Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:04 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:00 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 12:03 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 11:27 am
There are hundreds of prior discussions of determinism on this site. Everybody here is well familiar with the topic. I am perfectly happy to grant hard determinism for the sake of argument. It is absurd to use this as an excuse not to explain the other stuff.

The reason you won't explain the other stuff is obviously that you want to reserve it for paying customers.
The smarter people think they are, the more intolerant they become.Very very sad.

What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism? Is it different from that which Strawson covered?

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:08 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:00 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 12:03 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 11:27 am
There are hundreds of prior discussions of determinism on this site. Everybody here is well familiar with the topic. I am perfectly happy to grant hard determinism for the sake of argument. It is absurd to use this as an excuse not to explain the other stuff.

The reason you won't explain the other stuff is obviously that you want to reserve it for paying customers.
The smarter people think they are, the more intolerant they become to anyone who has a different perspective. Very sad because it is stopping progress.

What stops 'progress' even more is people not clarifying and elaborating.

If some one wants to claim to know some thing, then be prepared to be questioned and challenged.

If you, really, wan to claim that you have or know of 'some discovery', which could or would lead to 'progress', but when you are asked some thing like, Please explain the second discovery, perhaps it will be interesting or new or something. and you say some thing like, 'No sorry', then all you are essentially proving is that you have no so-called 'discovery' or that you really are a Truly greedy and/or selfish human being.

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:09 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 6:05 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 5:01 pm Nobody is buying this book.
I didn't ask anybody to buy the book. For $1.95, I wouldn't make a cent anyway. I will say again that this is not about the money. That's a horrible way to judge what hasn't even been discussed. The cynicism here is overwhelming.

So, why do you not just discuss 'it', here?

What is 'it' that you are hiding, here?

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:11 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 7:02 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 6:13 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 6:05 pm That's a horrible way to judge what hasn't even been discussed.
What hasn't been discussed can't be discussed because it's all secrets that you hope people will buy access to.
Wrong.

If 'that' is wrong, then 'what' is right?

And, if you ignore answering, then your views and beliefs are just staying secret, and hidden.

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:12 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 9:11 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:44 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 7:02 pm

Wrong.
What is the second discovery? It's not a difficult question.
It has to do with the eyes. I don’t want to discuss this until his first discovery is understood, and it is far from it because no one is giving me a chance.

I will give you the 'best chance' you will ever have.

What is the so-called 'first discovery', exactly?

'We' can only understand 'it' if only you will share and express 'it'.

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:28 pm**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 9:57 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 9:11 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:44 pm
What is the second discovery? It's not a difficult question.
It has to do with the eyes. I don’t want to discuss this until his first discovery is understood, and it is far from it because no one is giving me a chance.
The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great. You seem to have some confusion where you don't think the will itself is subject to the same deterministic forces as the entire universe, leading to strange phrasings such as "Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent".... but nobody cares.

Why do you call 'that' 'strange phrasings'?

Can you not see the Truth in 'it'?

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:33 pm**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:04 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:00 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 12:03 pm

There are hundreds of prior discussions of determinism on this site. Everybody here is well familiar with the topic. I am perfectly happy to grant hard determinism for the sake of argument. It is absurd to use this as an excuse not to explain the other stuff.
This is not my first rodeas FlashDangerpants. His first discovery is the most important and I'm not letting it go just because you don't have the patience or desire to hear him out.

FlashDangerpants wrote:The reason you won't explain the other stuff is obviously that you want to reserve it for paying customers.
Think what you want. You've been wrong this whole time. It doesn't surprise me that one more error in your thinking will make a difference.

FlashDangerpants wrote:The smarter people think they are, the more intolerant they become.Very very sad.
What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism? Is it different from that which Strawson covered?
He didn't have the same insights that this author had, not even close.

Strawson on Free Will: What are the most persuasive arguments?

Strawson's arguments against free will and moral responsibility are often based on strict causal determinism and determinism modified by quantum randomness. He argues that if we believe in free will, we must also believe in the ability to self-determine the process by which one self-determines, leading to an infinite regress. This would imply that self-determination is logically impossible, thus making free will impossible. Strawson's view challenges the notion that we can make decisions in a self-determined way, as it would require us to be able to self-determine the process by which we self-determine. This raises questions about the nature of our decisions and the extent to which they are truly voluntary.

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:39 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:11 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 7:02 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 6:13 pm
What hasn't been discussed can't be discussed because it's all secrets that you hope people will buy access to.
Wrong.
If 'that' is wrong, then 'what' is right?

And, if you ignore answering, then your views and beliefs are just staying secret, and hidden.

This is laughable. I gave you the first three chapters FOR FREE. If you don't take the time to read them because you have concluded he's wrong, there is nothing I can do about it, but it certainly doesn't mean I have kept any secrets away from you.

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

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:44 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:12 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 9:11 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:44 pm
What is the second discovery? It's not a difficult question.
It has to do with the eyes. I don’t want to discuss this until his first discovery is understood, and it is far from it because no one is giving me a chance.
I will give you the 'best chance' you will ever have.

What is the so-called 'first discovery', exactly?

'We' can only understand 'it' if only you will share and express 'it'.

This knowledge cannot be explained in a couple of sentences. Real philosophers read first, then discuss. I am at a disadvantage because no one has read anything in order to have a productive discussion. You are all concluding I am here to get people to buy the book for money. I reduced the price to $1.95, but that doesn't seem to faze you. Try making money off of a book at Amazon for $1.95, and I'll eat my words.

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:49 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:23 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 9:57 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 9:11 pm

It has to do with the eyes. I don’t want to discuss this until his first discovery is understood, and it is far from it because no one is giving me a chance.
The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great. You seem to have some confusion where you don't think the will itself is subject to the same deterministic forces as the entire universe, leading to strange phrasings such as "Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent".... but nobody cares.

Second discovery please.
Absolutely not. According to definition of determinism, we have no say in our choices because we are being controlled by deterministic forces.

So, all you are essentially saying, here, is if 'the definition' for the word 'determinism' says that you are being controlled by 'deterministic forces, then you will controlled by deterministic forces, and, conversely, if 'the definition' for the word 'determinism' says that you are not being controlled by 'deterministic forces', then you will not be controlled by deterministic forces, correct?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:23 am We have no say in what we choose because determinism has made those choices for us.

Therefore, if what you are saying and claiming, here, is true and right, or not, then we could never ever know, correct?

See, if what you are 'trying to' claim, here, is absolutely true, then you could be clearly expressing 'untruths', as 'truths', and none would be the wiser.

one could choose to say the exact opposite of you, here, and then may prove, to you, that it is actually what is irrefutably True, but you would then, still, just 'try to' claim that you had no other choice but to say and agree that 'it' is true because 'determinism' made 'your' choices, for you, right?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:23 am This is what many people don't like about the idea that they have no free will.

Well would it not stand to reason that if one does not like that 'determinism' made them choose things, but they wished they had 'free will' and 'the definition' for 'free will' and 'determinism' are opposing, (which by the way they are not), then 'that one' would not like what they can not get although they wished for it.

By the way why would 'determinism' make people choose to wish for 'free will' when, according to 'your forced chosen belief' there is absolutely nothing in the whole of the Universe that would have even 'determined' 'that wish'?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:23 am This phrase is important, and you just dismissed it with a wave of a hand.

'This phrase' is absolutely absurd and illogical.

'The phrase' many people do not like the idea that they have no 'free will' because 'determinism' forced only 'those people' to have 'that idea', is absolutely absurd, irrational, and illogical.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:23 am Try to understand instead of coming off like Mr. Know it all.

Why would 'determinism' force you to say and make such a request?

Have you ever considered presenting irrefutable proof for 'your claim', here? Or, has 'determinism' forced you to not choose to consider doing 'this', instead?

If yes, then why would 'determinism' force you to choose to not back up and support 'your forced claim', here, and without any proof at all.

Would it not be smarter or wiser for 'determinism' to force you to prove your claim that there is no 'free will' and that 'determinism' has forced you to choose to believe things and to make claims, here, without giving you absolutely any actual proof at all?

At least if 'free will' did exist, then you could have chosen, 'freely', to back up, support, and prove 'your claim', here, true.

Also, and by the way, you wanting to get to showing that by not being able to take responsibility, because there is only 'determinism' and no 'free will', for you to be able to move onto what you want to claim, next, is completely and utterly unnecessary. your so-called 'second discovery' can be proved without any False claim about 'determinism', here.

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:52 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:39 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:11 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 7:02 pm

Wrong.
If 'that' is wrong, then 'what' is right?

And, if you ignore answering, then your views and beliefs are just staying secret, and hidden.
This is laughable. I gave you the first three chapters FOR FREE.

Why not just give ALL of the chapters FOR FREE?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:39 pm If you don't take the time to read them because you have concluded he's wrong, there is nothing I can do about it,

What a Truly absurd, closed, and stupid assumption to make, here.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:39 pm but it certainly doesn't mean I have kept any secrets away from you.

If you do not tell 'us' what is right, here, after you have told 'us' 'it' is wrong, here, then you are, obviously, holding and keeping secrets, here.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:39 pm https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 10208355d4

Is it too hard and/or too complex for you to just copy and paste, here?

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:54 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:28 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 9:57 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 9:11 pm

It has to do with the eyes. I don’t want to discuss this until his first discovery is understood, and it is far from it because no one is giving me a chance.
The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great. You seem to have some confusion where you don't think the will itself is subject to the same deterministic forces as the entire universe, leading to strange phrasings such as "Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent".... but nobody cares.
Why do you call 'that' 'strange phrasings'?

Can you not see the Truth in 'it'?

What strange phrasings are you talking about? You are way too quick to challenge me. Why can't you, even for a moment, be like a little child and ask questions rather than tell me he was wrong when you have no idea what his observations were or what he was wrong about?

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:55 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:52 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:39 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:11 pm

If 'that' is wrong, then 'what' is right?

And, if you ignore answering, then your views and beliefs are just staying secret, and hidden.
This is laughable. I gave you the first three chapters FOR FREE.
Why not just give ALL of the chapters FOR FREE?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:39 pm If you don't take the time to read them because you have concluded he's wrong, there is nothing I can do about it,
What a Truly absurd, closed, and stupid assumption to make, here.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:39 pm but it certainly doesn't mean I have kept any secrets away from you.
If you do not tell 'us' what is right, here, after you have told 'us' 'it' is wrong, here, then you are, obviously, holding and keeping secrets, here.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:39 pm https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 10208355d4
Is it too hard and/or too complex for you to just copy and paste, here?

I could do that but in the past that didn't work because people didn't like me cutting and pasting. They wanted everything to be in my own words to prove that I understood the text. I have no problem answering people's questions after the text has been read. But the text gives clarity. It is coming from the author's own words, which is much better than any half-baked translation. How can I win? No matter what I do, it's not to someone's liking.

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 4:03 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:44 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:12 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 9:11 pm

It has to do with the eyes. I don’t want to discuss this until his first discovery is understood, and it is far from it because no one is giving me a chance.
I will give you the 'best chance' you will ever have.

What is the so-called 'first discovery', exactly?

'We' can only understand 'it' if only you will share and express 'it'.
This knowledge cannot be explained in a couple of sentences.

If you can not explain it simply, then you do not understand it well enough.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:44 pm Real philosophers read first, then discuss.

And, I am asking you, and giving you, 'the chance' to present 'your writings', here, so 'we' can read 'it', here, so then 'we' can discuss 'it', here.

But, continue to keep 'it' hidden, and thus secret, from 'us', here.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:44 pm I am at a disadvantage because no one has read anything in order to have a productive discussion.

So, why not just present 'it', here.

If you did, then you will not feel so so-called 'disadvantaged', here.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:44 pm You are all concluding I am here to get people to buy the book for money.

Why did you even begin that absolutely every one, here, has concluded what you just claimed?

Is 'the book' for free, or for sale?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:44 pm I reduced the price to $1.95, but that doesn't seem to faze you.

That absolutely any human being wants to get paid money for just 'sharing and expressing thoughts', shows and proves just how Truly selfish and greedy human beings had become.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:44 pm Try making money off of a book at Amazon for $1.95, and I'll eat my words.

If you continue to write sentences that are completely illogical and nonsensical like your last one, here, is, then do not be surprised if no one wants to read your writings.

And, why would any human being, who is supposedly writing a book about the decline and fall of ALL evil, write 'that book' with the intention of 'making money'. Especially considering the fact that it is said, and written, that 'the love of money is the root of ALL evil'.

Writing a book, supposedly, about 'The decline and fall of ALL evil', with the actual intention of 'making money', and thus with an underlying 'love of money', would be highly hypocritical to say the least, would it not?

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2025 4:09 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:54 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:28 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 9:57 pm
The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great. You seem to have some confusion where you don't think the will itself is subject to the same deterministic forces as the entire universe, leading to strange phrasings such as "Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent".... but nobody cares.
Why do you call 'that' 'strange phrasings'?

Can you not see the Truth in 'it'?
What strange phrasings are you talking about?

The ones "flashdangerpants" put 'in red', and proceeding "flashdangerpants" saying, 'leading to strange phrasing such as (those in red, above, here).

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:54 pm You are way too quick to challenge me.

But I was not challenging you. I was just asking "flashdangerpants", Why does "flashdangerpants" call 'that' (in red) 'strange phrasings'?

To me the actual irrefutable Truths in it are obvious.

Also, what is, 'you are way too quick', even in relation to, exactly, anyway?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:54 pm Why can't you, even for a moment, be like a little child and ask questions rather than tell me he was wrong when you have no idea what his observations were or what he was wrong about?

But I have asked you questions, (and just like a little child, if you like).

Have you not yet noticed them?

And, who is 'he', exactly, who has had 'his' observations, here?

Philosophy Now Forum

New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery