Biochemist Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 People have the right to disagree. For two thousand years people disagreed with the idea that the earth was a sphere. ...We have not arrived at near that level of sophistication yet in this discussion. I cannot make the words you are using make sense in English. In your example, if someone suggested that the earth had a sphere with a lot of corners on it, we would spend the begining of the discussion defining "sphere". That is what we are doing here. I have no idea what you mean by: 1) Free2) Will3) determinism4) undeniable5) knowledge Because you use none of these words in the way they are defined in the dictionary. All we are doing here is trying to figure out what you mean. I have ABSOLUTELY no idea yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokinjoe9 Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 I just want to say, as you can tell by the views to this thread you have a hot topic, science is always ready for new ideas, be prepared to have proof or face a wall of opposition. That doesn't mean give it up just get to the point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Great. We are getting to a much tighter contradiction. Is there any definition of "will" in the absence of "free"? If it is not "free" it is a caused action. How can that be "will"? Biochemist, seriously? You need to reread what I wrote earlier. We have the ability to choose, decide, contemplate which excludes the conventional definition. But once a choice is made between two alternatives, it could not have been otherwise because that choice, at that moment, was in the direction of greater satisfaction given the alternatives that were available. You can only make one choice at a time and the one that is made renders all other choices impossible because they give less satisfaction under the conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokinjoe9 Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 . You can only make one choice at a time and the one that is made renders all other choices impossible because they give less satisfaction under the conditions. This is just not so , and it can't be proven, IMO, once you have chosen you will never know what the outcome of the other choices would have produced...That does not make your choice the one to greater satisfaction, it just makes it the one you picked..... Moving on though, Bring the rest on.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 We have not arrived at near that level of sophistication yet in this discussion. I cannot make the words you are using make sense in English. In your example, if someone suggested that the earth had a sphere with a lot of corners on it, we would spend the begining of the discussion defining "sphere". That is what we are doing here. I have no idea what you mean by: 1) Free2) Will3) determinism4) undeniable5) knowledge Because you use none of these words in the way they are defined in the dictionary. All we are doing here is trying to figure out what you mean. I have ABSOLUTELY no idea yet. That's fair, but I did explain the dictionary definition of 'free will'. The will is the ability to make choices. Determinism was also explained. It is not being controlled by external forces, but the law of satisfaction. I don't want to bore people by going over it again. Is there a way you can go back to a particular page by putting in a keyword? undeniable means mathematical, something that cannot be denied or disputed because it is not based on opinion, but is based on fact. It is not referring to the exact sciences, but that does not make it any less undeniable. It is a psychological law that I am discussing. I am not dealing with numbers. Knowledge is information. New knowledge is new information. This is new knowledge, and it is very difficult to explain knowledge where the communication breaks down because the definition is not what most people define determinism to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 I just want to say, as you can tell by the views to this thread you have a hot topic, science is always ready for new ideas, be prepared to have proof or face a wall of opposition. That doesn't mean give it up just get to the point... I am trying Smokinjoe, I will begin to explain the second part. If I have to stop for awhile, I will be back to continue. Please be patient; this is a long book and I know it's not easy to grasp considering this is a completely new way of thinking about determinism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 You need to reread what I wrote earlier.I did read them. I could not make those posts make sense either. We have the ability to choose, decide, contemplate which excludes the conventional definition. But once a choice is made between two alternatives, it could not have been otherwise because that choice, at that moment, was in the direction of greater satisfaction given the alternatives that were available. If there is only one option, it is not a choice. It is determined. This is not what "choice" means in English. You can have the illusion of choice in this curcumstance, but not choice. Is that what you mean? (that would be a yes-or-no question) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 This is just not so , and it can't be proven, IMO, once you have chosen you will never know what the outcome of the other choices would have produced...That does not make your choice the one to greater satisfaction, it just makes it the one you picked..... Moving on though, Bring the rest on.... Incorrect, you also need to reread my earlier discussion. That is the entire reason man's will is not free. If he could pick one instead of another, after it is done, then I would not be here talking to you, nor would I have compiled a book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 I did read them. I could not make those posts make sense either.If there is only one option, it is not a choice. It is determined. This is not what "choice" means in English. You can have the illusion of choice in this curcumstance, but not choice. Is that what you mean? (that would be a yes-or-no question) You are right. It appears as if you have a choice because you are able to decide between alternatives but it is an illusion because the choice you pick is the only choice (once it is chosen) that you could have been picked at that moment of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokinjoe9 Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 I sort of grasp the thoughts thus far, I will wait..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Let's try this democratically:...Determinism was also explained. It is not being controlled by external forces, but the law of satisfaction. I don't want to bore people by going over it again. Is there a way you can go back to a particular page by putting in a keyword?Does anyone on this thread understand PG's definition of determinism? If so, could you offer a one sentence definition?undeniable means mathematical, something that cannot be denied or disputed because it is not based on opinion, but is based on fact.But the examples you are offering are based on opinion, not fact. Does anyone on this thread think that PG's thesis is undeniable, even if you agree with it?Knowledge is information. New knowledge is new information. This is new knowledge....I think you are offering an opinion, not knowledge. Does anyone on this thread think that PG is offering knowledge, not an opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Once it becomes established as an undeniable law that man's will is not free, as was just demonstrated, we cannot assume that it is free because philosophers like Durant could not get by the implications. Therefore, we must begin our reasoning where he left off which means that we are going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will, corollary, slide rule or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME, and transmute the baser mettles of human nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age even though it presents what appears to be an insurmountable problem, for how is it possible not to blame people who hurt us when we know they didn't have to if they didn't want to. The solution, however, only requires the perception and extension of relations which cannot be denied; and this mathematical corollary, that man is not to blame for anything at all, is a key to the infinite wisdom of God [Note: I only mean the laws of our nature; I don't want to into a tangent about the existence of God] which will unlock a treasure so wonderful that you will be compelled to catch your breath in absolute amazement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokinjoe9 Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 please, no more redundancy, also please supply some actual proof. Seymour talked about math, I am not a mathwize, but bring some if you can.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 This slide rule will adequately solve every problem we have, not only without hurting a living soul but while benefiting everyone to an amazing degree. However, the problems that confront us at this moment ar every complex which make it necessary to treat every aspect of our lives in a separate yet related manner. God, not me, is finally going to reveal the solution. Since time immemorial the two opposing forces of good and evil compelled theologians to separate the world into two realms, with God responsible for all the good in the world and Satin responsible for the evil while endowing man with free will so that this separation could be reasonable. Giving birth to Satin or some other force of darkness as an explanation for the evil that existed illustrates how religion tried desperately to cling to the belief in a merciful God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 But this dividing line between good and evil will no longer be necessary when the corollary THOU SHALL NOT BLAME demonstrates that once it becomes a permanent condition of the environment, all the evil (hurt) in human relations will come to a peaceful end. The absolute proof that man's will is not free is the undeniable fact that we are given no alternative but to move in this direction once it is understood that this law can control man's actions only by obeying this corollary, for then everything that came into existence which caused us to blame and punish must, out of absolute necessity, take leave of this earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Mankind will be given no choice; this has been taken out of our hands, as is the motion of the earth around the sun. Please note that the word hurt in this context refers to doing something to someone that he does not want done to himself. The first step is realizing that the solution requires that we work our problem backwards, which means that every step of the way will be a forced move which will become a loose end and only when all these ends are drawn together will the blueprint be complete. It is only by extending our slide rule, Thou Shall Not Blame, which is the key, that we are given the means to unlock the solution. An example of working a problem backwards, follow this: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokinjoe9 Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Let's try this democratically:Does anyone on this thread understand PG's definition of determinism?The choice made at the time is the only possible choice to be made..That is what I get?? Does anyone on this thread think that PG's thesis is undeniable, even if you agree with it?Not as of yet. Does anyone on this thread think that PG is offering knowledge, not an opinion?Not as of yet.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.