New Discovery

[peacegirl]

Light brings information such as colour to the eye, so yeah, the information is available only when the light arrives not at the time the light leaves the surface of the remote object. But sure, please explain your miraculous vision thing.

Of course we want to hear more. Keep going.

I really got bamboozled into discussing the eyes.

Please just explain how this miraculous vision thing works. It seems improbable that this is simply derived from nothing but determinism, what are the other ingredients?

These two findings are unrelated. Vision is not derived from determinism. That makes no sense.

I want to continue discussing why man's will is not free, according to Lessans, and the other side of this equation, which has not been shown. I must have been dreaming thinking that when I posted these chapters, you were actually reading them. Little did I know, you were just playing me.

I did read them, twice. You have ignored my most recent questions about that portion of yor text and moved ontot he vision stuff. I am ok with that, but if you want to go back to the other stuff, those questions remain.

I thought I answered your questions. Could you repeat them? I have said again and again that although whatever we choose is due to our motivations and desires, the point being made here is that, once a choice is made, it could NOT have been otherwise, rendering free will a realistic mirage. I need some kind of agreement [temporarily] so we can move forward, even if you think the point I'm making has no value, or we will be at a dead end.

Light is a condition of sight. It does not bring anything to the eye. We see the object in real time if the object is large enough and luminous enough to be seen, which would automatically put light at the eye, or we wouldn't be able to see said object. Please, let's go back to his first discovery. Then we can talk about this one. Game?!

Light is a measurable phenomenon in the world around us. It brings similar information to cameras and sensors, which are able to recreate the same images that an eye would upon receiving that same light....?

Images can be recreated, that is true, but it still does not prove that we see delayed images in the brain rather than seeing the actual object or event in real time. If he is right, camera's, being like the eye, would work in the same way.

[FlashDangerpants]

I really got bamboozled into discussing the eyes.

Please just explain how this miraculous vision thing works. It seems improbable that this is simply derived from nothing but determinism, what are the other ingredients?

These two findings are unrelated. Vision is not derived from determinism. That makes no sense.

Please do explain though, I am sure you have something that does make sense, quite sure.

I want to continue discussing why man's will is not free, according to Lessans, and the other side of this equation, which has not been shown. I must have been dreaming thinking that when I posted these chapters, you were actually reading them. Little did I know, you were just playing me.

I did read them, twice. You have ignored my most recent questions about that portion of yor text and moved ontot he vision stuff. I am ok with that, but if you want to go back to the other stuff, those questions remain.

I thought I answered your questions. Could you repeat them? I have said again and again that although whatever we choose is due to our motivations and desires, the point being made here is that, once a choice is made, it could NOT have been otherwise, rendering free will a realistic mirage. I need some kind of agreement [temporarily] so we can move forward, even if you think the point I'm making has no value, or we will be at a dead end.

You wrote stuff in response to stuff you had just read. You did not appear to bother wondering if your responses answered the actual questions though. You can click the link on the quote below to take you to the ignored post, it is the blue up arrow...

Click this blue arrow to be taken to the questions you ignored...

Light is a condition of sight. It does not bring anything to the eye. We see the object in real time if the object is large enough and luminous enough to be seen, which would automatically put light at the eye, or we wouldn't be able to see said object. Please, let's go back to his first discovery. Then we can talk about this one. Game?!

Light is a measurable phenomenon in the world around us. It brings similar information to cameras and sensors, which are able to recreate the same images that an eye would upon receiving that same light....?

Images can be recreated, that is true, but it still does not prove that we see delayed images in the brain rather than seeing the actual object or event in real time. If he is right, camera's, being like the eye, would work in the same way.

Sounds exciting. Please explain how it works.

[peacegirl]

Please just explain how this miraculous vision thing works. It seems improbable that this is simply derived from nothing but determinism, what are the other ingredients?

These two findings are unrelated. Vision is not derived from determinism. That makes no sense.

Please do explain though, I am sure you have something that does make sense, quite sure.

FlashDangerpants, you said you read the first 3 chapters. Do you remember anything in Chapter Two? I don't mean to put you on the spot. I'm just wondering what you understood.

I want to continue discussing why man's will is not free, according to Lessans, and the other side of this equation, which has not been shown. I must have been dreaming thinking that when I posted these chapters, you were actually reading them. Little did I know, you were just playing me.

I did read them, twice. You have ignored my most recent questions about that portion of yor text and moved ontot he vision stuff. I am ok with that, but if you want to go back to the other stuff, those questions remain.

I thought I answered your questions. Could you repeat them? I have said again and again that although whatever we choose is due to our motivations and desires, the point being made here is that, once a choice is made, it could NOT have been otherwise, rendering free will a realistic mirage. I need some kind of agreement [temporarily] so we can move forward, even if you think the point I'm making has no value, or we will be at a dead end.

You wrote stuff in response to stuff you had just read. You did not appear to bother wondering if your responses answered the actual questions though. You can click the link on the quote below to take you to the ignored post, it is the blue up arrow...

Click this blue arrow to be taken to the questions you ignored...

Okay.

Images can be recreated, that is true, but it still does not prove that we see delayed images in the brain rather than seeing the actual object or event in real time. If he is right, camera's, being like the eye, would work in the same way.

Sounds exciting. Please explain how it works.

I don't think it sounds exciting to you. I think you're, once again, playing with me. But whatever.

[peacegirl]

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Please expand on the claim in this paragraph that mathematical reasoning is required. You are the one who gets it, please explain it.

He said in the very beginning that "mathematical" in this context, only means "undeniable." He was demonstrating that, along with those things that we know we have no control over, we also have no control over our movement in the direction of greater satisfaction, and he shows this by demonstrating that any movement we make is a movement away from some form of dissatisfaction, or we would be satisfied to remain where we are. This is not just about contemplating alternatives. It is about every single movement we make. That is why it is the movement of life itself, for life takes us in this direction. He gave an example:

Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is an immutable law. From moment to moment all through life, man can never move in the direction of dissatisfaction, and his every motion, conscious or unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or move to greater satisfaction; otherwise, as has been shown, not being dissatisfied, he could never move from here to there. Every motion of life expresses dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch, as urinating, defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, walking, talking, and moving about in general are unsatisfied needs of life, pushing man always in the direction of satisfaction. It is easy, in many cases, to recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other times to comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of dissatisfaction. Your desire to take a bath arises from a feeling of unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means that you are dissatisfied with the way you feel at that moment, and your desire to get out of the bathtub arises from a feeling of dissatisfaction with a position that has suddenly grown uncomfortable. This simple demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will is not free because satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers only one possibility at each moment of time.

It is very clear, even a child can get it. It says exactly what it means. Every move we make is away from a spot that has become dissatisfying or uncomfortable in some way, or we wouldn't make any move at all. Movement is life itself otherwise we would be dead. We cannot move against what gives us greater satisfaction when we are confronted with options. Moving in this direction does not always involve contemplation. We move in this direction all day, every day. I just changed position because my arm fell asleep. This movement is part of our everyday life. This observation is more than a tautology, but if you are bent on calling it that, then at least admit that tautologies can be informative and add to our knowledge.

That doesn't answer the question I asked you. It doesn't even acknowledge the question I asked you. Do better.

Steve Patterson's perspective on tautologies challenges the traditional view that they are merely true by definition and do not contribute to knowledge. Patterson argues that tautologies are foundational for critical reasoning and provide a basis for an accurate worldview. He emphasizes that tautologies are not trivial or redundant but rather essential for understanding the structure of propositions and the nature of truth. Patterson's work challenges the notion that tautologies should be dismissed as empty of content, advocating instead for their importance in philosophical discourse.

https://steve-patterson.com/tautologies ... dismissed/

Why did you put that text there? What has it got to do with the question?

He was establishing a point that life IS movement, and movement always involves dissatisfaction with the present position. It is what propels us forward.

Again, nothing to do with the question. I asked: Please explain the phrase "life is never satisfied". Is it intended to reify life as some sort of force or something that exists, or is the author merely noticing the banal fact that living things move and the more mobile ones move towards things they desire and so on?

It is not begging the question. It is not circular. He was trying to establish the fact that satisfaction is the only direction life can take. It cannot move against itself by moving in the direction of dissatisfaction, which Atla thought he proved. This is important as it forms the basis of one side of the two-sided equation.

But what is the basis for all of this? The basis please. I am not asking for your delight at the conclusion, I am asking for the basis of the reasoning. Basis. Please. Why are we defining life at all? Why are we defining it as movement? What is mathematical about any of this? Why do we need to do this step? I don't mean why does the argument need the step, I mean why do people who aren't pushing the argument need to do it? The whole thing seem gratuitous.

It is not hyperbolic overstatement. It is important to establish that we cannot choose what we like less than what we like more is available. It is not an equal playing field. You cannot choose B if you like A better or vice versa, because anytime there are meaningful differences, you are compelled, by your nature, to pick the one that offers you greater satisfaction, not less. You will see why this important as time goes on, if I stick around.

You are talking about what you want on behalf of your argument. I am not asking that. I am asking what aspect of logic compels us to see things int he way that suits you here? It is again gratuitous. I see no reason to describe an unthinking object as pursuing satisfaction. Why do I need to anthropomorphise a daisy just to help your argument? Why would I do that, or more importantly, why would I be mistaken not to attach human emotional drivers to brainless plants? There is no persuasive power to this argument, it's mystical.

That may be true but as you try to understand the reason he makes a point of this, you will see its significance.

Significance? That is just a way of telling me that you are relying on this thing for your argument. I might care later, but right now there is the open question of why I am wrong not to buy this argument. It being useful to you later is a shit reason. Give me a good reason please.

It's not flabby and it's not overblown. Your words make me underwhelmed to go on because you're not looking to understand; you're looking to find flaws right at the start. This is going to color all of his words with a faulty slant.
Stop giving me an ultimatum. I don't take well to threats. By the way, I am not displaying any form of grandiosity. This idea of yours is all in your sweet little head.

Whiny.

[FlashDangerpants]

These two findings are unrelated. Vision is not derived from determinism. That makes no sense.

Please do explain though, I am sure you have something that does make sense, quite sure.

FlashDangerpants, you said you read the first 3 chapters. Do you remember anything in Chapter Two? I don't mean to put you on the spot. I'm just wondering what you understood.

Wasn't it Ch2 that covered all that "greatest satisfaction" and blame stuff? What is it that you suspect me of not understanding? And are you willing to explain so that I can overcome my disadvantage or are you just planning to copy and paste again?

I thought I answered your questions. Could you repeat them? I have said again and again that although whatever we choose is due to our motivations and desires, the point being made here is that, once a choice is made, it could NOT have been otherwise, rendering free will a realistic mirage. I need some kind of agreement [temporarily] so we can move forward, even if you think the point I'm making has no value, or we will be at a dead end.

You wrote stuff in response to stuff you had just read. You did not appear to bother wondering if your responses answered the actual questions though. You can click the link on the quote below to take you to the ignored post, it is the blue up arrow...


Okay.


Sounds exciting. Please explain how it works.

I don't think it sounds exciting to you. I think you're, once again, playing with me. But whatever.

Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.

[FlashDangerpants]

He said in the very beginning that "mathematical" in this context, only means "undeniable."

You just really made no effort there. That's just not what mathematical means.

[peacegirl]

FlashDangerpants, you said you read the first 3 chapters. Do you remember anything in Chapter Two? I don't mean to put you on the spot. I'm just wondering what you understood.

Wasn't it Ch2 that covered all that "greatest satisfaction" and blame stuff? What is it that you suspect me of not understanding? And are you willing to explain so that I can overcome my disadvantage or are you just planning to copy and paste again?

If I do anything, I would cut and paste so there's no chance of misunderstanding. You obviously did not read the chapter because YOU MISSED THE ENTIRE DISCOVERY!!!!

I thought I answered your questions. Could you repeat them? I have said again and again that although whatever we choose is due to our motivations and desires, the point being made here is that, once a choice is made, it could NOT have been otherwise, rendering free will a realistic mirage. I need some kind of agreement [temporarily] so we can move forward, even if you think the point I'm making has no value, or we will be at a dead end.

You wrote stuff in response to stuff you had just read. You did not appear to bother wondering if your responses answered the actual questions though. You can click the link on the quote below to take you to the ignored post, it is the blue up arrow...


Okay.


Sounds exciting. Please explain how it works.

I don't think it sounds exciting to you. I think you're, once again, playing with me. But whatever.

Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.

Why should I bend over backwards when you're not even meeting me halfway by reading what I posted? You're playing me for fool!!!

[peacegirl]

You just really made no effort there. That's just not what mathematical means.

He didn't want people to get caught up with these 3 words that he used interchangeably. If you want to nitpick and find things that do not have anything to do with the veracity of his work, go right ahead, but you will never understand it, and it will be your loss. I mean that sincerely.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean “undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the “exact sciences” in order to be exact and scientific.

[FlashDangerpants]

Wasn't it Ch2 that covered all that "greatest satisfaction" and blame stuff? What is it that you suspect me of not understanding? And are you willing to explain so that I can overcome my disadvantage or are you just planning to copy and paste again?

If I do anything, I would cut and paste so there's no chance of misunderstanding. You obviously did not read the chapter because YOU MISSED THE ENTIRE DISCOVERY!!!!

I don't think it sounds exciting to you. I think you're, once again, playing with me. But whatever.

Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.

Why should I bend over backwards when you're not even meeting me halfway by reading what I posted? You're playing me for fool!!!

Of course I didn't miss the "first discovery", I already said of it.... (on page 4 of this now 37 page thread)

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

I've read all the stuff you have posted for me. I think I have understood insofar as it can be understood. Feel free to explain why I am wrong if I am, and please show me how I ought to have understood.

Please stop with these mendacious efforts to derail your own thread. Just answer questions without the inept efforts at guile you just don't posess. Explain how the vision thing works. Explain why it would be erroneous to refuse to anthropomorphise a daisy's growth as a yearning for "greatest satisfaction".

[FlashDangerpants]

You just really made no effort there. That's just not what mathematical means.

He didn't want people to get caught up with these 3 words that he used interchangeably. If you want to nitpick and find things that do not have anything to do with the veracity of his work, go right ahead, but you will never understand it, and it will be your loss. I mean that sincerely.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean “undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the “exact sciences” in order to be exact and scientific.

Everyone already understands the difference between opinion or belief and demonstrated fact, as well as the deductively sound, which appears to be what your dads confused with "mathematical". The problem now is that because of the imprecision of this confusion between scientific, mathematical, and undeniable (three distinct things of differing meaning) it is hard to parse the claim made in the passage:

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

I have already explained many times that there is no need to find out that we act in accord with our beliefs and desires, as we know this a priori, in advance, tautologically, so there is neither need nor a method to check. In fact, we cannot know such a thing scientifically, we know it by definition. And we cannot learn it mathematically, because there is no maths involved. We can however know it undeniably, because we already did, as soon as we defined the concepts of belief and desire and action.

So the question I asked really never got a satisfactory answer.

But at least you made an effort that one time. You ignored all the others entirely.

[peacegirl]

CHAPTER FOUR: WORDS, NOT REALITY

Our problem of hurting each other is very deep-rooted and begins with words through which we have not been allowed to see reality for what it really is. Supposing I stood up in one of our universities and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to prove that man does not have five senses, which has nothing to do with a sixth sense,” wouldn’t all the professors laugh and say, “Are you serious or are you being funny? You can’t be serious because everybody knows man has five senses. This is an established fact.” The definition of epistemology is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity. For the modern empiricist, the only way knowledge becomes ‘stamped’ onto the human conscience is through internal and external sensations, or through sense experience. But there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle, and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that the eyes functioned like the other senses, so he included them in the definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange, and potato five fruit. The names given to these foods describe differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly cannot call them five fruit since this word excludes the potato, which is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit.

Believe it or not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were classified in a category to which they did not belong. We cannot name the organs with which we communicate with the outside world — the five senses, when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this. His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost unanimous agreement. To disagree was so presumptuous that nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is not a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this comment, as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change what we are. Whether we call them five senses, or four senses and a pair of eyes, is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them.

Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear, any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth.

Another false 'discovery' huh. The only main difference between blind people and sighted people are visuals.

Do we even want to know at this point what his "surprising evidence" is supposed to be? This is from ILP

That might be what science believes is happening, but this author refutes that we see the past at all. He claims that light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second, and it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach the eye, but once light is present, the eyes see objects in real time, not delayed time. He says that the eyes are not a sense organ like the other 4 because no images on the waves of light are being carried to the eye. You will have to accept his premise that the past is in the mind only (if you want to move forward) and that nothing from the past CAUSES the present, which is a problem in the way determinism is presently defined.

Do you even know what a sense organ is? All our sense organs collect information about the past.

I'm talking about the eyes only, not the other sense organs. Of course we learn from sense experience, but this does not explain how the eyes are different than the other senses. The past does not cause the present. This is a big problem with the definition of determinism, which is causing an inability to reconcile "of one's own accord" with the fact that will is not free. All we ever have is the present. We remember the past and use these memories to help us make decisions and to make sense of our life experiences, but that's very different than saying the past causes...

The eyes aren't any different. You experince a reconstruction of the past in your mind, but you experience it in the present. Vision, sound, touch, smell, taste.

We remember all that happens and store those memories in our memory bank. The visual cortex may reconstruct the impulses coming from the optic nerve, but to say this image that is formed in our brain is what we see is exactly what is being challenged.

Now it's true that some self-proclaimed determinists (like AIMike.. khm..) are stupid enough to believe that the past causes the present, when actual determinism has no direction. You can start from the past, you can start from the present, you can start from the future, you can do all at once and neither, it doesn't matter. What matters is that there is a chain of causality in time. But this is equally true for all sense organs and also everything else.

All we have is the present. We can't start from the past Atla, and we can't start from the future. You are making time a dimension, which it isn't.

And in that chain, you do see a reconstruction of the past in your mind, not of the present. But you experience the reconstruction in the present. Your father was confused, and so you are confused too. You're just incorrectly conflating time (dividing existence into past-present-future) and timelessness (there is only the eternal now), but they are two different takes. There, you're welcome again.

You are doing the very thing you are accusing me of doing. The first right thing you have said since being here is that there is only the eternal now. If he is right, we see in real time and the impulses from the retina are transduced to the visual cortex. Where scientists got it wrong is when they came to the conclusion that because light travels at a finite speed and is reflected off the object bringing the wavelength to the eye, it follows that the image is seen in the brain rather than the brain using the eyes as a window to look out at the external world. This remains a logical theory only.

[FlashDangerpants]

There's something iffy about calling something a "new discovery" that is in fact so old that the author (now long dead) didn't even know that there would be limits to how much of the visible universe we would be able to see because some of it is just too far away for the light to ever reach us. No means of Lessans or his daughter will ever allow them to see beyond the cosmic light horizon, even with all their magical thinking.

[peacegirl]

You just really made no effort there. That's just not what mathematical means.

He didn't want people to get caught up with these 3 words that he used interchangeably. If you want to nitpick and find things that do not have anything to do with the veracity of his work, go right ahead, but you will never understand it, and it will be your loss. I mean that sincerely.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean “undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the “exact sciences” in order to be exact and scientific.

Everyone already understands the difference between opinion or belief and demonstrated fact, as well as the deductively sound, which appears to be what your dads confused with "mathematical". The problem now is that because of the imprecision of this confusion between scientific, mathematical, and undeniable (three distinct things of differing meaning) it is hard to parse the claim made in the passage:

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

I have already explained many times that there is no need to find out that we act in accord with our beliefs and desires, as we know this a priori, in advance, tautologically, so there is neither need nor a method to check. In fact, we cannot know such a thing scientifically, we know it by definition. And we cannot learn it mathematically, because there is no maths involved. We can however know it undeniably, because we already did, as soon as we defined the concepts of belief and desire and action.

So the question I asked really never got a satisfactory answer.

But at least you made an effort that one time. You ignored all the others entirely.

Call it a priori or whatever you want. Bottom line: If you can agree that we can only move in one direction (which is away from that which dissatisfies to that which offers greater satisfaction than the position we are now standing), as we move through life from moment to moment —- which is the reason will is not free —- we can move forward, otherwise we we are basically done.

[FlashDangerpants]

He didn't want people to get caught up with these 3 words that he used interchangeably. If you want to nitpick and find things that do not have anything to do with the veracity of his work, go right ahead, but you will never understand it, and it will be your loss. I mean that sincerely.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean “undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the “exact sciences” in order to be exact and scientific.

Everyone already understands the difference between opinion or belief and demonstrated fact, as well as the deductively sound, which appears to be what your dads confused with "mathematical". The problem now is that because of the imprecision of this confusion between scientific, mathematical, and undeniable (three distinct things of differing meaning) it is hard to parse the claim made in the passage:

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

I have already explained many times that there is no need to find out that we act in accord with our beliefs and desires, as we know this a priori, in advance, tautologically, so there is neither need nor a method to check. In fact, we cannot know such a thing scientifically, we know it by definition. And we cannot learn it mathematically, because there is no maths involved. We can however know it undeniably, because we already did, as soon as we defined the concepts of belief and desire and action.

So the question I asked really never got a satisfactory answer.

But at least you made an effort that one time. You ignored all the others entirely.

Call it a priori or whatever you want. Bottom line: If you can agree that we can only move in one direction (which is away from that which dissatisfies to that which offers greater satisfaction than the position we are now standing), as we move through life from moment to moment —- which is the reason will is not free —- we can move forward, otherwise we we are basically done.

You're always threatening to be done with people, you clearly don't mean it, you need the eyeballs on your work, why bother with the empty threat?

We can only choose (regardless of metaphysics of causation) to act in accord with our desires and our beliefs that some desire is best attained by some certain action. I never had any issue with that principle which I heave described many times now as self-evident. So threatening me for not agreeing to it is really just a weird choice.

The passage remains problematic, the question of whether he intends his reasoning to be scientific, mathematic or incontrovertible is unclear because really he seemingly cannot tell the difference. The other issues remain with the other passages that I have highlighted and you have ignored. But sure, whatever you mean by "going forward" ... you may proceed. Does it involve successfully answering any questions or helpfully explaining any misconceptions at some point?

[peacegirl]

Everyone already understands the difference between opinion or belief and demonstrated fact, as well as the deductively sound, which appears to be what your dads confused with "mathematical". The problem now is that because of the imprecision of this confusion between scientific, mathematical, and undeniable (three distinct things of differing meaning) it is hard to parse the claim made in the passage:

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

I have already explained many times that there is no need to find out that we act in accord with our beliefs and desires, as we know this a priori, in advance, tautologically, so there is neither need nor a method to check. In fact, we cannot know such a thing scientifically, we know it by definition. And we cannot learn it mathematically, because there is no maths involved. We can however know it undeniably, because we already did, as soon as we defined the concepts of belief and desire and action.

So the question I asked really never got a satisfactory answer.

But at least you made an effort that one time. You ignored all the others entirely.

Call it a priori or whatever you want. Bottom line: If you can agree that we can only move in one direction (which is away from that which dissatisfies to that which offers greater satisfaction than the position we are now standing), as we move through life from moment to moment —- which is the reason will is not free —- we can move forward, otherwise we we are basically done.

You're always threatening to be done with people, you clearly don't mean it, you need the eyeballs on your work, why bother with the empty threat?

We can only choose (regardless of metaphysics of causation) to act in accord with our desires and our beliefs that some desire is best attained by some certain action. I never had any issue with that principle which I heave described many times now as self-evident. So threatening me for not agreeing to it is really just a weird choice.

The passage remains problematic, the question of whether he intends his reasoning to be scientific, mathematic or incontrovertible is unclear because really he seemingly cannot tell the difference. The other issues remain with the other passages that I have highlighted and you have ignored. But sure, whatever you mean by "going forward" ... you may proceed. Does it involve successfully answering any questions or helpfully explaining any misconceptions at some point?

I never threatened to be done before, but telling me that he was confused because he didn’t know the difference between these three words is an absolute joke. You seem to be looking for flaws that do not exist and more importantly do not negate the truth of this discovery. If you want other questions answered, please ask one at a time. I don’t know what you asked that I did not respond to and I’m not scrolling back.