Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 4:15 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:39 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: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 whatever we choose to do will be automatically interpreted as the cumulative result of our preferences... duh.

That doesn't give us free will, not even close.

I never said it did that. That is not what the argument there is for and that is not even a conclusion I would waste effort arguing towards.

peacegirl wrote:If you never said that, why bring up the phrase "free will" if we are not defining it in the same way. Here it is again: Free will is completely compatible with all our actions being guided by our best understanding of our desires at the given moment and whatever we choose to do will be automatically interpreted as the cumulative result of our preferences. That is not the definition that has been presented in the free will/determinism debate. If you never said it did give us free will, then why would you use the term at all and cause more confusion than there already is?

FD wrote:Your inability to understand the basics of what an argument is attempting to establish is just tragic. You are not clever enough for what you are trying to do. You aren't capable of finding the flaws in my arguments because you never understand a word of it. You aren't capable of finding flaws in your own argument because you just don't understand how argument works at all. And you aren't capable of seeing the gaping holes in your dad's argument either. You really are just out of your depth altogether.

How can you find gaping holes in my dad's argument, when number one, it isn't an argument; it's a demonstration, and number two, you haven't shown me where these gaping holes are. Hint: The movement toward greater satisfaction, although it proves determinism true, is not the discovery. This is more than tragic because your misunderstanding (applied to all the people who are naysayers and believe this is just another form of toxic positivity) is actually preventing from coming to fruition (in our lifetime) the very thing we all want... a more peaceful world.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 4:38 pm More third discovery please, how do you show that we never really die?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:22 pm I never realised the quote tags were an intelligence test. I guess I never saw anyone fail it so many times before.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:27 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 4:38 pm More third discovery please, how do you show that we never really die?

He didn't say we never die. Of course we die, but death is not the end because we (not we as we are now) are born again and again and again. I can't get into this chapter at this time. Why would you want to when the discovery we are now discussing has major implications for the benefit of all mankind. Is it that easy to dismiss before the actual discovery has even been identified, let alone discussed? It's as if you're saying, "Who the hell cares that this knowledge could potentially bring about world peace.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 7:53 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:27 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 4:38 pm More third discovery please, how do you show that we never really die?

He didn't say we never die. Of course we die, but death is not the end because we (not we as we are now) are born again and again and again. I can't get into this chapter at this time. Why would you want to when the discovery we are now discussing has major implications for the benefit of all mankind. Is it that easy to dismiss before the actual discovery has even been identified, let alone discussed? It's as if you're saying, "Who the hell cares that this knowledge could potentially bring about world peace.

Haven't we already identified the first discovery like 50 times? We'll stop blaming people in an utopistic world and they'll be determined by their conscience to be unable to strike a first blow.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 5:54 pm
How can you find gaping holes in my dad's argument, when number one, it isn't an argument; it's a demonstration, and number two, you haven't shown me where these gaping holes are. Hint: The movement toward greater satisfaction, although it proves determinism true, is not the discovery. This is more than tragic because your misunderstanding (applied to all the people who are naysayers and believe this is just another form of toxic positivity) is actually preventing from coming to fruition (in our lifetime) the very thing we all want... a more peaceful world.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 11:23 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 5:54 pm
How can you find gaping holes in my dad's argument, when number one, it isn't an argument; it's a demonstration, and number two, you haven't shown me where these gaping holes are. Hint: The movement toward greater satisfaction, although it proves determinism true, is not the discovery. This is more than tragic because your misunderstanding (applied to all the people who are naysayers and believe this is just another form of toxic positivity) is actually preventing from coming to fruition (in our lifetime) the very thing we all want... a more peaceful world.

By the very fact that 'that one's' writings are not being understood and have not brought about a more peaceful world already is irrefutable proof that there are 'gaps' in those writings.

peacegirl wrote:Not at all. There are no gaps in the way you describe.

And, while you are not open to recognising and seeing those gaps, even when people, here, are pointing them out directly to you, you will not be able to fill those gaps in, which is what is actually preventing the very thing that we all want .... a more peaceful world.

See,

If there were no 'gaps' in those writings, then a more peaceful world would have already began.
A more peaceful world has not already begun.
Therefore, there actually are 'gaps' in those writings.

Now, where the gaps are, and even how they can be filled in, in the exact way, to help in the bringing about of a more peaceful world, which every one wants, is a Truly very simple and very easy process. However, because you are still in the denial stage, and thus are absolutely closed, here, then absolutely nothing is going to change, here. Rendering those writings absolutely worthless and useless, here.

peacegirl wrote:Not here nor there Age are these writings useless. And if you think they are, then accept your irrefutable proof and smile on your way out.

Until you change and become and remain open to taking on feedback and to start filling in the gaps that others aer very clearly seeing and pointing out to you, then nothing will change, here, and you will just keep blaming others for why those writings are not working.

Now, if you can not fill in the gaps that others are pointing out, to you, then just maybe it would be best to leave it to someone else who can do it. Those writings as they are, obviously, are not going to accomplish and achieve what it is that they were intended for.

peacegirl wrote:No one has pointed out any gaps other than the ones of their own making. No offense but I don't think you're capable of knowing what is or is not irrefutable.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 8:11 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 7:53 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:27 pm

He didn't say we never die. Of course we die, but death is not the end because we (not we as we are now) are born again and again and again. I can't get into this chapter at this time. Why would you want to when the discovery we are now discussing has major implications for the benefit of all mankind. Is it that easy to dismiss before the actual discovery has even been identified, let alone discussed? It's as if you're saying, "Who the hell cares that this knowledge could potentially bring about world peace.

Haven't we already identified the first discovery like 50 times? We'll stop blaming people in an utopistic world and they'll be determined by their conscience to be unable to strike a first blow.

You get the gist and I'm glad, but don't let this cursory summary stop you from understanding the two-sided equation fully. Conscience is the driver as to why it will not allow one to hurt others with a first blow but will allow a retaliatory blow that is justified. It's very hard to imagine a world without any blame that would not induce the need to punish. Do you understand what must be removed in the environment before these principles can be successful? Do you understand that without seeing how the Great Transition from one world to the other will take place, you are not getting the full blueprint of how this new world can actually become a reality? Can you see how difficult this has been for me because I have been forced (not with a gun to my head but without the wherewithal to go any further than Chapter One) to leave so much out because no one is meeting me halfway? You don't seem very enthused. I hope you and others will continue to show interest; otherwise, I will be talking to myself.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 12:13 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 11:23 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 5:54 pm
How can you find gaping holes in my dad's argument, when number one, it isn't an argument; it's a demonstration, and number two, you haven't shown me where these gaping holes are. Hint: The movement toward greater satisfaction, although it proves determinism true, is not the discovery. This is more than tragic because your misunderstanding (applied to all the people who are naysayers and believe this is just another form of toxic positivity) is actually preventing from coming to fruition (in our lifetime) the very thing we all want... a more peaceful world.

By the very fact that 'that one's' writings are not being understood and have not brought about a more peaceful world already is irrefutable proof that there are 'gaps' in those writings.

peacegirl wrote:Not at all. There are no gaps in the way you describe.

And, while you are not open to recognising and seeing those gaps, even when people, here, are pointing them out directly to you, you will not be able to fill those gaps in, which is what is actually preventing the very thing that we all want .... a more peaceful world.

See,

If there were no 'gaps' in those writings, then a more peaceful world would have already began.
A more peaceful world has not already begun.
Therefore, there actually are 'gaps' in those writings.

Now, where the gaps are, and even how they can be filled in, in the exact way, to help in the bringing about of a more peaceful world, which every one wants, is a Truly very simple and very easy process. However, because you are still in the denial stage, and thus are absolutely closed, here, then absolutely nothing is going to change, here. Rendering those writings absolutely worthless and useless, here.

peacegirl wrote:Not here nor there Age are these writings useless. And if you think they are, then accept your irrefutable proof and smile on your way out.

Until you change and become and remain open to taking on feedback and to start filling in the gaps that others aer very clearly seeing and pointing out to you, then nothing will change, here, and you will just keep blaming others for why those writings are not working.

Now, if you can not fill in the gaps that others are pointing out, to you, then just maybe it would be best to leave it to someone else who can do it. Those writings as they are, obviously, are not going to accomplish and achieve what it is that they were intended for.

peacegirl wrote:No one has pointed out any gaps other than the ones of their own making. No offense but I don't think you're capable of knowing what is or is not irrefutable.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 8:37 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 12:13 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 11:23 pm

By the very fact that 'that one's' writings are not being understood and have not brought about a more peaceful world already is irrefutable proof that there are 'gaps' in those writings.



And, while you are not open to recognising and seeing those gaps, even when people, here, are pointing them out directly to you, you will not be able to fill those gaps in, which is what is actually preventing the very thing that we all want .... a more peaceful world.

See,

If there were no 'gaps' in those writings, then a more peaceful world would have already began.
A more peaceful world has not already begun.
Therefore, there actually are 'gaps' in those writings.

Now, where the gaps are, and even how they can be filled in, in the exact way, to help in the bringing about of a more peaceful world, which every one wants, is a Truly very simple and very easy process. However, because you are still in the denial stage, and thus are absolutely closed, here, then absolutely nothing is going to change, here. Rendering those writings absolutely worthless and useless, here.



Until you change and become and remain open to taking on feedback and to start filling in the gaps that others aer very clearly seeing and pointing out to you, then nothing will change, here, and you will just keep blaming others for why those writings are not working.

Now, if you can not fill in the gaps that others are pointing out, to you, then just maybe it would be best to leave it to someone else who can do it. Those writings as they are, obviously, are not going to accomplish and achieve what it is that they were intended for.

you are proving further just how closed you really are. And, your superiority complex, here, is revealing more even 'about you'.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 3:25 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 8:11 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 7:53 pm
Haven't we already identified the first discovery like 50 times? We'll stop blaming people in an utopistic world and they'll be determined by their conscience to be unable to strike a first blow.

You get the gist and I'm glad, but don't let this cursory summary stop you from understanding the two-sided equation fully. Conscience is the driver as to why it will not allow one to hurt others with a first blow but will allow a retaliatory blow that is justified. It's very hard to imagine a world without any blame that would not induce the need to punish. Do you understand what must be removed in the environment before these principles can be successful? Do you understand that without seeing how the Great Transition from one world to the other will take place, you are not getting the full blueprint of how this new world can actually become a reality? Can you see how difficult this has been for me because I have been forced (not with a gun to my head but without the wherewithal to go any further than Chapter One) to leave so much out because no one is meeting me halfway? You don't seem very enthused. I hope you and others will continue to show interest; otherwise, I will be talking to myself.

Yeah and to me there's no point going further with this, because I know very well that the core claim of the book, the one about human conscience heavily reacting to no blame, isn't true at all, and it wouldn't be true at all in an utopistic environment either. (If it was true btw, we'd already be in the "Golden Age" and we wouldn't be having this discussion.) You and your father haven't met the actual real people on the planet yet, you live in your heads. Your father had a savior complex but that's not enough for saving humanity. Most real humans are rather disappointing, somewhat malignant and stupid, they are tribal and can't rise above it.

The second discovery is even more easily refuted. But we haven't seen yet how exactly the third one is wrong. What is the part that gets reincarnated?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 10:51 am If you’re so positive he was wrong, then we’re done

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 11:23 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 5:54 pm
How can you find gaping holes in my dad's argument, when number one, it isn't an argument; it's a demonstration, and number two, you haven't shown me where these gaping holes are. Hint: The movement toward greater satisfaction, although it proves determinism true, is not the discovery. This is more than tragic because your misunderstanding (applied to all the people who are naysayers and believe this is just another form of toxic positivity) is actually preventing from coming to fruition (in our lifetime) the very thing we all want... a more peaceful world.

By the very fact that 'that one's' writings are not being understood and have not brought about a more peaceful world already is irrefutable proof that there are 'gaps' in those writings.

And, while you are not open to recognising and seeing those gaps, even when people, here, are pointing them out directly to you, you will not be able to fill those gaps in, which is what is actually preventing the very thing that we all want .... a more peaceful world.

See,

If there were no 'gaps' in those writings, then a more peaceful world would have already began.
A more peaceful world has not already begun.
Therefore, there actually are 'gaps' in those writings.

Now, where the gaps are, and even how they can be filled in, in the exact way, to help in the bringing about of a more peaceful world, which every one wants, is a Truly very simple and very easy process. However, because you are still in the denial stage, and thus are absolutely closed, here, then absolutely nothing is going to change, here. Rendering those writings absolutely worthless and useless, here.

Until you change and become and remain open to taking on feedback and to start filling in the gaps that others aer very clearly seeing and pointing out to you, then nothing will change, here, and you will just keep blaming others for why those writings are not working.

Now, if you can not fill in the gaps that others are pointing out, to you, then just maybe it would be best to leave it to someone else who can do it. Those writings as they are, obviously, are not going to accomplish and achieve what it is that they were intended for.