New Discovery

[peacegirl]

Yes, the system holds people accountable when they do something that is considered wrong by others as a deterrent, but it is only a partial deterrent. He was just taking it a step further by saying that if we knew for a fact that this person could not have done otherwise, can we blame him? Just desert is different than rehabilitation. A person who is a determinist would be much more compassionate in how he would view the perpetrator. This discovery takes it further and actually prevents the desire to hurt others, so there would be no need for punishment or rehabilitation.

Yes, we can blame people even if we know that they couldn't have done otherwise. Being compassionate to perpetrators must have its limits. Malignant people usually remain malignant even if they understand determinism, their desire to hurt others usually doesn't go away, you would just enable them to hurt others more so you should be blamed for that imo.

Please don't be sarcastic. Why do you respond that way? It was a rhetorical question, and a fair one.

It shows that you have no connection to the real world, or pretend not to have one in order to sell something.

If that's what you think, then let's not communicate.

I'm not the author. I'm the compiler and you are wrong. Why are you coming to so many premature conclusions when this is what he urged people not to do? We won't get very far at the rate we're going. Why can't you contain your skepticism enough to really try to understand what this man has written instead of dismissing his 30 year work so quickly?

I'm right and my conclusions aren't premature. If you reveal that great realization about death, it will of course turn out to be a feel-good speculation, not a fact. Come on, this is a philosophy forum where some people have actually thought about such issues. And we're used to people who want to sell books that will change the world.

You are making comparisons without even attempting to understand what this knowledge is about. You're jumping to conclusions because you don't believe it's possible to have a true, genuine discovery. This is not fair. The author spent 30 years thinking about such issues. Let me repeat: If you think this is just to sell books, then there's no point in us talking.

[peacegirl]

And I'm a determinist who thinks that not holding people responsible because determinism is true, is just another form of "evil". Of course you have to hold people responsible. Responsibility doesn't have to be based on libertarian free will. We held people responsible throughout history, and societies will collapse if we stop doing so.

LOL 'Societies will collapse'.

Once people are stopped from 'being held' responsible, then this is actually when societies thrive and prosper. But, please do not let the actual and irrefutable Facts, in Life, get in the way of your own already obtained beliefs, "atla".

You have it wrong. Responsibility increases, not decreases, when this law is put into motion. You don't understand the reason why. You just think the claim is impossible, which is understandable, but you need to contain your skepticism long enough to hear what the author has to say. You haven't done that.

Now, as always, if any one would like to have a discussion about 'my claim', here, then let 'us' continue.

You want people to get away with any crime, naturally crime will explode and societies will collapse. You're an idiot, God.

Get away with crime? What are you talking about? This knowledge prevents crime, petty and more serious. This thread is obviously not for you. Your mind is made up before we even begin. Please find another topic that suits you better.

[FlashDangerpants]

Nobody is buying this book.

[peacegirl]

Nobody is buying this book.

I didn't ask anybody to buy the book. For $1.95, I wouldn't make a cent anyway. I will say again that this is not about the money. That's a horrible way to judge what hasn't even been discussed. The cynicism here is overwhelming.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's a horrible way to judge what hasn't even been discussed.

What hasn't been discussed can't be discussed because it's all secrets that you hope people will buy access to.

[peacegirl]

That's a horrible way to judge what hasn't even been discussed.

What hasn't been discussed can't be discussed because it's all secrets that you hope people will buy access to.

Wrong.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's a horrible way to judge what hasn't even been discussed.

What hasn't been discussed can't be discussed because it's all secrets that you hope people will buy access to.

Wrong.

What is the second discovery? It's not a difficult question.

[peacegirl]

What hasn't been discussed can't be discussed because it's all secrets that you hope people will buy access to.

Wrong.

What is the second discovery? It's not a difficult question.

It has to do with the eyes. I don’t want to discuss this until his first discovery is understood, and it is far from it because no one is giving me a chance.

[FlashDangerpants]

Wrong.

What is the second discovery? It's not a difficult question.

It has to do with the eyes. I don’t want to discuss this until his first discovery is understood, and it is far from it because no one is giving me a chance.

The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great. You seem to have some confusion where you don't think the will itself is subject to the same deterministic forces as the entire universe, leading to strange phrasings such as "Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent".... but nobody cares.

Second discovery please.

[peacegirl]

What is the second discovery? It's not a difficult question.

It has to do with the eyes. I don’t want to discuss this until his first discovery is understood, and it is far from it because no one is giving me a chance.

The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great. You seem to have some confusion where you don't think the will itself is subject to the same deterministic forces as the entire universe, leading to strange phrasings such as "Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent".... but nobody cares.

Second discovery please.

Absolutely not. According to definition of determinism, we have no say in our choices because we are being controlled by deterministic forces. We have no say in what we choose because determinism has made those choices for us. This is what many people don't like about the idea that they have no free will. This phrase is important, and you just dismissed it with a wave of a hand. Try to understand instead of coming off like Mr. Know it all.

[FlashDangerpants]

It has to do with the eyes. I don’t want to discuss this until his first discovery is understood, and it is far from it because no one is giving me a chance.

The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great. You seem to have some confusion where you don't think the will itself is subject to the same deterministic forces as the entire universe, leading to strange phrasings such as "Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent".... but nobody cares.

Second discovery please.

Absolutely not. According to definition of determinism, we have no say in our choices because we are being controlled by deterministic forces. We have no say in what we choose because determinism has made those choices for us. This is what many people don't like about the idea that they have no free will. This phrase is important, and you just dismissed it with a wave of a hand. Try to understand instead of coming off like Mr. Know it all.

Nobody here should find determinism confusing or difficult and what you are writing is old stuff. Please explain the second discovery, perhaps it will be interesting or new or something.

[Eodnhoj7]

I'm not sure what you mean by "linear." Could you explain?



I thought it meant not just randomness but the ability to choose A or B equally without compulsion.



Evil in this context means hurting others (i.e., doing to others what they don't want done to themselves) whether it is through narcissism, hedonism, or the plain old taking advantage to gain at someone else's expense.

One assertion leads to the next, arguments are generally linear.

Got it.

Without a determining force the will is effectively non-deterministic, random.

That is true but by using the phrase "determining force", it is causing a lot of confusion because of the implications. Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent.

Define hurt. Discipline hurts, does it mean it is evil?

It is not evil if disciplining someone because they have hurt someone else is necessary. For example, a child may need to be reprimanded for something he did that hurt another so that the child can understand why his behavior needs to change. Other than that, discipline could be used as power play (usually by adults) that leads to rebellion.

Reality hurts...is this evil as well? You are equating suffering with evil and there is no standard by which this can be conceived other than subjective value placement.

The standard definition of evil (hurt) used here is anything that a person does to another that they don't want done to themselves. For example, if I don't want you to shoot me, I am placing a value on you not shooting me. If I don't care if I'm shot, then not shooting me holds no value for me. But most people value their life and don't want to be shot, which is why certain standards of "right and wrong" exist. There are always exceptions.

Pinpoint where the will is specifically.

You can't pinpoint the will as if it has a physical location.

Discipline is not always a power play by outside conditions. sometimes it is self applied. Pushing past ones limits hurts...is that evil?

Of course. We discipline ourselves all the time. Pushing past one's limits is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the hurt of theft, poverty, murder, and hatred.

If evil is determined by inflicting pain on others that they do not want inflicted on themselves...then does that mean a suicidal person is justified in hurting others?

It isn't about being justified. Committing suicide is dissatisfaction with life to such an extent that the person sees no other way out of the pain. Sadly, leaving behind pain for his family could not be helped because life was too miserable, in his eyes, to continue on. It is man's nature to move in the direction of greater satisfaction from moment to moment, and in this case, it was more satisfying to die rather than to live, for whatever reason. This discovery prevents suicidal behavior because of the immense change in environmental conditions.

A percieved identity can force one to go against there will.

One cannot move against one's will, because it is one's will --- or what one ultimately decides to do --- that will either give one the permission to act or not.

If the will cannot be pinpointed empirically, where can it be pinpointed in abstraction?

Just because will cannot be pinpointed in a physical way, does not mean we cannot observe, in a metaphysical way, whether our will is free or not.

Theft, poverty, murder and hatred are interpretations, many who commit such acts do not view them as such things.

It isn't about the people who commit such acts who think it's okay. It's how the people who are hurt by these acts that define "hurt." Remember, the definition of hurt is doing something to someone that they don't want done to themselves. If someone steals my life savings, I am hurt. If I don't have enough sustenance to live, I am hurt. If someone shoots me, I am hurt.

If justification is not necessary than providing a justification as why to percieve reality in a "better way" is null.

You don't have to perceive reality in another way if you don't want to, but most of us want to, because people want to find answers to a world where many people are hurting. I am not sure where a "justification" in regard to suicide is necessary unless you are trying to justify to doctors why you want to do this, so you can get the meds from them to finish the job. Justification is usually needed when you are contemplating something that could hurt others by your actions. We also try to justify our actions when we have made a promise that we broke, such as going off our diet, etc..

The human psyche is composed of the want of perspective, it is why many do the contradictory things they do.

[peacegirl]

The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great. You seem to have some confusion where you don't think the will itself is subject to the same deterministic forces as the entire universe, leading to strange phrasings such as "Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent".... but nobody cares.

Second discovery please.

Absolutely not. According to definition of determinism, we have no say in our choices because we are being controlled by deterministic forces. We have no say in what we choose because determinism has made those choices for us. This is what many people don't like about the idea that they have no free will. This phrase is important, and you just dismissed it with a wave of a hand. Try to understand instead of coming off like Mr. Know it all.

Nobody here should find determinism confusing or difficult and what you are writing is old stuff.

It's not old stuff FlashDAangerpants. It's new stuff but you won't know what this new stuff is if you keep up with this attitude that you already know.

Please explain the second discovery, perhaps it will be interesting or new or something.

No, sorry.

[FlashDangerpants]

Absolutely not. According to definition of determinism, we have no say in our choices because we are being controlled by deterministic forces. We have no say in what we choose because determinism has made those choices for us. This is what many people don't like about the idea that they have no free will. This phrase is important, and you just dismissed it with a wave of a hand. Try to understand instead of coming off like Mr. Know it all.

Nobody here should find determinism confusing or difficult and what you are writing is old stuff.

It's not old stuff FlashDAangerpants. It's new stuff but you won't know what this new stuff is if you keep up with this attitude that you already know.

Please explain the second discovery, perhaps it will be interesting or new or something.

No, sorry.

There are hundreds of prior discussions of determinism on this site. Everybody here is well familiar with the topic. I am perfectly happy to grant hard determinism for the sake of argument. It is absurd to use this as an excuse not to explain the other stuff.

The reason you won't explain the other stuff is obviously that you want to reserve it for paying customers.

[peacegirl]

It's not old stuff FlashDAangerpants. It's new stuff but you won't know what this new stuff is if you keep up with this attitude that you already know.



No, sorry.

There are hundreds of prior discussions of determinism on this site. Everybody here is well familiar with the topic. I am perfectly happy to grant hard determinism for the sake of argument. It is absurd to use this as an excuse not to explain the other stuff.

The reason you won't explain the other stuff is obviously that you want to reserve it for paying customers.

The smarter people think they are, the more intolerant they become to anyone who has a different perspective. Very sad because it is stopping progress.