New Discovery

[Phil8659]

I'm introducing a book that you may be interested in. It is based on a discovery that lies behind the door of determinism. But please don't jump to a premature conclusion that if will is not free, we are robots, which is why many people dislike this position. I hope that people stick with me. Here are the first three chapters. This should give you an idea of whether this book is for you or not.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 10208355d4

There are two, and only two parts of speech, as you should know as you are on a computer which uses them to process all information.

So, tell me, mankind has been using speech for a very long time,

Which of the two parts of speech, which is at the foundation of all information processing, is some fool claiming to have discovered?

A mind is a life support system of the body. This means that will, as Plato explained, is a mind doing its own work. An illiterate, as yourself, does not have will, because you cannot process information in accordance, as Confucius noted, the truth of things.
You either process information correctly, or not.
simple as that.

You want to see a real work on human will, a work that teaches a mind how to do its job, using information processing?

Phil8659, Internet Archive. And it is not copywrite, it is free for worldwide download. Unfortunately, idiots cannot understand it.

[Age]

I'm introducing a book that you may be interested in. It is based on a discovery that lies behind the door of determinism. But please don't jump to a premature conclusion that if will is not free, we are robots, which is why many people dislike this position. I hope that people stick with me. Here are the first three chapters. This should give you an idea of whether this book is for you or not.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 10208355d4

There are two, and only two parts of speech, as you should know as you are on a computer which uses them to process all information.

So, tell me, mankind has been using speech for a very long time,

Which of the two parts of speech, which is at the foundation of all information processing, is some fool claiming to have discovered?

A mind is a life support system of the body. This means that will, as Plato explained, is a mind doing its own work. An illiterate, as yourself, does not have will, because you cannot process information in accordance, as Confucius noted, the truth of things.
You either process information correctly, or not.
simple as that.

You want to see a real work on human will, a work that teaches a mind how to do its job, using information processing?

Phil8659, Internet Archive. And it is not copywrite, it is free for worldwide download. Unfortunately, idiots cannot understand it.

Maybe because it was not written, and presented, Correctly.

Which is just some thing a non 'idiot' would think about, and consider.

But, at least you present your own writings, for free. (Whatever the purpose is, for them.)

[peacegirl]

So why provide three chapters only?

Why not provide all of the chapters, here?

Why does anyone have to provide you with money before you will provide them with all of the chapters?

If what you are doing, here, is not 'for money', then what do you call 'it' when some one will not provide some thing until another provides them 'with money' first?

Why is this all you care about?

1. But it is not all that I care about.

PEACEGIRL: Because that's all you talk about, as if this is my motive.

2. Why did you assume some thing that was completely False and Wrong?

PEACEGIRL: I just told you why.

3. Also, why did you not answer and clarify any of the four questions that I posed, and asked you?

PEACEGIRL: As far as I know, I answered all your questions.

It is disturbing to me because it is preventing the understanding that the solution to war, crime, and hatred, and poverty lies behind the door of determinism.

AGE: This may well be True, and Right, and Accurate, and Correct. But, in 'the way' you are talking about and presenting, here, that will never be 'the solution' to war, crime, hatred, nor poverty.

PEACEGIRL; How do you know?

Because I have tried and tested it.

I also already know what the actual solution is, exactly, which has been tried and tested and which does actually work.

By the way, why have you, still, after all of this time not yet been able to work out how to quote, here, in a way that it makes it easier and simpler for the readers, here?

Not one person asked a question that was related to what I posted, so I assumed they understood.

If this is what you say, believe and assume, then okay.

AGE: And, this is just because what 'the actual solution' is, is different.

PEACEGIRL: There are many solutions to ease conflict, but this one is a true paradigm shift that would lead our world to peace.

Obviously if it was, then it would have already worked. The writings you refer to were written some time ago, the world is certainly very far from peace, therefore what you claim is a 'true paradigm shift that would lead to world peace', has not worked. And, in fact does not work as the tests have shown.

AGE: But it is not what people think. Determinism does not mean we have no choice and we are not agents of our destiny.

Therefore, 'free will' does actually exist.

PEACEGIRL: I can tell you didn't read what I posted. We do have the ability to choose freely (i.e., we can contemplate and make our own choices), but this does not mean we have freedom of the will.

Obviously you did not read what I have posted and asked you. Or, if you have, then you, obviously, are 'determined' to not answer clarifying questions posed, and asked, to you

He was very clear in his definition of determinism that it does not remove this ability, but that alone does not grant us the ability to choose otherwise.

it then did not yet understand. Maybe if it lived a bit longer, then it would have come to understand what 'we' now 'currently' understand and know.

AGE: I am not sure how many times I have to inform these human beings that 'the definition' that one or some use in regards to 'a word' is not the 'only definition'.

PEACEGIRL: Definitions are created to reflect the real world. If the definition is lacking in its ability to reflect the real world, it isn't helpful in our ability to see the real world for what it is

Thus why you have not yet, and and "your" daddy did not, see the 'Real world'.

This is a problem with the present definition, which is the belief that if determinism is true, we are nothing more than robots, having been stripped of our autonomy. The only thing determinism removes is our pride that we accomplished our goals of our own free will.

AGE: Which means that any and every goal that comes about because of 'determinism', and, because of 'having choices' and of 'being agents'. But, what 'agents choose' is determined by 'determinism', itself, right?

PEACEGIRL: Not in the way you think.

AGE: What is 'the way' I think?

PEACEGIRL: According to what you just wrote, what agents choose is determined by determinism itself, so if that's what you meant, then the way you think is correct.

And, are you assuming what I think, or, do you know how I think, absolutely and without any doubt?

Determinism is not prescriptive. It does not force a choice on us, against our will.

AGE: But, you do not have freedom of the will anyway, right?

PEACEGIRL: That is true, but the argument against determinism is the belief that we are forced by antecedent events (cause and effect) to do what we do with no say on our part. IOW, against our will.

AGE: Also, where do 'choices', themselves, even come from, exactly?

PEACEGIRL: They come from our environment, but the actual mechanism of making a choice comes from the human brain and its ability to contemplate, ponder, reason, and decide. This ability is a human attribute.

Determinism only means that whatever choice we make, we made it because any other choice at that moment was the least satisfying, thus a choice that could not be made.

AGE: But, obviously, the least satisfying choice 'could' have been made.

For example choosing to do what is 'morally Right' might be least satisfying. But, of course, this would depend upon the variables at the time, which, obviously, need to be discussed, to be known.

PEACEGIRL: Whatever the choice is would be the only choice that could have been made at that moment. The variables are what help a person decide if they want to do the moral thing or not. This is the whole point of this discovery because in the new world, a person could not choose to hurt another (i.e., the morally wrong thing) because it would be the least satisfying choice.

AGE: Are you open and honest enough to have a discussion about all of the variables? Or, do you much prefer to just sit in, and remain with, your own personal 'current' belief, here, only?

PEACEGIRL: You can give me examples and I will show you, that under the changed conditions, a person could not do the "morally" wrong choice.

If you were given a choice between A, shooting someone randomly without a justification, or B, not shooting that person because you had no justification, could you choose B?

AGE: Just because I might choose one thing in that one and only very specific example does not mean that I could not choose the 'least satisfying' choice in another example, nor even in that example of yours, here.

PEACE: Of course, there could be situations that would compel you to hurt another, if by not hurting them, you end up hurting yourself. But, again, you are judging this book without understanding how the environment changes whereby a person could not find satisfaction from hurting someone with a first blow when he cannot justify that behavior.

AGE: If yes, then no matter what knowledge you have and share you will just 'have to wait' until 'determinism' decides when, and what, goals will happen, and occur.

PEACEGIRL: You are right.

AGE:Great.

And, what 'determinism', itself, might have planned and has set out to happen and occur is present and show your Truly greedy and selfish choices and ways, here. 'This' might have been 'pre-determined' to be put 'on show', here, so that others can learn what not to do, in Life, and to make the actual Right choices, in Life, which in turn will make and create a Truly peaceful and harmonious world for absolutely every one, as One.

Again, 'we' just have to wait, to see.

PEACEGIRL: You blew it. I'm done.

[Age]

Why is this all you care about?

1. But it is not all that I care about.

PEACEGIRL: Because that's all you talk about, as if this is my motive.

Once again what 'we' have, here, is another prime example of how and when beliefs affect one's ability to see openly, clearly, and Truthfully. And, of how this inability allows them to only see what 'it' is that they want to see. Also known as 'confirmation bias'.

2. Why did you assume some thing that was completely False and Wrong?

PEACEGIRL: I just told you why.

LOL So, you told me why you keep assuming things, which are completely False and Wrong. Which leads me to ask you, 'Why would you even want to keep assuming things that are False, and Wrong, anyway?'

3. Also, why did you not answer and clarify any of the four questions that I posed, and asked you?

PEACEGIRL: As far as I know, I answered all your questions.

LOL This really was how blind, and stupid, some people really were.

Absolutely any one can very clearly recognize and see that you did not answer one of the actual four questions that I posed, and asked you, there.

AGE: This may well be True, and Right, and Accurate, and Correct. But, in 'the way' you are talking about and presenting, here, that will never be 'the solution' to war, crime, hatred, nor poverty.

PEACEGIRL; How do you know?

Because I have tried and tested it.

I also already know what the actual solution is, exactly, which has been tried and tested and which does actually work.

By the way, why have you, still, after all of this time not yet been able to work out how to quote, here, in a way that it makes it easier and simpler for the readers, here?

Not one person asked a question that was related to what I posted, so I assumed they understood.

If this is what you say, believe and assume, then okay.

AGE: And, this is just because what 'the actual solution' is, is different.

PEACEGIRL: There are many solutions to ease conflict, but this one is a true paradigm shift that would lead our world to peace.

Obviously if it was, then it would have already worked. The writings you refer to were written some time ago, the world is certainly very far from peace, therefore what you claim is a 'true paradigm shift that would lead to world peace', has not worked. And, in fact does not work as the tests have shown.

AGE: But it is not what people think. Determinism does not mean we have no choice and we are not agents of our destiny.

Therefore, 'free will' does actually exist.

PEACEGIRL: I can tell you didn't read what I posted. We do have the ability to choose freely (i.e., we can contemplate and make our own choices), but this does not mean we have freedom of the will.

Obviously you did not read what I have posted and asked you. Or, if you have, then you, obviously, are 'determined' to not answer clarifying questions posed, and asked, to you

He was very clear in his definition of determinism that it does not remove this ability, but that alone does not grant us the ability to choose otherwise.

it then did not yet understand. Maybe if it lived a bit longer, then it would have come to understand what 'we' now 'currently' understand and know.

AGE: I am not sure how many times I have to inform these human beings that 'the definition' that one or some use in regards to 'a word' is not the 'only definition'.

PEACEGIRL: Definitions are created to reflect the real world. If the definition is lacking in its ability to reflect the real world, it isn't helpful in our ability to see the real world for what it is

Thus why you have not yet, and and "your" daddy did not, see the 'Real world'.

AGE: Which means that any and every goal that comes about because of 'determinism', and, because of 'having choices' and of 'being agents'. But, what 'agents choose' is determined by 'determinism', itself, right?

PEACEGIRL: Not in the way you think.

AGE: What is 'the way' I think?

PEACEGIRL: According to what you just wrote, what agents choose is determined by determinism itself, so if that's what you meant, then the way you think is correct.

So, you, actually, did not know 'the way' I think, correct?

And, are you assuming what I think, or, do you know how I think, absolutely and without any doubt?

Determinism is not prescriptive. It does not force a choice on us, against our will.

AGE: But, you do not have freedom of the will anyway, right?

PEACEGIRL: That is true, but the argument against determinism is the belief that we are forced by antecedent events (cause and effect) to do what we do with no say on our part. IOW, against our will.

Why do you talk about some 'the argument', 'against determinism'?

Are you under some sort of illusion that there is only 'one argument'?

And, why refer to 'some argument' that I am not even talking about?

AGE: Also, where do 'choices', themselves, even come from, exactly?

PEACEGIRL: They come from our environment, but the actual mechanism of making a choice comes from the human brain and its ability to contemplate, ponder, reason, and decide. This ability is a human attribute.

Great. So, Why does that brain, within that body, keep making choices that go completely against, what the "author" claimed would help in making a better world?

Determinism only means that whatever choice we make, we made it because any other choice at that moment was the least satisfying, thus a choice that could not be made.

AGE: But, obviously, the least satisfying choice 'could' have been made.

For example choosing to do what is 'morally Right' might be least satisfying. But, of course, this would depend upon the variables at the time, which, obviously, need to be discussed, to be known.

PEACEGIRL: Whatever the choice is would be the only choice that could have been made at that moment.

So, if 'the choice' is the 'only choice' that could have been made, at that moment, then this could be implied as meaning that, actually, absolutely every thing was pre-determined, to happen, and thus that being Truly individual greedy and selfish beings was, exactly, what was intended? Which would explain why you claiming 'these writings' are to help in creating a peaceful world', in order so that you can obtain 'more money' for 'your greater satisfaction', could never actually ever work.

The variables are what help a person decide if they want to do the moral thing or not.

But, as you have shown and proved, already, you do not 'look at' the variables, and make choices in regards to doing what you call the 'moral thing', because you obviously 'jumped on' trying to obtain more money from the selling of 'the book', for your own personal 'greater satisfaction'.

This is the whole point of this discovery because in the new world, a person could not choose to hurt another (i.e., the morally wrong thing) because it would be the least satisfying choice.

So, why have you not yet moved over into the 'new world', and have chosen to remain, here, in the 'old world'?

AGE: Are you open and honest enough to have a discussion about all of the variables? Or, do you much prefer to just sit in, and remain with, your own personal 'current' belief, here, only?

PEACEGIRL: You can give me examples and I will show you, that under the changed conditions, a person could not do the "morally" wrong choice.

Here, is one example of one making an obviously 'morally Wrong choice'. When one chooses to sell knowledge, for monetary profit and gain.

And, a worse example of this very, very selfish and greedy behavior is when one claims 'this knowledge' will create a 'new world' where no person could make a decision that would hurt another, but will not provide 'this knowledge' until others given 'that one' some money.

Now, you claimed that you will show me, that under the changed conditions, a person could not make 'these morally wrong choices'. So, 'we' await to see how you show me 'this'.

If you were given a choice between A, shooting someone randomly without a justification, or B, not shooting that person because you had no justification, could you choose B?

AGE: Just because I might choose one thing in that one and only very specific example does not mean that I could not choose the 'least satisfying' choice in another example, nor even in that example of yours, here.

PEACE: Of course, there could be situations that would compel you to hurt another, if by not hurting them, you end up hurting yourself. But, again, you are judging this book without understanding how the environment changes whereby a person could not find satisfaction from hurting someone with a first blow when he cannot justify that behavior.

you, OBVIOUSLY, can not justify the selling of 'knowledge', for monetary gain, which you claim 'this knowledge' will create a 'new world' where no person hurts another, yet here you are doing the very thing that is hurting others.

I was under the impression that you could of been pretending to not recognize and see the absolutely hypocrisy and contradiction, here, from you. But, now I am wondering if you, really, are actually absolutely blind and oblivious to it.

AGE: If yes, then no matter what knowledge you have and share you will just 'have to wait' until 'determinism' decides when, and what, goals will happen, and occur.

PEACEGIRL: You are right.

AGE:Great.

And, what 'determinism', itself, might have planned and has set out to happen and occur is present and show your Truly greedy and selfish choices and ways, here. 'This' might have been 'pre-determined' to be put 'on show', here, so that others can learn what not to do, in Life, and to make the actual Right choices, in Life, which in turn will make and create a Truly peaceful and harmonious world for absolutely every one, as One.

Again, 'we' just have to wait, to see.

PEACEGIRL: You blew it. I'm done.

Again, 'we' will have to wait, to see.

[peacegirl]

This is so disheartening. I’m wondering if there is one person in this entire forum that actually read what was written rather handing over the veracity of a claim to people who are prejudiced in their thinking. This just shows me the ignorance and self importance of people who are given a free pass which then influences the participants. This isn’t fair at all. It’s the antithesis of fair. Challenge: Give me one question based on the actual text that shows that it was read. Age, you read nothing and I’m not interested in your interrogation, so please desist.

[Age]

This is so disheartening. I’m wondering if there is one person in this entire forum that actually read what was written rather handing over the veracity of a claim to people who are prejudiced in their thinking.

I am wondering if there could be one person in this entire forum that could actually read what was written, for free, rather than having to have to hand over money before they would be allowed to read, what was written.

This just shows me the ignorance and self importance of people who are given a free pass which then influences the participants. This isn’t fair at all. It’s the antithesis of fair.

Imagine not allowing others to read, for free, what is just claimed to be good for every one, and then whinging and complaining that others will not read what is written.

Challenge: Give me one question based on the actual text that shows that it was read. Age, you read nothing and I’m not interested in your interrogation, so please desist.

you are not interested in what I show and pint out, here, for the very clear obvious reasons.

Now, I have read what I have, and have questioned and challenged you over that. you obviously do not like my questioning and challenging if those words because of the consequences if you accepted my challenge and answered my questions openly and honestly.

[peacegirl]

This is so disheartening. I’m wondering if there is one person in this entire forum that actually read what was written rather handing over the veracity of a claim to people who are prejudiced in their thinking.

I am wondering if there could be one person in this entire forum that could actually read what was written, for free, rather than having to have to hand over money before they would be allowed to read, what was written.

This just shows me the ignorance and self importance of people who are given a free pass which then influences the participants. This isn’t fair at all. It’s the antithesis of fair.

Imagine not allowing others to read, for free, what is just claimed to be good for every one, and then whinging and complaining that others will not read what is written.

Challenge: Give me one question based on the actual text that shows that it was read. Age, you read nothing and I’m not interested in your interrogation, so please desist.

you are not interested in what I show and pint out, here, for the very clear obvious reasons.

PEACEGIRL: You pointed out nothing.

AGE: Now, I have read what I have, and have questioned and challenged you over that. you obviously do not like my questioning and challenging if those words because of the consequences if you accepted my challenge and answered my questions openly and honestly.

No, you are hurting this knowledge by thinking you know what he discovered. YOU DON"T!!! I am asking other people to actually read and respond with pertinent questions that they may be trying to get an answer to. You have not done that. All you are doing is trying to pin me against a wall to try to prove that I'm doing this for money. You're out the door AGE. Let others respond, not you.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... b35b0724b3

[Age]

This is so disheartening. I’m wondering if there is one person in this entire forum that actually read what was written rather handing over the veracity of a claim to people who are prejudiced in their thinking.

I am wondering if there could be one person in this entire forum that could actually read what was written, for free, rather than having to have to hand over money before they would be allowed to read, what was written.

This just shows me the ignorance and self importance of people who are given a free pass which then influences the participants. This isn’t fair at all. It’s the antithesis of fair.

Imagine not allowing others to read, for free, what is just claimed to be good for every one, and then whinging and complaining that others will not read what is written.

Challenge: Give me one question based on the actual text that shows that it was read. Age, you read nothing and I’m not interested in your interrogation, so please desist.

you are not interested in what I show and pint out, here, for the very clear obvious reasons.

PEACEGIRL: You pointed out nothing.

Nothing that you have been able to comprehend and see anyway.

AGE: Now, I have read what I have, and have questioned and challenged you over that. you obviously do not like my questioning and challenging if those words because of the consequences if you accepted my challenge and answered my questions openly and honestly.

No, you are hurting this knowledge by thinking you know what he discovered. [/quote]

LOL So, its knowledge is so weak that I can hurt that knowledge by just thinking I know what it discovered.

YOU DON"T!!! I am asking other people to actually read and respond with pernitent questions that they may be trying to get an answer to.

Once again for the very slow of learning, one can only read the words after they have handed over money, to you "peacegirl".

Which is obviously a very clear sign of one who is very greedy and of selfishness, in and of itself.

You have not done that. All you are doing is trying to pin me against a wall to try to prove that I'm doing this for money. You're out the door AGE. Let others respond, not you.

Obviously the 'Truth hurts', as some say.

you not providing the writings, unless people hand over money, to you, first, proves, irrefutably, that you are doing this for money.

I am not 'trying to' prove that you are doing this for money, at all.

What you are doing, itself, proves that you are doing this for money.

I am just pointing out and shown the readers where the actual proof is, exactly. Which, again, you are providing, here, for all to 'look at', and see.

[FlashDangerpants]

ignorance and self importance

Get a fucking mirror.

[peacegirl]

ignorance and self importance

Get a fucking mirror.

No FlashDangerpants, this is not about self-importance. In fact, it's the opposite if you had read anything at all. This again shows me that you have assumed this to be true just because you think that your objection regarding tautologies and his writing style (i.e., the way he used the three words as synonyms) makes his 30-year work wrong. YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU WILL NOT WIN, thank goodness. This knowledge is for your benefit too, even if you fight me tooth and nail. I'm just asking you to be a little more open-minded before throwing this body of knowledge out, which would be unfortunate. I really hope you are not representative of the majority who would prematurely conclude that this work can't be true, by employing false standards in which to judge.

[FlashDangerpants]

You really are such a whiny loser.

[peacegirl]

You really are such a whiny loser.

No, it seems like you’re in a habit of putting every idea in the same pot. And you think this is fair Flash? I’m trying to understand your reasoning.

[peacegirl]

You don’t even respond to my posts other than calling me a loser, which to me is not a give and take. I challenge you to carefully read the book with all of your misgivings. I’ll gift it to you. You won’t do it. What more can I do? I will gift the book to anyone who is a little bit curious about this discovery. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MONEY!!! People are entitled to disagree, but let’s get the conversation going after the book is read, not before. The only thing I would ask is to not disregard this work because it goes against the grain of present day thinking. Is that asking too much?

[FlashDangerpants]

You don’t even respond to my posts other than calling me a loser, which to me is not a give and take. I challenge you to carefully read the book with all of your misgivings. I’ll gift it to you. You won’t do it. What more can I do? I will gift the book to anyone who is a little bit curious about this discovery. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MONEY!!! People are entitled to disagree, but let’s get the conversation going after the book is read, not before. The only thing I would ask is to not disregard this work because it goes against the grain of present day thinking. Is that asking too much?

I have long since lost interest in your book. Nobody who gets as far as the door guarded by the dragon with the invisible key could possibly want to read an entire book of such turgid prose.

You only want to keep your thread alive so you can try and sell product. That's the only reason you are trying to have a whole back and forth with me right now, to make use of me so you can make money off some passing moron.

[peacegirl]

You don’t even respond to my posts other than calling me a loser, which to me is not a give and take. I challenge you to carefully read the book with all of your misgivings. I’ll gift it to you. You won’t do it. What more can I do? I will gift the book to anyone who is a little bit curious about this discovery. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MONEY!!! People are entitled to disagree, but let’s get the conversation going after the book is read, not before. The only thing I would ask is to not disregard this work because it goes against the grain of present day thinking. Is that asking too much?

I have long since lost interest in your book. Nobody who gets as far as the door guarded by the dragon with the invisible key could possibly want to read an entire book of such turgid prose.

You only want to keep your thread alive so you can try and sell product. That's the only reason you are trying to have a whole back and forth with me right now, to make use of me so you can make money off some passing moron.

What more can I do to convince you otherwise? Should I prostate myself on the ground, get on my hands and knees and beg you? This is really sad!