New Discovery

[peacegirl]

YOU ARE RUINING IT FOR OTHERS BECAUSE THEY TRUST YOUR JUDGMENT

No they don't. I am not at all influential.

BUT YOUR JUDGMENT IS FUCKED UP.

No it isn't. Everybody is vastly smarter than you, myself included. In my case I have domain knowledge regarding philosophy that you lack. These are just two among the many reasons why my judgment is superior to yours, and they don't make me unusual in that regard. Anybody with a decent education (philosophy optional), a basic grasp of elementary reasoning, and the ability to read a paragraph without forgetting the beginning of it before reaching the end is out of your league.

The problem is that you think that you can argue and be right because your knowledge gives you that. But in this case, YOU ARE ALL WASHED UP. It doesn't fly and you are ruining it for others who look up to you.

FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND THIS KNOWLDDGE, THEY WILL HAVE TO STAND UP FOR THEIR OWN ABILITY TO SEE BEYOND YOUR NAME CALLING.

Sure, but you have to persuade them to want to read your work for that to even begin to happen, and in case you haven't noticed, you aren't doing very well at your end of that task. You've had no more success with what you are doing here anywhere else either. You can't blame me for wherever those failures occurred. You haven't enough smarts to think about what you are getting wrong though.

This is so hard for me because you are myopic. More than that, you are doing the very thing you don't like by claiming that I must be wrong because it hasn't worked before. This is pure nonsense.

Richard Milton knew what he was talking about:

The taboo reaction in science takes many distinct forms. At its simplest and most direct, tabooism is manifested as derision and rejection by scientists (and non-scientists) of those new discoveries that cannot be fitted into the existing framework of knowledge. The reaction is not merely a negative dismissal or refusal to believe; it is strong enough to cause positive actions to be taken by leading skeptics to compel a more widespread adoption in the community of the rejection and disbelief, the shipping up of opposition, and the putting down of anyone unwise enough to step out of line by publicly embracing taboo ideas. The taboo reaction in such simple cases is eventually dispelled because the facts — and the value of the discoveries concerned — prove to be stronger than the taboo belief; but there remains the worrying possibility that many such taboos prove stronger (or more valuable) than the discoveries to which they are applied. In its more subtle form, the taboo reaction draws a circle around a subject and places it ‘out of bounds’ to any form of rational analysis or investigation. In doing so, science often puts up what appears to be a well-considered, fundamental objection, which on closer analysis turns out to be no more than the unreflecting prejudices of a maiden aunt who feels uncomfortable with the idea of mixed bathing. The penalty associated with this form of tabooism is that whole areas of scientific investigation, some of which may well hold important discoveries, remain permanently fenced off and any benefits they may contain are denied us. Subtler still is the taboo whereby scientists in certain fields erect a general prohibition against speaking or writing on the subjects which they consider their own property and where any reference, especially by an outsider, will draw a rapid hostile response. Sometimes, scientists who declare a taboo will insist that only they are qualified to discuss and reach conclusions on the matters that they have made their own property; that only they are privy to the immense body of knowledge and subtlety of argument necessary fully to understand the complexities of the subject and to reach the ‘right’ conclusion. Outsiders, on the other hand, (especially non-scientists) are ill-informed, unable to think rationally or analytically, prone to mystical or crank ideas and are not privy to subtleties of analysis and inflections of argument that insiders have devoted long painful years to acquiring. Once again, the cost of such tabooism is measured in lost opportunities for discovery.

But you are right. Anybody who wants to have an insight into the quality of your offering but who doesn't want to read insane gibberish about a dragon with an invisible key for a door of knowledge should really look beyond the fact that I consider you a window licking loon and attempt to discern why that is.

Assuming they don't want to read 160 pages of stultifying, pretentious and self-congratulatory prose via the link you have provided just now, they would do well to check out what I have written about why the tautological underpinnings of the first discovery renders it a non-discovery. Why that same tautology invalidates the backup argument that in a case of free will the tautology would stop applying. That should be enough. Philosophically there is nothing really to see here.

I don't really care about your respect. I think your dad was a con artist and you are his substandard chiselling lackey. I might respect the hustle if there was some art to it, but in present form I don't even respect you that much.

You are a fraud FlashDangerpants. You don't know what you don't know (i.e., a tautology), which this knowledge is not BTW. I will continue to share whatever I want to with or without your understanding or lack thereof. You don't own this forum.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't care.

[peacegirl]

I don't care.

Good.

[Belinda]

YOU ARE RUINING IT FOR OTHERS BECAUSE THEY TRUST YOUR JUDGMENT

No they don't. I am not at all influential.

BUT YOUR JUDGMENT IS FUCKED UP.

No it isn't. Everybody is vastly smarter than you, myself included. In my case I have domain knowledge regarding philosophy that you lack. These are just two among the many reasons why my judgment is superior to yours, and they don't make me unusual in that regard. Anybody with a decent education (philosophy optional), a basic grasp of elementary reasoning, and the ability to read a paragraph without forgetting the beginning of it before reaching the end is out of your league.

The problem is that you think that you can argue and be right because your knowledge gives you that. But in this case, YOU ARE ALL WASHED UP. It doesn't fly and you are ruining it for others who look up to you.


Sure, but you have to persuade them to want to read your work for that to even begin to happen, and in case you haven't noticed, you aren't doing very well at your end of that task. You've had no more success with what you are doing here anywhere else either. You can't blame me for wherever those failures occurred. You haven't enough smarts to think about what you are getting wrong though.

But FlashDP is not objecting to any taboo but to plain old pseudoscience.

[Atla]

Someone asked for a 50 words version:

First discovery: by divine law, everyone always does what they think is most satisfying to them. If we build an utopistic environment and completely stop blaming people, literally all crime will vanish (Golden Age).

Second discovery: we see everything in real-time, Einstein sucks.

Third discovery: there is something after death.

Are you kidding me Atla? I would never share anything with you after the garbage you have spread. I don't know who is worse, you are Flash. You're both out in left field.

I guess I would try to hide the second discovery behind a paywall too, it's even weaker than the first one. Bad for sales.

[peacegirl]

No they don't. I am not at all influential.


No it isn't. Everybody is vastly smarter than you, myself included. In my case I have domain knowledge regarding philosophy that you lack. These are just two among the many reasons why my judgment is superior to yours, and they don't make me unusual in that regard. Anybody with a decent education (philosophy optional), a basic grasp of elementary reasoning, and the ability to read a paragraph without forgetting the beginning of it before reaching the end is out of your league.


But FlashDP is not objecting to any taboo but to plain old pseudoscience.

No he isn't Belinda. He thinks he is. This whole debacle started because FD immediately said that the author was wrong regarding "greater satisfaction" since it's a tautology and that it is meaningless. I don't even think moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is a tautology at all. He also disregarded the author's clarification of determinism that stated the past does cause the present IF ALL WE HAVE IS THE PRESENT. We use what we remember and make our decisions based on this information, which then guide us as to what choice is the most preferable. This change in definition is nuanced, but it is important because in so doing it keeps responsibility intact. The free will/determinism debate has gone on for centuries and, if resolved, could open the door to a beautiful new world if people would just be patient before throwing it away. No one here cares to go any further because FD and others did not give their stamp of approval. Most philosophers read books and then carefully analyze them. This author never had the chance for his book to be carefully read and analyzed, which to some means that it has no value worth pursuing. I know that it's rare for someone to start a thread called New Discovery, which automatically causes everyone's guard to go up. Still, my hope was that people would at least give him the benefit of the doubt, which they unfortunately did not. I have said all along that he demonstrated his proof in a step-by-step manner. It was not set up as an argument. Maybe this man did not go to school and take up philosophy, but he was a serious philosopher in his own right. My question to you Belinda: Why would you say the book is unsalable when you haven't read any of it? Are you ganging up on me too? I have been bullied to the point that it really hurts. To think that I'm doing this for money is truly sickening.

[FlashDangerpants]

She's still too thick to understand the tautology problem, she doesn't even have the faintest idea what aspect her argument it is a problem for after very many patient explanations. She doesn't understand what arguments are for; what they establish; or that there are types of argument and you need to know which you are even using if you hope to succeed. All she has going for her is a near infinite capacity for feeling hard done by.

There is no hope for peacegirl. She is the sad and pathetic victim of her own life.

[Atla]

By the way, exposing a family of dumb charlatans and dissuading them from trying to influence more idiots in the future, increases the likelihood of a future Golden Age from say 5% to 5.000000001%. FDP and I made the world a better place.

[FlashDangerpants]

We fight evil. Make a movie about us.

[peacegirl]

Even if "greater satisfaction" is tautological because whatever we choose is true by definition doesn't make it meaningless, especially when it can be demonstrated that our desire or motivation that drives what we choose can be altered dramatically... and for the better. Nature and nurture both have an impact on how we interact in the real world. We can't easily change our genetics or our predispositions. Nurture, on the other hand, has a huge influence on our individual preferences, and it is these preferences that can be altered in an amazing way, especially when the choices that we make in the direction of greater satisfaction no longer include exploiting or hurting others for our gain. So to say it’s useless is categorically false! Steve Patterson expresses it this way when he writes:

Just because something is necessarily true doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant or worthy of dismissal. And it certainly doesn’t mean you know the conclusion beforehand.

Being necessarily true is a poor reason to dismiss an idea as trivial or redundant.

Trivial. Redundant. Dogmatic. Useless. That’s what people really mean when they say, “Oh, your argument is just a tautology.” Indeed, one of the quickest ways to dismiss an idea is to label it “tautological” and, therefore, empty of content.

The standard philosophic position goes like this, “Tautologies are merely true by definition and cannot teach us anything about the world.

[FlashDangerpants]

Still completely failing to get the point. Still completely oblivious to the fact that counterarguments counter arguments not conclusions. Still adrift with no clue.

I wrote a nice clear explanation for thinkofone of the issue here on page 52 of this now 78 page waste of effort.
viewtopic.php?p=788318

But by the time I wrote that, I had long since written peacegirl off as incapable of handling even this entry level discussion. Nothing is likely to change because her powers of reading and comprehension are far too weak.

[peacegirl]

Still completely failing to get the point. Still completely oblivious to the fact that counterarguments counter arguments not conclusions. Still adrift with no clue.

I wrote a nice clear explanation for thinkofone of the issue here on page 52 of this now 78 page waste of effort.
viewtopic.php?p=788318

But by the time I wrote that, I had long since written peacegirl off as incapable of handling even this entry level discussion. Nothing is likely to change because her powers of reading and comprehension are far too weak.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 8:28 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 8:24 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 8:00 pm


Your father's work was sufficiently refuted in this thread, and it already received more attention than it deserves. Deal with it.
Absolutely not Atla. You can't even tell me what his discovery is. Other than FlashDangerpants positing that he must be wrong because his proof of determinism is a tautology, this ended any further discussion because, in his mind, everything else that follows must be false. This is poor reasoning even if it came from King Flashdangerpants himself.
I refuted all 3 of his discoveries easily. You already forgot this because you're senile and also have a total lack of intellect so have no chance of understanding the refutations.

I don't know what FDP meant by a tautology, I didn't see any, but I like how obsessed you became with him.
I don't know what FDP meant by a tautology, I didn't see any

From what I gather, people ALWAYS choose what is most satisfactory to themselves - therefore it is a tautology (see below).

From Merriam-Webster:
tautology
noun
2) logic : a statement that is true by virtue of its logical form alone

Let's take a specific example: A multiple choice test says to choose the best answer. The individual then CHOOSEs what they think is the best answer. To say that the individual had no choice but to choose what they think is the best answer, whereby demonstrating that their answer was determined is absurd. The individual DETERMINED the best answer and CHOSE based on their own determination.

======================================

PEACEGIRL: Nobody is saying that the individual had no choice. Obviously, he had a choice, which is the whole point of contemplation, but once his choice was made, HE COULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN OTHERWISE. That doesn't mean beforehand, he couldn't have picked a different choice. Once again, the whole point going over options is part of the decision-making process. He may not have known what the best choice was in this instance, therefore he may have decided to close his eyes and put his pen on one of the answers, or said eenie meanie miney mo, which would also have been in the direction of greater satisfaction. Determinism, the correct way this author defines it, does not mean we are being externally forced, as part of a chain reaction, to do what we do as if we are dominoes with no say. We always have a say. Of course it doesn't make sense because Thinkofone was using the conventional definition, which removes our agency and therefore doesn't allow for our own determination. It's no surprise he was confused. This is a false dichotomy, which the author was trying to correct. This problem is with definition only, not with determinism.

[FlashDangerpants]

Next post down you idiot

[peacegirl]

Next post down you idiot

You make me sick.

[FlashDangerpants]

Next post down you idiot

You make me sick.

I told you that I had written a post explaining a thing and I gave you a link to the page its on and you went and quoted a post that isn't written by me and tried to argue against that. Why not just use the post I wrote instead?

You are spectacularly stupid.