

And, again...

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.

You simply duck the question. Another "general description" assessment that in no way brings us any closer to closing the gap between the author's "world of words" future and the world we actually live in here and now. A world in which we are making choices over and over an over again.

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.

Instead....

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.

Ever and always you are stuck here. The only possible escape being that nature compels you to be stuck here.

You provide me with very, very little in the way of encouraging me to read the book from cover to cover.

What truly substantive points has he raised that might allow me or others to at least imagine a way in which evidence might be accumulated, experiements conducted, predictions made and results replicated.

Just one then. That which you deem to be the best example from the book.

There's really nothing I can add that hasn't already been stated ad nauseum other than to say that I'm sorry you didn't take the time to read anything I offered. You're obviously not to blame because I know you can't help yourself, but it's futile for this conversation to continue as a result. If no one else participates, this thread will die a natural death and that's okay too. I'm sorry iambiguous that we were not able to progress further. All I can say is that the laws of our nature that make us who we are do not always cooperate.

[promethean75]

listen to your heart, peacegirl, before... you tell him... goodbye....

[iambiguous]

There's really nothing I can add that hasn't already been stated ad nauseum other than to say that I'm sorry you didn't take the time to read anything I offered. You're obviously not to blame because I know you can't help yourself, but it's futile for this conversation to continue as a result. If no one else participates, this thread will die a natural death and that's okay too. I'm sorry iambiguous that we were not able to progress further. All I can say is that the laws of our nature that make us who we are do not always cooperate.

Yet again nature has compelled you to end an exchange with me. So, sure, yet again, nature might compel you to start it back up.

Here I can only assume that nature is compelling me to point out that bit by bit my arguments are chipping away at your arguments. And that can't be good, right? You simply have too much invested psychologically in the comfort and consolation the author's discovery has provided you. So, above all else, your defense mechanisms will kick in to sustain that.

Just as it has with all of the other objectivists I have encountered over the years -- fierce folks adamantly convinced that in either the either/or world or the is/ought world, they and they alone have pinned human reality to the mat.

The irony here being that I can only assume the possibility that I am wrong regarding my own understanding of determinism...or in failing to understand the relationship you have between "no free will" and "choice".

And that's before acknowledging that in fact "I" may well embody some measure of autonomy here that is simply not understood by those who, unlike the author, actually do approach these relationships phenomenologically through actual experimentation with actual human brains in the act of actually choosing.

[iambiguous]

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.

True.

But what peacegirl fails to provide [me] is the sort of empirical evidence that might encourage me to explore further the author's discovery as it relates to this so-called "progressive" future. Is there anything at all that I can do [or an experiment that I can perform] in order fathom how the near future is both the embodiment of "no free will" and of "choice"?

What on earth -- in terms of the behaviors we choose -- does she mean by that? In other words, "for all practical purposes."

After all, what are neuroscientists who explore this experientially doing but probing actual brains in the process of choosing. Are there chemical and neurological processes going on biologically in the brain such that it can finally be determined once and for all if any particular choice is only that which it ever could have been?

That's why I always come back to dreams. In my own dream states, "I" am utterly convinced the interactions are "in reality". My own dreams in particular because they almost always revolve not around the fantastic but around contexts that I am completely familiar with -- childhood dreams, army dreams, war dreams, college dreams, political activist dreams, job dreams, family and friends dreams. They often involve people I once knew intimately. And "in the dreams" the events are unfolding not at all unlike they once did "in reality". And they are astoundingly elaborate. I find myself reading things, hearing things, experiencing things in great detail.

How to explain that?

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 ]

From my frame of mind however this discussion is for another thread. When morality is discussed in terms of particular political prejudices, I can only assume that value judgments are embodied in autonomy. Otherwise "right" and "wrong", "progressive" and "regressive" behaviors are all embedded only in the psychological illusion of good and bad behavior.

If the brain is necessarily in sync with the laws of matter then anything it concludes about the is/ought world is merely another manifestation of the either/or world. The future will be only what in can be -- only what it must be. You and I are just along for the inevitable ride. We are basically nature's dominoes that "choose".

But never choose in the sense that free will advocates are compelled to believe.

Or so it seems to me.

And she simply refuses to explore the points I raise about dasein and conflicting goods and political economy. In part because, once again, these things would pertain only to a world in which at least some measure of human autonomy exists.

[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.

True.

Completely false. Like I said, if the premises are sound, the conclusion will be sound. The principle that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction IS SOUND, and the principle that nothing in this world has the power to make us do what we make up our mind not to do, IS SOUND. He also showed how conscience works given a different environment based on the two sided equation which you have no understanding of.

But what peacegirl fails to provide [me] is the sort of empirical evidence that might encourage me to explore further the author's discovery as it relates to this so-called "progressive" future. Is there anything at all that I can do [or an experiment that I can perform] in order fathom how the near future is both the embodiment of "no free will" and of "choice"?

You are using the word "choice" as if "free" is automatically assumed. We can have options iambiguous, and still not have free will. That's why he said the word choice is misleading because that would indicate we are free to choose this option or that option equally, or without compulsion, which is false.

What on earth -- in terms of the behaviors we choose -- does she mean by that? In other words, "for all practical purposes."

For all practical purposes, the fact that we are compelled to choose what gives us greater preference is the underpinning of his entire discovery, since under new conditions we can't prefer (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to hurt others without justification. It's the most practical knowledge of all!

After all, what are neuroscientists who explore this experientially doing but probing actual brains in the process of choosing. Are there chemical and neurological processes going on biologically in the brain such that it can finally be determined once and for all if any particular choice is only that which it ever could have been?

Exploring actual brains can do nothing to understand the behavioral aspect of what these brains do under environmental conditions. You believe that neuroscientists will have the answer when it's right in front of you. You're disrespecting him by saying it's in his head, without understanding anything he wrote. How ironic!

That's why I always come back to dreams. In my own dream states, "I" am utterly convinced the interactions are "in reality". My own dreams in particular because they almost always revolve not around the fantastic but around contexts that I completely familiar with -- childhood dreams, army dreams, war dreams, college dreams, political activist dreams, job dreams, family and friends dreams. They often involve people I once knew intimately. And "in the dreams" the events are unfolding not at all unlike they once did "in reality". And they are astoundingly elaborate. I find myself reading things, hearing things, experiencing things in great detail.

How to explain that?

We know our dreams are not real but they serve a purpose. We also know we have no control over our dreams, just like we don't have control over other autonomic systems. What does this have to do the discussion?

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 ]

From my frame of mind however this discussion is for another thread. When morality is discussed in terms of particular political prejudices, I can only assume that value judgments are embodied in autonomy.

No they aren't autonomous. Of course there are prejudices. These prejudices are based on the culture, the political climate, and the history of that culture which is all in sync with the laws of matter (as you put it).

Otherwise "right" and "wrong", "progressive" and "regressive" behaviors are all embedded only in the psychological illusion of good and bad behavior.

There is no good and bad objectively. We're not talking about good and bad. We're talking about hurt, which is a real thing. If someone shoots you, I would say this person hurt you. I don't think you would want to get shot which you would call a hurt to you. That's what will be prevented unless you want to get shot. Then you don't have to become part of the new world.

If the brain is necessarily in sync with the laws of matter then anything it concludes about the is/ought world is merely another manifestation of the either/or world. The future will be only what in can be -- only what it must be. You and I are just along for the inevitable ride. We are basically nature's dominoes that "choose".

We are just along for the ride. We have no control over what gives us greater satisfaction, and in that sense the future will be only what it can be -- only what it must be. That's true, but our choices are part of the necessary unfolding which will lead us in a direction that will bring sustenance and peace to the entire world.

But never choose in the sense that free will advocates are compelled to believe.

Or so it seems to me. And she simply refuses to explore the points I raise about dasein and conflicting goods and political economy. In part because, once again, these things would pertain only to a world in which at least some measure of human autonomy exists.

Iambiguous, you refuse to read the book. The economic chapter is filled with how conflicting goods and political conflict will be eliminated only because everyone will never be poverty stricken where they need to hurt others (whether it's hurting individuals or countries) for self-preservation. I'm not going to spoon feed this knowledge to you. You're the one that's losing out because of your stubborn resistance to reading what you don't believe is possible. That's your problem, not mine. And, btw, I will answer posts that are between you and others. I don't want to answer posts from you directly because you make false accusations about the author and you tell me these premises are assumptions, which they are anything but.

[surreptitious75]

I am going to read the original New Discovery thread you began back in 2007 to see what I can learn
I still do not know what it is that will eliminate all suffering but I shall hopefully discover it in there

[peacegirl]

I am going to read the original New Discovery thread you began back in 2007 to see what I can learn
I still do not know what it is that will eliminate all suffering but I shall hopefully discover it in there

Surruptitious75, why not read the actual text? I know you tried to buy the print book. I’m so sorry there was a problem. I’ll let you know when it’s been published. I suggest you read the first three chapters again. That’s not enough to understand how this knowledge plays out in the real world but it gives you a foundation. Reading posts from 2007 will be extremely frustrating.

[surreptitious75]

I will be reading the actual text because you posted extracts from the first eight chapters
Anyone else who wants to truly understand the premise of the book can simply read them

[surreptitious75]

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=157029&p=1878966#p1878966

[surreptitious75]

I shall just read the extracts first so I will not be influenced by any negative criticism
I will then hopefully have a better understanding of what the author was trying to say
I will be open minded while I am reading them then after that will I read the criticism

[Meno_]

I am getting the feel got the basic tenet: that determines flow: based on re-cogniscance, recognition, and that has very little way of coming to be by the sense of appearance through. Perception. I do not need to form the trancendential model here, because positivism is by definition causal, a posterior.
It justifies it's self and reductionism is actually a causal derivitive through the maze of indeterminate similarities.
The model is inferred to be of a necessary product of near absolute contingency, separated by a scintilla of time space, causing the curvature .

Therefore, eternal repetition of divergence causes the imprint o of causal determinants to be scripted into the infinite re-cognition of memory, where the level of conscious memory recognizes the level of conscious predictor of the past or future presently.

It is time travel in the relative sense, but we are staying put while the situations and contexts are moving about us. We can't stop it, because it only 'appears' to move about..

Movement of the pre-relative sort, is perceived uncertainty , as previous and partially derived before Newton
At lower levels, the straight line does not yet indicate partially derived segments belonging to a functionally derived curvature.

Ontological precedence over phenomenological recognition .
Reduction through approximation is a secondary process.

Don't even have to read the book to realize that.


Rationale: pattern recognition by way of quantification (calculation) was made on basis of harmonic sound, rather then light. The predictor of relative time was by way of the velocity of light.

[iambiguous]

The principle that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction IS SOUND, and the principle that nothing in this world has the power to make us do what we make up our mind not to do, IS SOUND.

Yes, and then this principle bumps into the principle that nature compels us to move only in the direction of that which it has, in turn, already compelled us to conclude is the direction of our greater satisfaction. That principle then thought to be no less SOUND than yours.

Then what?

Well, then nature either compels others to move in the direction of one point of view or the other.

He also showed how conscience works given a different environment based on the two sided equation which you have no understanding of

Whose conscience, pertaining to what environment, pertaining to what two-side equation, pertaining to what actual chosen behaviors?

What on earth does that mean?!!!

But what peacegirl fails to provide [me] is the sort of empirical evidence that might encourage me to explore further the author's discovery as it relates to this so-called "progressive" future. Is there anything at all that I can do [or an experiment that I can perform] in order fathom how the near future is both the embodiment of "no free will" and of "choice"?

You are using the word "choice" as if "free" is automatically assumed. We can have options iambiguous, and still not have free will. That's why he said the word choice is misleading because that would indicate we are free to choose this option or that option equally, or without compulsion, which is false.

Yes, the aliens residing in autonomous part of the universe have the actual option to choose -- to either note how the author's own options reflected merely the psychological illusion of choice back then or to note how your own options today can never be more than nature compelling you to "choose" to come back into this exchange with me.

Only in my own rendition of determinism, it's nature all the way down. And then all the way back to an explanation for existence itslef.

What on earth -- in terms of the behaviors we choose -- does she mean by that? In other words, "for all practical purposes."

For all practical purposes, the fact that we are compelled to choose what gives us greater preference is the underpinning of his entire discovery, since under new conditions we can't prefer (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to hurt others without justification. It's the most practical knowledge of all!

Note to others:

Is it even possible, in terms of the behaviors that we do choose, to encompass the meaning of "for all practicle purposes" in a more obscure, obtuse and hopelessly abstract manner.

From my frame of mind [compelled or not] it encompasses instead precisely how the author's "discovery" above [encompassed in excerpts] is little more than an "intellectual contraption".

She brings none of it down to earth, in my view.

After all, what are neuroscientists who explore this experientially doing but probing actual brains in the process of choosing. Are there chemical and neurological processes going on biologically in the brain such that it can finally be determined once and for all if any particular choice is only that which it ever could have been?

Exploring actual brains can do nothing to understand the behavioral aspect of what these brains do under environmental conditions. You believe that neuroscientists will have the answer when it's right in front of you. You're disrespecting him by saying it's in his head, without understanding anything he wrote. How ironic!

Yes, I agree that probing the brain of a particular woman with an unwanted pregnancy hooked up to fMRI technology is not the same as probing it in the context of the choices/"choices" she makes on the way to the abortion clinic.

It's just a start until the technology is shrunk down to an instrument able to be taken into the clinic with her.

But how on earth is the author's discovery applicable to the brain of this woman making her choices. How on earth does he connect the dots between here and now and a progressive future where the hurt inflicted on the shredded fetus and the hurt inflicted on a woman forced to give birth somehow just go away. If, for now, only in the author's head?

That's why I always come back to dreams. In my own dream states, "I" am utterly convinced the interactions are "in reality". My own dreams in particular because they almost always revolve not around the fantastic but around contexts that I completely familiar with -- childhood dreams, army dreams, war dreams, college dreams, political activist dreams, job dreams, family and friends dreams. They often involve people I once knew intimately. And "in the dreams" the events are unfolding not at all unlike they once did "in reality". And they are astoundingly elaborate. I find myself reading things, hearing things, experiencing things in great detail.

How to explain that?

We know our dreams are not real but they serve a purpose. We also know we have no control over our dreams, just like we don't have control over other autonomic systems. What does this have to do the discussion?

We know that in our dreams we are no less convinced that we are freely choosing to behave as we do. Or, rather, that's the way it is in my dreams. Only upon waking do we become cognizant that this "reality" was created entirely by the brain in our brain.

Only how do we demonstrate in turn that our becoming cognizant of the dream upon waking is no less a necessary manifestation of nature having remarkably evolved into matter able to accomplish this?

Where is the author's explanation for that?

And if you actually see no connection between the points I raise about dream reality and waking reality in a wholly determined universe, then, well, damned if I know.

If the brain is necessarily in sync with the laws of matter then anything it concludes about the is/ought world is merely another manifestation of the either/or world. The future will be only what in can be -- only what it must be. You and I are just along for the inevitable ride. We are basically nature's dominoes that "choose".

We are just along for the ride. We have no control over what gives us greater satisfaction, and in that sense the future will be only what it can be -- only what it must be. That's true, but our choices are part of the necessary unfolding which will lead us in a direction that will bring sustenance and peace to the entire world.

Back again to that mysterious manner in which [here] you are in sync with my own frame of mind, but...

...but then make our "choices" both 1] a part of a necessary unfolding of history into that which it can only ever be and 2] able to particpate in the author's "progressive" future in the moment of "choosing" to before the true "no free will world" kicks in.

In other words, whatever that means. And, no, for me, it's not just "for all paractical purposes". Even as an intellectual contraption itself it makes no sense to me.

But, I'm willing to acknowledge two things...

1] that the problem is me...your explanations are more reasonable than mine but I am unable to grasp them...though only as nature compels this to be

2] that we both have some measure of autonomy here...and that your reasoning is still more sophisticated than mine

But never choose in the sense that free will advocates are compelled to believe.

Or so it seems to me. And she simply refuses to explore the points I raise about dasein and conflicting goods and political economy. In part because, once again, these things would pertain only to a world in which at least some measure of human autonomy exists.

Iambiguous, you refuse to read the book.

peacegirl, you refuse to provide me with the sort of evidence that demonstrates to me that the author is able to bring his intellectual contraptions down to earth...such that I am enticed to explore his discovery in full

Besides, nature has yet to compel me to read it.

Right?

The economic chapter is filled with how conflicting goods and political conflict will be eliminated only because everyone will never be poverty stricken where they need to hurt others (whether it's hurting individuals or countries) for self-preservation. I'm not going to spoon feed this knowledge to you.

Okay, step by step, in regard to the global economy today, note how the author is convincing in persuading us to see this transformation more clearly.

Also, just out of curiosity, how did he react to the manner in which Marx and Engels also envisioned a progressive future predicated on the historical evolution of political economy into a classless society which as well minimized the pain and suffering of humanity?

Theoretically.

Of course they actually brought their own speculations down to earth by noting the actual evolution of political economy over the course of human interaction down through the ages. Focusing on the means of production and the manner in different types of human communities predicated social and political interactions -- the superstructure -- on these fundamental forces. The infrastructure. The economic base.

You're the one that's losing out because of your stubborn resistance to reading what you don't believe is possible. That's your problem, not mine.

Over and over and over again you level this sort of accusation at me --- in much the same manner that those who embrace free will would.

The irony then being completely lost on you.

And, btw, I will answer posts that are between you and others. I don't want to answer posts from you directly because you make false accusations about the author and you tell me these premises are assumptions, which they are anything but.

Keep telling yourself that. After all, it's not like you actually have the option not to. But that's between you and nature.

But [compelled or not] I'm sticking to my own assumption. That, psychologically, this exchange with me is creating more and more cracks in your own objectivist font.

And that won't be tolerated. Not for now. And I know this because it took years before the cracks finally led to the crumbling of my own objectivist font. Fonts, actually. God. No God.

No one I suspect would ever want to end up construing things as grimly as I do "here and now". I sure as shit don't.

[Meno_]

And again the seeming simple minded but not simple question re-occurs, where is the assumptive reconstruction of an objective which can transcend self interest to the public domain?

Has the retrogression into a nihilism been made compatible enough phenomenally to induce enough power to will such a notion? ( to choose better and better options to improve everybody's lot? Or is that a Marxian outdated economic problem set on failed projections? (Communism: 5 year plans)

For if immanent projections fail indifferent to transcending qualities, which confirm quantified universal production quotas, in a senseless truncated past and future objective economy, can such be transcendentalilly obvious to even low level ananysts?
The fact that such universally adapted theory did fail, presents the problem of immediate reapplication for any currently viable methodology contraindicated at best, and unsupportingly fallacious at worst.