New Discovery

[Age]

Were you really so brainwashed that you think his work is on the level of a mathematical proof? No one is pissed off here.

Not even bothering to be cruel, this theory is not even among the top 10 shittiest we've seen. And peacegirl is just one among dozens of people who've shown up around here promising that their one special trick can either save the world, or explain everything in it, or else complete the mystical union between science and religion.

This is not a trick FlashDangerpants. All I can think of as to why this reaction is so negative is because people have been disappointed so many times that they don't want to be suckers, so they try to get you before you get them. The sad part is when a true treasure comes along, no one can see it.

What you are saying, here, has Truth within it. But, do not forget that the, really, 'sad part', here, is that 'you' are the very one who is not offering up the so-called 'true treasure' so that any one can 'see it', for free.

'you', "peacegirl", are 'the one' who is withholding the so-called 'true treasure', here.

It's right there but unfortunately, it's in a junk pile with all the false claims that did not deliver on their promises.

There are a lot of 'False claims' that are accepted and agreed with by a lot of people, so what is Wrong with 'your claims', here, exactly?

[peacegirl]

Yes, I never hid this.



It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that you understand what he was trying to explain.

What is happening here is that people are assuming that because I was his daughter, that I have a blind eye to truth, because I can't be objective.

Once more you are assuming, and then believing, things, which are totally False and Wrong.

Show me exactly where he was totally false and wrong. If you can't do this, please go away because I don't have the time to spoon feed this knowledge to you. You are expecting too much when your demands to not meet me halfway.

Imagine 'trying to' teach someone 'else's writings while at the exact same time not following their own advice. Why do you not follow your "father's" own advice "peacegirl" and just be what "he" called 'open-minded' "yourself", here?

Srsly, how can I defend myself?

What are you even asking, here?

Can your "father's" writings 'stand' against all critique, questioning, and challenging?

Of course his writings must stand against all critiques, but no one has done this with objective eyes.
[quote="

If yes, then 'they' are how you can what you call 'defend' "yourself", here.

I can't help that he was my father.

Once more you have 'drifted so far off track' because of your own made up assumptions, which you have then concluded, and believed, are absolutely true, although they are absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Did your "father" not teach you to not assume things and to not jump to False conclusions, and, instead, just 'look at', follow, and remain with, the actual Truth only?

For FlashDangerpants to say more than once that "if daddy said it, it must be right" is unfair, especially in a philosophy forum where jumping to false conclusions like he did should never be made.

All I can do is hope that people will want to understand his observations and reasoning in the hope that they will pursue this knowledge without prematurely throwing it out. The pushback is understandable, but I cannot keep defending him when no one even understands the discovery itself and what it can do for our benefit.

[Age]

What is happening here is that people are assuming that because I was his daughter, that I have a blind eye to truth, because I can't be objective.

Once more you are assuming, and then believing, things, which are totally False and Wrong.

Show me exactly where he was totally false and wrong.

Why do you 'now' want me to show you where "he" was totally False and Wrong when I was talking about something else?

If you can't do this, please go away because I don't have the time to spoon feed this knowledge to you.

I could just as easily and simply say and claim the exact same thing, I do not have the time to spook feed this knowledge to you'.

Also, and by the way, there is absolutely no use in trying to give you knowledge while you are completely closed to it.

You are expecting too much when your demands to not meet me halfway.

Once more, you assume and believe things, which are totally False and Wrong.

Imagine 'trying to' teach someone 'else's writings while at the exact same time not following their own advice. Why do you not follow your "father's" own advice "peacegirl" and just be what "he" called 'open-minded' "yourself", here?

Why do you not answer this question?

Of course his writings must stand against all critiques, but no one has done this with objective eyes.

How closed you are.

All I can do is hope that people will want to understand his observations and reasoning in the hope that they will pursue this knowledge without prematurely throwing it out.

Why would any one want to pursue 'knowledge' that you, "yourself", do not even follow and abide by?

The pushback is understandable,

Of course it when you do not follow it and seek out 'money' before you will even provide it.

Why would any one want to pursue you for some so-called 'knowledge' that you will not even pass on, readily?

but I cannot keep defending him when no one even understands the discovery itself and what it can do for our benefit.

If absolutely no one even understands it, then that is sign that some thing is a miss, here.

But, obviously you believe, absolutely, otherwise, and that others should give you 'money' before you share 'the knowledge', which is not understood by absolutely any one.

[peacegirl]

Yes, I never hid this.

It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that you understand what he was trying to explain.

What is happening here is that people are assuming that because I was his daughter, that I have a blind eye to truth, because I can't be objective.

Once more you are assuming, and then believing, things, which are totally False and Wrong.

Imagine 'trying to' teach someone 'else's writings while at the exact same time not following their own advice. Why do you not follow your "father's" own advice "peacegirl" and just be what "he" called 'open-minded' "yourself", here?

Srsly, how can I defend myself?

What are you even asking, here?

Can your "father's" writings 'stand' against all critique, questioning, and challenging?

If yes, then 'they' are how you can what you call 'defend' "yourself", here.

I cannot win if people tell me he was wrong and do not explain why they think he was wrong. FlashDangerpants is wrong when he says that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is a tautology of no importance. If this is the thinking here, then I cannot swim upstream against the tide of an onslaught of nothing other than "we know he was wrong." It's just too exhausting.

I can't help that he was my father.

Once more you have 'drifted so far off track' because of your own made up assumptions, which you have then concluded, and believed, are absolutely true, although they are absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Be careful what you say and how you say it Age, or I'll just skip over your posts.

Did your "father" not teach you to not assume things and to not jump to False conclusions, and, instead, just 'look at', follow, and remain with, the actual Truth only?

He taught me early on to take EVERYTHING with a grain of sand. He was the first one to be skeptical of things that looked too good to be true. But this is not the case here.

[Age]

What is happening here is that people are assuming that because I was his daughter, that I have a blind eye to truth, because I can't be objective.

Once more you are assuming, and then believing, things, which are totally False and Wrong.

Imagine 'trying to' teach someone 'else's writings while at the exact same time not following their own advice. Why do you not follow your "father's" own advice "peacegirl" and just be what "he" called 'open-minded' "yourself", here?

Srsly, how can I defend myself?

What are you even asking, here?

Can your "father's" writings 'stand' against all critique, questioning, and challenging?

If yes, then 'they' are how you can what you call 'defend' "yourself", here.

I cannot win if people tell me he was wrong and do not explain why they think he was wrong. FlashDangerpants is wrong when he says that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is a tautology of no importance. If this is the thinking here, then I cannot swim upstream against the tide of an onslaught of nothing other than "we know he was wrong." It's just too exhausting.

I can't help that he was my father.

Once more you have 'drifted so far off track' because of your own made up assumptions, which you have then concluded, and believed, are absolutely true, although they are absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Be careful what you say and how you say it Age, or I'll just skip over your posts.

Did your "father" not teach you to not assume things and to not jump to False conclusions, and, instead, just 'look at', follow, and remain with, the actual Truth only?

He taught me early on to take EVERYTHING with a grain of sale. He was the first one to be skeptical of things that looked too good to be true. But this is not the case here.

If you learn how to quote properly and Correctly, here, then this might help you in some way, here. Otherwise you are not doing "yourself" any service at all quoting the way you have been.

Now, are you absolutely sure that your "father" was the very 'first one' to be skeptical of things? Or, is this just another case of you not being careful in what you say and claim, here?

[peacegirl]

Once more you are assuming, and then believing, things, which are totally False and Wrong.

Imagine 'trying to' teach someone 'else's writings while at the exact same time not following their own advice. Why do you not follow your "father's" own advice "peacegirl" and just be what "he" called 'open-minded' "yourself", here?





I cannot win if people tell me he was wrong and do not explain why they think he was wrong. FlashDangerpants is wrong when he says that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is a tautology of no importance. If this is the thinking here, then I cannot swim upstream against the tide of an onslaught of nothing other than "we know he was wrong." It's just too exhausting.




Be careful what you say and how you say it Age, or I'll just skip over your posts.



He taught me early on to take EVERYTHING with a grain of sand. He was the first one to be skeptical of things that looked too good to be true. But this is not the case here.

If you learn how to quote properly and Correctly, here, then this might help you in some way, here. Otherwise you are not doing "yourself" any service at all quoting the way you have been.

Now, are you absolutely sure that your "father" was the very 'first one' to be skeptical of things? Or, is this just another case of you not being careful in what you say and claim, here?

He was a very discerning man. He questioned everything, and he taught me to do the same.

[promethean75]

Yeah I told P girl years ago that nothing new is here and that this 'discovery' was made by deterninists hundreds of years ago. Not saying her old man isn't right, only that this is not original stuff.

[FlashDangerpants]

Were you really so brainwashed that you think his work is on the level of a mathematical proof? No one is pissed off here.

Not even bothering to be cruel, this theory is not even among the top 10 shittiest we've seen. And peacegirl is just one among dozens of people who've shown up around here promising that their one special trick can either save the world, or explain everything in it, or else complete the mystical union between science and religion.

This is not a trick FlashDangerpants. All I can think of as to why this reaction is so negative is because people have been disappointed so many times that they don't want to be suckers, so they try to get you before you get them. The sad part is when a true treasure comes along, no one can see it. It's right there but unfortunately, it's in a junk pile with all the false claims that did not deliver on their promises.

You should think of a second explanation for why reaction is negative: You are hype-selling obvious 3rd rate shit, and nobody wants it.

[peacegirl]

Not a libertarian.

Then you're a compatibilist. You certainly aren't a determinist.

Wrong on all counts. But I already said, you don't need to understand my position on this matter as this is all about you.

It is tautalogical within the limits of common-sense folk psychology (in line belief desire motivation) that whatever motivates us to make a decision is something that we are motivated by.

It's not about what we were motivated by. It's about the direction we move and it's a one way street.

Yes, it is tautologically true that we invariably pursue our motivations. I never said what the motivation is, you can call the motivating thing "greatest satisfaction" if you want to, the point is that there is no explanatory power added by doing so.

Again, you're making light of the fact that will is not free, for if it was, we could choose what motivates us less. You can say it's redundant, but it is far from pointless. It has important implications that you are simply handwaving away.

To not hold that as a tautology, you would need to adopt a radical alternative view of persons in which beliefs and desires don't motivate.

Who in the world said that we are not driven by what we are motivated by. This isn't even part of his demonstration as to why will is not free.

You don't demonstrate that will is not free.

Of course he did.

You attempt, pointlessly, to discover the tautology that we are motivated by something, and then you assert that this by itself demonstrates something else. But doing so is not within the scope of tautological reasoning. You would be doing the same thing as everybody else if you just try to show that our motivational beliefs and desires etc are the product of deterministic forces, but you think you are too good for that.

Where does thinking I am too good for that enter into this? So now you're a self-proclaimed psychoanalyst who can make such a statement? I am trying to show you that whatever choice is made could not have been otherwise, for the reasons given. We cannot move against what motivates us in the direction of greater satisfaction. We are necessarily the product of deterministic forces because once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise. Free will states the opposite; that given the same exact time and place, we didn't have to choose what we did; we could have been motivated not to choose what we did. First, there's no way to prove this because we can't go back time. When you use the word "deterministic forces" it gives people the impression that determinism removes our agency and forces choices on us that we don't want to make. This is incorrect and why the author's definition IS more accurate and why this debate has gone on for thousands of years with no progress.

Motivation is the onlything that needs explanation when it comes to why a conscious organism makes a decision, so the spooky "greatest satisfaction" thing has nothing to explain. It is redundant and pointless.

Again, we all know that what we are motivated by pushes us in a certain direction. This supports the fact that we have no free will. Why? Because the direction we move from moment to moment is a one-way street.

It would be the precise same one-way street if the will was free. Time only moves in one direction for anybody except Age, who of course is a very special boy and experiences all of the universe all at once, or something like that.

True, time does not go backward but it also does not go forward. Let's leave this discussion regarding time for another day. What can be said with absolute certainty is that all of life moves in one direction. Free will states we can pick either/or; there is no compulsion either way. I hope you can agree with this definition because we're going nowhere when we can't even agree on definitions that are being used.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception.

You refuse to share your "second discovery" with anybody doesn't purchase it from you. I expected that, it is a hypothesis we tested together. You were there to witness the truth of the matter.

The way you have dismissed his reasoning as to why man's will is not free is disturbing. You have no idea what you're talking about because you don't understand that it's much more than a "repetitive" and "pointless" tautology. I have no desire to share anything else with you unless you give this man a chance, which you have not.

Tautologies are self contained truths, analytic and a priori, they don't unpack to provide extra knowledge. I am sorry that you don't understand the basic philosophy I am pointing to... but you have been doing this thing for decades now, fooling yourself that you know what "the philosophers" argue, so I maintain that it is your fault that you aren't better at this by now.

You're still not getting it. Much more important than just calling it a tautology and being pointless because there's nothing more to be said, bear in mind that even though whatever you choose is tautological, the point being made here is that "you could not have chosen otherwise", which free will denies. Free will says this person didn't have to shoot the bank teller. He had the free will to do otherwise. This is a central aspect to the discussion, and I have been unable to get you to understand let alone listen.

If you were here to share instead of to sell, you would share. Just explain the other discoveries in your own words and then I will be wrong and you will be proven right. So just do that now, then you win your argument don't you?

Not gonna happen. Buy the book for 99 cents, which you won't because you think this is some kind of scheme for money.

I don't know why you are rolling your eyes at me, you are proving me right.

This reverse psychology will get you nowhere with me. I'm not proving you right just because I won't share his second discovery, which, although important, is not as important as his first... you know, the one you're throwing in the dustbin because, after all, it's just a tautology.

If you were able to interest anybody in this shit you would presumably discover plenty more books to sell them, and some sort of seminars they could attend at an airport Sheraton.

You are one jaded guy.

[peacegirl]

Does it matter if you also understand what others are trying to explain? Or, to you, does it only matter one way, here?

You just can't believe that this work is not a matter of opinion, and it pisses you all off.

And, it is because of the very views and beliefs like 'this one', here, why it is 'you' who is not getting absolutely anywhere, here.

What did anyone explain that proved the author wrong other than saying it's impossible?

One partly explained is that the idea of what the author calls a 'golden age' could not come to fruition because the author's idea was, still, based upon and around 'money' and the False belief that 'money is a need'. That is what one has already explained, partly.

Money is not a need; self-preservation is.

Look "peacegirl" the very idea of what the author calls the 'golden age' is not just possible but will come about much simpler and much easier than if that author 'saw'.

But, the so-called 'golden age' can, and will, only come about through the 'Right way', and not through 'any way', and especially not through the 'very ways' that brought the rise and rise of evil into 'the world'.

The human race is developing. Everything was necessary to reach this turning point which points us in a new direction.

[quote="Now, if you followed your own "father's" advice and became open and only 'looked at' things, here, from the Truly open perspective, only, and instead of from your own very clearly closed thinking and perspective, then you will see what needs to be Correct in your "father's" 'work', which will then bring about 'the goal' and the golden 'Peaceful world', which your "father" was clearly wanting and trying to do.

The discovery does not need correction unless you believe that there are no natural laws like gravity to be discovered. You wouldn't tell Einstein to keep an open perspective and see what needs to be corrected, would you?

If it makes you feel better, I will say, "Sure, it could be wrong, just as 1 +1 =2 could be wrong.

Now, if someone could not present a better and prime example of how it is very easily and simply possible to 'see' within people's writings of what they actually, internally really, believe is true, although the words they write say the very exact opposite thing.

So, when 'these people' say and write one thing, but what they actually believe and/or means can also be very easily observed, and extrapolated simply, as well.

So, what 'we' have, here, is just another case of when one is absolutely closed to anything else but its own already obtained views and beliefs, and all it, really, wants to do is just express those views and beliefs and get as many people as they can to just agree with and accept those exact same views and beliefs, without every wanting to be critiqued, questioned, nor challenged.

I have no problem answering questions. What I don't like is when people tell me he was wrong, yet they can't pinpoint or explain what he was wrong about because they didn't carefully study the work with a fine-tooth comb. To give it a cursory overview will not do it justice.

Which, again, is one of the main reasons why 'these human beings' took so, so, so long to 'catch up', and 'arrive'.

You are coming from the belief that he didn't have anything of value to offer humanity. As long as you think this way, you will stick to your belief that this is all a farce and I'm in dreamworld and in need of correction from people here. If you believe that this man was a fraud, and you can't even give him the benefit of the doubt, there's no point in continuing. I'm not here to get corrected, although he welcomed anyone who could do a better job explaining these principles.

Afterword: I don’t deny that others could have done a better job in explaining this discovery, and their services are still welcome if they can clarify it even more. My job was to make known this discovery, which I have done to the best of my ability.

[FlashDangerpants]

The way you have dismissed his reasoning as to why man's will is not free is disturbing. You have no idea what you're talking about because you don't understand that it's much more than a "repetitive" and "pointless" tautology. I have no desire to share anything else with you unless you give this man a chance, which you have not.

Tautologies are self contained truths, analytic and a priori, they don't unpack to provide extra knowledge. I am sorry that you don't understand the basic philosophy I am pointing to... but you have been doing this thing for decades now, fooling yourself that you know what "the philosophers" argue, so I maintain that it is your fault that you aren't better at this by now.

You're still not getting it. Much more important than just calling it a tautology and being pointless because there's nothing more to be said, bear in mind that even though whatever you choose is tautological, the point being made here is that "you could not have chosen otherwise", which free will denies. Free will says this person didn't have to shoot the bank teller. He had the free will to do otherwise. This is a central aspect to the discussion, and I have been unable to get you to understand let alone listen.

Please explain in your own words, without copy and pasting any copyright materials, how you think this Lessans argument to establish unfree will actually works. Perhaps restatement in alternative terms can show what it is that you think is so good about it.

[peacegirl]

[quote="FlashDangerpants"Don't get me wrong, what you are doing is just continuing a family business, the whole thing is so mad that I can only assume you are actually in on your dad's scam. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that you are selling a low quality alternative to Scientology didn't I? I'm sure that's roughly what I wrote at the start of all this, is it not?

You have not made anything perfectly clear FlashDangerpants; you have come to false conclusions because of your false assumptions.

Why do you say and write 'this' "peacegirl", as though you are not doing the exact same thing?

I can see that he is making an assumption that this discovery can't be right because he thinks he is right regarding tautologies.

That's all you have done. And who made you the gatekeeper of new knowledge anyway?

Do you even realize that it is you who has come, here, claiming of some 'new discovery/new knowledge', and that 'you' are 'now' the "gatekeeper" of 'it', as your "father" can not be "the gatekeeper" anymore. 'you' have taken over as the "new gatekeeper" of 'new knowledge' and 'you' will not even let any one in unless they agree and accept the so-called 'new discovery' is the 'new knowledge'.

I am letting everyone in if they can get past the gate. I am just the gatekeeper who hands out the keys. This is my job. If they can't explain why man's will is not free, I am not allowed to give them a key because the door to this discovery will be locked.

This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition, and your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity.

The so-called 'discovery', well to some of 'us' anyway, is very, very old and outdated, and has been surpassed by the truer and more right, accurate, and correct knowledge. In fact 'we' are already on the One and only T.R.A.C.K., in Life, which leads to the True 'golden age'.

And what more right, accurate, and correct knowledge is that? And what T.R.A.C.K, in Life which leads to the True 'golden age,' is that. Don't leave me in suspense.

The suggestion that you might be honestly incapable of rethinking your daddy's work is just a polite nod to the possibility that you are in the cult, a product of the cultish thinking, rather than an architect of the pocket picking in your own right.

It is YOU that is incapable of rethinking that my father's work could possibly be correct, which puts you in a worse category than me because you have read nothing, considered nothing, and asked nothing, which just proves my point.

Believing that there is absolutely nothing wrong in your "father's" work is just as blind and stupid as believing that your "father's" work will not lead to what your "father" called the 'golden age'. you are both as blind and stupid as each other, here.

This comment was so dumb it actually gave me a good laugh.

That is called an egocentric individual.

And, remember 'you' are doing the exact same thing, just from the "other side or perspective".

When Edison demonstrated the lightbulb, he didn't need anyone's approval to be right. By the same token, this author did not need anyone's approval to be right.

I wasted my time cutting and pasting for your convenience. You never once asked me a pertinent question.

Have you ever considered that what you perceive as being 'pertinent' another does not, and, vice versa?

No. Pertinent (adjective)
relevant or applicable to a particular matter; apposite:
"she asked me a lot of very pertinent questions" · "the unreleased section of tape was not pertinent to the investigation"

I'm getting a neon warning sign telling me it's not worth engaging with people who think they know before they know anything.

Well consider that you are, again, doing the exact same thing, that is, thinking you know before you actually do know?

Again, you are trying to put me in a category that I don't belong. I am sure that when this knowledge is finally brought to light, you'll think differently.

Are you 'seeing' any signs telling you that it is not worth engaging with your own thoughts, beliefs, assumptions, views, and/or opinions also?

Or, have you not yet obtained the ability to be 'critical' of 'those thoughts, beliefs, et cetera' within 'that head'?

I have engaged with my own thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions, and there were plenty of times I missed the mark. But in this case, there have been no assumptions made. You're trying to accuse me of not having the wherewithal to know the difference between an assumption and a fact. Why are you grilling me this way?

That's you FlashDangerpants in a nutshell.

If only 'they' knew.

What is that supposed to mean?

[peacegirl]

You were never here to engage, you are looking for sales.

I came here to share a discovery, not to get your opinion.

you are showing, and proving, the very opposite.

From the way you are now writing you never came, here, to get "flashdangerpant's" opinion. What you appear to be very clearly wanting is to get opinions that say how great 'the book', 'the discovery', and/or your "father" is or was.

You are the suspicious one without a reason. This was never about me or my father. He was a humble man and took no credit for his discovery.

you appear to have only come, here, to only get opinions that will bolster the sharing, and thus the sales, of 'those writings'.

You keep bringing money up as if I wouldn't be entitled to make something from 20 years of work? But this is not what it's about. It's about sharing with the world a better way. If there are other better ways, that would be great. So far, this world is going to pot, and I don't mean cannabis.

Which, in fact, could be a more Wrong thing to do, in Life, considering that 'those writing' are not even 'your work' anyway.

You are right. They aren't, but I am the steward, and I will not give this mission up because it's too important.

BTW, you are wrong about calling the movement toward greater satisfaction nothing more than a tautology.

Why?

How, exactly, is the 'movement toward greater satisfaction' more than a tautology?

Because a tautology only says that whatever one chooses, he was motivated by, and what he was motivated by is whatever one chooses. But it does not explain that what one does choose could not have been otherwise. This is important because it is the gateway that leads to his discovery.

I didn’t realize you were a libertarian which explains why you’re so adamant.

Could you have allowed your own made up opinion and assumption, here, to jump to a conclusion, which then are now just believing is absolutely?

Which then would obviously effect 'the way' you then 'look at' and 'see' things, further?

I can admit if I jumped to a conclusion. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether how I look at, and see things, could be wrong when it comes to something that is being presented in a factual, not theoretical, way.

[peacegirl]

Not a libertarian.

Then you're a compatibilist. You certainly aren't a determinist.

1. Again, your own opinions/assumptions lead you completely and utterly astray.

I was trying to understand which position he held, that's all.

2. Although you adult human beings believe otherwise, 'these things' do not, and could not, even actually exist.

Are you not a human being? Why do you say, "you adult human beings believe otherwise" as if you're not one of us.

It is tautalogical within the limits of common-sense folk psychology (in line belief desire motivation) that whatever motivates us to make a decision is something that we are motivated by.

It's not about what we were motivated by. It's about the direction we move and it's a one way street.

If, for example, people are motivated to follow 'their own way/s', and 'those way/s' do not align with your "father's" 'ways', then if 'it' is about 'the direction' you human beings move, then 'you' and/or "father" are going to have to produce 'a way', which every one will just 'want to' follow and be motivated by. Otherwise you are going to come up against the thousand year old issue of 'who's way' is the 'best way'?

That was a good question, and it is answered in the Introduction. There will be no force, only a desire to find greater happiness and security.

Therefore, before I begin, I would like to ask you the following questions: Do you prefer war or peace, unhappiness or happiness, insecurity or security, sickness or health? Do you prefer losing the one you have fallen in love with or winning and living happily ever after? Since I know that happiness is preferable to unhappiness and health to sickness, I shall now begin a revelation of knowledge that no one will be able to deny, provided the relations are understood. While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery and divorce will be a thing of the past, changing the entire landscape of family relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical? And aren’t you jumping to the conclusion that this is against all human nature? If all the people in the world who get displaced because their services are no longer needed were to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that the income necessary to sustain their standard of living, whatever the cost, would never be stopped as long as they live, would they have any reason to complain about someone showing them a better way — the only way to accomplish that for which they are getting paid? Although they and others will be dissatisfied to learn the truth when it deprives them of personal fulfillment, they are compelled to be silent because to utter any words of protest would simply expose an illusion of knowledge, which Stephen Hawking claimed “is the greatest enemy.” I shall now set sail on a voyage that will perform this virtual miracle by igniting a chain reaction of thought that will explode across the planet and destroy with its fallout every conceivable kind of hurt that exists among human relations, never to return. It is now within our power to reach that mountaintop — the Golden Age of man — that we have all hoped and dreamed would one day become a reality. 

Have you not yet recognized that 'trying to' 'force' others' into following 'one particular way' has never ever actually really worked?

There will be no force at all. This entire transition to a better world will be voluntary, while weapons are slowly destroyed or converted.

Now, H.O.W to follow the One and only T.R.A.C.K, which leads to and takes every one to eternal peace' is a very, very simple and easy process.

Therefore, if 'you' and/or your "father's" 'way' is not working, then there must be 'another way' that either of you have yet to consider.

But, you will never 'see' and learn 'this Fact' while you concentrate solely on 'trying to' promote 'your way', only. And, as I have pointed out a few times already, doing absolutely any thing with the view of obtaining 'more money' from it, is the 'very way' that has led to the continual rise and rise of all evil, in 'the world'.

Money is just a medium of exchange. It's stealing from others as well as poverty that is causing the rise of evil in the world.

To not hold that as a tautology, you would need to adopt a radical alternative view of persons in which beliefs and desires don't motivate.

Who in the world said that we are not driven by what we are motivated by. This isn't even part of his demonstration as to why will is not free.

1. you are missing 'the point' that was being made.

2. Have you ever considered the very reason why you, continually, 'miss the points' people are making and saying, here?

I don't think I missed the point. Motivation is the driving force that determines our choices IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION.

Motivation is the onlything that needs explanation when it comes to why a conscious organism makes a decision, so the spooky "greatest satisfaction" thing has nothing to explain. It is redundant and pointless.

Again, we all know that what we are motivated by pushes us in a certain direction.

But, do you, each and collectively, know, consciously and fully, what 'it' is that is 'pushing you'?

Absolutely not, but it's not necessary to know, each and collectively, consciously and fully, what 'it' is that is pushing me. Sometimes we do things that we don't know why, because the reasons are subconscious.

What are 'you', for example, 'motivated by', here, exactly?

To reach people who may be interested in this discovery. There is no ulterior motive.

For example is 'it' a learned thing, from your own past experiences? Or, is 'it' a 'very deep' and 'rooted' instinctual thing?

Our choices are based on both what we learn and by instinct. It all depends. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Maybe if you 'come clean', as some say, here, as say what you are 'motivated by', exactly, then we might find out why you will only produce the so-called 'second discovery' when 'we' hand over 'some money', to you.

It's not that. It's just not something I want to discuss until his first discovery is understood. Once I change topics, we'll never get back to this one and I'm not risking it.

This supports the fact that we have no free will.

Obviously if one can demonstrate that the 'will' is 'not free', then this will support some so-called 'fact' that 'we' have absolutely no 'free will', at all.

However, what you appear to have not yet realized is that what 'the definitions' that your "father" used has to be first clarified, agreed with, and accepted before any demonstration and support could be provided, and accepted, for your "father's" claim, and belief. For example, just saying some thing like, what supports the 'fact' that there is no 'free will' is because the word 'free will' means that one can make a decision without being influenced by a past experience. And, obviously if 'this' is 'the definition' that you and/or your "father" is using, there, then clearly there is no 'free will'.

So, do you know what your "father" meant, exactly, by 'will' and 'free will'? If yes, then what did your "father" mean, exactly, by those two terms?

Let's start with free will. Free will is the ability to choose A over B or B over A, without compulsion or necessity. Here is the dictionary definition he used. It wasn't his definition. I posted this earlier, but I'll post it again.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Suppose a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and, for various reasons, doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc. What is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an option that was good. In this case, almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were available to him, does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.

Why? Because the direction we move from moment to moment is a one-way street.

Are you 'trying to' say and claim, here, that you have absolutely 'no choice' at all in whether you clean up the rubbish on the street you live on, or not?

But, before you answer, (that is, if you were going to), What do you mean by the terms, 'will', and, 'free will'?

The dictionary definition of "free will" was defined above.

The definition of "will" below is accurate enough.

will: noun
the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action.

And, if 'the direction' adult human beings are moving in is towards making 'more money', and 'this' is the only, and a one-way, street, only, then any decline and fall of all evil will never come to fruition. For the obvious reasons of course.

You're way off the beaten track.

The way you have dismissed his reasoning as to why man's will is not free is disturbing.

To 'you' 'it' may be disturbing. However, to 'others' 'it' may well be very clever and insightful. So, who has the True and Right perspective, and view, here, exactly?

It's not about perspective; it's about definition.

You have no idea what you're talking about because you don't understand that it's much more than a "repetitive" and "pointless" tautology. I have no desire to share anything else with you unless you give this man a chance, which you have not.

Are you purposely 'trying to' deflect away from what is being pointed out and shown, here?

'We' were shown how until 'we' provide 'you' with 'more money' then 'you' are not going to show 'us' some so-claimed and so-called, 'second discovery'. So, besides the already obvious and clear fact, you have no desire to share anything else, unless of course 'we' or "flashdangerpants" hands over 'some money', to you, the claim that you will not share anything else unless 'we' or "flashdangerpants" give your "father" a so-called 'chance', 'we', literally, can not give your "father" 'a chance' until 'we' give 'you' 'some money'.

I'm not making a cent, not even one penny. Do you understand that it would take me selling around 2,000 books to make a nickel at this price? I made this book as low as Amazon would allow. They make the money. I bent over backwards to reduce the price to way less than a cup of coffee, which proves to me that even if the book were free, no one here would buy it. They just can't get beyond the idea that this is not a trick or a scheme to take people's money. Why do you resent me so much, as if by wanting to earn something for my hard work, I'm somehow trying to fool everyone. We live in a society where the exchange of money as a medium is how our economy works. Money itself is just a medium, a tool. Some people abuse that tool. Theft will no longer exist in the new world so you have nothing to worry about. But if I sell something that you want, it is normal practice for you to pay me for my service or product. I spent a lot of my own money working with a formatter and also getting tapes that he recorded converted to CDs and then MP3s because they would eventually get ruined through time. You don't think I deserve any compensation at all?

you have stated over and over that you are only going to provide three chapters, only, here, and if any one wants to read more, then 'we' need to give you 'money'.

I need money to reach the right people who could actually do something to bring this discovery to light. Giving it away, I would lose that opportunity and I'm not going to. Also, it would be a relief for me to break even. Anything more would be absolutely thrilling because it would indicate that people were finding value in this knowledge and passing it along, and I would feel vindicated. Why are you treating me with a different standard than everyone else? Creativity is often driven by the desire to earn money, but that doesn't diminish the creative endeavor in any way.

Now, I will agree, wholeheartedly, that some people, here, will not give your "father" 'a chance', but what I can also clearly see that even you will not your "father" 'a chance' until 'we' provide 'you' with 'some money', as well.

That's a fair exchange. I'm not misleading anyone for the sole purpose of making money. That would be deceptive but that's NOT what I'm doing.

Not gonna happen. Buy the book for 99 cents, which you won't because you think this is some kind of scheme for money.

The 'irony', and the irony was not even meant.

Where is the irony? Clue me in. Thinking that this all about the money because the book is for sale is so misguided. You are putting the cart before the horse.

What can be clearly seen, here, is 'that' what 'you' are, really, motivated 'by', so-called "peacegirl".

you have just, once again, proved irrefutably True what "flashdanger" had previously hypothesized, and had already tested, and verified.

Irrefutably true? You mean I can't refute Flashdangerpant's conclusions because they are as irrefutable as this discovery is "undeniable?"

[Age]

If you learn how to quote properly and Correctly, here, then this might help you in some way, here. Otherwise you are not doing "yourself" any service at all quoting the way you have been.

Now, are you absolutely sure that your "father" was the very 'first one' to be skeptical of things? Or, is this just another case of you not being careful in what you say and claim, here?

He was a very discerning man. He questioned everything, and he taught me to do the same.

Yet, here you are not questioning, and assuming, concluding, and believing things instead, without absolutely any enquiry at all.

Also noted is that you are not answering and clarifying at all, as well.