New discovery

[Fishteacher73]

Would smacking someone back be satisfying perhaps, infamous?

[infamous]

PG- I would prefer it if you stop saying this. The volume of stuff you posted is, frankly, mostly unintelliglble, and poorly internally consistent. It is reasonable for folks to ask for clarification. I remain convinced that all of the text you posted could have been easily consolidated into two pages. Give us some credit for attempting to plow through this poorly written text.

Right on Bio; I have suggested that it is much better to condense information as much as possible. Peacegirl would have much more luck getting people to read and understand her points if she would opperate with this style in mind. That said, the information still needs to be worthy of consideration.

[infamous]

Would smacking someone back be satisfying perhaps, infamous?

From my own personal experience I can say absolutely . When I was in the military I spent a great deal of time boxing just for the sport of it. I can say without any doubt that it feels real good to get in a good lick. Nothing like a little retribution.

[Fishteacher73]

So under this system being proposed, since your free will can only move toward satisfaction you must retaliate. Yet because of determinism, you cannot hold the attacker to blame and cannot retaliate. Do you vanish into a whisp of smoke?

[bumab]

Yes Fish, yes you do.

 

*poof*

[Biochemist]

Clay, I know you are the administrator and you can ban me anytime but I have to honest here. You obviously did not carefully read the posts. Someone said I was repetitive. The reason? Because no one pays attention the first time around. Even the second or the third. .....If you think I have not proved my claim, then at least explain what my claim is? Isn't that fair? I think I am being more than fair.

I think several things:

 

1) Your posts are poorly structured. Repeating poorly structured arguments does not make them more understandable. We are not confused because we are not paying attention. It is because the posts are, objectively, incomprehensible. It is not because this is such "high" knowledge. This text is mostly drivel.

2)Ergo, no one can state your "discovery" because the text you posted poorly describes it, We deserve awards for trying to establish any structure to it

3) C1ay did not threaten to ban you. He wanted you to clarify your position. You refuse to answer questions, other than to have folks reread the mountain of drivel.

 

Tell us the post where the "discovery" was described. If there was not a single post, then post one.

[infamous]

So under this system being proposed, since your free will can only move toward satisfaction you must retaliate. Yet because of determinism, you cannot hold the attacker to blame and cannot retaliate. Do you vanish into a whisp of smoke?

Right after I punch him back. ha,ha,ha.................

[Biochemist]

How can I explain something new unless I lead the conversation. What you say doesn't make sense. As I said earlier, this is not an equal give and take. I have something to explain before there can be an objective discussion. I will discuss anything about this discovery with anyone but they can't just tell me I don't have a discovery. That is similar to the people who said it was impossible that a plane can get off the ground.

Can you point to a single fact in your several hundred posts that is new? If not, I don't think (in English) that we would call this a discovery.

I am trying to be brief but if it compromises the content, I must sacrifice briefness for clarity.

If this is clarity, we are all in serious trouble.

Just because I have something to say of import which requires me to post my thoughts doesn't cause me to have a deaf ear. In fact, I am a very careful listener and so far nobody has explained what the discovery is ...

Perhaps you could accept this as objective evidence that it has been poorly explained?

[Biochemist]

Wow! That is the first honest thing I heard you say. .....

...And you describe yourself as a good listener? Infamous has been trying to help you for a number of post and you are completely disregarding his suggestions. Maybe YOU should reread his posts.

[peacegirl]

Sounds a bit like objecivism...

 

There might be threads of truth in objectivism just as there are threads of truth in religion, but no one up until now has made a discovery that can absolutely prevent war and crime. Please keep an open mind, that is all that I ask of anyone.

[infamous]

Can you point to a single fact in your several hundred posts that is new? If not, I don't think (in English) that we would call this a discovery.If this is clarity, we are all in serious trouble. Perhaps you could accept this as objective evidence that it has been poorly explained?

Precisely Bio. I don't think that we could all be accused of being so dense as to not understand something of such import.

[peacegirl]

...And you describe yourself as a good listener? Infamous has been trying to help you for a number of post and you are completely disregarding his suggestions. Maybe YOU should reread his posts.

 

If I feel that what someone says might be helpful, I will be more than happy to apply their ideas, but if I believe it will cause more confusion, I will have to decline not because I am not listening but because I don't think it will work.

[infamous]

If I feel that what someone says might be helpful, I will be more than happy to apply their ideas, but if I believe it will cause more confusion, I will have to decline not because I am not listening but because I don't think it will work.

Go figure????????????????????????

[Biochemist]

Once again, it just shows me how little you read.

Actually, it shows how poorly you explain.

It specifically stated: It is easy, in many cases, to recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other times to comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of dissatisfaction. There are many subconscious factors at play that helps determine what gives someone greater satisfaction. The fact remains: whether conscious or subconscious we are moving away from that which dissatisfies toward that which satisfies. That is the law of our nature and it cannot be disproven.

This is not a law of nature. It is a hypothesis (if we are speaking English). And your hypothesis is not proven.

 

There are other hypotheses (such as classic determinism) that are also not proven, but are at odds with your hypothesis. Neither your hypothesis nor classic determinism are disproven (except for the nuances of doubt sown by quantum mechanics). So, which of these non-disproven hypotheses is better?

[peacegirl]

Precisely Bio. I don't think that we could all be accused of being so dense as to not understand something of such import.

 

I never said you were dense; but I do believe the information contradicts so much of what we have been taught that sometimes people fail to absorb what they are reading. This is not anyone's fault. I am just hoping the barrier that prevents you from understanding can be broken through. I also believe that Chapter Three would clear things up for you. It is a short chapter but it shows how careless accidents must come to an end when these principles become a part of the environment. But I would be afraid to ask permission. I would probably be clobbered. :shrug:

[Biochemist]

Infamous, how can man shift the blame when he is not being accused? Try it. It can't be done.

There. I did it. Hmmm. I must have disproven your position.

[peacegirl]

There. I did it. Hmmm. I must have disproven your position.

 

How did you disprove my position? I must have missed something.