New discovery

[Kukucan]

Though I have not finnished reading it yet, it is very interesting and am keeping an open mind.

[C1ay]

Bio, I know that 1+1=2. I don't need to have that verified by an authority, although any new discovery does take understanding for recognition and development. If something is fact, it doesn't require a structured thinker.

Oh, another one of those, "It's so because I said so even though I can't prove it" type of claims....sheesh.

[Nielklot]

Biochemist - thanks. Some would say that fate drove me to it or that at least I had no free will to do anything else. I on the other hand, would say it was a menial mission motivated by a doubtful decision. I really did wanted to understand; either it wasn’t clear and logical or I lack the tools to bridge the logical gaps or lack the faith to try or my will isn’t in it or it was predetermined that I wouldn’t be able to or ..........

[Nielklot]

Sorry PG I did misrepresent your concept somewhat in the bank account piece and a little sarcasm (on my part) obviously goes a long way toward miscommunication. If only I could harness it to power my car! I only read your posts - I don't remember them divided into chapters. Congrats on your perseverance, I doubt you could find a more intellectually supportive group who is willing to put up with this as long as they have. Maybe I don't get it at all. If I don't understand the concept it must be that I either do not have a capable tutor or I am mentally incompetent (something that should be remedied soon after book publication). Unfortunately there is no solution for faulty logic. Even if I was interested in entertaining yet another metaphysical discussion on “will”, your claim of what an understanding of your principle alone will do toward eliminating physical and mental illness and all crime and allow us to live in a utopia where our every need is satisfied deters me from taking you seriously. It quickly sounds like a “snake oil” sales pitch. Your lack of logically sound arguments shown by Biochemist and others have been about all the text I need on the “New Discovery” subject. Honestly sounds like a philosophy finals paper gone mad - kind of like when I spent two months and ten pages defining “beauty“ - good thing I didn’t develop and entire life philosophy on it! Good luck on the book at any rate.

I for one am done - on to other topics.

[peacegirl]

PG- I asked if ANYONE agreed with you and got value from the concepts. I assume you have shared the ideas with others besides the folks here. It sounds like the answer is "no". It is not that the folks on this site are the smartest folks on the planet, but they seem to be above average, at least by education credentials. If NO ONE here (or apparently, anywhere) agrees with the core thesis of your book, you might ask yourself whether it is as obviously true as you think it is.

 

Biochemist, I will not concede to your analysis of 'other people have had to agree or have read it for it to be true' theme. I am sorry but that sounds like something written in http://www.criticalthinking.org. This is not logic. this is scientific; no syllogisms here. Again, whether one person has read this book, or one thousand people have read it and only one agree, has nothing to do with its authenticity. Look how many people rejected Mendel's discovery. The leading authority, Nageli, was absolutely sure he was wrong, but it turned out he was right. If Mendel had gone along with your idea, then he would never have been discovered because no one agreed with him. He was forced to receive posthumous recognition and the same thing is happening here.

[Biochemist]

..If Mendel had gone along with your idea, then he would never have been discovered because no one agreed with him. He was forced to receive posthumous recognition and the same thing is happening here.

Best wishes PG. Only trying to help.

[peacegirl]

Sorry PG I did misrepresent your concept somewhat in the bank account piece and a little sarcasm (on my part) obviously goes a long way toward miscommunication. If only I could harness it to power my car! I only read your posts - I don't remember them divided into chapters. Congrats on your perseverance, I doubt you could find a more intellectually supportive group who is willing to put up with this as long as they have. Maybe I don't get it at all. If I don't understand the concept it must be that I either do not have a capable tutor or I am mentally incompetent (something that should be remedied soon after book publication). Unfortunately there is no solution for faulty logic. Even if I was interested in entertaining yet another metaphysical discussion on “will”, your claim of what an understanding of your principle alone will do toward eliminating physical and mental illness and all crime and allow us to live in a utopia where our every need is satisfied deters me from taking you seriously. It quickly sounds like a “snake oil” sales pitch. Your lack of logically sound arguments shown by Biochemist and others have been about all the text I need on the “New Discovery” subject. Honestly sounds like a philosophy finals paper gone mad - kind of like when I spent two months and ten pages defining “beauty“ - good thing I didn’t develop and entire life philosophy on it! Good luck on the book at any rate.

I for one am done - on to other topics.

 

I am very sorry you are leaving. I wish you would at least read the first three chapters in PDF format. That would definitely clear things up for you and you won't have to print tons of paper out and drive your wife batty. What I said was that with the new knowledge of our true nature we are able to veer in a different direction, eliminating the causes that have led to war and crime in the past. This is not snake oil. But we had to live in the world of free will (with all the concomitant blame and punishment) because we were developing. Now that we have developed to the point of understanding our true nature which could not have taken place without the development, many things that we thought were part of being human, are not. We can eliminate the hurt between man and man because we can eliminate the desire to strike a first blow. I never said it will wipe out all illness (some genetic illnesses may still exist), but it will definitely allow more money to be freed up for research. Environmental causes of mental illness will no longer be present. You made me laugh about your paper on 'beauty'. I totally understand your feelings that this is in the same category. It is not. I can't force you to be here if you don't want. I hope you change your mind because I would hate you to miss out.

[peacegirl]

Best wishes PG. Only trying to help.

 

I know you are. :note:

[peacegirl]

Though I have not finnished reading it yet, it is very interesting and am keeping an open mind.

 

Thank you. That is all I ask of anyone. Are you reading the PDF version?

[infamous]

He was forced to receive posthumous recognition and the same thing is happening here

 

Do you really expect to receive posthumous recognition peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

PG- I asked if ANYONE agreed with you and got value from the concepts. I assume you have shared the ideas with others besides the folks here. It sounds like the answer is "no". It is not that the folks on this site are the smartest folks on the planet, but they seem to be above average, at least by education credentials. If NO ONE here (or apparently, anywhere) agrees with the core thesis of your book, you might ask yourself whether it is as obviously true as you think it is.

 

I like all of you and I know you have the capability of understanding this, but it is a hard concept. The definition of determinism is not something you have heard of, but if you can all put your ideas aside, you will understand it. If you don't, you won't have room for understanding. Your mind will be too crowded with other theories to even hear or retain what I am saying. No one agrees or disagrees with the core concept because no one has studied this work thoroughly, so that does not apply in my case.

[peacegirl]

Biochemist - thanks. Some would say that fate drove me to it or that at least I had no free will to do anything else. I on the other hand, would say it was a menial mission motivated by a doubtful decision. I really did wanted to understand; either it wasn’t clear and logical or I lack the tools to bridge the logical gaps or lack the faith to try or my will isn’t in it or it was predetermined that I wouldn’t be able to or ..........

 

Fate does not apply here. Again, you are using terms to try to prove me wrong, but it won't work. You didn't have free will when you decided to read this, but that doesn't mean you are forced to continue. You are free to change your mind but that does not make your will free Nielklot. Predermination has nothing whatsoever to do with this work. I am beginnning to think you read somebody else's posts, not mine. You couldn't have and still say what you are saying. Obviously, you might have read the posts, but you were not paying close attention. Give it another try with the PDF file. You have nothing to lose but your sanity. hahaha, just kidding. :note:

[JerryB]

and the 250 links she has posted beneath her thread are her signature, just how my signature is a graphic or sorts.

This thread raises some issues that, I think, deserve consideration.

 

The first is the question what is spam?

 

Not long ago on this forum I ran across a post where there were

almost no words beyond the message "spam removed".

And on the left, below (or maybe it was above) the poster's name

was the word "banned". I never saw what had been posted so I

don't know what was considered spam here but it seems clear that

there was a zero tolerance for it.

 

Usually spam involves links to other web sites as a form of

advertising. So if one poster is banned for advertising in the

body of the message but another is permitted to advertise if

it is in their signature, well then it appears to be good news

for spammers.

 

On the other hand if this is just a decision made on a case

by case basis, then it probably needs to be codified and clarified.

 

Judging from this thread it seems that not all advertising links

are considered spam or prohibited.

 

In that case, since advertising links are permitted the second

question is what are the limits?

 

It's probably reasonable to assume that if a person's signature

contained a link that led to a web site that fostered terrorism,

encouraged racism or sold child pornography this forum would

not permit it. If that is not true then I have no more questions

but assuming it is, then where do you draw the line?

 

Child porn is forbidden but regular porn is okay?

Terrorism is forbidden but extreme right wing sites are okay?

Right wing is not okay but left wing is okay?

No politics of any kind? etc.

 

Links to web sites selling pictures of pretty girls, okay?

Links to web sites selling pictures of naked pretty girls, okay?

Links to web sites selling pictures of six-year-old naked pretty girls, okay?

 

A third question, once you have found a way to define these

limits how can you effectively enforce them?

 

For example in this case, if someone appears to be simply trying to

make a little money selling a book that would not otherwise be

objectionable and you decide to permit that, how can you be sure

that the person is in fact simply selling a book and not

accepting money fraudulently?

 

Which leads to the fourth and last question, to what extent will the

moderators in general and Tormod in particular feel or accept

responsibility for the unscrupulous activity of members who use

this forum to further their ends?

 

Probably questions like these belong in a separate thread and I'm

thinking of starting one in "Philosophy and Humanities" to consider

issues of internet morality, but for now these questions are specifically

concerned with this thread.

 

The internet is a worldwide community and anybody with access to

it is welcomed at this forum. In a community of this size there are

bound to be a certain percentage of undesirable people, criminals,

sociopaths and con artists. Perhaps only a small percentage, maybe

as little as one percent but it's not a numbers game. Just one

single individual could potentially do a great deal of damage. How do

you spot these people before such damage has occurred?

 

In this case when a poster chooses a name like "peacegirl", an

avatar that's a red heart, a website called declineandfallofallevil.com,

and a publishing company called Safeworld and promises to

prevent the third world war, I would pay attention.

 

And when I noticed that the person was attempting to sell

something from their website with no physical address and no

phone number, I would feel very nervous if my website were

being used for linking.

 

If that person seemed to be saying things like nobody can be held

responsible for anything that they do and nobody can be forced to

do something that they don't want to do, I would wonder if that was

philosophy or pathology and I would be even more nervous.

 

And when that person reported that she was attempting to sell

a product that she clearly did not have, well, I wouldn't want

to be a party to such unethical behavior.

 

Orbsycli, imagine you go to Amazon.com to order a book and they

inform you that they don't have the book in stock but they will

have it in a week. So you go to disreputablebooksellers.com

and they offer the book for sale without any indication of delay.

You pay for the book and after they receive payment they send

you an email to say that it will probably be a month or so before

they have the book in stock and you are angry and ask them

to refund your money so that you can go back to Amazon.com.

But they say that it is not their policy to refund money and you

will have to wait until you receive the book. Then a month later

you haven't got the book and write to them and ask them where

the book is and they say that shipment has been further delayed

and they no longer know when they will be able to ship the book

and they still refuse to return your money. Those things really

do happen. And at that point you wonder if they ever intended

to send you a book in the first place. There's not much you can

do about it. You can't sue them over a $28 dollar book and there

isn't even an address or phone number at the website.

 

Wouldn't you feel just a little uncomfortable knowing that this

bookseller is operating on this website? And while you may not be

certain that this is the scenario being played out here, are you

willing to take the chance? Is Tormod?

[C1ay]

This thread raises some issues that, I think, deserve consideration.

 

Well Jerry, so far you're the only one I've seen complain. In fact, so far you've only posted twice on this site and both of them were complaints in this thread. You've not even bothered to post an introduction or engage anyone on any of the topics here. You've not even debated the actual topic of this thread. Did you join here for any other reason than to complain about this one thread?

 

Yes, PG is trying to sell a book but I haven't particularly noticed any sales pitches in this thread. In fact, what I have noticed is many excerpts posted for debate and an active involvement by the members of the community in debating that material, members that have been here much longer than you have. I also haven't seen this membership complaining. I would have closed this thread long ago if it weren't for the interest in the community to discuss it.

 

Your opinion has been noted. So far though it looks like a minority opinion. Perhaps others will speak up that share your point of view. Until then I'm not going to spend to much time worrying about the fact that the content we are debating is for sale. I actually kind of wish more authors would try and get some feedback on the material they publish in forums like this. It might help to stem the tide of junk science being published out there.

[peacegirl]

Well Jerry, so far you're the only one I've seen complain. In fact, so far you've only posted twice on this site and both of them were complaints in this thread. You've not even bothered to post an introduction or engage anyone on any of the topics here. You've not even debated the actual topic of this thread. Did you join here for any other reason than to complain about this one thread?

 

Yes, PG is trying to sell a book but I haven't particularly noticed any sales pitches in this thread. In fact, what I have noticed is many excerpts posted for debate and an active involvement by the members of the community in debating that material, members that have been here much longer than you have. I also haven't seen this membership complaining. I would have closed this thread long ago if it weren't for the interest in the community to discuss it.

 

Your opinion has been noted. So far though it looks like a minority opinion. Perhaps others will speak up that share your point of view. Until then I'm not going to spend to much time worrying about the fact that the content we are debating is for sale. I actually kind of wish more authors would try and get some feedback on the material they publish in forums like this. It might help to stem the tide of junk science being published out there.

 

I really appreciate having a forum such as this to share this knowledge. It is very difficult to convince people that I am not just trying to sell a book to make money. First of all, I could get into big trouble if I made claims such as this without having something to back up these claims. And you hit the nail on the head, Clay, when you said that there is a lot of junk science out there. This is what has caused people to be overly skeptical about these claims. I could be another individual just wanting attention.

 

Do you see the problem I have? I really do thank you for allowing me to share this important knowledge, even though it is tedious reading through all these posts. That is why I hope everyone downloads the first three chapters. They can either get it from the administration or they can send give me their email address and I will send it to them as an attachment. I hope people continue to be interested. I certainly don't go from one forum to another. I am putting my heart into explaining this because it appears that people are making an honest attempt to understand this material. Who knows? You might be the first group that helps to spread the word about this fantastic discovery. :)

[peacegirl]

This thread raises some issues that, I think, deserve consideration.

 

The first is the question what is spam?

 

Not long ago on this forum I ran across a post where there were

almost no words beyond the message "spam removed".

And on the left, below (or maybe it was above) the poster's name

was the word "banned". I never saw what had been posted so I

don't know what was considered spam here but it seems clear that

there was a zero tolerance for it.

 

Usually spam involves links to other web sites as a form of

advertising. So if one poster is banned for advertising in the

body of the message but another is permitted to advertise if

it is in their signature, well then it appears to be good news

for spammers.

 

On the other hand if this is just a decision made on a case

by case basis, then it probably needs to be codified and clarified.

 

Judging from this thread it seems that not all advertising links

are considered spam or prohibited.

 

In that case, since advertising links are permitted the second

question is what are the limits?

 

It's probably reasonable to assume that if a person's signature

contained a link that led to a web site that fostered terrorism,

encouraged racism or sold child pornography this forum would

not permit it. If that is not true then I have no more questions

but assuming it is, then where do you draw the line?

 

Child porn is forbidden but regular porn is okay?

Terrorism is forbidden but extreme right wing sites are okay?

Right wing is not okay but left wing is okay?

No politics of any kind? etc.

 

Links to web sites selling pictures of pretty girls, okay?

Links to web sites selling pictures of naked pretty girls, okay?

Links to web sites selling pictures of six-year-old naked pretty girls, okay?

 

A third question, once you have found a way to define these

limits how can you effectively enforce them?

 

For example in this case, if someone appears to be simply trying to

make a little money selling a book that would not otherwise be

objectionable and you decide to permit that, how can you be sure

that the person is in fact simply selling a book and not

accepting money fraudulently?

 

Which leads to the fourth and last question, to what extent will the

moderators in general and Tormod in particular feel or accept

responsibility for the unscrupulous activity of members who use

this forum to further their ends?

 

Probably questions like these belong in a separate thread and I'm

thinking of starting one in "Philosophy and Humanities" to consider

issues of internet morality, but for now these questions are specifically

concerned with this thread.

 

The internet is a worldwide community and anybody with access to

it is welcomed at this forum. In a community of this size there are

bound to be a certain percentage of undesirable people, criminals,

sociopaths and con artists. Perhaps only a small percentage, maybe

as little as one percent but it's not a numbers game. Just one

single individual could potentially do a great deal of damage. How do

you spot these people before such damage has occurred?

 

In this case when a poster chooses a name like "peacegirl", an

avatar that's a red heart, a website called declineandfallofallevil.com,

and a publishing company called Safeworld and promises to

prevent the third world war, I would pay attention.

 

And when I noticed that the person was attempting to sell

something from their website with no physical address and no

phone number, I would feel very nervous if my website were

being used for linking.

 

If that person seemed to be saying things like nobody can be held

responsible for anything that they do and nobody can be forced to

do something that they don't want to do, I would wonder if that was

philosophy or pathology and I would be even more nervous.

 

And when that person reported that she was attempting to sell

a product that she clearly did not have, well, I wouldn't want

to be a party to such unethical behavior.

 

Orbsycli, imagine you go to Amazon.com to order a book and they

inform you that they don't have the book in stock but they will

have it in a week. So you go to disreputablebooksellers.com

and they offer the book for sale without any indication of delay.

You pay for the book and after they receive payment they send

you an email to say that it will probably be a month or so before

they have the book in stock and you are angry and ask them

to refund your money so that you can go back to Amazon.com.

But they say that it is not their policy to refund money and you

will have to wait until you receive the book. Then a month later

you haven't got the book and write to them and ask them where

the book is and they say that shipment has been further delayed

and they no longer know when they will be able to ship the book

and they still refuse to return your money. Those things really

do happen. And at that point you wonder if they ever intended

to send you a book in the first place. There's not much you can

do about it. You can't sue them over a $28 dollar book and there

isn't even an address or phone number at the website.

 

Wouldn't you feel just a little uncomfortable knowing that this

bookseller is operating on this website? And while you may not be

certain that this is the scenario being played out here, are you

willing to take the chance? Is Tormod?

 

I'll make a deal with you? If you want I will send you the book first, no money, and when you receive the book, you can either return it if or send me a check. Will that ease your mind at all? I understand your suspicion not just with me but with people on the internet who are willing to exploit people for their gain. I am not one of those individuals. I hope you will take me up on my offer to prove that I am who I say I am, and I am not in the business of exploiting anyone.

[Biochemist]

....I actually kind of wish more authors would try and get some feedback on the material they publish in forums like this. It might help to stem the tide of junk science being published out there.

Hey- This is a revenue opportunity for Tormod! New authors could be thrown to the wolves on this site for a fee! We could add an alias to the site: www.junkpublicationstoppers.com! (suggested link only)!