New Discovery

[peacegirl]

What I do care about is that you are flat out wrong and saying his claim is just circular.

Hmm, did I do that? Please show me where I said "circular". I don't normally do that by accident.

Okay, wrong word. According to you a person will either choose this or choose that, therefore it’s banal, and is of no importance. You’re flat out wrong. Have I made myself clear? You are compelled to be in this thread because not being here gives you less satisfaction or you would leave. Your choice therefore is not a free one.

[peacegirl]

As I said I reached that point, I broke your law. Your law doesn't exist. Your father was simply crazy and so are you, that's the big secret here.

You did not break this invariable law. It was not his law or my law. You lent the money because you wanted to more than you didn’t want to after weighing it or simply because you wanted to help her hoping you made the right decision. You took the gamble because you wanted to. No one made you do it. This was your choice in the direction of what gave you satisfaction at that moment. Now you’ll be more likely to make a different choice if she ever asks again because you learned from your mistake. That’s how life works Atla.
I will refuse to engage with you if you talk s*^*t again.

It's your made-up law. Nature's "law" is that a sufficiently intelligent being with enough willpower can do pretty much anything he/she wants, even go against his/her satisfaction.

Why wouldn't I talk shit about you, you made your and your father's selfishness (chasing satisfaction) into a sacred law of nature. That's disgusting. And claim to save the world with it.

Chasing satisfaction? We have no choice but to move in the direction of what is the most preferable, given our particular circumstances. I get satisfaction out of doing volunteer work, especially helping animals. Where is that selfish? Another example of a complete misunderstanding of what this phrase even means. 🫩

[FlashDangerpants]

What I do care about is that you are flat out wrong and saying his claim is just circular.

Hmm, did I do that? Please show me where I said "circular". I don't normally do that by accident.

Okay, wrong word. According to you a person will either choose this or choose that, therefore it’s banal, and is of no importance. You’re flat out wrong. Have I made myself clear? You are compelled to be in this thread because not being here gives you less satisfaction or you would leave. Your choice therefore is not a free one.

Normal motivation to do stuff with my time and a preference for philosophy is enough to explain my actions. There is no need for a mystical "direction of life" to be invoked, it adds nothing and therefore simple parsimony suggests not to adopt this extravagance. Freedom of will is neither here nor there in this detail.

[Phil8659]

I'm introducing a book that you may be interested in. It is based on a discovery that lies behind the door of determinism. But please don't jump to a premature conclusion that if will is not free, we are robots, which is why many people dislike this position. I hope that people stick with me. Here are the first three chapters. This should give you an idea of whether this book is for you or not.

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

Well, I read part of the intro, you are obviously an illiterate. Laws are not discovered. A Law is a grammatical product. Grammar, all grammar, is the methods putting fact into binary recursion what is perceptible and intelligible. Binary recursion produces exactly four primitive systems of grammar, Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry.
Geometry differs, as Plato and the JCS (Judeo-Christian Scripture) intimate is the only grammar of the four which can produce perceptible paradigms of all reasoning, a method of proofing every member of our Grammar Matrix.
In short, you do not discover anything, you learn to read, a mind can do nothing more than to learn to read and write in binary.

So, if you want to do something that is actually important, you can work on a factually correct grammar book which currently does not yet exist, or perhaps only exists in pieces.

[Atla]

You did not break this invariable law. It was not his law or my law. You lent the money because you wanted to more than you didn’t want to after weighing it or simply because you wanted to help her hoping you made the right decision. You took the gamble because you wanted to. No one made you do it. This was your choice in the direction of what gave you satisfaction at that moment. Now you’ll be more likely to make a different choice if she ever asks again because you learned from your mistake. That’s how life works Atla.
I will refuse to engage with you if you talk s*^*t again.

It's your made-up law. Nature's "law" is that a sufficiently intelligent being with enough willpower can do pretty much anything he/she wants, even go against his/her satisfaction.

Why wouldn't I talk shit about you, you made your and your father's selfishness (chasing satisfaction) into a sacred law of nature. That's disgusting. And claim to save the world with it.

Chasing satisfaction? We have no choice but to move in the direction of what is the most preferable, given our particular circumstances. I get satisfaction out of doing volunteer work, especially helping animals. Where is that selfish? Another example of a complete misunderstanding of what this phrase even means. 🫩

If you help others because that satisfies you, you're still selfish. Or in other words, unselfishness has two levels. Better people can also choose to help others even if that somewhat dissatisfies them, but of course according to your made-up law (which you confuse for determinism) this is impossible.

[Atla]

BINARY RECURSION OHH YEAHHH!

[peacegirl]

It's your made-up law. Nature's "law" is that a sufficiently intelligent being with enough willpower can do pretty much anything he/she wants, even go against his/her satisfaction.

Why wouldn't I talk shit about you, you made your and your father's selfishness (chasing satisfaction) into a sacred law of nature. That's disgusting. And claim to save the world with it.

Chasing satisfaction? We have no choice but to move in the direction of what is the most preferable, given our particular circumstances. I get satisfaction out of doing volunteer work, especially helping animals. Where is that selfish? Another example of a complete misunderstanding of what this phrase even means. 🫩

If you help others because that satisfies you, you're still selfish. Or in other words, unselfishness has two levels. Better people can also choose to help others even if that somewhat dissatisfies them, but of course according to your made-up law (which you confuse for determinism) this is impossible.

Of course, people can sacrifice their own desire for the sake of someone else, especially if they need your help because they cannot do it themselves. That being said, just because I find satisfaction in being of service in some capacity doesn’t diminish my effort to help. In your way of thinking, I should be a sacrificial lamb always doing for others without any thoughts for my own wellbeing? That’s not healthy.

[peacegirl]

Hmm, did I do that? Please show me where I said "circular". I don't normally do that by accident.

Okay, wrong word. According to you a person will either choose this or choose that, therefore it’s banal, and is of no importance. You’re flat out wrong. Have I made myself clear? You are compelled to be in this thread because not being here gives you less satisfaction or you would leave. Your choice therefore is not a free one.

Normal motivation to do stuff with my time and a preference for philosophy is enough to explain my actions.

Not only is there no need to explain your preferences, but this knowledge shows that you will never have to explain yourself. The only difference between this world and the new is that, under the changed conditions, you will have no choice but to hurt no one when there is no justification. In this world, people have advance justification knowing that if they are caught doing something considered wrong, they will be blamed, which allows them the ability to shift what is their responsibility to someone or something else when questioned.

There is no need for a mystical "direction of life" to be invoked, it adds nothing and therefore simple parsimony suggests not to adopt this extravagance. Freedom of will is neither here nor there in this detail.

Free will means you could choose A or B equally even though there are meaningful differences between them. This was explained in the first chapter.

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers."

People will have no choice but to move in a direction that hurts no one. If will was free it wouldn't matter what the conditions were. But it's impossible, which is why this is an immutable law. Look at what is happening in our world? Wouldn't you like to see a world where there was no need for locks, safes, burglar alarms, or guns?

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay, wrong word. According to you a person will either choose this or choose that, therefore it’s banal, and is of no importance. You’re flat out wrong. Have I made myself clear? You are compelled to be in this thread because not being here gives you less satisfaction or you would leave. Your choice therefore is not a free one.

Normal motivation to do stuff with my time and a preference for philosophy is enough to explain my actions.

Not only is there no need to explain your preferences, but this knowledge shows that you will never have to explain yourself. The only difference between this world and the new is that, under the changed conditions, you will have no choice but to hurt no one when there is no justification. In this world, people have advance justification knowing that if they are caught doing something considered wrong, they will be blamed, which allows them the ability to shift what is their responsibility to someone or something else when questioned.

Yeah, that bit is rubbish too, but I CBA to try and discuss that with you if you aren't able to understand the tautology issue below.

There is no need for a mystical "direction of life" to be invoked, it adds nothing and therefore simple parsimony suggests not to adopt this extravagance. Freedom of will is neither here nor there in this detail.

Free will means you could choose A or B equally even though there are meaningful differences between them. This was explained in the first chapter.

OK, but I stipulated to determinism already so why do you keep doing this?

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers."

I don't know how to get this into your brain. It isn't difficult. The API from Blackburn shows you that a priori - without any investigation whatsoever - you know in advance that whatever X chooses to do in any given situation is the thing that X considers best moves X towards whatever goal X has at that time. Similarly, after the action, when explaining the choice, it is a tautological given that X chose according to X's preferences and motives.

There is no requirement for spooky explanations about a "Direction of Life". The "Direction of Life" is explanatorily empty. It is nothing. It serves no purpose. It is a rhetorical device at most. I reject it as useless.

You will have no choice but to move in a direction that hurts no one. I'm not talking about you personally. I'm talking in general. Look at what is happening in our world? Wouldn't you like to see a world where there wasn't a need for locks or weapons that have taken countless lives?

There is no choice about whether the thing I chose to do is what I chose due to my motivations under any circumstance. It is a tautology. It is true of me by definition that I act according my motivations and it true of you also. It would still be true if there were freedom of will, you would still be following your own motivations when you act.

Why aren't you getting this?

[peacegirl]

Normal motivation to do stuff with my time and a preference for philosophy is enough to explain my actions.

Not only is there no need to explain your preferences, but this knowledge shows that you will never have to explain yourself. The only difference between this world and the new is that, under the changed conditions, you will have no choice but to hurt no one when there is no justification. In this world, people have advance justification knowing that if they are caught doing something considered wrong, they will be blamed, which allows them the ability to shift what is their responsibility to someone or something else when questioned.

Yeah, that bit is rubbish too, but I CBA to try and discuss that with you if you aren't able to understand the tautology issue below.

NO. If you call it rubbish, there is something you don't get.

There is no need for a mystical "direction of life" to be invoked, it adds nothing and therefore simple parsimony suggests not to adopt this extravagance. Freedom of will is neither here nor there in this detail.

Free will means you could choose A or B equally even though there are meaningful differences between them. This was explained in the first chapter.

OK, but I stipulated to determinism already so why do you keep doing this?

Because you're giving it lip service. You're telling me that his demonstration is just a tautology. It's not just a tautology.

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers."

I don't know how to get this into your brain. It isn't difficult. The API from Blackburn shows you that a priori - without any investigation whatsoever - you know in advance that whatever X chooses to do in any given situation is the thing that X considers best moves X towards whatever goal X has at that time. Similarly, after the action, when explaining the choice, it is a tautological given that X chose according to X's preferences and motives.

That's fine but this tautology doesn't address the issue of conscience and why it works the way it does. This is not about what motivates us in general, or what gives us greater satisfaction doing one thing over another. The only thing that this natural law addresses is this hurt to others (this thing we call evil), which all the punishment in the world has been unable to prevent. It's a partial deterrent only. Conscience permits these behaviors but only under certain conditions. When the justification to hurt others is eliminated, conscience will no longer permit said behavior.

There is no requirement for spooky explanations about a "Direction of Life". The "Direction of Life" is explanatorily empty. It is nothing. It serves no purpose. It is a rhetorical device at most. I reject it as useless.

It is not useless. It explains that the direction of life is a one-way street. There are no parallel worlds where you could have done otherwise given the same exact time and place. If you can't follow me as to why there is only one choice possible each moment in time, I can't go forward.

You will have no choice but to move in a direction that hurts no one. I'm not talking about you personally. I'm talking in general. Look at what is happening in our world? Wouldn't you like to see a world where there wasn't a need for locks or weapons that have taken countless lives?

There is no choice about whether the thing I chose to do is what I chose due to my motivations under any circumstance. It is a tautology. It is true of me by definition that I act according to my motivations and it true of you also. It would still be true if there were freedom of will, you would still be following your own motivations when you act.

Saying we have freedom of the will in a colloquial sense is fine as long as it is qualified to mean, "I did it because I wanted to, nothing made me do it against my will," (which always comes up in discussions on determinism the way it is presently defined), but this does not grant you the freedom of the will to do otherwise. I am not going to fight you on this. All I care about is that this principle works and will change the trajectory of our world for the better in due time.

Why aren't you getting this?

I'm tired of the semantics. As I said, these principles will either work or they won't when the environmental conditions change. Imagine no more government that tells anyone what they must do, how much they must pay in taxes, etc. Yet people will want to pay, OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL OR DESIRE, their share without any obligation to do so or anyone checking up on them.

[FlashDangerpants]

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers."

I don't know how to get this into your brain. It isn't difficult. The API from Blackburn shows you that a priori - without any investigation whatsoever - you know in advance that whatever X chooses to do in any given situation is the thing that X considers best moves X towards whatever goal X has at that time. Similarly, after the action, when explaining the choice, it is a tautological given that X chose according to X's preferences and motives.

That's fine but this tautology doesn't address the issue of conscience and why it works the way it does. This is not about what motivates us in general, or what gives us greater satisfaction doing one thing over another. The only thing that this natural law addresses is this hurt to others (this thing we call evil), which all the punishment in the world has been unable to prevent. It's a partial deterrent only. Conscience permits these behaviors but only under certain conditions. When the justification to hurt others is eliminated, conscience will no longer permit said behavior.

Non-sequitur, rejected.

There is no requirement for spooky explanations about a "Direction of Life". The "Direction of Life" is explanatorily empty. It is nothing. It serves no purpose. It is a rhetorical device at most. I reject it as useless.

No it isn't useless. It explains that the direction of life is a one-way street. There are no parallel worlds where you could have done otherwise given the same exact time and place. If you can't follow me as to why there is only one choice possible each moment in time, I can't go forward.

Time is a one-way street. We are not time travellers, or at least not in any second direction, so there is no need for your rhetorical device to explain it. You simply found an extra way for your thing to offer nothing and you are floundering.

You will have no choice but to move in a direction that hurts no one. I'm not talking about you personally. I'm talking in general. Look at what is happening in our world? Wouldn't you like to see a world where there wasn't a need for locks or weapons that have taken countless lives?

There is no choice about whether the thing I chose to do is what I chose due to my motivations under any circumstance. It is a tautology. It is true of me by definition that I act according to my motivations and it true of you also. It would still be true if there were freedom of will, you would still be following your own motivations when you act.

Saying we have freedom of the will in a colloquial sense in the sense is true, but this does not grant you the freedom of the will to do otherwise. I am not going to fight you on this anymore. All I care about is that this principle works and will change the trajectory of our world for the better in due time.

What are you on about? It is true by definition that whatever I do reveals the preference that motivated the act. This would apply in the way that tautologies do - under any and all circumstances - which includes every description of the world under which the concept of a preference has any meaning. So free will and determinism alike.

Why aren't you getting this?

I'm tired of the semantics. As I said, these principles will either work or they won't when the environmental conditions change. Imagine no more government that tells anyone what they must do, how much they must pay in taxes, etc. Yet people will want to pay, OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL OR DESIRE, their share without any obligation to do so or anyone checking up on them.

Don't waste your sales pitch on me. Your theory doesn't become better just by getting watery-eyed about a future that you are not going to bring about with this crap.

[peacegirl]

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers."

I don't know how to get this into your brain. It isn't difficult. The API from Blackburn shows you that a priori - without any investigation whatsoever - you know in advance that whatever X chooses to do in any given situation is the thing that X considers best moves X towards whatever goal X has at that time. Similarly, after the action, when explaining the choice, it is a tautological given that X chose according to X's preferences and motives.

That's fine but this tautology doesn't address the issue of conscience and why it works the way it does. This is not about what motivates us in general, or what gives us greater satisfaction doing one thing over another. The only thing that this natural law addresses is this hurt to others (this thing we call evil), which all the punishment in the world has been unable to prevent. It's a partial deterrent only. Conscience permits these behaviors but only under certain conditions. When the justification to hurt others is eliminated, conscience will no longer permit said behavior.

Non-sequitur, rejected.

There is no requirement for spooky explanations about a "Direction of Life". The "Direction of Life" is explanatorily empty. It is nothing. It serves no purpose. It is a rhetorical device at most. I reject it as useless.

No it isn't useless. It explains that the direction of life is a one-way street. There are no parallel worlds where you could have done otherwise given the same exact time and place. If you can't follow me as to why there is only one choice possible each moment in time, I can't go forward.

Time is a one-way street. We are not time travellers, or at least not in any second direction, so there is no need for your rhetorical device to explain it. You simply found an extra way for your thing to offer nothing and you are floundering.

You will have no choice but to move in a direction that hurts no one. I'm not talking about you personally. I'm talking in general. Look at what is happening in our world? Wouldn't you like to see a world where there wasn't a need for locks or weapons that have taken countless lives?

There is no choice about whether the thing I chose to do is what I chose due to my motivations under any circumstance. It is a tautology. It is true of me by definition that I act according to my motivations and it true of you also. It would still be true if there were freedom of will, you would still be following your own motivations when you act.

Saying we have freedom of the will in a colloquial sense in the sense is true, but this does not grant you the freedom of the will to do otherwise. I am not going to fight you on this anymore. All I care about is that this principle works and will change the trajectory of our world for the better in due time.

What are you on about? It is true by definition that whatever I do reveals the preference that motivated the act. This would apply in the way that tautologies do - under any and all circumstances - which includes every description of the world under which the concept of a preference has any meaning. So free will and determinism alike.

Why aren't you getting this?

I'm tired of the semantics. As I said, these principles will either work or they won't when the environmental conditions change. Imagine no more government that tells anyone what they must do, how much they must pay in taxes, etc. Yet people will want to pay, OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL OR DESIRE, their share without any obligation to do so or anyone checking up on them.

Don't waste your sales pitch on me. Your theory doesn't become better just by getting watery-eyed about a future that you are not going to bring about with this crap.

Goodbye FlashDangerpants.

[ThinkOfOne]

Not only is there no need to explain your preferences, but this knowledge shows that you will never have to explain yourself. The only difference between this world and the new is that, under the changed conditions, you will have no choice but to hurt no one when there is no justification. In this world, people have advance justification knowing that if they are caught doing something considered wrong, they will be blamed, which allows them the ability to shift what is their responsibility to someone or something else when questioned.

Yeah, that bit is rubbish too, but I CBA to try and discuss that with you if you aren't able to understand the tautology issue below.

NO. If you call it rubbish, there is something you don't get.

There is no need for a mystical "direction of life" to be invoked, it adds nothing and therefore simple parsimony suggests not to adopt this extravagance. Freedom of will is neither here nor there in this detail.

Free will means you could choose A or B equally even though there are meaningful differences between them. This was explained in the first chapter.

OK, but I stipulated to determinism already so why do you keep doing this?

Because you're giving it lip service. You're telling me that his demonstration is just a tautology. It's not just a tautology.

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers."

I don't know how to get this into your brain. It isn't difficult. The API from Blackburn shows you that a priori - without any investigation whatsoever - you know in advance that whatever X chooses to do in any given situation is the thing that X considers best moves X towards whatever goal X has at that time. Similarly, after the action, when explaining the choice, it is a tautological given that X chose according to X's preferences and motives.

That's fine but this tautology doesn't address the issue of conscience and why it works the way it does. This is not about what motivates us in general, or what gives us greater satisfaction doing one thing over another. The only thing that this natural law addresses is this hurt to others (this thing we call evil), which all the punishment in the world has been unable to prevent. It's a partial deterrent only. Conscience permits these behaviors but only under certain conditions. When the justification to hurt others is eliminated, conscience will no longer permit said behavior.

There is no requirement for spooky explanations about a "Direction of Life". The "Direction of Life" is explanatorily empty. It is nothing. It serves no purpose. It is a rhetorical device at most. I reject it as useless.

It is not useless. It explains that the direction of life is a one-way street. There are no parallel worlds where you could have done otherwise given the same exact time and place. If you can't follow me as to why there is only one choice possible each moment in time, I can't go forward.

You will have no choice but to move in a direction that hurts no one. I'm not talking about you personally. I'm talking in general. Look at what is happening in our world? Wouldn't you like to see a world where there wasn't a need for locks or weapons that have taken countless lives?

There is no choice about whether the thing I chose to do is what I chose due to my motivations under any circumstance. It is a tautology. It is true of me by definition that I act according to my motivations and it true of you also. It would still be true if there were freedom of will, you would still be following your own motivations when you act.

Saying we have freedom of the will in a colloquial sense is fine as long as it is qualified to mean, "I did it because I wanted to, nothing made me do it against my will," (which always comes up in discussions on determinism the way it is presently defined), but this does not grant you the freedom of the will to do otherwise. I am not going to fight you on this. All I care about is that this principle works and will change the trajectory of our world for the better in due time.

Why aren't you getting this?

I'm tired of the semantics. As I said, these principles will either work or they won't when the environmental conditions change. Imagine no more government that tells anyone what they must do, how much they must pay in taxes, etc. Yet people will want to pay, OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL OR DESIRE, their share without any obligation to do so or anyone checking up on them.

As I said, these principles will either work or they won't when the environmental conditions change. Imagine no more government that tells anyone what they must do, how much they must pay in taxes, etc. Yet people will want to pay, OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL OR DESIRE, their share without any obligation to do so or anyone checking up on them.

Can you explain exactly what these environmental conditions are and what will be required to implement them?

[peacegirl]

Yeah, that bit is rubbish too, but I CBA to try and discuss that with you if you aren't able to understand the tautology issue below.

NO. If you call it rubbish, there is something you don't get.

Free will means you could choose A or B equally even though there are meaningful differences between them. This was explained in the first chapter.

OK, but I stipulated to determinism already so why do you keep doing this?

Because you're giving it lip service. You're telling me that his demonstration is just a tautology. It's not just a tautology.

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers."

I don't know how to get this into your brain. It isn't difficult. The API from Blackburn shows you that a priori - without any investigation whatsoever - you know in advance that whatever X chooses to do in any given situation is the thing that X considers best moves X towards whatever goal X has at that time. Similarly, after the action, when explaining the choice, it is a tautological given that X chose according to X's preferences and motives.

That's fine but this tautology doesn't address the issue of conscience and why it works the way it does. This is not about what motivates us in general, or what gives us greater satisfaction doing one thing over another. The only thing that this natural law addresses is this hurt to others (this thing we call evil), which all the punishment in the world has been unable to prevent. It's a partial deterrent only. Conscience permits these behaviors but only under certain conditions. When the justification to hurt others is eliminated, conscience will no longer permit said behavior.

There is no requirement for spooky explanations about a "Direction of Life". The "Direction of Life" is explanatorily empty. It is nothing. It serves no purpose. It is a rhetorical device at most. I reject it as useless.

It is not useless. It explains that the direction of life is a one-way street. There are no parallel worlds where you could have done otherwise given the same exact time and place. If you can't follow me as to why there is only one choice possible each moment in time, I can't go forward.

You will have no choice but to move in a direction that hurts no one. I'm not talking about you personally. I'm talking in general. Look at what is happening in our world? Wouldn't you like to see a world where there wasn't a need for locks or weapons that have taken countless lives?

There is no choice about whether the thing I chose to do is what I chose due to my motivations under any circumstance. It is a tautology. It is true of me by definition that I act according to my motivations and it true of you also. It would still be true if there were freedom of will, you would still be following your own motivations when you act.

Saying we have freedom of the will in a colloquial sense is fine as long as it is qualified to mean, "I did it because I wanted to, nothing made me do it against my will," (which always comes up in discussions on determinism the way it is presently defined), but this does not grant you the freedom of the will to do otherwise. I am not going to fight you on this. All I care about is that this principle works and will change the trajectory of our world for the better in due time.

Why aren't you getting this?

I'm tired of the semantics. As I said, these principles will either work or they won't when the environmental conditions change. Imagine no more government that tells anyone what they must do, how much they must pay in taxes, etc. Yet people will want to pay, OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL OR DESIRE, their share without any obligation to do so or anyone checking up on them.

As I said, these principles will either work or they won't when the environmental conditions change. Imagine no more government that tells anyone what they must do, how much they must pay in taxes, etc. Yet people will want to pay, OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL OR DESIRE, their share without any obligation to do so or anyone checking up on them.

Can you explain exactly what these environmental conditions are and what will be required to implement them?

It's very difficult if you don't understand the two-sided equation, which is the core of this discovery. But I will give you the very beginning of Chapter Six. I don't want to be accused of going against any rules. Actually, I just reduced the price of the ebook to 99 cents on Amazon. I don't even think people will have to give up their cup of morning joe at this price. You will need to put in the search bar the author's name: Seymour Lessans. The title isn't showing up and I have to get it corrected somehow.

CHAPTER SIX

THE NEW ECONOMIC WORLD

And now my friends, you are about to behold an actual miracle as the knowledge that man’s will is not free and what this means not only puts a mathematical end to the possibility of war and crime but completely changes the entire economic system to one of complete security. As you begin reading this chapter it is assumed that you thoroughly understand the two-sided equation; otherwise, the rest of the book will appear like a fairy tale. Remember, at one time landing men on the moon seemed like nothing more than science fiction until it was understood how this apparent miracle could be accomplished. From here on in, each move I make is equivalent to the forced moves in a chess game; consequently, no attempt is necessary because checkmate cannot be avoided, nor can the Golden Age be stopped. In other words, it is mathematically impossible to stop the development of something everybody wants. If the rich and poor, the capitalistic and communistic countries, plus everybody else not mentioned, desire what I am about to show, is it possible for this Golden Age not to become a reality? How is it humanly possible to be dissatisfied with the solution when it is impossible not to be satisfied? I am going to reduce the differences between people to a common denominator that satisfies the whole human race. God shows no partiality, and since I have been sent here on a mission by God Himself, everybody to me is equal regardless of his color, race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else you care to throw in. Consequently, the United States, though I live here, is no more a problem to me than Russia or China. Besides, nobody asked to be born, and once it is understood that man’s will is not free, and what this means, how is it possible to blame an individual for anything when both sides of this human equation understand the principles? This is a discovery that no one ever knew about; therefore, the experts in every field are also inadequately prepared to judge its ability to accomplish what was never before possible: the prevention of war and crime. At this juncture my friend and I continued our dialogue.

“Something puzzles me very much because it seems under certain conditions this principle can have no effect. If man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and the conditions of the environment cause him as a solution to his particular problem to prefer the lesser of two evils, how is it possible to remove the evil when his choice, no matter what he selects is still evil? Self-preservation is the first law of nature and if he can’t satisfy his needs without hurting others, the knowledge that they will never blame him for this hurt to them can never prevent him from moving in this direction because he has no choice.”

“You are 100% correct because he is already being hurt by the environment and under such conditions he is justified to retaliate.”

“This is the only thing that had me puzzled; otherwise, your reasoning is flawless.”

“It is important to understand that in order to solve a problem, even with our basic principle, we must know what we are faced with and in the economic world there are three aspects of hurt. The first is not being able to fulfill our basic needs. The second is the inability to maintain the standard of living that was developed. And the last is to be denied an opportunity, if desired, to improve one’s standard of living.”

Before I demonstrate how this hurt in the economic world is removed, it is necessary to remind you of this key fact: Man’s will is not free because he never has a choice, as with aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the normal compulsion of living regardless of what his particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a choice and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his very nature, to prefer the one that gives him greater satisfaction whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil. The natural law implicit in the two-sided equation cannot prevent man from finding greater satisfaction in hurting others when not to do this makes matters worse for himself as would be the case if he were forced, beyond his control, to lose his source of income and be placed in a position where he could not meet his living expenses or acquire the necessaries of life. Just the possibility that this could happen (this pervasive insecurity) activates and justifies the law of self-preservation to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill if there is no other way to get the money he needs or might need for survival. It is also important to realize that when man is compelled to give up his desire to hurt others because he knows there will be no blame, he is not choosing the greater of two goods or the lesser of two evils, but a good over an evil. But if by not hurting others he makes matters worse for himself, then he is compelled to prefer the lesser of two evils and this is what happens where the first two aspects of hurt are concerned. Consequently, if we find ourselves unable to get what we need, then we are compelled to blame and even hurt those who have it. An example of this occurs when employees, who find their income falling short of the mark because of rising prices, blame their employer for having too much money and strike to take some of it away.

The employer, in turn, who has discovered that the strike has lowered his income; and the government, finding itself unable to meet its needs under the present tax structure, blame the people for having too much money and decide to take some of it away by increasing prices and taxes. The people, falling below their needs because of this increase, blame the government and anybody else they can cheat to get back what they lost. The manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers are compelled to lay off their surplus employees when consumption slows down and to prevent this, since there is no way the United States can consume all it produces (I am using the United States as an example since I live here, but this applies to any country that produces more than it consumes), the government is forced to do everything humanly possible to keep its foreign markets open and reduce unnecessary competition; otherwise, a recession and perhaps depression could result. It is true that war keeps millions of people employed, reduces the already overcrowded earth and the chances of a depression, so what is the better choice? Everywhere we look, man is compelled to prefer the lesser of two evils, and under these conditions our basic principle can have no effect. Therefore, to solve our problem, since this is the kind of situation that exists in the economic world, it is necessary to remove the first blow. To clarify this, if A is compelled to hurt B because the alternative of not doing this is still worse, then A has no choice but to hurt B, as when the unions strike, when prices and taxes are increased, when layoffs occur, when government prefers war, etc. But if there is no possibility for A to make matters worse for himself by not hurting B, then this aspect of justification has been removed, and it then becomes possible to prevent man from desiring to hurt others when he knows there will be no blame, which compels him, beyond his control, to choose a good (not to hurt anybody) over an evil (to do so). Now the question arises at this point: “How can we create an environment that would remove the conditions which make it necessary to select the lesser of two evils as a solution to our problems?”

“I really don’t know, especially since you already said that the basic principle cannot be used here.”

“It can’t be used in a positive, but it can in a negative sense. Obviously, before the removal of all blame can prevent man from desiring to strike a first blow, which is to gain (to improve his standard of living) at the expense of others, it is absolutely necessary to remove the possibility that an individual is necessarily hurting others in order to prevent himself from becoming a loser (from going below his standard of living), and there is only one way this can be accomplished. Let me explain what I mean.

If someone was hurt and yelling, ‘Help! Help! Help!’ and you were in a position to render assistance without hurting yourself while knowing that you would never be blamed if you didn’t, is it humanly possible for you to find satisfaction in ignoring this cry, especially if you know absolutely and positively that all mankind, should you ever find yourself in a similar position, would never fail to help you?”

“Under such conditions I believe that my friend and I would desire to help this individual.”

“Well, believe it or not, this is the key to the economic solution. Since we have already established the two conditions that strike the first blow of hurt, and since those who fall below their standard of living along with those who cannot acquire the necessaries of life are hurt (drowning, so to speak) and yelling for help but will never blame us if we don’t, although they know we can if we want to (for over this I will demonstrate that we have mathematical control), we are given no choice but to unite in such a way without blaming anybody for anything (because everything developed out of mathematical necessity) that all mankind, notwithstanding, will be guaranteed against the possibility of this hurt. By allowing everybody complete freedom to improve their standard of living without the slightest fear of punishment or retaliation, they will be compelled of their own free will to prefer good, that is, not starting anything evil (striking a first blow), because no satisfaction can be gotten otherwise… under the changed conditions.”

“This sounds good if nothing else. And you seem to have all the answers, but how is it possible to meet the extra cost of raising all those who are not receiving the necessaries of life to this basic standard plus meeting the entire guarantee? If 50 billion dollars was needed for one week and all that could be raised without anybody going below his basic standard was 30 billion, you’re in trouble. And what about those who cannot understand what it means that man’s will is not free, which knowledge is necessary to prevent a hurt when man is given his freedom? He must understand the principles in order to consider this hurt to others the worst possible choice. And even if he does understand but your guarantee fails to work because there is just not enough money-labor, he would be compelled as a motion in the direction of greater satisfaction to take advantage of not being blamed to select the lesser of two evils, that is, to take what he needs from others one way or another rather than go below his standard. Furthermore, to guarantee his standard of living is a negative benefit if he is not at all satisfied with it, which means that he might prefer the insecurity of going below, as a gambler will do, to the security which could deny him the opportunity of improving. But even giving you the benefit of the doubt that the principles can be taught, the guarantee made to work, and the overall benefits will be positive as well as negative, how is it humanly possible to get such a world started when communism and capitalism have opposing ideologies? Last but far from least, what do you mean by a standard of living?”

All of your questions will be answered, but you must be patient as I cannot answer everything at once. It is extremely important to understand that there are three forms to this first blow, and we have been discussing the second form only, which cannot be prevented until the first form, struck by the law of self-preservation, is permanently removed. Let me explain.

[accelafine]

I thought you weren't going to copy paste any more
You father reminds me of that man who threw rubbish bin lids and said they were UFOs.

Do you have peer review links?