New Discovery

[peacegirl]

I will give you the 'best chance' you will ever have.

What is the so-called 'first discovery', exactly?

'We' can only understand 'it' if only you will share and express 'it'.

He shows why man's will is not free which opens up a storehouse of knowledge never before understood. The truth of determinism is not the discovery; it is the gateway to the discovery. This knowledge cannot be explained in a couple of sentences.

If you can not explain it simply, then you do not understand it well enough.

Real philosophers read first, then discuss.

And, I am asking you, and giving you, 'the chance' to present 'your writings', here, so 'we' can read 'it', here, so then 'we' can discuss 'it', here.

But, continue to keep 'it' hidden, and thus secret, from 'us', here. So, why not just present 'it', here.

If you did, then you will not feel so so-called 'disadvantaged', here.
Why did you even begin that absolutely every one, here, has concluded what you just claimed?

Because that's all I hear.

Is 'the book' for free, or for sale?

I couldn't make it for free. Amazon won't allow it.

I reduced the price to $1.95, but that doesn't seem to faze you. This book is 600 pages and took years to compile.

That absolutely any human being wants to get paid money for just 'sharing and expressing thoughts', shows and proves just how Truly selfish and greedy human beings had become.

For the hundredth time, I am not asking for money. Hey, buy the book and I'll pay you back on Venmo or some other way. How's that for a deal?

Try making money off of a book at Amazon for $1.95, and I'll eat my words.

If you continue to write sentences that are completely illogical and nonsensical like your last one, here, is, then do not be surprised if no one wants to read your writings.

What sentence?

And, why would any human being, who is supposedly writing a book about the decline and fall of ALL evil, write 'that book' with the intention of 'making money'. Especially considering the fact that it is said, and written, that 'the love of money is the root of ALL evil'.

Where did the author say that the love of money was the root of ALL evil? Just because this saying was written somewhere doesn't mean that making money is what the book's intentions are.

Writing a book, supposedly, about 'The decline and fall of ALL evil', with the actual intention of 'making money', and thus with an underlying 'love of money', would be highly hypocritical to say the least, would it not?

It would be hypocritical if that was the intention, but it never was.

[Age]

This is laughable. I gave you the first three chapters FOR FREE.

Why not just give ALL of the chapters FOR FREE?

If you don't take the time to read them because you have concluded he's wrong, there is nothing I can do about it,

What a Truly absurd, closed, and stupid assumption to make, here.

but it certainly doesn't mean I have kept any secrets away from you.

If you do not tell 'us' what is right, here, after you have told 'us' 'it' is wrong, here, then you are, obviously, holding and keeping secrets, here.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 10208355d4

Is it too hard and/or too complex for you to just copy and paste, here?

I could do that but in the past that didn't work because people didn't like me cutting and pasting.

Who would, supposedly, not like cutting and pasting?

Were you, previously, doing it in mid sentence, or some thing?

They wanted everything to be in my own words to prove that I understood the text.

Do you understand 'the text'?

I have no problem answering people's questions after the text has been read.

But I do not want to sign up and/or pay for things just to read some thing, which could just be presented, here, instead.

But the text gives clarity.

Supposedly and allegedly. And, do you believe all texts that gives 'you' clarity, gives clarity to everyone else?

It is coming from the author's own words, which is much better than any half-baked translation. How can I win?

By just copying and pasting, here, what was written somewhere else.

Is just doing that really that hard and complex, for you?

No matter what I do, it's not to someone's liking.

Of course. Were you under some sort of presumption that you could please all of the people all of the time?

[Age]

This knowledge cannot be explained in a couple of sentences.

If you can not explain it simply, then you do not understand it well enough.

Real philosophers read first, then discuss.

And, I am asking you, and giving you, 'the chance' to present 'your writings', here, so 'we' can read 'it', here, so then 'we' can discuss 'it', here.

But, continue to keep 'it' hidden, and thus secret, from 'us', here.

I am at a disadvantage because no one has read anything in order to have a productive discussion.

So, why not just present 'it', here.

If you did, then you will not feel so so-called 'disadvantaged', here.

You are all concluding I am here to get people to buy the book for money.

Why did you even begin that absolutely every one, here, has concluded what you just claimed?

Because that's all I hear from people.

Is 'the book' for free, or for sale?

To check and prove if 'this claim' of yours, here, is actually True, or not, all 'we' would have to do is just 'look at' the words above, here.

So, do you, really, still, want to say and claim that, All you hear from people is, is 'the book' for free, or for sale?

Just so you become fully aware, when you hear some thing once, or some times, will never ever equate to, 'that is all you hear'.

I reduced the price to $1.95, but that doesn't seem to faze you.

That absolutely any human being wants to get paid money for just 'sharing and expressing thoughts', shows and proves just how Truly selfish and greedy human beings had become.

For the hundredth time, I am not asking for money. Hey, buy the book and I'll pay you back on Venmo or some other way. How's that for a deal?

Stupid.

Why not provide the book for free, instead?

Why would you want to share any book through a website where 'the owner' of the website makes money out of a book that is meant to be about the decline and fall of ALL evil'?

Does 'the owner' of that website need 'more money'?

Now, if you, really, did want people to just read 'some writings', then why not just present 'those writings, here, so 'we' can have a 'look at' them and read them?

Try making money off of a book at Amazon for $1.95, and I'll eat my words.

If you continue to write sentences that are completely illogical and nonsensical like your last one, here, is, then do not be surprised if no one wants to read your writings.

There was nothing wrong with that sentence. Stop picking on me for no reason.

Can you really not see how illogical and nonsensical it is to say and claim, 'I will eat my words', is?

And, if you are getting absolutely no money at all, then WHY put 'a price' on it and try and see it?

If you receive one cent, then you are, what is called, 'making money'. For example, if 'the owner' of a website sells gets, or makes, one cent off of a billion sold products, then 'that one' has just made ten million dollars, if I am not mistaken. Which most people say and call 'making money'.

And, why would any human being, who is supposedly writing a book about the decline and fall of ALL evil, write 'that book' with the intention of 'making money'. Especially considering the fact that it is said, and written, that 'the love of money is the root of ALL evil'.

Where did the author say that the love of money was the root of ALL evil?

Did any one say 'the author' did?

If yes, then who said 'the author' did'?

Just because it is said and written that the love of money is at the root of all evil doesn't mean that making money is what the book's intentions are.

If some one is 'selling' any book, then 'the intention' is to 'make money'.

And, obviously if 'the intention' of 'a book', itself, is not to 'make money', or in words that you used, here, 'The book's intention', itself, is to 'not make money', the very fact that 'the author' of 'that book' is 'selling' 'the book' means that the True intention of 'the author' is to 'make more money'. And, one would only do this if they had a 'love of money', within.

Writing a book, supposedly, about 'The decline and fall of ALL evil', with the actual intention of 'making money', and thus with an underlying 'love of money', would be highly hypocritical to say the least, would it not?

It would be hypocritical if that was the intention, but it's not.

So, if a person, (who wrote a book), intends to 'sell' 'that book', for money, then, to you, it is 'not the intention' to 'make money' by 'selling' 'the book', for money.

If one intends to 'sell' things, for money, then what are they actually doing if 'not intending' to 'make money'?

And, please do not forget that 'the intention' of 'the book' has no bearing at all on what 'the intention' of 'the author' 'selling' 'the book', for money, has.

Obviously if 'an author', really, has no intention of what is called 'making money', then WHY 'sell' 'their book'?

[Age]

He shows why man's will is not free which opens up a storehouse of knowledge never before understood.

1. Why does "he" only show 'this' about 'man's will', only? What about 'woman's and child's will'? Or do 'they' not matter, here?

2. Does "he" prove that so-called 'man's will' is not so-called 'free'? Or, does "he" just show its own belief, here, only?

3. Will you list some of these so-called and so-claimed 'storehouse of never before understood knowledge'?

If no, then why not?

By the way who even is the "he" word, here, referring to, exactly?

The truth of determinism is not the discovery; it is the gateway to the discovery. This knowledge cannot be explained in a couple of sentences.

With the amount of sentences you have just repeated that 'some knowledge' can not be explained in a couple of sentences you may well have been able to explain 'the alleged knowledge' far better and far more succinctly than you have imagined.

Would it really 'kill you' to just start to trying to explain, here?

How are the 'determinism' and 'free will' words, here, being defined, exactly?

Is 'the book' for free, or for sale?

I couldn't make it for free. Amazon won't allow it.

Could it be because 'the owner' of "amazon" has such a 'love of money' that it does not allow the giving away of books because 'the owner' does not have enough money and thus wants to 'make more money'?

Did 'determinism' make you choose to only 'look at' going through "amazon" only? Do you have absolute 'no choice' in 'looking elsewhere'?

[peacegirl]

If you can not explain it simply, then you do not understand it well enough.

That's not true. A claim this extraordinary needs proof that does not have any gaps. It has to be demonstrated in a step-by-step fashion. If not, people will conclude there is nothing to it only because it was not explained well.

And, I am asking you, and giving you, 'the chance' to present 'your writings', here, so 'we' can read 'it', here, so then 'we' can discuss 'it', here.

But, continue to keep 'it' hidden, and thus secret, from 'us', here.

Just keep bearing in mind that it's no secret if I gave you the first three chapters. It is there for the reading. I can cut and paste if that's the only way to continue in this forum.

So, why not just present 'it', here.

If you did, then you will not feel so so-called 'disadvantaged', here.

That's fine.

Why did you even begin that absolutely every one, here, has concluded what you just claimed?

Because that's all I hear from people.

Is 'the book' for free, or for sale?

To check and prove if 'this claim' of yours, here, is actually True, or not, all 'we' would have to do is just 'look at' the words above, here.

So, do you, really, still, want to say and claim that, All you hear from people is, is 'the book' for free, or for sale?

It seems that all the people I have interacted with (is that better?) think there is an ulterior motive.

Just so you become fully aware, when you hear some thing once, or some times, will never ever equate to, 'that is all you hear'.

I reduced the price to $1.95, but that doesn't seem to faze you.

That absolutely any human being wants to get paid money for just 'sharing and expressing thoughts', shows and proves just how Truly selfish and greedy human beings had become.

For the hundredth time, I am not asking for money. Hey, buy the book and I'll pay you back on Venmo or some other way. How's that for a deal?

Stupid.

Why not provide the book for free, instead?

Because I'm using Amazon and I have to go along with their rules.

Why would you want to share any book through a website where 'the owner' of the website makes money out of a book that is meant to be about the decline and fall of ALL evil'?

Because the owner of the website is helping and deserves to be paid. I know Jeff Bezos doesn't need my money.

Does 'the owner' of that website need 'more money'?

Now, if you, really, did want people to just read 'some writings', then why not just present 'those writings, here, so 'we' can have a 'look at' them and read them?

I told you, I really don't mind.

Try making money off of a book at Amazon for $1.95, and I'll eat my words.

If you continue to write sentences that are completely illogical and nonsensical like your last one, here, is, then do not be surprised if no one wants to read your writings.

There was nothing wrong with that sentence. Stop picking on me for no reason.

Can you really not see how illogical and nonsensical it is to say and claim, 'I will eat my words', is?

No, it was a figure of speech.

And, if you are getting absolutely no money at all, then WHY put 'a price' on it and try and see it?

I already explained that there is a minimum you must charge to be on Amazon's website or any website that sells products. This website is a vehicle for people to have access to the book.

If you receive one cent, then you are, what is called, 'making money'. For example, if 'the owner' of a website sells gets, or makes, one cent off of a billion sold products, then 'that one' has just made ten million dollars, if I am not mistaken. Which most people say and call 'making money'.

Yes, they make the money. The author makes no royalty on a book that cheap.

And, why would any human being, who is supposedly writing a book about the decline and fall of ALL evil, write 'that book' with the intention of 'making money'. Especially considering the fact that it is said, and written, that 'the love of money is the root of ALL evil'.

Where did the author say that the love of money was the root of ALL evil?

Did any one say 'the author' did?

If yes, then who said 'the author' did'?

It sounded like an insinuation.

Just because it is said and written that the love of money is at the root of all evil doesn't mean that making money is what the book's intentions are.

If some one is 'selling' any book, then 'the intention' is to 'make money'.

Making money is not intrinsically evil if nothing that is being sold is deceptive.

And, obviously if 'the intention' of 'a book', itself, is not to 'make money', or in words that you used, here, 'The book's intention', itself, is to 'not make money', the very fact that 'the author' of 'that book' is 'selling' 'the book' means that the True intention of 'the author' is to 'make more money'. And, one would only do this if they had a 'love of money', within.

I can feel your suspicion and it's getting in the way because you are presupposing that making even one cent means the book is about a love of money.

Writing a book, supposedly, about 'The decline and fall of ALL evil', with the actual intention of 'making money', and thus with an underlying 'love of money', would be highly hypocritical to say the least, would it not?

It would be hypocritical if that was the intention, but it's not.

So, if a person, (who wrote a book), intends to 'sell' 'that book', for money, then, to you, it is 'not the intention' to 'make money' by 'selling' 'the book', for money.

If one intends to 'sell' things, for money, then what are they actually doing if 'not intending' to 'make money'?

They may be, but this does not mean that the only purpose is to make money.

And, please do not forget that 'the intention' of 'the book' has no bearing at all on what 'the intention' of 'the author' 'selling' 'the book', for money, has.

Obviously if 'an author', really, has no intention of what is called 'making money', then WHY 'sell' 'their book'?

One of the reasons is advertising. It's very hard to sell a book and not be on a platform where everyone goes to buy books. Also, giving a book away often reduces its value. If it's free, how good can it be? That's just how some people think. I'm not speaking for everyone.

[Age]

That's not true. A claim this extraordinary needs proof that does not have any gaps. It has to be demonstrated in a step-by-step fashion. If not, people will conclude there is nothing to it only because it was not explained well.



Just keep bearing in mind that it's no secret if I gave you the first three chapters. It is there for the reading. I can cut and paste if that's the only way to continue in this forum.



That's fine.



Because that's all I hear from people.

Is 'the book' for free, or for sale?

To check and prove if 'this claim' of yours, here, is actually True, or not, all 'we' would have to do is just 'look at' the words above, here.

So, do you, really, still, want to say and claim that, All you hear from people is, is 'the book' for free, or for sale?

It seems that all the people I have interacted with (is that better?) think there is an ulterior motive.

Just so you become fully aware, when you hear some thing once, or some times, will never ever equate to, 'that is all you hear'.

For the hundredth time, I am not asking for money. Hey, buy the book and I'll pay you back on Venmo or some other way. How's that for a deal?

Stupid.

Why not provide the book for free, instead?

Because I'm using Amazon and I have to go along with their rules.

Why not go somewhere else, like for example just pasting 'it', here, in this forum?

Why would you want to share any book through a website where 'the owner' of the website makes money out of a book that is meant to be about the decline and fall of ALL evil'?

Because the owner of the website is helping and deserves to be paid.

LOL
LOL
LOL 'deserves'.

The amount and depth of 'indoctrination' some of these adult human beings had, back in the days when this was being written, would not have been believed if it was not for 'their own words' being seen.

I know Jeff Bezos doesn't need my money.

Does any human being?

If yes, then who, and why, exactly?

Does 'the owner' of that website need 'more money'?

Now, if you, really, did want people to just read 'some writings', then why not just present 'those writings, here, so 'we' can have a 'look at' them and read them?

I told you, I really don't mind. [/quote]

If you, really, do not mind, then why not just present them, here?

But, if you, really, do not mind, if people do not read 'some writings', then 'this' contradicts 'the way' you write and present what you do, here.

Try making money off of a book at Amazon for $1.95, and I'll eat my words.

If you continue to write sentences that are completely illogical and nonsensical like your last one, here, is, then do not be surprised if no one wants to read your writings.

There was nothing wrong with that sentence. Stop picking on me for no reason.

Can you really not see how illogical and nonsensical it is to say and claim, 'I will eat my words', is?

And, if you are getting absolutely no money at all, then WHY put 'a price' on it and try and see it?

If you receive one cent, then you are, what is called, 'making money'. For example, if 'the owner' of a website sells gets, or makes, one cent off of a billion sold products, then 'that one' has just made ten million dollars, if I am not mistaken. Which most people say and call 'making money'.

And, why would any human being, who is supposedly writing a book about the decline and fall of ALL evil, write 'that book' with the intention of 'making money'. Especially considering the fact that it is said, and written, that 'the love of money is the root of ALL evil'.

Where did the author say that the love of money was the root of ALL evil?

Did any one say 'the author' did?

If yes, then who said 'the author' did'?

It sounded like an insinuation.[/quote]

Who cares?

Once more, you human beings get lost and confused because of your assumptions, and beliefs.

Only through clarifying, and obtaining and gaining actual clarity, then this is when you human beings learn and discover what is actually irrefutably True, in Life.

Just because it is said and written that the love of money is at the root of all evil doesn't mean that making money is what the book's intentions are.

If some one is 'selling' any book, then 'the intention' is to 'make money'.

Making money is not intrinsically evil if nothing that is being sold is deceptive.

And, 'right on cue', the prime example of one who is deceiving and fooling itself, completely, is exposed, and revealed.

The very fact that you adult human beings keep chasing after 'more and more money' is the third root, or reason, of why you are all in a ever increasing downhill spiral, in the days when this is being written.

But, please continue to 'try to' 'justify' to "yourselves" that there is nothing, intrinsically, wrong nor evil at all in 'making money'.

If you continually keep on doing so, then you will find out, quick enough, where, exactly, you will all end up.

And, obviously if 'the intention' of 'a book', itself, is not to 'make money', or in words that you used, here, 'The book's intention', itself, is to 'not make money', the very fact that 'the author' of 'that book' is 'selling' 'the book' means that the True intention of 'the author' is to 'make more money'. And, one would only do this if they had a 'love of money', within.

I can feel your suspicion and it's getting in the way because you are presupposing that making even one cent means the book is about a love of money.

Well you could not have twisted and distorted 'my words' any further from what was actually said, and meant.

I even wrote, 'The book's intention, itself, is to 'NOT make money'.

Yet, here, you are saying and claiming that I am 'presupposing' that 'the book' is about 'a love of money'.

Look, I am saying even though the intention of 'the book' is NOT about making any money at all, it is 'the intention' of 'the author' of 'the book' to 'make money' from 'the selling' of 'the book'.

Could you, really, NOT see 'this' the first time I said and wrote 'this'?

Writing a book, supposedly, about 'The decline and fall of ALL evil', with the actual intention of 'making money', and thus with an underlying 'love of money', would be highly hypocritical to say the least, would it not?

It would be hypocritical if that was the intention, but it's not.

So, if a person, (who wrote a book), intends to 'sell' 'that book', for money, then, to you, it is 'not the intention' to 'make money' by 'selling' 'the book', for money.

If one intends to 'sell' things, for money, then what are they actually doing if 'not intending' to 'make money'?

They may be, but this does not mean that the only purpose is to make money.

Who ever said or mentioned absolutely any thing about 'the ONLY purpose'.

you people WILL remain so lost and confused while you keep ASSUMING and BELIEVING things.

And, please do not forget that 'the intention' of 'the book' has no bearing at all on what 'the intention' of 'the author' 'selling' 'the book', for money, has.

Obviously if 'an author', really, has no intention of what is called 'making money', then WHY 'sell' 'their book'?

One of the reasons is advertising.

What?

I will 'sell' 'this book' to advertise 'the selling of this book', is just another irrational, illogical, and nonsensical claim, here.

It's very hard to sell a book and not be on a platform where everyone goes to buy books.

Why is 'it' about 'selling a book', to begin with? Once more, especially when the book is supposed to be about, 'The decline and fall of ALL evil'.

Also, giving a book away often reduces its value. If it's free, how good can it be?

It was this kind of absolute idiotic mentality why it took human beings so long to 'turn around' and 'change' so that they could head in the Right direction.

That's just how some people think. I'm not speaking for everyone.

That you even brought 'it' up and mentioned 'it' reveals far more than you are, really, wanting to let on and show, here.

Again, why not just post what 'it' is, here, that you supposedly want 'us' to read, and to discuss?

[peacegirl]

Why do you call 'that' 'strange phrasings'?

Can you not see the Truth in 'it'?

What strange phrasings are you talking about?

The ones "flashdangerpants" put 'in red', and proceeding "flashdangerpants" saying, 'leading to strange phrasing such as (those in red, above, here).

You are way too quick to challenge me.

But I was not challenging you. I was just asking "flashdangerpants", Why does "flashdangerpants" call 'that' (in red) 'strange phrasings'?

To me the actual irrefutable Truths in it are obvious.

Also, what is, 'you are way too quick', even in relation to, exactly, anyway?

In relation to the quick responses after reading a short snippet. I understand going over something but not before it's read in context.

Why can't you, even for a moment, be like a little child and ask questions rather than tell me he was wrong when you have no idea what his observations were or what he was wrong about?

But I have asked you questions, (and just like a little child, if you like).

Have you not yet noticed them?

Yes, I have. And I've answered them.

And, who is 'he', exactly, who has had 'his' observations, here?

The author.

[peacegirl]

It seems that all the people I have interacted with (is that better?) think there is an ulterior motive.

Just so you become fully aware, when you hear some thing once, or some times, will never ever equate to, 'that is all you hear'.

Just a figure of speech.

Because I'm using Amazon and I have to go along with their rules.

Why not go somewhere else, like for example just pasting 'it', here, in this forum?

What's the difference between giving you the link to the first three chapters and cutting and pasting the first three chapters, which is very time consuming. You can tell me what page you're on and we can discuss it. I cannot post a 600 page book on this site.

Why would you want to share any book through a website where 'the owner' of the website makes money out of a book that is meant to be about the decline and fall of ALL evil'?

Because the owner of the website is helping and deserves to be paid.

LOL
LOL
LOL 'deserves'.

The amount and depth of 'indoctrination' some of these adult human beings had, back in the days when this was being written, would not have been believed if it was not for 'their own words' being seen.

I know Jeff Bezos doesn't need my money.

Does any human being? If yes, then who, and why, exactly?

We need sustenance. Money is just a medium to attain it.

Does 'the owner' of that website need 'more money'?

Probably not, but he is making money legitimately, so I don't see a problem.

Now, if you, really, did want people to just read 'some writings', then why not just present 'those writings, here, so 'we' can have a 'look at' them and read them?

I told you, I really don't mind.

If you, really, do not mind, then why not just present them, here?

We shall see. At this rate, I will never be able to get to the point. You dissect every word that makes sense to others. You also generalize a lot by saying "you human beings". It's a little offensive because you are clumping groups of people together when no such groups exist.

But, if you, really, do not mind, if people do not read 'some writings', then 'this' contradicts 'the way' you write and present what you do, here.

I don't get what you're saying.

[FlashDangerpants]

This is not my first rodeas FlashDangerpants. His first discovery is the most important and I'm not letting it go just because you don't have the patience or desire to hear him out.



Think what you want. You've been wrong this whole time. It doesn't surprise me that one more error in your thinking will make a difference.


What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism? Is it different from that which Strawson covered?

He didn't have the same insights that this author had, not even close.

Strawson on Free Will: What are the most persuasive arguments?

Strawson's arguments against free will and moral responsibility are often based on strict causal determinism and determinism modified by quantum randomness. He argues that if we believe in free will, we must also believe in the ability to self-determine the process by which one self-determines, leading to an infinite regress. This would imply that self-determination is logically impossible, thus making free will impossible. Strawson's view challenges the notion that we can make decisions in a self-determined way, as it would require us to be able to self-determine the process by which we self-determine. This raises questions about the nature of our decisions and the extent to which they are truly voluntary.

I don't need your GPT answer to Strawson - although it is alarming that after decades of this stuff you aren't even up to speed on the most obvious literature for the subject. I was asking what about determinism is different between Lessan's understanding and that of the many philosophers who have covered this topic, with Strawson being an obvious one of those.

Thus I ask you again: What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

And once more.... What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

So please answer this question... What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

You are not answering the question.

Secondary question: Age is virtually brain dead, yet he can work the quote function here. What is wrong with you?

[peacegirl]

He didn't have the same insights that this author had, not even close.

Strawson on Free Will: What are the most persuasive arguments?

Strawson's arguments against free will and moral responsibility are often based on strict causal determinism and determinism modified by quantum randomness. He argues that if we believe in free will, we must also believe in the ability to self-determine the process by which one self-determines, leading to an infinite regress. This would imply that self-determination is logically impossible, thus making free will impossible. Strawson's view challenges the notion that we can make decisions in a self-determined way, as it would require us to be able to self-determine the process by which we self-determine. This raises questions about the nature of our decisions and the extent to which they are truly voluntary.

I don't need your GPT answer to Strawson - although it is alarming that after decades of this stuff you aren't even up to speed on the most obvious literature for the subject.

I am pretty much up to speed on the most obvious literature.

I was asking what about determinism is different between Lessan's understanding and that of the many philosophers who have covered this topic, with Strawson being an obvious one of those.

There is a big difference between Lessans' understanding and that of the many philosophers because they could not get beyond the impasse of blame due to the implications. He showed how it can be overcome, which is the core of his discovery: The Two-Sided Equation which reconciles "doing of one's own accord" with the fact that man has no free choice.

Thus I ask you again: What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

The revolutionary part is not so much determinism per se, but what was hidden behind this door that no one saw.

And once more.... What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

First, I will give you his demonstration as to why will is not free. Then, I will demonstrate the two-sided equation, which leads to this new world.

So please answer this question... What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

You are not answering the question.

Yes, I am. I just said that his version of determinism is not what is revolutionary. It is what lies behind the door of determinism, which requires another key. I'll have to get into this tomorrow or another day. It's getting late.

Secondary question: Age is virtually brain dead, yet he can work the quote function here. What is wrong with you?

I'm working on it. The text is very confusing. Some forums have limits on how many quotes there can be. This goes on and on, which makes it difficult to see where the older posts leave off and the new ones begin. You were doing great until you ended this conversation with a nasty remark. Please refrain from these type comments, or we won't have a conversation.

[Age]

What strange phrasings are you talking about?

The ones "flashdangerpants" put 'in red', and proceeding "flashdangerpants" saying, 'leading to strange phrasing such as (those in red, above, here).

You are way too quick to challenge me.

But I was not challenging you. I was just asking "flashdangerpants", Why does "flashdangerpants" call 'that' (in red) 'strange phrasings'?

To me the actual irrefutable Truths in it are obvious.

Also, what is, 'you are way too quick', even in relation to, exactly, anyway?

In relation to the quick responses after reading a short snippet.

In what 'universe' do you live where you can know, for sure, what I have or have not read?

I was only challenging someone on what they said and wrote, here. The length of what 'they said' has no bearing on absolutely anything else, here.

I understand going over something but not before it's read in context.

you could not even understand that I was challenging "flashdangerpants", here, and not 'you'.

So, talking about, 'reading in context', might well be some thing you could improve on, here.

Why can't you, even for a moment, be like a little child and ask questions rather than tell me he was wrong when you have no idea what his observations were or what he was wrong about?

But I have asked you questions, (and just like a little child, if you like).

Have you not yet noticed them?

Yes, I have. And I've answered them.

When you say, you have answered 'them', do you mean 'all of them or just 'some of them'?

The author.

Sorry, does this "he" go by any other name or label? you know 'one' that could help me 'look it up' further. Searching for 'the author' would obviously not bring me much luck in trying to understand "him" better.

And, considering that you will not just present 'that one's' words, here, naming 'the author' would, I thought, have been more helpful.

[Age]

Just a figure of speech.

Do you think that it would be better to express Truths, and Lies, here, in a philosophy forum?

What's the difference between giving you the link to the first three chapters and cutting and pasting the first three chapters, which is very time consuming.

Exactly as I expressed to you previously. I do not want to 'join up' nor pay for things that I may well use only once.

Now, if you really want me and/or others to read some words, which you can not even explain, back up, and support, here, in this philosophy forum, then do not expect others to go 'looking for' nor 'putting effort into' reading 'that' what Truthfully is what you 'want 'us' to read'.

You can tell me what page you're on and we can discuss it. I cannot post a 600 page book on this site.

1. How about you post a page that you think or believe is 'important'.

2. Again, I am not going to 'sign up' nor pay for some thing that I do not really want.

3. Why not just post the first chapter, here, first. And, then just see what transpires. Why does it have to be the 'whole book' or 'none of the book'?

Because the owner of the website is helping and deserves to be paid.

LOL
LOL
LOL 'deserves'.

The amount and depth of 'indoctrination' some of these adult human beings had, back in the days when this was being written, would not have been believed if it was not for 'their own words' being seen.

I know Jeff Bezos doesn't need my money.

Does any human being? If yes, then who, and why, exactly?

We need sustenance. Money is just a medium to attain it. [/quote]

Only if you 'believe so', and maybe only so in some parts of that Truly Wrong and absurd 'world', which you are creating and living in, in the days when this is being written.

Imagine wanting to share 'the knowledge' in some book supposedly about 'The decline and fall of ALL evil', while at the exact same time 'trying to' 'justify' the continued existence of 'The love of money'.

Probably not, but he is making money legitimately, so I don't see a problem.

LOL 'deserves', previously, and now, 'legitimately'.

The rise and rise of evil in 'the world' is because of people like the one you just mentioned and its insatiable greed and selfishness.

The book you are 'trying to' promote, here, could never ever work while you, still, 'trying to' 'legitimize' and 'justify' the very things in 'the world' that cause the continued ongoing of ALL evil' in 'the world'. If you, really, can not see the 'actual problem' of why ALL evil' exists, and continues to exist, then you will obtain the 'actual knowledge', which can and will end ALL evil'.

We shall see. At this rate, I will never be able to get to the point.

you could, if you just expressed 'the point', here, in this publicly able to be viewed 'philosophy forum'.

You dissect every word that makes sense to others.

Have you forgotten that it is you human beings who are lost, confused, and seeking answers, here?

You also generalize a lot by saying "you human beings".

Would it help 'you' if I specifically mention and wrote the Wrongs that 'you', personally, do, which helps in the creating of the Wrong and evil world' that 'you' are living in 'right now', from your own personal perspective?

It's a little offensive because you are clumping groups of people together when no such groups exist.

So, to you, there is no group called 'human beings', correct?

Also, something else you have not yet noticed, here, is that 'the group' that I call 'you human beings' is not and could never be 'groups of people'.

I don't get what you're saying.

Where, when, and in regards to what, exactly?

Could saying some thing like, 'I do not get what you are saying', be a great example of what the word, 'generalization', actually means and/or refers to, exactly?

[Age]

He didn't have the same insights that this author had, not even close.

Strawson on Free Will: What are the most persuasive arguments?

Strawson's arguments against free will and moral responsibility are often based on strict causal determinism and determinism modified by quantum randomness. He argues that if we believe in free will, we must also believe in the ability to self-determine the process by which one self-determines, leading to an infinite regress. This would imply that self-determination is logically impossible, thus making free will impossible. Strawson's view challenges the notion that we can make decisions in a self-determined way, as it would require us to be able to self-determine the process by which we self-determine. This raises questions about the nature of our decisions and the extent to which they are truly voluntary.

I don't need your GPT answer to Strawson - although it is alarming that after decades of this stuff you aren't even up to speed on the most obvious literature for the subject. I was asking what about determinism is different between Lessan's understanding and that of the many philosophers who have covered this topic, with Strawson being an obvious one of those.

Thus I ask you again: What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

And once more.... What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

So please answer this question... What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

You are not answering the question.

Secondary question: Age is virtually brain dead, yet he can work the quote function here. What is wrong with you?

Yeah, if "age" can do 'it', then so can 'you'.

[FlashDangerpants]

I was asking what about determinism is different between Lessan's understanding and that of the many philosophers who have covered this topic, with Strawson being an obvious one of those.

There is a big difference between Lessans' understanding and that of the many philosophers because they could not get beyond the impasse of blame due to the implications. He showed how it can be overcome, which is the core of his discovery: The Two-Sided Equation which reconciles "doing of one's own accord" with the fact that man has no free choice.

That's a difference of opinion about implications of determinism, not about what determinism is. Lessans, like everyone else, is talking about a causally captured universe in which all phenomena belong to the chain of causation, no? That is what philosophers tend to be describing with this word.

In which case, as I already wrote... The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great.. It isn't new unless you have something important to add about what determinism is, not about what its implications are. The next quote from you appears to confirm you already agree with me, so I don't really understand what you gain by fighting me over this point.

Thus I ask you again: What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

The revolutionary part is not so much determinism per se, but what was hidden behind this door that no one saw.

Awesome, so time to explain the second discovery so we can move this thing along and get to the third.

And once more.... What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

First, I will give you his demonstration as to why will is not free. Then, I will demonstrate the two-sided equation, which leads to this new world.

There's like a handful of people at this site who are religious and find determinism frightening, I don't think any of them are active in this conversation so probably the demonstration of unfreedom of will is a bit of a hat on a hat. Perhaps the two-sided equation is worth skipping directly to, everybody on PN should be able to accept determinism for the sake of argument at least.

[peacegirl]

I was asking what about determinism is different between Lessan's understanding and that of the many philosophers who have covered this topic, with Strawson being an obvious one of those.

There is a big difference between Lessans' understanding and that of the many philosophers because they could not get beyond the impasse of blame due to the implications. He showed how it can be overcome, which is the core of his discovery: The Two-Sided Equation which reconciles "doing of one's own accord" with the fact that man has no free choice.

That's a difference of opinion about implications of determinism, not about what determinism is. Lessans, like everyone else, is talking about a causally captured universe in which all phenomena belong to the chain of causation, no? That is what philosophers tend to be describing with this word.

Determinism, according to Lessans, is not about the chain of causation, as if to say that the past causes the present.

In which case, as I already wrote... The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great.. It isn't new unless you have something important to add about what determinism is, not about what its implications are. The next quote from you appears to confirm you already agree with me, so I don't really understand what you gain by fighting me over this point.

Wow, why are you jumping to conclusions so quickly?

Determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?”

“You must be kidding! Here you are in the process of demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

“This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true that man has to make choices, he must always prefer that which he considers good, not evil, for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The words ‘cause’ and ‘compel’ are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not describe reality unless interpreted properly. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man, who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress, was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause,’ like ‘choice’ and ‘past,’ is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles have never been reconciled until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, and the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system; but these systems are not caused by these laws; they are these laws.”

Thus I ask you again: What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

The definition. But this should be just the beginning of an exploration as to what follows as a result.

The revolutionary part is not so much determinism per se, but what was hidden behind this door that no one saw.

Awesome, so time to explain the second discovery so we can move this thing along and get to the third.

Why are you handwaving this away when it is revolutionary? You don't get it.

And once more.... What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

First, I will give you his demonstration as to why will is not free. Then, I will demonstrate the two-sided equation, which leads to this new world.

There's like a handful of people at this site who are religious and find determinism frightening, I don't think any of them are active in this conversation so probably the demonstration of unfreedom of will is a bit of a hat on a hat. Perhaps the two-sided equation is worth skipping directly to, everybody on PN should be able to accept determinism for the sake of argument at least.

I could do that but it's important to understand why man's will is not free, according to Lessans' definition, because it brings forth the other side of this equation, which is the most important part. I will continue to cut and paste as long as people remIn civil.

The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was because they never attempted to look behind the door marked, ‘Man’s Will Is Not Free.’ Why should they when they were convinced that man’s will was free? Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the world and saw the truth, but in a confused sort of way, because the element of evil was always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told the rabbis that God commanded man to turn the other cheek, they threw him out because the Bible told them that God said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” When his enemies nailed him to the cross, he was heard to say, “They know not what they do.” “Turn the other cheek,” he said. Because Christ exemplified in his behavior the principle of forgiveness and because he saw such suffering in the world, he drew to himself those who needed help, and there were many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity was never reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a world of such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused, and in spite of every possible criticism, how was religion able to convince the world to be patient and have faith? Where did these theologians receive their inspiration since there was no way science could reconcile good and evil with a God that caused everything. They solved this problem in a very simple manner by dividing good and evil in half, and God was only responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed man with freedom of the will to choose good over evil. To theologians, God is the creator of all goodness, and since man does many things considered evil, they were given no choice but to endow him with freedom of the will so that God could be absolved of all responsibility for evil, which was assigned to Satan. This is also the reason why religion is so hostile toward anyone who speaks against free will. Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza, plus innumerable others, pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to the thinkers of that time, how could any intelligent person believe in Satan? Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good and evil with a caring and loving God; therefore, Satan was destined to be born as the opposite of all good in the world.

snip

“The first step is to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, and regardless of any opinions to the contrary, that the will of man is not free.”

“But if you plan to use the knowledge that man’s will is not free as a point from which to start your chain of reasoning, couldn’t you get the same results without demonstrating that man’s will is not free, simply by showing what must follow as a consequence?”
“Yes, I could, and that was a very sharp question, but my purpose in proving that man’s will is not free is not so much to have a sound basis from which to reason but to show exactly why the will of man is not free.”

“I am still trying to understand your reasoning as to why free will cannot be proven true.”

“Once again, let me show you why this is a mathematical impossibility by repeating the same question I asked the rabbi. Take your time with this.”

“Is it possible for you not to do what has already been done?”

“Of course it’s not possible for me not to do what has already been done, because I have already done it.”

“Now, if what has just been done was the choosing of B instead of A, is it possible not to choose B, which has already been chosen?”

“No, it is not possible.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible not to choose B instead of A, once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A in this comparison of possibilities, when in order to make this choice, you must not choose B, which has already been chosen? Yet, in order to prove free will true, it must do just that — the impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has already been done, and then show that A, with the conditions being exactly the same, could have been chosen instead of B. Such reasoning is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer. Let me rephrase this in still another way.

“If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever it is, is it possible to prove this something true?”

“Obviously, the answer is no.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following: If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something false? Obviously, the answer must be no, it is not possible, unless the person asked does not understand the question. In other words, if it is mathematically impossible to prove free will true, how is it possible to prove the opposite of this, false? Isn’t it obvious that if determinism (in this context, the opposite of free will) were proven false, this would automatically prove free will true, and didn’t we just demonstrate that this is impossible unless we can turn back the clock? How is it possible to prove free will true when this requires doing something that is mathematically impossible? We can never undo what has already been done. Therefore, whatever your reasons for believing free will true cannot be accurate since proof of this theory requires going back in time, so to speak, and demonstrating that man could have chosen otherwise. Since it is utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which is absolutely necessary for mathematical proof, the most we can do is assume that he didn’t have to do what he did. Is it any wonder free will is still a theory? The great humor in this particular instance lies in the fact that though it was always possible to prove determinism true, theology considered it as absolutely false while dogmatically promulgating, in obedience to God’s will, that free will was an absolute reality.”