New Discovery

[peacegirl]

Some of the claims you make there are contradicted by other claims you make. But fine, if you are able to lay out the premises and conclusions of the argument that isn't an argument but is an argument. Which doesn't follow the rules of an argument but is valid and sound according to the rules it doesn't follow, then please proceed.

Where do his premises and conclusions not follow? And please explain where some of the claims I make are contradicted by other claims I make. To repeat: This is not an argument in the typical sense; it is a demonstration.

The terms argument and demonstration refer to different concepts:

Argument: It is a statement or claim supported by evidence or reasoning. It is the actual statement or claim being made, often used to support a conclusion or viewpoint.

Demonstration: This refers to the act of showing or explaining something, often through a vivid representation or process. It can also be a public display of opinion or a scientific proof.

In summary, an argument is a statement, while a demonstration is the process of showing or explaining something.

Seriously, how are you still failing to work the quote system? Once again, the burden falls upon me to make your post legible. You are consistently inconsiderate.

I thought I did okay in the quote tag debacle. I'll read your post over and keep trying. All I ask is that you hold off your expletives and stop calling me a moron. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Please identify any valid argument that you have presented. To be valid it is required that the relationship between the premises and the conclusion is such that if the premises are true then the conclusion must necessarily also be true. An argument is sound only if the relationship between premises is as I have just described (valid), and those premises all happen to also be true.

Don't bother trying to lecture me about what an argument is.

I fully understand that the premises must be true for the conclusion to be true. One of his premises is that we live in the present. If you don't believe this is true, then you will discard the rest of his proof. Maybe you know what an argument is, but there is a difference between an argument and a demonstration. Why can't you accept that? First, he demonstrated why will is not free. Then he demonstrated the other half of the equation as a result of correctly defining why we have no free will. You won't let me go further because you keep saying that "greater satisfaction" is a meaningless tautology, even after I explained to you that, even though you consider it meaningless, it is anything but.

[FlashDangerpants]

Where do his premises and conclusions not follow? And please explain where some of the claims I make are contradicted by other claims I make. To repeat: This is not an argument in the typical sense; it is a demonstration.

The terms argument and demonstration refer to different concepts:

Argument: It is a statement or claim supported by evidence or reasoning. It is the actual statement or claim being made, often used to support a conclusion or viewpoint.

Demonstration: This refers to the act of showing or explaining something, often through a vivid representation or process. It can also be a public display of opinion or a scientific proof.

In summary, an argument is a statement, while a demonstration is the process of showing or explaining something.

Seriously, how are you still failing to work the quote system? Once again, the burden falls upon me to make your post legible. You are consistently inconsiderate.

I thought I did okay in the quote tag debacle. I'll read your post over and keep trying. All I ask is that you hold off your expletives and stop calling me a moron. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
You did not do ok. You are failing the most basic intelligence test ever in a most spectacular way. Why on Earth would I not be using the word moron right now? I tried to dumb this down to a level you could understand and it hasn't worked at all, and you aren't even smart enough to realise you are getting it wrong.

Don't wink at me, just do better. Start right away.

Please identify any valid argument that you have presented. To be valid it is required that the relationship between the premises and the conclusion is such that if the premises are true then the conclusion must necessarily also be true. An argument is sound only if the relationship between premises is as I have just described (valid), and those premises all happen to also be true.

Don't bother trying to lecture me about what an argument is.

I fully understand that the premises must be true for the conclusion to be true. One of his premises is that we live in the present. If you don't believe this is true, then you will discard the rest of his proof. Maybe you know what an argument is, but there is a difference between an argument and a demonstration. Why can't you accept that? First, he demonstrated why will is not free. Then he demonstrated the other half of the equation as a result of correctly defining why we have no free will. You won't let me go further because you keep saying that "greater satisfaction" is a meaningless tautology, even after I explained to you that, even though you consider it meaningless, it is anything but.

So is it an argument or not? It is your fault that I can't tell if you are saying one thing or the other because you keep saying both that it is, and that it is not. Again, the word I need to use is moron. It is the right word to use.

If it is an argument with premises and conclusion, then just list the premises please. If it is some other shit, then it is not an argument with premises and conclusion and you can just stop pretending that it does what such arguments do.

[peacegirl]

Seriously, how are you still failing to work the quote system? Once again, the burden falls upon me to make your post legible. You are consistently inconsiderate.

[/quote][/quote][/quote]
You did not do ok. You are failing the most basic intelligence test ever in a most spectacular way. Why on Earth would I not be using the word moron right now? I tried to dumb this down to a level you could understand and it hasn't worked at all, and you aren't even smart enough to realise you are getting it wrong.

Don't wink at me, just do better. Start right away.

I know I goofed again. Am I supposed to delete the top three quotations? Is that what you're asking me to do? You are very impatient.

Please identify any valid argument that you have presented. To be valid it is required that the relationship between the premises and the conclusion is such that if the premises are true then the conclusion must necessarily also be true. An argument is sound only if the relationship between premises is as I have just described (valid), and those premises all happen to also be true.

Don't bother trying to lecture me about what an argument is.

I fully understand that the premises must be true for the conclusion to be true. One of his premises is that we live in the present. If you don't believe this is true, then you will discard the rest of his proof. Maybe you know what an argument is, but there is a difference between an argument and a demonstration. Why can't you accept that? First, he demonstrated why will is not free. Then he demonstrated the other half of the equation as a result of correctly defining why we have no free will. You won't let me go further because you keep saying that "greater satisfaction" is a meaningless tautology, even after I explained to you that it is anything but meaningless.

So is it an argument or not? It is your fault that I can't tell if you are saying one thing or the other because you keep saying both that it is, and that it is not. Again, the word I need to use is moron. It is the right word to use.

If it is an argument with premises and conclusion, then just list the premises please. If it is some other shit, then it is not an argument with premises and conclusion and you can just stop pretending that it does what such arguments do.

To satisfy you, I will use the term argument, but there are layers to it. He had to first prove that man's will is not free. That was his first argument. You disagreed with it, so we can't move forward. His second argument was that although man's will is not free, according to his definition (which you won't accept) nothing can make him do to another what he makes up his mind not to do. He also proved this second premise by demonstrating that a person could die before telling his captors what they wanted to know, if he knew that his family would be instantly killed once they got their information. If you disagree with this, then you definitely won't want to go any further. He also explained that using the phrase "I did this of my own free will" which means, "I did this because I wanted to," is perfectly fine to use in this colloquial sense, but it does not mean we actually have free will in the sense that we could have done otherwise, which the definition of free will suggests. Here is the definition that he offered.

The dictionary defines free will as the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty that enables one to choose 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?

.

[FlashDangerpants]

I know I goofed again. Am I supposed to delete the top three quotations? Is that what you're asking me to do? You are very impatient.

tag

I just ... I am amazed.

You could just look at what other people do, and do that.

Or you could scroll all the way to the bottom of the post and simply write a coherent response to the entire post because chopping things up takes a skill that normal people master without any difficulty but you just can't seem to get.

What I am writing here in this post is not enclosed in any tag at all. The current post you are writing does not need a tag. Close all open tags prior to the current writing. Don't put a new [quote=peacegirl] tag in front of stuff you are writing now, just close the open tags.

I am not quoting myself as I write this. I don't need to format this text as a quote, that is confusing to readers and creates nesting issues that result in blocks of text going missing when people are trying to quote the last thing you wrote at them. So don't put the current text inside ANY tags at all, unless you want to add colour, underlines, or italics.

[FlashDangerpants]

To satisfy you, I will use the term argument, but there are layers to it. He had to first prove that man's will is not free. That was his first argument. You disagreed with it, so we can't move forward.

The premises did not add up to sufficient support for the conclusion. Just as you don't understand how to close a tag, I can't find a way to explain the problem with that argument for you. It's not difficult to show what the problem is, it is difficult to show it to you. There are questions about whether you are smart enough to get it. The truth is I genuinely don't think that you are.

If I disagree and am wrong, you should be able to show via argument how I am wrong. But it you are not clever enough to understand the issue I pointed at (which isn't a fancy one, it's really quite simple) then you also aren't clever enough to take this book out into the world with any expectation of success. Which is how things have worked out for you so far.

His second argument was that although man's will is not free, according to his definition (which you won't accept) nothing can make him do to another what he makes up his mind not to do. He also proved this second premise by demonstrating that a person could die before telling his captors what they wanted to know, if he knew that his family would be instantly killed once they got their information.

You are vaguely referencing something. That is not the same as showing the premises that lead to the conclusion of the argument and demonstrate logical necessity. If you kow what the premises are and how the show the truth of the conclusion to be necessary if the truth of the premises are, then please explain how that works. I saw no such thing in any of Lessan's writing and I see none in y9urs either.

If you disagree with this, then you definitely won't want to go any further. He also explained that using the phrase "I did this of my own free will" which means, "I did this because I wanted to," is perfectly fine to use in this colloquial sense, but it does not mean we actually have free will in the sense that we could have done otherwise, which the definition of free will suggests. Here is the definition that he offered.

Agree and disagree is neither here nor there. If I am wrong, then a well constructed argument will show that to be the case.

The dictionary defines free will as the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty that enables one to choose 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?

.

Yeah, well that guy left school before he learned the difference between implication and inference. I would also suggest you might want to think about what definitions are for and what they do.

At risk of going beyond your capabilities for no good reason, I can define a hat using a dictionary definition of hat as an article of clothing worn on the head and so on. If I then attach inferences to it such as keeping my head warm and looking dandyish, these might be attributes of most hats, but they are not part of the definition of a hat. So what do you need a definition of a hat for anyway? Is it to help you look at objects in the world and "this headwear is a hat, but that footwear is a sock not a hat" or is the point to just put a sock on your head and say "this is now my hat"?

[peacegirl]

I know I goofed again. Am I supposed to delete the top three quotations? Is that what you're asking me to do? You are very impatient.

I just ... I am amazed.

You could just look at what other people do, and do that.

Good idea FlashDangerpants. I am going to try that.

Or you could scroll all the way to the bottom of the post and simply write a coherent response to the entire post because chopping things up takes a skill that normal people master without any difficulty but you just can't seem to get.

True, but I like answering the person right there, not at the end. But I don't like chopping it up if it messes the tags up, so I'll try harder to get it right.

What I am writing here in this post is not enclosed in any tag at all. The current post you are writing does not need a tag. Close all open tags prior to the current writing. Don't put a new [quote=peacegirl] tag in front of stuff you are writing now, just close the open tags.

I am not quoting myself as I write this. I don't need to format this text as a quote, that is confusing to readers and creates nesting issues that result in blocks of text going missing when people are trying to quote the last thing you wrote at them. So don't put the current text inside ANY tags at all, unless you want to add colour, underlines, or italics.

I know this isn't right. I'll look at other threads to see what I'm doing wrong. This is not my forte as you can tell, but I'm determined to get it right. I know it's not rocket science.

[peacegirl]

To satisfy you, I will use the term argument, but there are layers to it. He had to first prove that man's will is not free. That was his first argument. You disagreed with it, so we can't move forward.

The premises did not add up to sufficient support for the conclusion. Just as you don't understand how to close a tag, I can't find a way to explain the problem with that argument for you. It's not difficult to show what the problem is, it is difficult to show it to you. There are questions about whether you are smart enough to get it. The truth is I genuinely don't think that you are.

That doesn't make sense. Moreover, to say you don't think I'm smart enough because I am not familiar with the term "tag" and you are concluding that I'm dumb is a red herring.

If I disagree and am wrong, you should be able to show via argument how I am wrong. But it you are not clever enough to understand the issue I pointed at (which isn't a fancy one, it's really quite simple) then you also aren't clever enough to take this book out into the world with any expectation of success. Which is how things have worked out for you so far.

I explained to you that even if moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is a tautology, it is not a useless one. If that's your comeback, we can't move forward because, according to you, he's wrong right off the bat. This is where you are wrong, and I am showing you where you are wrong.

His second argument was that although man's will is not free, according to his definition (which you won't accept) nothing can make him do to another what he makes up his mind not to do. He also proved this second premise by demonstrating that a person could die before telling his captors what they wanted to know, if he knew that his family would be instantly killed once they got their information.

You are vaguely referencing something. That is not the same as showing the premises that lead to the conclusion of the argument and demonstrate logical necessity. If you know what the premises are and how the show the truth of the conclusion to be necessary if the truth of the premises are, then please explain how that works. I saw no such thing in any of Lessan's writing and I see none in yours either.

He was making an important point because determinism implies that we are caused by antecedent events to do what we do. He was trying to show that this definition is flawed, which brings up the fact that although we move in the direction of greater satisfaction --- which is why our will is not free and is correctly defined --- the corollary that goes along with this is that nothing can make us do what we make up our mind not to do. This is important because it forms the two-sided equation, which IS THE CORE OF THE DISCOVERY. No one has thought through this, as far as I know, because of the flawed definition of determinism that keeps the resolution of this conflict between free will and determinism impossible.

If you disagree with this, then you definitely won't want to go any further. He also explained that using the phrase "I did this of my own free will" which means, "I did this because I wanted to," is perfectly fine to use in this colloquial sense, but it does not mean we actually have free will in the sense that we could have done otherwise, which the definition of free will suggests. Here is the definition that he offered.

Agree and disagree is neither here nor there. If I am wrong, then a well-constructed argument will show that to be the case.

I'm doing my best because you are wrong. I may not be able to convince you of that unfortunately.

The dictionary defines free will as the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty that enables one to choose 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?

.

Yeah, well that guy left school before he learned the difference between implication and inference.

Do you mean my father?

I would also suggest you might want to think about what definitions are for and what they do.

Then why did he write this if he wasn't aware of the importance of accurate definitions?

By a similar process of working our problem backwards, we can officially launch the Golden Age, which necessitates the removal of all forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so that each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants to do. Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide rule, which God has given us as a guide. By now, I hope you understand that the word “God” is a symbol for the source of everything that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil, using the word “God” only as a symbol for the former. Actually, no one gave me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the direction of satisfaction, and for me to be satisfied after reading Will Durant’s analysis of free will, it was necessary to disagree with what obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke. To say that God made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing as far as reality is concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun, regardless of how much I don’t know about this ball of fire, it does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and regardless of what words I employ to describe God does not change the fact that He is a reality.

You may ask, “But isn’t there quite a difference between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the description of the sun may be inaccurate, but I know it is part of the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing and say this is God; therefore, we must assume, because of certain things, that God is a reality, correct?”

We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a discovery was made that proved this assumption, and we also assumed or believed that there was a design to this universe based on the fact that the solar system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon, earth, planets, and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free and at the very moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration compels man to veer sharply in a new direction, although still towards greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as the solar system, only we never knew it because part of the harmony was this disharmony between man and man, which is now being permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God is good is a true observation, for nothing in this universe, when seen in total perspective, is evil since each individual must choose what is better for himself, even if that choice hurts another as a consequence.

At risk of going beyond your capabilities for no good reason, I can define a hat using a dictionary definition of hat as an article of clothing worn on the head and so on. If I then attach inferences to it such as keeping my head warm and looking dandyish, these might be attributes of most hats, but they are not part of the definition of a hat. So what do you need a definition of a hat for anyway? Is it to help you look at objects in the world and "this headwear is a hat, but that footwear is a sock not a hat" or is the point to just put a sock on your head and say "this is now my hat"?

You're preaching to the choir FlashDangerpants. He knew the difference between implication and inference.

Example One: We have been growing and developing just like a child from infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies hidden beyond this point?

Example Two: A great deal of confusion exists because it is assumed that if man does something to hurt another, he could always excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free.” This is another aspect of the implications that deterred philosophers from conducting a thorough investigation.

Example Three: Durant knew that free will was a theory, but as long as proof was not necessary when it could be seen with the direct perception of our common sense that it was impossible to turn the other cheek (the corollary thrown up by determinism), he was compelled to write, “Let the determinist honestly envisage the implications of his philosophy.” This indicates that all his reasoning in favor of free will was the result of inferences derived from his inability to accept the implications. Durant is anything but a scientist and an accurate thinker. Since it is absolutely impossible for free will to ever be proven true (I take for granted this is now understood), nothing in this universe can prove determinism an unreality (and in this context it shall only mean the opposite of free will, as death is the opposite of life) simply because this would automatically prove the truth of free will, which is an impossibility. Consequently, the belief in free will and all conceptions regarding it can only remain in existence as a plausible theory just as long as no undeniable evidence is produced in contravention. According to his reasoning, he assumes that free will is true because, in his mind, determinism is false, and the reason he thinks determinism is false is because man is not a machine. Then, not realizing how mathematically impossible his next statement is, he claims that philosophies of freedom (free will) eternally recur because reasoning and formulas cannot beat down the obvious truth of direct perception.

Take a look at that last statement very carefully and see if you can’t tell why it is mathematically impossible. If free will were finally proven to be that which is nonexistent (and let’s take for granted that you know this for a fact) and accepted as such by our scientific world at large, would it be possible, according to Durant’s statement, for “philosophies of freedom” to recur anymore? Isn’t it obvious that the recurrence of the belief in free will is a mathematical impossibility once freedom of the will is proven to be a figment of the imagination, or, to phrase it differently, a realistic mirage? Is it humanly possible for the belief that the world is flat to eternally recur when we have mathematical knowledge that it is round? Consequently, the continued return of the belief in free will can only be due to the fact that it is still a logical theory or plausible conception that has never been analyzed properly, allowing the belief and its philosophies to persist. But Durant states that philosophies of freedom eternally recur, not because of the explanation I just gave, an explanation that cannot be denied by anyone anywhere, even by this philosopher himself, provided it is understood, but because direct perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with reasoning. Isn’t it apparent that such words have no relation to reality whatsoever? If Durant believed direct perception was considered superior to reasoning, is it any wonder he was so confused and his reasoning so fallacious since the word “because,” which denotes the perception of a relation, whether true or false, indicates that he is criticizing reasoning while reasoning. This doesn’t stop a person from saying, “I believe.” “It is my opinion.” “I was taught that man’s will is free,” but it would certainly stop him from trying to defend his position with an argument.

Example Four: From a superficial observation, this is all very true, but the reasoning as to what actually happens after your death is an inference based upon your observations during your life. This reasoning complicates even more the difficulty of understanding this phenomenon. While you are alive, you know that many people die who never return. You also know that many babies are born who are in no way the people who died; therefore, since you, too, must die and the babies born are not the people who died, you cannot be one of the babies born after your death. Another way of saying the same thing is this: If you could remain alive for 200 years, not one of the babies born during that time could possibly be you, so if you had died after 80 years, why should one of the same babies born during the 120 years following your death be you when they were not you before? Can’t you see how easy it is for reasoning to prove that we are not born again? But, to reiterate, your reasoning as to what actually happens after your death is an inference based upon your observations during your life. When you die you cannot possibly have any more observations. In other words, your reasoning doesn’t reveal a deeper truth. Does matter itself reveal atomic energy? Do the individual planets, moon and sun reveal the solar system? Do individual people reveal the mankind system unless we observe certain undeniable laws? Does all of it together reveal the reality of God, unless certain mathematical relations are perceived? Certainly, your grandparents gave birth to your parents who gave birth to four children, but this tells us nothing about the deeper law which is necessary to perceive in order to understand why there is nothing to fear in death and why we will be born again and again and again. At one time man was afraid of thunder and lightning thinking it was the wrath of God, but now we don’t fear the thunder and try to protect ourselves as best we can against the lightning. Until man discovered the cause of an eclipse, which required knowledge of the solar system or to phrase it differently, knowledge of the laws that inhere in particular bodies in motion, he was afraid that something terrible was going to happen and it became an ominous sign that was blamed for whatever evil followed. Such is the reason it seems strange to be alive at this moment with all the millions of years behind you because you don’t understand the truth. When it is thoroughly explained the strangeness disappears, but I must proceed with undeniable relations in order to prove why there is nothing to fear in death.”

[FlashDangerpants]

To satisfy you, I will use the term argument, but there are layers to it. He had to first prove that man's will is not free. That was his first argument. You disagreed with it, so we can't move forward.

The premises did not add up to sufficient support for the conclusion. Just as you don't understand how to close a tag, I can't find a way to explain the problem with that argument for you. It's not difficult to show what the problem is, it is difficult to show it to you. There are questions about whether you are smart enough to get it. The truth is I genuinely don't think that you are.

That doesn't make sense. Moreover, to say you don't think I'm smart enough because I am not familiar with the term "tag" and you are concluding that I'm dumb is a red herring.

You've pretty conclusively demonstrated that you are not very bright. It is not surprising that you've drawn a completely stupid inference regarding what evidence I am basing that judgment on.

If I disagree and am wrong, you should be able to show via argument how I am wrong. But it you are not clever enough to understand the issue I pointed at (which isn't a fancy one, it's really quite simple) then you also aren't clever enough to take this book out into the world with any expectation of success. Which is how things have worked out for you so far.

I explained to you that even if moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is a tautology, it is not a useless one. If that's your comeback, we can't move forward because, according to you, he's wrong right off the bat. This is where you are wrong, and I am showing you where you are wrong.

His second argument was that although man's will is not free, according to his definition (which you won't accept) nothing can make him do to another what he makes up his mind not to do. He also proved this second premise by demonstrating that a person could die before telling his captors what they wanted to know, if he knew that his family would be instantly killed once they got their information.

You are vaguely referencing something. That is not the same as showing the premises that lead to the conclusion of the argument and demonstrate logical necessity. If you know what the premises are and how the show the truth of the conclusion to be necessary if the truth of the premises are, then please explain how that works. I saw no such thing in any of Lessan's writing and I see none in yours either.

He was making an important point because determinism implies that we are caused by antecedent events to do what we do. He was trying to show that this definition is flawed, which brings up the fact that although we move in the direction of greater satisfaction --- which is why our will is not free and is correctly defined --- the corollary that goes along with this is that nothing can make us do what we make up our mind not to do. This is important because it forms the two-sided equation, which IS THE CORE OF THE DISCOVERY. No one has thought through this, as far as I know, because of the flawed definition of determinism that keeps the resolution of this conflict between free will and determinism impossible.

If you disagree with this, then you definitely won't want to go any further. He also explained that using the phrase "I did this of my own free will" which means, "I did this because I wanted to," is perfectly fine to use in this colloquial sense, but it does not mean we actually have free will in the sense that we could have done otherwise, which the definition of free will suggests. Here is the definition that he offered.

Agree and disagree is neither here nor there. If I am wrong, then a well-constructed argument will show that to be the case.

I'm doing my best because you are wrong. I may not be able to convince you of that unfortunately.

The dictionary defines free will as the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty that enables one to choose 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?

.

Yeah, well that guy left school before he learned the difference between implication and inference.

Do you mean my father?

I would also suggest you might want to think about what definitions are for and what they do.

Then why did he write this if he wasn't aware of the importance of accurate definitions?

By a similar process of working our problem backwards, we can officially launch the Golden Age, which necessitates the removal of all forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so that each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants to do. Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide rule, which God has given us as a guide. By now, I hope you understand that the word “God” is a symbol for the source of everything that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil, using the word “God” only as a symbol for the former. Actually, no one gave me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the direction of satisfaction, and for me to be satisfied after reading Will Durant’s analysis of free will, it was necessary to disagree with what obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke. To say that God made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing as far as reality is concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun, regardless of how much I don’t know about this ball of fire, it does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and regardless of what words I employ to describe God does not change the fact that He is a reality.

You may ask, “But isn’t there quite a difference between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the description of the sun may be inaccurate, but I know it is part of the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing and say this is God; therefore, we must assume, because of certain things, that God is a reality, correct?”

We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a discovery was made that proved this assumption, and we also assumed or believed that there was a design to this universe based on the fact that the solar system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon, earth, planets, and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free and at the very moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration compels man to veer sharply in a new direction, although still towards greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as the solar system, only we never knew it because part of the harmony was this disharmony between man and man, which is now being permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God is good is a true observation, for nothing in this universe, when seen in total perspective, is evil since each individual must choose what is better for himself, even if that choice hurts another as a consequence.

At risk of going beyond your capabilities for no good reason, I can define a hat using a dictionary definition of hat as an article of clothing worn on the head and so on. If I then attach inferences to it such as keeping my head warm and looking dandyish, these might be attributes of most hats, but they are not part of the definition of a hat. So what do you need a definition of a hat for anyway? Is it to help you look at objects in the world and "this headwear is a hat, but that footwear is a sock not a hat" or is the point to just put a sock on your head and say "this is now my hat"?

You're preaching to the choir FlashDangerpants. He knew the difference between implication and inference.

Example One: We have been growing and developing just like a child from infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies hidden beyond this point?

Example Two: A great deal of confusion exists because it is assumed that if man does something to hurt another, he could always excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free.” This is another aspect of the implications that deterred philosophers from conducting a thorough investigation.

Example Three: Durant knew that free will was a theory, but as long as proof was not necessary when it could be seen with the direct perception of our common sense that it was impossible to turn the other cheek (the corollary thrown up by determinism), he was compelled to write, “Let the determinist honestly envisage the implications of his philosophy.” This indicates that all his reasoning in favor of free will was the result of inferences derived from his inability to accept the implications. Durant is anything but a scientist and an accurate thinker. Since it is absolutely impossible for free will to ever be proven true (I take for granted this is now understood), nothing in this universe can prove determinism an unreality (and in this context it shall only mean the opposite of free will, as death is the opposite of life) simply because this would automatically prove the truth of free will, which is an impossibility. Consequently, the belief in free will and all conceptions regarding it can only remain in existence as a plausible theory just as long as no undeniable evidence is produced in contravention. According to his reasoning, he assumes that free will is true because, in his mind, determinism is false, and the reason he thinks determinism is false is because man is not a machine. Then, not realizing how mathematically impossible his next statement is, he claims that philosophies of freedom (free will) eternally recur because reasoning and formulas cannot beat down the obvious truth of direct perception.

Take a look at that last statement very carefully and see if you can’t tell why it is mathematically impossible. If free will were finally proven to be that which is nonexistent (and let’s take for granted that you know this for a fact) and accepted as such by our scientific world at large, would it be possible, according to Durant’s statement, for “philosophies of freedom” to recur anymore? Isn’t it obvious that the recurrence of the belief in free will is a mathematical impossibility once freedom of the will is proven to be a figment of the imagination, or, to phrase it differently, a realistic mirage? Is it humanly possible for the belief that the world is flat to eternally recur when we have mathematical knowledge that it is round? Consequently, the continued return of the belief in free will can only be due to the fact that it is still a logical theory or plausible conception that has never been analyzed properly, allowing the belief and its philosophies to persist. But Durant states that philosophies of freedom eternally recur, not because of the explanation I just gave, an explanation that cannot be denied by anyone anywhere, even by this philosopher himself, provided it is understood, but because direct perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with reasoning. Isn’t it apparent that such words have no relation to reality whatsoever? If Durant believed direct perception was considered superior to reasoning, is it any wonder he was so confused and his reasoning so fallacious since the word “because,” which denotes the perception of a relation, whether true or false, indicates that he is criticizing reasoning while reasoning. This doesn’t stop a person from saying, “I believe.” “It is my opinion.” “I was taught that man’s will is free,” but it would certainly stop him from trying to defend his position with an argument.

Example Four: From a superficial observation, this is all very true, but the reasoning as to what actually happens after your death is an inference based upon your observations during your life. This reasoning complicates even more the difficulty of understanding this phenomenon. While you are alive, you know that many people die who never return. You also know that many babies are born who are in no way the people who died; therefore, since you, too, must die and the babies born are not the people who died, you cannot be one of the babies born after your death. Another way of saying the same thing is this: If you could remain alive for 200 years, not one of the babies born during that time could possibly be you, so if you had died after 80 years, why should one of the same babies born during the 120 years following your death be you when they were not you before? Can’t you see how easy it is for reasoning to prove that we are not born again? But, to reiterate, your reasoning as to what actually happens after your death is an inference based upon your observations during your life. When you die you cannot possibly have any more observations. In other words, your reasoning doesn’t reveal a deeper truth. Does matter itself reveal atomic energy? Do the individual planets, moon and sun reveal the solar system? Do individual people reveal the mankind system unless we observe certain undeniable laws? Does all of it together reveal the reality of God, unless certain mathematical relations are perceived? Certainly, your grandparents gave birth to your parents who gave birth to four children, but this tells us nothing about the deeper law which is necessary to perceive in order to understand why there is nothing to fear in death and why we will be born again and again and again. At one time man was afraid of thunder and lightning thinking it was the wrath of God, but now we don’t fear the thunder and try to protect ourselves as best we can against the lightning. Until man discovered the cause of an eclipse, which required knowledge of the solar system or to phrase it differently, knowledge of the laws that inhere in particular bodies in motion, he was afraid that something terrible was going to happen and it became an ominous sign that was blamed for whatever evil followed. Such is the reason it seems strange to be alive at this moment with all the millions of years behind you because you don’t understand the truth. When it is thoroughly explained the strangeness disappears, but I must proceed with undeniable relations in order to prove why there is nothing to fear in death.”

Fuck's sake. I can't be bothered fixing your failed efforts at quoting yet again. I can't take you seriously, you are clearly just stupid.

The book you are selling is bad, the arguments are awful, and you are not smart enough to understand any of the problems involved. End.

[peacegirl]

The premises did not add up to sufficient support for the conclusion. Just as you don't understand how to close a tag, I can't find a way to explain the problem with that argument for you. It's not difficult to show what the problem is, it is difficult to show it to you. There are questions about whether you are smart enough to get it. The truth is I genuinely don't think that you are.

You've pretty conclusively demonstrated that you are not very bright. It is not surprising that you've drawn a completely stupid inference regarding what evidence I am basing that judgment on.

If I disagree and am wrong, you should be able to show via argument how I am wrong. But it you are not clever enough to understand the issue I pointed at (which isn't a fancy one, it's really quite simple) then you also aren't clever enough to take this book out into the world with any expectation of success. Which is how things have worked out for you so far.

I explained to you that even if moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is a tautology, it is not a useless one. If that's your comeback, we can't move forward because, according to you, he's wrong right off the bat. This is where you are wrong, and I am showing you where you are wrong.

His second argument was that although man's will is not free, according to his definition (which you won't accept) nothing can make him do to another what he makes up his mind not to do. He also proved this second premise by demonstrating that a person could die before telling his captors what they wanted to know, if he knew that his family would be instantly killed once they got their information.

You are vaguely referencing something. That is not the same as showing the premises that lead to the conclusion of the argument and demonstrate logical necessity. If you know what the premises are and how the show the truth of the conclusion to be necessary if the truth of the premises are, then please explain how that works. I saw no such thing in any of Lessan's writing and I see none in yours either.

He was making an important point because determinism implies that we are caused by antecedent events to do what we do. He was trying to show that this definition is flawed, which brings up the fact that although we move in the direction of greater satisfaction --- which is why our will is not free and is correctly defined --- the corollary that goes along with this is that nothing can make us do what we make up our mind not to do. This is important because it forms the two-sided equation, which IS THE CORE OF THE DISCOVERY. No one has thought through this, as far as I know, because of the flawed definition of determinism that keeps the resolution of this conflict between free will and determinism impossible.

If you disagree with this, then you definitely won't want to go any further. He also explained that using the phrase "I did this of my own free will" which means, "I did this because I wanted to," is perfectly fine to use in this colloquial sense, but it does not mean we actually have free will in the sense that we could have done otherwise, which the definition of free will suggests. Here is the definition that he offered.

Agree and disagree is neither here nor there. If I am wrong, then a well-constructed argument will show that to be the case.

I'm doing my best because you are wrong. I may not be able to convince you of that unfortunately.

The dictionary defines free will as the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty that enables one to choose 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?

.

Yeah, well that guy left school before he learned the difference between implication and inference.

Do you mean my father?

I would also suggest you might want to think about what definitions are for and what they do.

Then why did he write this if he wasn't aware of the importance of accurate definitions?

By a similar process of working our problem backwards, we can officially launch the Golden Age, which necessitates the removal of all forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so that each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants to do. Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide rule, which God has given us as a guide. By now, I hope you understand that the word “God” is a symbol for the source of everything that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil, using the word “God” only as a symbol for the former. Actually, no one gave me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the direction of satisfaction, and for me to be satisfied after reading Will Durant’s analysis of free will, it was necessary to disagree with what obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke. To say that God made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing as far as reality is concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun, regardless of how much I don’t know about this ball of fire, it does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and regardless of what words I employ to describe God does not change the fact that He is a reality.

You may ask, “But isn’t there quite a difference between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the description of the sun may be inaccurate, but I know it is part of the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing and say this is God; therefore, we must assume, because of certain things, that God is a reality, correct?”

We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a discovery was made that proved this assumption, and we also assumed or believed that there was a design to this universe based on the fact that the solar system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon, earth, planets, and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free and at the very moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration compels man to veer sharply in a new direction, although still towards greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as the solar system, only we never knew it because part of the harmony was this disharmony between man and man, which is now being permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God is good is a true observation, for nothing in this universe, when seen in total perspective, is evil since each individual must choose what is better for himself, even if that choice hurts another as a consequence.

At risk of going beyond your capabilities for no good reason, I can define a hat using a dictionary definition of hat as an article of clothing worn on the head and so on. If I then attach inferences to it such as keeping my head warm and looking dandyish, these might be attributes of most hats, but they are not part of the definition of a hat. So what do you need a definition of a hat for anyway? Is it to help you look at objects in the world and "this headwear is a hat, but that footwear is a sock not a hat" or is the point to just put a sock on your head and say "this is now my hat"?

You're preaching to the choir FlashDangerpants. He knew the difference between implication and inference.

Example One: We have been growing and developing just like a child from infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies hidden beyond this point?

Example Two: A great deal of confusion exists because it is assumed that if man does something to hurt another, he could always excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free.” This is another aspect of the implications that deterred philosophers from conducting a thorough investigation.

Example Three: Durant knew that free will was a theory, but as long as proof was not necessary when it could be seen with the direct perception of our common sense that it was impossible to turn the other cheek (the corollary thrown up by determinism), he was compelled to write, “Let the determinist honestly envisage the implications of his philosophy.” This indicates that all his reasoning in favor of free will was the result of inferences derived from his inability to accept the implications. Durant is anything but a scientist and an accurate thinker. Since it is absolutely impossible for free will to ever be proven true (I take for granted this is now understood), nothing in this universe can prove determinism an unreality (and in this context it shall only mean the opposite of free will, as death is the opposite of life) simply because this would automatically prove the truth of free will, which is an impossibility. Consequently, the belief in free will and all conceptions regarding it can only remain in existence as a plausible theory just as long as no undeniable evidence is produced in contravention. According to his reasoning, he assumes that free will is true because, in his mind, determinism is false, and the reason he thinks determinism is false is because man is not a machine. Then, not realizing how mathematically impossible his next statement is, he claims that philosophies of freedom (free will) eternally recur because reasoning and formulas cannot beat down the obvious truth of direct perception.

Take a look at that last statement very carefully and see if you can’t tell why it is mathematically impossible. If free will were finally proven to be that which is nonexistent (and let’s take for granted that you know this for a fact) and accepted as such by our scientific world at large, would it be possible, according to Durant’s statement, for “philosophies of freedom” to recur anymore? Isn’t it obvious that the recurrence of the belief in free will is a mathematical impossibility once freedom of the will is proven to be a figment of the imagination, or, to phrase it differently, a realistic mirage? Is it humanly possible for the belief that the world is flat to eternally recur when we have mathematical knowledge that it is round? Consequently, the continued return of the belief in free will can only be due to the fact that it is still a logical theory or plausible conception that has never been analyzed properly, allowing the belief and its philosophies to persist. But Durant states that philosophies of freedom eternally recur, not because of the explanation I just gave, an explanation that cannot be denied by anyone anywhere, even by this philosopher himself, provided it is understood, but because direct perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with reasoning. Isn’t it apparent that such words have no relation to reality whatsoever? If Durant believed direct perception was considered superior to reasoning, is it any wonder he was so confused and his reasoning so fallacious since the word “because,” which denotes the perception of a relation, whether true or false, indicates that he is criticizing reasoning while reasoning. This doesn’t stop a person from saying, “I believe.” “It is my opinion.” “I was taught that man’s will is free,” but it would certainly stop him from trying to defend his position with an argument.

Example Four: From a superficial observation, this is all very true, but the reasoning as to what actually happens after your death is an inference based upon your observations during your life. This reasoning complicates even more the difficulty of understanding this phenomenon. While you are alive, you know that many people die who never return. You also know that many babies are born who are in no way the people who died; therefore, since you, too, must die and the babies born are not the people who died, you cannot be one of the babies born after your death. Another way of saying the same thing is this: If you could remain alive for 200 years, not one of the babies born during that time could possibly be you, so if you had died after 80 years, why should one of the same babies born during the 120 years following your death be you when they were not you before? Can’t you see how easy it is for reasoning to prove that we are not born again? But, to reiterate, your reasoning as to what actually happens after your death is an inference based upon your observations during your life. When you die you cannot possibly have any more observations. In other words, your reasoning doesn’t reveal a deeper truth. Does matter itself reveal atomic energy? Do the individual planets, moon and sun reveal the solar system? Do individual people reveal the mankind system unless we observe certain undeniable laws? Does all of it together reveal the reality of God, unless certain mathematical relations are perceived? Certainly, your grandparents gave birth to your parents who gave birth to four children, but this tells us nothing about the deeper law which is necessary to perceive in order to understand why there is nothing to fear in death and why we will be born again and again and again. At one time man was afraid of thunder and lightning thinking it was the wrath of God, but now we don’t fear the thunder and try to protect ourselves as best we can against the lightning. Until man discovered the cause of an eclipse, which required knowledge of the solar system or to phrase it differently, knowledge of the laws that inhere in particular bodies in motion, he was afraid that something terrible was going to happen and it became an ominous sign that was blamed for whatever evil followed. Such is the reason it seems strange to be alive at this moment with all the millions of years behind you because you don’t understand the truth. When it is thoroughly explained the strangeness disappears, but I must proceed with undeniable relations in order to prove why there is nothing to fear in death.”

Fuck's sake. I can't be bothered fixing your failed efforts at quoting yet again. I can't take you seriously, you are clearly just stupid.

The book you are selling is bad, the arguments are awful, and you are not smart enough to understand any of the problems involved. End.

Why am I not surprised by your response? You have given no refutation other than the tautology joke. All you keep saying is it's a bad argument without showing one iota where, other than repeating that he didn't have an argument. I gave you his reasoning, and you threw it out like a piece of trash. Unfortunately, you'll never know how this knowledge plays out because you wouldn't let me move ahead. In your mind, he was wrong from his very first claim that man's will is not free. I didn't have a chance. I'm not interested in discussing this book with you or Atla anymore. You should move on to another thread that offers you greater satisfaction!

[FlashDangerpants]

Why am I not surprised by your response? You have given no refutation other than the tautology joke.

The tautology thing is not a joke, it is a very real problem demonstrating that your argument does nothing, and it also invalidates your claimed "proof" that people would be able to act against their own wishes if they were free. You may not be able to understand it, but it's not difficult to get, so the problem is you.

All you keep saying is it's a bad argument without showing one iota where, other than repeating that he didn't have an argument.

He didn't have an argument. Then you told me it wasn't an argument. Then you insisted it was an argument. But you cannot describe any actual argument that is present. Specifically you cannot show how the premises relate to the conclusion. The text contains nothing resembling a valid argument for any claim at all in the first three chapters. Once more you don't understand the siginificance of anything. This, again, is a you problem.

I gave you his reasoning, and you threw it out like a piece of trash.

You are not able to describe any argument he has presented and show how the premises relate to the conclusion. If you can't do that, you are no good. You must not understand the book yourself if you are not able to tell me how the reasoning actually works. Which you have not. All you have done is paste the text repeatedly without addressing any of the concerns it raises excpet by continuously re-pasting the same garbage.

If this book were any good, it would still be doomed because the only person who has read it properly is you, and you are shit. If you weren't shit, and you did understand this book better than anyone else, you would provide exegesis to assist those of us who need assistance to get it. You offer nothing of the sort and you make suspiciously little effort to do so. You are just trying get some rent from an inheritance, nothing more.

Unfortunately, you'll never know how this knowledge plays out because you wouldn't let me move ahead. In your mind, he was wrong from his very first claim that man's will is not free. I didn't have a chance.

I was perfectly happy for you to move onto the second and third "discoveries". You refuse to do so because you are here on a sales mission. Don't blame me for your unwillingness to explain those other discoveries. The cause of your failure to move ahead is your greed.

I'm not interested in discussing this book with you or Atla anymore. You should move on to another thread that offers you greater satisfaction!

How many times have you threatened to cut communications? You can't even get that right.

Me and Atla were already here. We will comment on any thread we feel like. It is public. Go run your own private forum if you want to choose who writes there. Or just leave, go haunt some other site to get your sales. Nobody here is buying, Atla and I are the only ones who read any of your book, and we think it's utter shit.

Anybody who is taking you seriously didn't read the bit about the dragon and the invisible key. If you manage to browbeat Belinda into reading that far, she is just going to laugh at you too.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. And by make distinctions we necessitates an observer effect where the act of attention is an acausal cause, ie a point of awareness, quite literally a point, where the potential unfolds into the actual.

OKAY. SO WHERE DOES THIS ACAUSAL CAUSE REFUTE "GREATER SATISFACTION?" IT ACTUALLY SUPPORTS IT.

2. You cannot say determinism is not correct if the definition is not correct because a determinism without definition is no determinism at all for determinism at its root is purely definition by cause and effect.

IT IS NOT CAUSE AND EFFECT IN THE TYPICAL WAY WE THINK ABOUT A POOL BALL HITTING ANOTHER ONE AND GOING INTO THE POCKET. THAT IS CAUSE AND EFFECT. BUT HUMAN DECISION MAKING DOES NOT WORK IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. DETERMINISM, THE WAY ITS PRESENTLY DEFINED, SAYS: WE ARE CAUSED BY ANTECEDENT EVENTS TO DO WHAT WE DO. BUT HERE IS THE CONFUSION: NOTHING FROM THE PAST CAN CAUSE THE PRESENT. THIS IS PROBLEMATIC AND HAS CREATED GREAT CONFUSION. HOW CAN THE PAST CAUSE ANYTHING WHEN THE PAST DOES NOT EXIST EXCEPT AS A MEMORY? THIS IS WHERE HE TWEAKED THE DEFINITION TO MAKE IT MORE ACCURATE.

3. Apparently they, the Buddhists, are not completely satisfied if they are always trying to minimalize them. To be more accurate, Buddhist try to erase desire, hindus and taoists try to minimalize. The distinction is not necessary though in this context, it's more a a fun distinction of nuances in practices.

YOU'RE RIGHT THAT REGARDLESS OF BECOMING MORE AND MORE ASCETIC, AND REGARDLESS OF THE MOTIVATIONS TO HAVE FUN WITH NUANCES OR NOT, EVERYONE, INCLUDING BUDDHISTS ARE MOVING IN THE DIRECTION THAT GIVES THEM GREATER SATISFACTION.

4. Determinism is karma for both are cause and effect. Punishment is self-inflicted, but inevitable and by being inevitable is necessary for free will to occur. Without effects people cannot make choices of sacrifice, either to light or dark.

I THINK YOU'RE REVERSING PUNISHMENT, BEING INEVITABLE AND NECESSARY FOR FREE WILL TO OCCUR, RATHER THAN FREE WILL BEING NECESSARY FOR PUNISHMENT TO OCCUR.

I hate to break it to you, and what I am about to say not only appears dark but is actually very dark, but the truth is some people want hell. Some people love the darkness, the pain, the fear, the madness of existence. If you don't believe me then you can look at the thread for a cheap vantage point of the scenario...or you can just look at existence itself and the experience of it.

I THINK SOME PEOPLE MAY LOVE DARKNESS AND WANT TO SPREAD IT IN ANY WAY THEY CAN BECAUSE THEY HATE THE WORLD AND WANT TO TAKE IT OUT ON EVERYONE. BUT THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT INHERENTLY EVIL. THEY HAVE JUST LOST THEIR WAY BASED ON THEIR LIFE EXPERIENCES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR GENETIC PREDISPOSITIONS.

The reality is "things just are"...for better...or for worse
... or for both... or for neither.

THAT SOUNDS FATALISTIC. i SAY: THINGS JUST ARE UNTIL THEY AREN'T.

1. Real simple...if satisfaction can always be greater than it is never enough thus what is greater satisfaction in one context is always less than the future. Effectively now is never enough.

2. Real simple: The past always exists as the pattern by which we filter "now".

3. See point 1. Dually if everyone is naturally moving towards greater satisfaction than naturally the book is not necessary.

4. Punishment is an interpretation, a context. I have seen people view punishments as no punishment at all, and others a simple little necessary job as punishment.

There are only effects of a cause as further cause, we know this as the natural act of distinction.

5. I am not saying they are evil. I said they love darkness/pain/fear/madness.

Objectively, people are just centerpoints from which distinctions unfold.

6. Your interpretation "just is"....one of innumerable that occur and then dissolve.

[Atla]

Write a short conversation where Saymur demonstrates to a very sycophantic Bob that the Earth is flat.

Saymur: [unfurling a large, flat map] Look here, Bob. See how the continents are laid out? No curve. That’s because the Earth is flat.

Bob: Wow, Saymur, that’s incredible. I never noticed that before. You’re so observant!

Saymur: [smugly] Of course. And when you look at the ocean horizon, it’s perfectly level. No curve. None.

Bob: Totally level. Like a tabletop! Genius observation, Saymur.

Saymur: Planes don’t dip their noses to follow a curve, either. They just fly straight. Why? Because it’s flat.

Bob: Oh my gosh, you’re right! Straight flight = flat Earth. Brilliant!

Saymur: And Antarctica? Not a continent. A giant ice wall surrounding everything. Keeps the oceans in.

Bob: An ice wall! That’s so… majestic. You’ve solved the whole mystery, Saymur.

Saymur: People don’t question it because they’ve been taught the globe model since childhood.

Bob: Exactly! We’re all just sheeple. But not me—no, you’ve opened my eyes.

Saymur: Stick with me, Bob. You’ll see the truth.

Bob: I already do, Saymur. You’re basically the Galileo of our time.

I'm not ready to accept that some people who otherwise don't look that terribly dumb could honestly call the above chit-chat "demonstration" a mathematical, undeniable, scientific proof. Even peacegirl and her father aren't that stupid.. right? That would be Age-level stupidity but Age is like mentally retarded.

[Walker]

Objectively, there can be only one … Commander in Chief, although some try to captain other ships.

[Walker]

What do you mean by "garbage men", "sanitation workers, for dignity"?

Would they be an exception to the rule of always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction?

What?

'They', just like 'you', are doing what it takes to obtain 'more money', because, just like 'you', they Faslely believe, absolutely, that having 'more money' will provide 'more and/or greater satisfaction'.

Therefore we can say that garbage men, and everyone else, are doing what they have to do, whether or not what they must do is always to move towards greater satisfaction. The proof of necessity is the doing, but doing isn't the proof of satisfaction.

Why else would anyone wake up in the morning for an unsatisfying day of lugging garbage, unless they had to? And why would anyone choose to do that, unless they had no other choice (which is no choice at all).

(continued)
Folks dream of luxuries which is why capitalism correlates with human nature. Dreams are the mother of invention and invention is the mother of necessity. The success of Starbuck’s is, everyone deserves a little luxury.

Socialism says everyone deserves the necessities. Gee, way to dream big, socialism.

[Walker]

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.

Saying sorry is also a popular passive-aggressive technique.