New Discovery

[Atla]

Ok this is getting relly boring now. Please continue to indulge your masochism.

[Belinda]

FlashDangerpants: Sort of. Peacegirl's theory attempts to do two things at once in a clumsy manoeuvre to "prove" determinism. On the one hand it tries to discover that there is some sort of "direction of life" (don't overthink that, it is misleading) which forces us to choose that which brings us greatest satisfaction. And then she offers as a proof that this is true her test - seen once more in the most recent of her postings - "If will was free, we could choose what gives us less satisfaction when something offering us greater satisfaction was available".

PEACEGIRL: There IS absolute direction in life and it's called GREATER SATISFACTION.

FD: Ranged against that, I pointed out that the usual assumption in all the works of philosophy out there is the common-sense view of human psychology. Normally I would refer to it as BDM (belief desire motivation), but I opted to provide a quote from Simon Blackburn, who calls it the API (a priori principle of interpretation) but it's exactly the same thing, namely folk-psychology:
Simon Blackburn - Ruling Passions wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 4:19 pm
"It is a 'constitutive' rule, or a principle that governs the very essence of mental states. It is not open to empirical rebuttal: it is a tautology, or principle that defines its subject-matter. Writing in a form on which we can focus, we have an a priori principle of interpretation (API):
(API) It is analytic that creatures with beliefs, desires and other states of mind, behave in ways that (best) make sense (and not in ways that make no sense) given those states of mind.

The idea behind calling this a constitutive rule is that it tells us what it is to have beliefs and other states of mind. According to API, then, it is analytic that creatures conform to the normative order. A creature which appears not to do so is either a creature that we have misinterpreted, or a creature that has no mental states, but merely exhibits movements."

PEACEGIRL: But this does not only apply to humans. Every creature moves in a particular direction, which is life. Animals don't think the way humans do where their beliefs, desires, and motivations are based on thought. They act on instinct. Therefore, moving away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction is not just a constitutive rule. It goes beyond being a rule. It is a NATURAL LAW.

FD: If it is analytic and known in advance that we will be required to interpret the choices made by any thinking being as the result of their motivations to act based on their desires, and beliefs about what will fulfil best their desires.... it is redundant to discover that. It is a tautology already true by definition that we are going to make the actions fit the rule. If Atla lends money against his own better judgment to somebody he doesn't really want to lend money to, we're actually going to probably say that in the moment he evaluated the situation one way and that in a later moment he re-evaluated with regret. If not that, then we will say something else to bridge the gap. All else fails, his actions were caused by some sort of mild brain fart.

PEACEGIRL: You can call it a rule if you want. Lessans used the term "greater satisfaction" because this is something we do every single second, not just when making decisions. We don't have to be thinking about choosing one thing over another. We just move off of the spot we are on, which becomes dissatisfying, or we would never move. This push to move is life.

FD: So the big important principle that everything is supposed to hang off of is worthless if it only applies to all rational thinking beings, as in our case it is already analytic and a priori unless one is specifically dismissing folk-psychology, which is something many hard determinists would do, but not peacegirl. The talk of "direction of life" leads one to suppose my criticism there is bunk because she is surely applying this principle to all life, including non-thinking and non-rational life... but I asked that and she says no, it's just about humans. So that's really the end of the greatest satisfaction thing, it adds nothing at all to the already obvious tautology.

PEACEGIRL: This has nothing to do with rational beings. An irrational being may not be able to think things through with clarity, but this doesn't change THE DIRECTION. He may move toward doing something stupid because he thinks he can fly, but he is not disobeying this natural law if he then decides to jump off a building. He would be basing his decision on a false belief which is motivating him to do something that could kill him, but he would still be moving in the direction of greater satisfaction.

FD: This also undermines her "proof" or "test" or whatever it is: "If will was free, we could choose what gives us less satisfaction when something offering us greater satisfaction was available". If it is a priori that we can't then no, that proof is garbage, the test is broken. Free will is completely compatible with all our actions being guided by our best understanding of our desires at the given moment and what3ever we choose to do will be automatically interpreted as the cumulative result of our preferences... duh.

PEACEGIRL: Being guided by our preferences doesn't give us the free will to choose otherwise. That IS the definition of free will and it's nonexistent.

FD: But I don't find peacegirl really capable of this conversation. It was an interesting exercise to see if we could make progress, but it was predictable that we couldn't.

PEACEGIRL: Bull.

Greater satisfaction( see Peacegirl, above) is obtained from progressing along a given trajectory and also from choosing alternative trajectories. All choices are caused by causal chains through time, present causal circumstances, and nomic connections. Therefore it is not the case there is "absolute direction in life".

There isn't a predictable "absolute direction in life" because there are too many variables to ever know how each person will react in his particular life circumstances, but what can be predicted is the removal of the desire to hurt another. That is the discovery's only claim. You are incorrect when you say that choosing among alternative trajectories can, in actuality, produce those other alternative trajectories.

To remove the desire to hurt one another, would be a great start. However sometimes a man hurts another, perhaps someone he loves, when all he wanted was to be to be helpful.

By somebody's " trajectory" , I meant the direction his behaviour is taking.

Peacegirl wrote:
"There isn't a predictable "absolute direction in life" because there are too many variables to ever know how each person will react in his particular life circumstances, but what can be predicted is the removal of the desire to hurt another."

Yes, that is correct , one variable is that Jack will choose one direction in life and Joe will choose a different direction in life. However Peacegirl, within the same post, also wrote: "There IS absolute direction in life and it's called GREATER SATISFACTION. "

You contradict yourself. Either there is absolute direction in life, or there isn't absolute direction in life. Probability does not apply when absolutes are concerned.

Definition of 'absolute':- viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
"absolute moral standards".

Greater satisfaction is the main motivation for animals' choices. In the case of developed central nervous systems like ours' motivation is a root cause of action. Motivation is the main cause of human action but cause of action --motivation---is not the same as direction in life, i.e. action. The causation of an event is not the event itself.


True, if the whole of the causes of an event E were known then event E would be predictable. But not Lessans nor anyone else can possibly possess such Godlike omniscience.

[peacegirl]

No one cares about your pathetic lies, peacegirl. Your law is unprovable with today's technology. And many criminals have little to no conscience at all.

I told you that hardened criminals that are mentally ill will stay institutionalized if the authorities feel the risk is too great, but you are assuming that criminals who are out in society, will take advantage of this law to get away with whatever they want. This is not true. It’s the opposite. This natural law (God’s law, not mine) is much more powerful than the manmade laws that threaten punishment. This law does not condone “wrongdoing,” it prevents it.

How is it that in your say 70 years you've never met people before? Like at least a third of humanity has shitty conscience. Including you. What kind of idiot thinks that utopia will be enough to fix that?

The Golden Age of man is a time when peace and brotherhood between man and man will become a reality, because the causes that drove hatred, retaliation, and greed, will no longer be. I know it's hard to picture this kind of world, and I realize why people are distrustful, but don't let this frame of mind prevent you from being hopeful that this knowledge can do what it claims it can. I understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which I believe he provided.

[peacegirl]

Ok this is getting relly boring now. Please continue to indulge your masochism.

Where am I being masochistic? Do you think I'm enjoying this lengthy thread that has gotten nowhere? This is really hard for me, but if I feel there is the slightest possibility that some people will eventually get it, it will be worth it in the end. I am letting you know that I am not deriving pleasure from being called names, being criticized, and being laughed at. It's the price I am paying for now in the hope that something good will come out of this.

[peacegirl]

Greater satisfaction( see Peacegirl, above) is obtained from progressing along a given trajectory and also from choosing alternative trajectories. All choices are caused by causal chains through time, present causal circumstances, and nomic connections. Therefore it is not the case there is "absolute direction in life".

There isn't a predictable "absolute direction in life" because there are too many variables to ever know how each person will react to his particular life circumstances, but what can be predicted is the removal of the desire to hurt another. That is the discovery's only claim. You are incorrect when you say that choosing among alternative trajectories can, in actuality, produce those other alternative trajectories.

To remove the desire to hurt one another, would be a great start. However sometimes a man hurts another, perhaps someone he loves, when all he wanted was to be to be helpful.

By somebody's " trajectory" , I meant the direction his behaviour is taking.

In this world, we do what we can to help our loved ones, especially if we are concerned about their safety. I don't consider this a true hurt, just annoying, especially when our help is unappreciated. But when all hurt is removed from the environment (and it's hard to imagine the many changes that will be taking place), what danger will there be to be concerned about? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. If you want, give me an example.

Peacegirl wrote:
"There isn't a predictable "absolute direction in life" because there are too many variables to ever know how each person will react in his particular life circumstances, but what can be predicted is the removal of the desire to harm another.

BELINDA: Yes, that is correct , one variable is that Jack will choose one direction in life and Joe will choose a different direction in life. However Peacegirl, within the same post, also wrote: "There IS absolute direction in life and it's called GREATER SATISFACTION. "

PEACEGIRL: There is no contradiction. The operative phrase here is "absolute direction in life", which is applicable to everyone. We all move in the direction of greater satisfaction, but each life has different circumstances that affect choice and therefore their life's trajectory.

BELINDA: You contradict yourself. Either there is absolute direction in life, or there isn't absolute direction in life. Probability does not apply when absolutes are concerned.

PEACEGIRL: We are not talking about probabilities here. When I say absolute direction, it is synonymous with "greater satisfaction." Maybe that will help.

BELINDA: Definition of 'absolute':- viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative."absolute moral standards".

PEACEGIRL: A world where government and religious institutions are no longer needed may be difficult to imagine unless you understand the reasons why; otherwise you will be in disbelief.

There is no mathematical standard as to what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of others, and once this is removed, once it becomes impossible to desire hurting another human being, then there will be no need for all those schools, religious or otherwise, that have been teaching us how to cope with a hostile environment that will no longer be. In fact, since anyone who tells others how to live or what is wrong with their conduct blames them in advance for doing otherwise — which is a judgment of what is right for someone else — all sermonizing and the giving of unasked-for advice are displaced. You see, this discovery draws a mathematical line of demarcation between hurt that is real and hurt that exists only in the imagination. The hurt of ridicule and criticism is real, but in the world of free will there existed many forms of hurt that justified ridicule and criticism. When the hurt that motivated this behavior is removed, then there can be no justification which means that any ridicule and criticism that exists thereafter strikes a first blow, but this is controlled by the realization that it will never be blamed or punished. Consequently, there is no further need to tell others what to do. You may still desire going to church or synagogue, which is your business, but how is it possible to want to continue paying a religious organization when your money can be used to improve your standard of living? For the first time the members of a congregation realizing that God is everywhere, not just in churches and synagogues, and realizing further that all evil is coming to a permanent end, will prefer spending their money in a different direction. Religion will be reluctant to give up the pivotal role it has played for thousands of years, but how is it possible for these theologians to object to the very things they have been unsuccessfully trying to accomplish without revealing that they don’t want mankind to be delivered from all evil? This does not mean that religion has not served an important function in man’s development. We could not have reached this turning point had it not been for our religious institutions, but we are at last shedding the final stage of the rocket that has given mankind its thrust up to this point.

BELINDA: Greater satisfaction is the main motivation for animals' choices. In the case of developed central nervous systems like ours' motivation is a root cause of action. Motivation is the main cause of human action but cause of action --motivation---is not the same as direction in life, i.e. action. The causation of an event is not the event itself.

PEACEGIRL: I agree that motivation is what drives us to action, but it is not the action itself. I think this is just semantics. I've explained that direction in life to me means that we can only move in one direction. It does not tell us what that direction is. This is each person's destiny as to where "greater satisfaction" or his "direction in life" will take him.

BELINDA: True, if the whole of the causes of an event E were known then event E would be predictable. But not Lessans nor anyone else can possibly possess such Godlike omniscience.

PEACEGIRL: This is not about predicting every movement in life, nor is it necessary. The only prediction that he can make with accuracy is that no one will desire to harm others with a first blow under the changed conditions.

[peacegirl]

There isn't a predictable "absolute direction in life" because there are too many variables to ever know how each person will react to his particular life circumstances, but what can be predicted is the removal of the desire to hurt another. That is the discovery's only claim. You are incorrect when you say that choosing among alternative trajectories can, in actuality, produce those other alternative trajectories.



In this world, we do what we can to help our loved ones, especially if we are concerned about their safety. I don't consider this a true hurt, just annoying, especially when our help is unappreciated. But when all hurt is removed from the environment (and it's hard to imagine the many changes that will be taking place), what danger will there be to be concerned about? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. If you want, give me an example.

Peacegirl wrote:
"There isn't a predictable "absolute direction in life" because there are too many variables to ever know how each person will react in his particular life circumstances, but what can be predicted is the removal of the desire to harm another.

BELINDA: Yes, that is correct , one variable is that Jack will choose one direction in life and Joe will choose a different direction in life. However Peacegirl, within the same post, also wrote: "There IS absolute direction in life and it's called GREATER SATISFACTION. "

PEACEGIRL: There is no contradiction. The operative phrase here is "absolute direction in life", which is applicable to everyone. We all move in the direction of greater satisfaction, but each life has different circumstances that affect choice and therefore their life's trajectory.

BELINDA: You contradict yourself. Either there is absolute direction in life, or there isn't absolute direction in life. Probability does not apply when absolutes are concerned.

PEACEGIRL: We are not talking about probabilities here. When I say absolute direction, it is synonymous with "greater satisfaction." Maybe that will help.

BELINDA: Definition of 'absolute':- viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative."absolute moral standards".

PEACEGIRL: A world where government and religious institutions are no longer needed may be difficult to imagine unless you understand the reasons why; otherwise you will be incredulous.

There is no mathematical standard as to what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of others, and once this is removed, once it becomes impossible to desire hurting another human being, then there will be no need for all those schools, religious or otherwise, that have been teaching us how to cope with a hostile environment that will no longer be. In fact, since anyone who tells others how to live or what is wrong with their conduct blames them in advance for doing otherwise — which is a judgment of what is right for someone else — all sermonizing and the giving of unasked-for advice are displaced. You see, this discovery draws a mathematical line of demarcation between hurt that is real and hurt that exists only in the imagination. The hurt of ridicule and criticism is real, but in the world of free will there existed many forms of hurt that justified ridicule and criticism. When the hurt that motivated this behavior is removed, then there can be no justification which means that any ridicule and criticism that exists thereafter strikes a first blow, but this is controlled by the realization that it will never be blamed or punished. Consequently, there is no further need to tell others what to do. You may still desire going to church or synagogue, which is your business, but how is it possible to want to continue paying a religious organization when your money can be used to improve your standard of living? For the first time the members of a congregation realizing that God is everywhere, not just in churches and synagogues, and realizing further that all evil is coming to a permanent end, will prefer spending their money in a different direction. Religion will be reluctant to give up the pivotal role it has played for thousands of years, but how is it possible for these theologians to object to the very things they have been unsuccessfully trying to accomplish without revealing that they don’t want mankind to be delivered from all evil? This does not mean that religion has not served an important function in man’s development. We could not have reached this turning point had it not been for our religious institutions, but we are at last shedding the final stage of the rocket that has given mankind its thrust up to this point.

BELINDA: Greater satisfaction is the main motivation for animals' choices. In the case of developed central nervous systems like ours' motivation is a root cause of action. Motivation is the main cause of human action but cause of action --motivation---is not the same as direction in life, i.e. action. The causation of an event is not the event itself.

PEACEGIRL: I agree that motivation is what drives us to action, but it is not the action itself. I think this is just semantics. I've explained that direction in life to me means that we can only move in one direction. It does not tell us what that direction is. This is each person's destiny as to where "greater satisfaction" or his "direction in life" will take him.

BELINDA: True, if the whole of the causes of an event E were known then event E would be predictable. But not Lessans nor anyone else can possibly possess such Godlike omniscience.

PEACEGIRL: This is not about predicting every movement in life, nor is it necessary. The only prediction that he can make with accuracy is that no one will desire to harm others with a first blow under the changed conditions.

[Walker]

I have no idea why you can't take the time to read three chapters.

DETERMINISM CANNOT CAUSE US TO DO ANYTHING, AS IF WE ARE AUTOMATONS.

Determination can probably cause us to do anything ... but then like alchemy the cost for all concerned may outweigh the gold.

Determinism has no power to make us do anything that would be against our will. That’s why people are so damn confused and are blaming the author for tweaking the definition so it’s more accurate. Do you see why there is no way for me to have a decent conversation with anyone if they’re not willing to let go of their prejudices and really take the time to hear this author out?

I heard that Buddha almost gave up teaching because no one would listen until he found those who would, and then word of mouth continued to echo. I heard that Jesus also had some personal doubts, but apparently anyone who came in contact with him did not have those doubts. This is not to mention those teachers in the context of religion, but rather in the context of teaching. Their teachings persisted and when you're talking about change-the-world level of ambition, then it pays to know the territory of overcoming resistance with persuasion rather than blame in order for the lucky reader to harness some of the remaining life-force into time and energy to effort* the reading.

[peacegirl]

Determination can probably cause us to do anything ... but then like alchemy the cost for all concerned may outweigh the gold.

Determinism has no power to make us do anything that would be against our will. That’s why people are so damn confused and are blaming the author for tweaking the definition so it’s more accurate. Do you see why there is no way for me to have a decent conversation with anyone if they’re not willing to let go of their prejudices and really take the time to hear this author out?

I heard that Buddha almost gave up teaching because no one would listen until he found those who would, and then word of mouth continued to echo. I heard that Jesus also had some personal doubts, but apparently anyone who came in contact with him did not have those doubts. This is not to mention those teachers in the context of religion, but rather in the context of teaching. Their teachings persisted and when you're talking about change-the-world level of ambition, then it pays to know the territory of overcoming resistance with persuasion rather than blame in order for the lucky reader to harness some of the remaining life-force into time and energy to effort* the reading.

I'm not blaming anyone. It's just unfortunate that people are too skeptical for any real progress to be made. That is why giving a 50-word summary is not going to cut it. From what you just posted, I guess you didn't read the link I gave you, correct? I'm not blaming you if you didn't. I am just curious. I do believe word of mouth will echo when this book starts to gain traction, but I have no control over how long it will take. Neither did Lessans. He was very aware of how difficult it would be to bring this knowledge to light. He even addressed it.

It is important to understand that my prediction of 25 years or that this great change would take place in the 20th century was based upon my conviction that there would be a thorough investigation and understanding of the principles involved, but as of yet it has not been. In other words, if Gregor Mendel had predicted that his discovery about heredity would come to light approximately 30 years after his death, he would have been accurate, but he had no way of knowing when it would be confirmed by science. He knew it was coming but could not know when. In my case, however, I was allowing 5-10 years for this knowledge to be understood by science and the political world, taking for granted that the intellectual capacity was available and would thoroughly investigate what could not be denied. I still believe the intellectual capacity to understand it exists today, but to quote Morrison again, “Now we encounter the stubborn resistance of the human mind which is reluctant to give up fixed ideas. The early Greeks knew the earth was a sphere, but it took 2000 years to convince men that this fact is true. New ideas encounter opposition, ridicule and abuse, but truth survives and is verified.” Can you see the problem with regard to my discovery? If it took 2 thousand years to get the shape of the earth scientifically confirmed so that all mankind would accept it, how long do you think it will take to get the knowledge in my book scientifically confirmed and accepted when 98% of mankind believe that man’s will is free and when this belief hermetically seals a door behind which is the discovery that will bring about this Great Transition?

[peacegirl]

OMG, the fact that there are no takers after all these posts shows me how powerful authority in a thread can influence the group either negatively or positively. I have no desire to continue here, but I want people to know that the proof, besides needing a simulation which is unnecessary (just as a simulation is unnecessary to take us to the moon), when the actual proof is shown in the equation. This knowledge has not been adequately refuted. The idea of not blaming, even in the free will world of blame and punishment we live in, has saved me in ways that I cannot easily translate, but I can tell you that my life could have taken a dark turn. I want to clarify that this does not mean we should stop blaming when we've been hurt. We need to address whoever has hurt us, but handling certain situations without blame (I'm not talking about serious crime here, just my personal experience) has been a gift. I don't think any person here understands what I'm even talking about. I will not expose my life to this group, but I can tell you that learning these principles has kept my most important relationships intact, which could have been destroyed. This obviously isn't proof of determinism, but it strongly supports that when we don't blame (when blame would be appropriate, which has been the cornerstone of our civilization and which he was not disputing), we get back restoration. Whoever is reading this really needs to think over what is being offered here rather than dismissing it as garbage. It's easy to scoff off anything that people cannot imagine. It boggles my mind that there is no interest in this major discovery, WHICH IT IS. I can easily move on but it's sad that people will leave this thread thinking the author was wrong and he wasn't. This has occurred down through history, but it's hard when people don't realize what they are throwing out.

[Belinda]

OMG, the fact that there are no takers after all these posts shows me how powerful authority in a thread influences. I have no desire to continue here, but I want people to know that the proof, besides needing a simulation that would not be necessary (just as an equation that is able to take us to the moon before we actually use this equation to trust it enough to get there), is not necessary when the actual proof is shown, which has not been adequately refuted. This idea of not blaming (even in the world we are living) has saved me in ways that I cannot tell you all or share in a post, but I can share how grateful I am to have been given this knowledge. I want to clarify that this does not mean we should stop blaming when we've been hurt. We need to address whoever has hurt us, but the retaliation part of it (for me) has been a gift to me. I don't think any person here understands what I'm even talking about. I will not expose my life to this group, but I can tell you that learning these principles has kept my most important relationships closer than ever when they could have been destroyed. This obviously isn't proof, but it strongly supports that when we don't blame (when blame would be appropriate), we get back restoration. Whoever is reading this really needs to think over what is being offered here rather than dismissing it as garbage. It's easy to scoff off anything that people cannot imagine. It boggles my mind that there is no interest in this major discovery, WHICH IT IS. I can easily move on but it's sad that people will leave this thread thinking the author was wrong and he wasn't. This has occurred down through history, but it's hard when people don't realize what they are throwing out.

I understand and agree with quite a lot you have written and I sympathise with your loyalty to your father.
My overall impression is that Lessans' theory is simplistic. It's simplistic because I have the impression Lessans does not recognise the mammalian brain makes learned choices between avoidance and attraction. And Lessans does not recognise that because those choices are learned from different environments individuals make different choices. For instance people with no learned knowledge of tsunamis will not choose to seek higher ground if they observe signs of impending tsunami. Yes, humans learn and adapt, but nature does not have any goal.

In a previous post Peacegirl wrote: PEACEGIRL:

This is not about predicting every movement in life, nor is it necessary. The only prediction that he can make with accuracy is that no one will desire to harm others with a first blow under the changed conditions.

But one person A will have learned that human nature is such that nobody can be trusted, and another B will have learned that some people can be trusted. A will desire to harm or avoid others , and B will desire to seek others and cooperate with others. Even if there were a global decision to not harm others with a first blow , we can be sure that uncaring nature will have harmed some and not others.

[Atla]

Have you tried blaming yourself for shortcomings you could potentially overcome? Maybe then you'll grow and won't make the same mistakes for another 20 years.

[peacegirl]

OMG, the fact that there are no takers after all these posts shows me how powerful authority in a thread influences. I have no desire to continue here, but I want people to know that the proof, besides needing a simulation that would not be necessary (just as an equation that is able to take us to the moon before we actually use this equation to trust it enough to get there), is not necessary when the actual proof is shown, which has not been adequately refuted. This idea of not blaming (even in the world we are living) has saved me in ways that I cannot tell you all or share in a post, but I can share how grateful I am to have been given this knowledge. I want to clarify that this does not mean we should stop blaming when we've been hurt. We need to address whoever has hurt us, but the retaliation part of it (for me) has been a gift to me. I don't think any person here understands what I'm even talking about. I will not expose my life to this group, but I can tell you that learning these principles has kept my most important relationships closer than ever when they could have been destroyed. This obviously isn't proof, but it strongly supports that when we don't blame (when blame would be appropriate), we get back restoration. Whoever is reading this really needs to think over what is being offered here rather than dismissing it as garbage. It's easy to scoff off anything that people cannot imagine. It boggles my mind that there is no interest in this major discovery, WHICH IT IS. I can easily move on but it's sad that people will leave this thread thinking the author was wrong and he wasn't. This has occurred down through history, but it's hard when people don't realize what they are throwing out.

I understand and agree with quite a lot you have written and I sympathise with your loyalty to your father.
My overall impression is that Lessans' theory is simplistic. It's simplistic because I have the impression Lessans does not recognise the mammalian brain makes learned choices between avoidance and attraction. And Lessans does not recognise that because those choices are learned from different environments individuals make different choices. For instance people with no learned knowledge of tsunamis will not choose to seek higher ground if they observe signs of impending tsunami. Yes, humans learn and adapt, but nature does not have any goal.

I totally understand what you're saying about different environments, but you are making a big blunder by saying that because it appears too simplistic, this new world cannot take place, especially with the technology that is at our disposal brings the entire world together, regardless of cultural differences. Taking the higher ground figuratively or literally can only be in the direction of greater satisfaction. Knowing that a tsunami is coming (which is not a great example because no one knew when a tsunami was imminent) people would have taken higher ground because they would have had the information they needed. Who said nature has a goal? Greater satisfaction (this natural law) doesn't have a goal. It only states that we are compelled to move in one direction. I have gone over this many times. Example: I am uncomfortable with my position of sitting on the sofa, so I stand up and stretch. I don't have a specific goal, as we normally think of goals, other than wanting to get rid of my dissatisfaction (position A) to a more satisfying position (B) that has suddenly grown uncomfortable.

In a previous post Peacegirl wrote: PEACEGIRL:

This is not about predicting every movement in life, nor is it necessary. The only prediction that he can make with accuracy is that no one will desire to harm others with a first blow under the changed conditions.

But one person A will have learned that human nature is such that nobody can be trusted, and another B will have learned that some people can be trusted. A will desire to harm or avoid others , and B will desire to seek others and cooperate with others. Even if there were a global decision to not harm others with a first blow , we can be sure that uncaring nature will have harmed some and not others.

That is not true. What you are claiming is some of our natures are different than others, so the law cannot work. We are all part of this natural law, and once it is instituted on a global scale (with many changes that need to take place before this law can effectively operate), nobody can desire to hurt others when not to becomes the preferable choice. You cannot say with your limited understanding that a desire to harm others, no matter what the conditions, will continue. You are failing to understand the very core of this discovery. All you are doing is what everyone does at first glance because they can't believe it's possible to have peace when people are so different from each other and come from such different backgrounds. They think all hell would break loose if people were given this kind of freedom, but this is incorrect only because will is not free to act against one's very nature. Everyone will be trustworthy because there will be no reason for them not to be when greater satisfaction takes them in a new direction. Just keep in mind that this is not Lessans' law or my law. This is God's law and therefore is just as harmonious as the laws that govern the movement of the planets orbiting the sun.

[peacegirl]

Have you tried blaming yourself for shortcomings you could potentially overcome? Maybe then you'll grow and won't make the same mistakes for another 20 years.

Atla, it's a shame that you are going to lose out on a deeper level of understanding as to why this knowledge is not a theory or an assertion. Maybe you think you would be a sucker if you let your guard down. I dunno. I do know that your skepticism has gotten in the way of a sincere desire to learn only because you believe this new world is nothing more than a pipe dream. How can I discuss anything with you if you won't budge, even for a moment?

[Belinda]

OMG, the fact that there are no takers after all these posts shows me how powerful authority in a thread influences. I have no desire to continue here, but I want people to know that the proof, besides needing a simulation that would not be necessary (just as an equation that is able to take us to the moon before we actually use this equation to trust it enough to get there), is not necessary when the actual proof is shown, which has not been adequately refuted. This idea of not blaming (even in the world we are living) has saved me in ways that I cannot tell you all or share in a post, but I can share how grateful I am to have been given this knowledge. I want to clarify that this does not mean we should stop blaming when we've been hurt. We need to address whoever has hurt us, but the retaliation part of it (for me) has been a gift to me. I don't think any person here understands what I'm even talking about. I will not expose my life to this group, but I can tell you that learning these principles has kept my most important relationships closer than ever when they could have been destroyed. This obviously isn't proof, but it strongly supports that when we don't blame (when blame would be appropriate), we get back restoration. Whoever is reading this really needs to think over what is being offered here rather than dismissing it as garbage. It's easy to scoff off anything that people cannot imagine. It boggles my mind that there is no interest in this major discovery, WHICH IT IS. I can easily move on but it's sad that people will leave this thread thinking the author was wrong and he wasn't. This has occurred down through history, but it's hard when people don't realize what they are throwing out.

I understand and agree with quite a lot you have written and I sympathise with your loyalty to your father.
My overall impression is that Lessans' theory is simplistic. It's simplistic because I have the impression Lessans does not recognise the mammalian brain makes learned choices between avoidance and attraction. And Lessans does not recognise that because those choices are learned from different environments individuals make different choices. For instance people with no learned knowledge of tsunamis will not choose to seek higher ground if they observe signs of impending tsunami. Yes, humans learn and adapt, but nature does not have any goal.

I totally understand what you're saying about different environments, but you are making a big blunder by saying that because it appears too simplistic, this new world cannot take place, especially with the technology that is at our disposal brings the entire world together, regardless of cultural differences. Taking the higher ground figuratively or literally can only be in the direction of greater satisfaction. Knowing that a tsunami is coming (which is not a great example because no one knew when a tsunami was imminent) people would have taken higher ground because they would have had the information they needed. Who said nature has a goal? Greater satisfaction (this natural law) doesn't have a goal. It only states that we are compelled to move in one direction. I have gone over this many times. Example: I am uncomfortable with my position of sitting on the sofa, so I stand up and stretch. I don't have a specific goal, as we normally think of goals, other than wanting to get rid of my dissatisfaction (position A) to a more satisfying position (B) that has suddenly grown uncomfortable.

In a previous post Peacegirl wrote: PEACEGIRL:
But one person A will have learned that human nature is such that nobody can be trusted, and another B will have learned that some people can be trusted. A will desire to harm or avoid others , and B will desire to seek others and cooperate with others. Even if there were a global decision to not harm others with a first blow , we can be sure that uncaring nature will have harmed some and not others.

That is not true. What you are claiming is some of our natures are different than others, so the law cannot work. We are all part of this natural law, and once it is instituted on a global scale (with many changes that need to take place before this law can effectively operate), nobody can desire to hurt others when not to becomes the preferable choice. You cannot say with your limited understanding that a desire to harm others, no matter what the conditions, will continue. You are failing to understand the very core of this discovery. All you are doing is what everyone does at first glance because they can't believe it's possible to have peace when people are so different from each other and come from such different backgrounds. They think all hell would break loose if people were given this kind of freedom, but this is incorrect only because will is not free to act against one's very nature. Everyone will be trustworthy because there will be no reason for them not to be when greater satisfaction takes them in a new direction. Just keep in mind that this is not Lessans' law or my law. This is God's law and therefore is just as harmonious as the laws that govern the movement of the planets orbiting the sun.

But natural disasters like tsunamis , climate change, asteroid strike, the mega-death of pollinating bees, and pandemics can happen despite a good God and despite the best human technology.

The "new direction" is here. It has arrived. The United Nations for all its good work cannot change human nature. The "new direction" arrived with the advent of Jesus of Nazareth but human nature has not changed during two thousand years. The "new direction" arrived with the Buddha, with Confucius, and with Socrates, yet human nature is as it always was.

[Atla]

Have you tried blaming yourself for shortcomings you could potentially overcome? Maybe then you'll grow and won't make the same mistakes for another 20 years.

Atla, it's a shame that you are going to lose out on a deeper level of understanding as to why this knowledge is not a theory or an assertion. Maybe you think you would be a sucker if you let your guard down. I dunno. I do know that your skepticism has gotten in the way of a sincere desire to learn only because you believe this new world is nothing more than a pipe dream. How can I discuss anything with you if you won't budge, even for a moment?

Too bad anyone can read the relevant part of the book, just like I've read it, and find out that there is no deeper level of understanding. Nada.

You talk like a 13-14 years old girl but you're like 70. Maybe that's what happens when someone stops trying to improve because there is no self-blame as motivation.