New Discovery

[FlashDangerpants]

Is there something I am missing?

Yes. Exactly the same thing as with BigMike before, peacegirl's theory doesn't really even depend on determinism being correct, it depends on everybody in the world believing determinism is correct, and on them believing that if determinism is correct then there must be a certain set of entailments including blamelessness and lost desire for revenge.

It's all magical thinking, it works equally well whether determinism is actually true or not because none of those entailments is necessary. Peacegirl's thing is not an act of philosophy, it is religion.

Any competent philosopher knows that prima facie, determinism is purported to explain how the world is as we experience it today, it doesn't come packaged with all this other shit.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is there something I am missing?

Yes. Exactly the same thing as with BigMike before, peacegirl's theory doesn't really even depend on determinism being correct, it depends on everybody in the world believing determinism is correct, and on them believing that if determinism is correct then there must be a certain set of entailments including blamelessness and lost desire for revenge.

It's all magical thinking, it works equally well whether determinism is actually true or not because none of those entailments is necessary. Peacegirl's thing is not an act of philosophy, it is religion.

Any competent philosopher knows that prima facie, determinism is purported to explain how the world is as we experience it today, it doesn't come packaged with all this other shit.

True. Accurate.

[peacegirl]

I added a comment to this post.

I agree that eternity can only exist in the here and now. Forgiving the murderer is the hallmark of Christianity: to love your enemies, but imagine a world in which forgiveness is no longer necessary when there is nothing left to forgive. Just imagine!!!

I imagine that here tune would either not exist, or exist only as a parody ... but what a voice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLR25E ... rt_radio=1

Nice song. Saying "I'm sorry" is a normal reaction if you did something that hurt someone. For example, in sports you may have thrown a ball which hit someone in the head. Saying "I'm sorry" would be a very nice thing to say (even though the person hurt would already know you're sorry and would never question your intent). That being said, there would be far less reason to say "I'm sorry" --- in the new world --- when there would be nothing to be sorry for.

[peacegirl]

This thread has gone off the beaten track. If anyone wants to continue, it needs to be brought back to the original purpose.

Make it easy for me.

What is the original purpose, in 50 words or less.

No. All I can do is give you the first three chapters. You can take it or leave it.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 8af07f8ca7

[peacegirl]

(continued)

My takeaway from recent postings is that your father wrote the unified field theory of harmonious relations. Does this theory involve methods of effectively generating Climate Love?

Yes. Think about it. People will not want to do things that they know is destruction to the environment, especially when we find newer ways to keep the environment clean and sustainable.

They say Kirk loved his enemies.

I believe that to love one's enemies is to love the person in spite of what they did, not the behavior. That is a tall order especially when someone has taken away the most precious thing in your life.

They say that there was a little smile on his face after he died, but that could just be fuel for legend.

I think his wife said that he had a half smile on his face. People will probably theorize what that smile meant for years to come.

Like suffering, everyone knows love and the suffering love generates, so love is the crux of universal appeal for your father’s work.

Not an agape love, although this optimal environment would generate this kind of love as a natural expression. He has a whole chapter on romantic love and how the hurt that often accompanies this kind of love can be prevented.

Like suffering, everyone finds love in relationship with a person, place, thing or thought. Maybe even all four.

However, unlike suffering, folks long for love, folks want the gravy and not the gristle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw9RVjE ... rt_radio=1


I heard that Richard Feynman’s daughter also carried on his ambition … Tuva or Bust!

Our Day Will Come should be My Day Will Come (alluding to my father).

Empathy towards farm animals will mean not breeding food animals either for dairy or flesh eating. Kindness towards food animals inevitably involves more expensive food. Kindness towards animals involves no dairy food whatsoever. Dairy food is obtained by stealing mothers' milk from baby calves who are then cruelly used or destroyed .
I mean, does the author's theory include how this Utopia will function economically?

I have mentioned that the economic system is key, for if people don't have economic security, they will do things, such as steal, if by not stealing, they become losers. As far as breeding food animals for dairy or flesh eating would be done with loving care toward these animals. The cruelty that exists in how animals are raised is heartbreaking but that is because people have become insensitive to their plight due to their own need to survive. They have been compelled to believe that animals are just property with no feelings, or they couldn't do what they do. But this will change in due time when people won't have to save money by cutting shortcuts such as cramping animals into small cages and other inhumane practices.

The trouble with all Utopian theories is that they are fatalistic. Fatalism is a bad attitude that encourages quiescence, as in "science will solve all the moral problems".

This has nothing to do with fatalism. If a child is running in the street after a ball, we don't say, "Oh, it's fate that he gets hit." No, we do everything we can to prevent such an accident, and if something bad happens, we can then say it was fate, but not before we do everything in our power to prevent it.

Belinda: What is the political stance of the author towards equality of income so that everybody may be able to pay for more expensive food?

Peacegirl: There would be no equality of income, although income would be equitable. There would still be friendly competition but if someone fell below his guaranteed standard of living at the start of the transition, the taxpayers would help make up for the loss until he could get back on his feet. You are assuming that prices would stay high when not only would prices come down, but all price increases would be frozen. People would be forced to sell in volume. You are jumping too far ahead, which is the problem with not getting the full picture of how this blueprint works.

[Belinda]

Peacegirl wrote:

This has nothing to do with fatalism. If a child is running in the street after a ball, we don't say, "Oh, it's fate that he gets hit." No, we do everything we can to prevent such an accident, and if something bad happens, we can then say it was fate, but not before we do everything in our power to prevent it.

By "this" I take it you refer to Lessan's theory? A word to the wise--please be explicit and use proper names instead of using vague pronouns .

Fatalism is a departure from pure determinism. Fatalism is the belief that some event is bound to happen. It looks to me that Lessan's theory includes that Utopia is bound to happen because science ensures it will happen.

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl wrote:

This has nothing to do with fatalism. If a child is running in the street after a ball, we don't say, "Oh, it's fate that he gets hit." No, we do everything we can to prevent such an accident, and if something bad happens, we can then say it was fate, but not before we do everything in our power to prevent it.

By "this" I take it you refer to Lessan's theory? A word to the wise--please be explicit and use proper names instead of using vague pronouns .

Fatalism is a departure from pure determinism. Fatalism is the belief that some event is bound to happen. It looks to me that Lessan's theory includes that Utopia is bound to happen because science ensures it will happen.

Again, this has nothing to do with some event is bound to happen if it doesn't happen. This has nothing to do with science assuring anytihng; only what works because of the laws that determine our actions. To repeat: this has nothing to do with force or cause that makes us feel impotent. We are all involved in our choices. Nothing is being taken away.

[Belinda]

Peacegirl wote:

There would be no equality of income, although income would be equitable. There would still be friendly competition but if someone fell below his guaranteed standard of living at the start of the transition, the taxpayers would help make up for the loss until he could get back on his feet. You are assuming that prices would stay high when not only would prices come down, but all price increases would be frozen. People would be forced to sell in volume. You are jumping too far ahead, which is the problem with not getting the full picture of how this blueprint works.

Basic living wage is an initiative I support, and any political party that endorses basic living wage would have my support.
I fail to see how ceasing to use farm animals as machines would be cheaper in the long term. True, science and technology have already developed tissue culture that replaces animal muscle tissue; and this technology will soon be marketable , unless farmers who are invested in live animal technology set up too much political resistance to artificial tissue culture.
You write a lot about will, free and otherwise. Political choices are choices that must be made if conscientious people are to make this a better world. Scientists and science can't do it alone.
You also mention human nature which is very relevant to any consideration of Utopia. Nobody can define human nature. However , not Lessans, not even the most eminent psychologist , can define human nature.

[peacegirl]

There would be no equality of income, although income would be equitable. There would still be friendly competition but if someone fell below his guaranteed standard of living at the start of the transition, the taxpayers would help make up for the loss until he could get back on his feet. You are assuming that prices would stay high when not only would prices come down, but all price increases would be frozen. People would be forced to sell in volume. You are jumping too far ahead, which is the problem with not getting the full picture of how this blueprint works.

Basic living wage is an initiative I support, and any political party that endorses basic living wage would have my support.
I fail to see how ceasing to use farm animals as machines would be cheaper in the long term. True, science and technology have already developed tissue culture that replaces animal muscle tissue; and this technology will soon be marketable , unless farmers who are invested in live animal technology set up too much political resistance to artificial tissue culture.

'If that were true, I am sure that there would be no problem switching to artificial tissue. I wonder though if the animal kingdom would accept this as being a replacement for their evolutionary drive to eat real meat.

You write a lot about will, free and otherwise.

It's not free will and otherwise Belinda. Why are you making what he writes about free will vs determinism superfluous when it is the very thing that is under discussion from which the rest of his proof depends?

Political choices are choices that must be made if conscientious people are to make this a better world. Scientists and science can't do it alone.

Science will take the lead, not politics.

You also mention human nature which is very relevant to any consideration of Utopia. Nobody can define human nature. However , not Lessans, not even the most eminent psychologist , can define human nature.

Human nature is what humans do. It's as simple as that.

[peacegirl]

I think the obvious statement to this whole thread is this:

The author seeks to reveal that all is determined in an effort to bring world peace, or at least ease suffering, unknowing that if what the author presents is true, ie everything is determined, then the chaos exhibited in this thread is determined as well thus nulliifying the vision of a universally accepted determinism being a means for peace.

Is there something I am missing?

You're missing the fact that determinism can be proven true, without exception. I don't consider everything exhibited in this thread as chaos, but, yes, everything is determined including the arguments in this thread. To conclude that this thread somehow nullifies the vision of a universally accepted determinism being the means for peace implies that there is no universally accepted determinism that exists. This is where you've gone off the rails.

[peacegirl]

Make it easy for me.

What is the original purpose, in 50 words or less.

No. I'm not starting all over again just for you.

Actually, a brief synopsis would help me as well. Can't you get ChatGPT to do the heavy lifting for you?

ChatGPT gave a terrible summary. It gave the purpose of this discovery, which is to bring peace, but could not offer anything more because there was no data it could gather to give an accurate description of what this discovery entailed. This summary was based on the first three chapters and it missed Chapter Two entirely.

[peacegirl]

Is there something I am missing?

Yes. Exactly the same thing as with BigMike before, peacegirl's theory doesn't really even depend on determinism being correct, it depends on everybody in the world believing determinism is correct, and on them believing that if determinism is correct then there must be a certain set of entailments including blamelessness and lost desire for revenge.

Where have you been Flashdangerpants, when he specifically says that revenge is a normal reaction to hurt that is done to you. He was not saying that we should lose the desire for retribution but rather retribution will not be necessary if we are not being hurt to begin with. If you have not been hurt, do you have to strike back or turn the other cheek?

It's all magical thinking, it works equally well whether determinism is actually true or not because none of those entailments is necessary. Peacegirl's thing is not an act of philosophy, it is religion.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or magical thinking or a story for that matter. There is proof that our will is not free, but that does not mean we can't make our own decisions or that our decisions don't count.

Any competent philosopher knows that prima facie, determinism is purported to explain how the world is as we experience it today, it doesn't come packaged with all this other shit.

What shit are you talking about? Determinism explains how the world is as we experience it, but it also shows us how the world can be better once we extend this knowledge. Right now, we live in a society that is based on the belief that we have free will which justifies blame, punishment, and the certainty that we could have done otherwise. Can't you see the dilemma here? No philosopher up until now has been able to show where this knowledge leads.

[FlashDangerpants]

My criticisms were valid. I can't be bothered with that post if you are still too stupid to be able to work out how to quote.

[Atla]

I think the obvious statement to this whole thread is this:

The author seeks to reveal that all is determined in an effort to bring world peace, or at least ease suffering, unknowing that if what the author presents is true, ie everything is determined, then the chaos exhibited in this thread is determined as well thus nullifying the vision of a universally accepted determinism being a means for peace.

Is there something I am missing?

Actually the author's "determinism" seems to be a refutation of physical determinism. The author says that we always choose what we think gives us the most satisfaction. So if the known laws of physics would grant us freedom to sometimes choose against our own best satisfaction, then the known laws of physics are wrong.

[peacegirl]

My criticisms were valid. I can't be bothered with that post if you are still too stupid to be able to work out how to quote.

Your criticisms were invalid and it's an excuse not to address them for reasons that don't even apply. Your name calling doesn't help you either.