Philosophy Now Forum

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 7:33 pm Re: New Discovery
Post by peacegirl » Mon Aug 11, 2025 7:04 pm

It's been a long time since I've been here. I just transferred the thread that was in "Introduce Yourself" to a more appropriate category. I don't know if anyone has followed my posts from 2010 and then 2019, but I am here I am again, sharing this discovery with anyone who will take the time to listen, because it has the power to prevent what no one wants: war and crime and all the other evils plaguing mankind. I've updated the book, Decline and Fall of All Evil by Seymour Lessans. I just lowered the price at Amazon to a bare minimum so that cost is not a factor. My hope is that interest the book will gain traction and this knowledge will spread through word of mouth. Here is the link:

https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-All ... 130&sr=8-1
Top
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 8456
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:54 pm
Contact: Contact FlashDangerpants
Re: New Discovery
Post by FlashDangerpants » Tue Aug 12, 2025 7:38 am

I remember you, you were the one selling your dad's 3rd rate alternative to scientology based on determinism. First book's almost free, but then you pay to unlock all these extra levels, right?

You missed out, there was a guy who went absolutely mental for determinism recently, you could have pulled off some sort of Bonnie and Clyde heist with BM5 on your side.
Top
peacegirl
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:02 pm
Contact: Contact peacegirl
Re: New Discovery
Post by peacegirl » Tue Aug 12, 2025 1:58 pm

nameless wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:13 pm
peacegirl wrote:
Dear friends,

I have been on the internet for some time, and it's a very difficult undertaking. Why is this so? Because people look back at one's online history and come to false conclusions. Will you give me space in which to speak before jumping to conclusions?? I hope so.
I am uninterested in the words that you have left lying around on your trip through the net. That was what you thought then.
The words that I will evaluate and critique are the ones presented Now (unless you wish to link me to others).
I don't come to "conclusions", understanding and critical evaluation is an ongoing process. 'Conclusions' are for 'believers', religion rather than philosophy.
Philosophers are mind sharks!
Welcome.
I agree with everything you have said. The problem is that it appears people have lost the art of careful analysis. Everything revolves around soundbites (AI, although a wonderful tool, may add to the problem if it is used to avoid careful examination), and it will never do this work justice. I would appreciate if someone could move this thread to the correct category, as I know this is just to introduce oneself.
Top
peacegirl
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:02 pm
Contact: Contact peacegirl
Re: New Discovery
Post by peacegirl » Tue Aug 12, 2025 2:10 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 7:38 am
I remember you, you were the one selling your dad's 3rd rate alternative to scientology based on determinism. First book's almost free, but then you pay to unlock all these extra levels, right?
What levels are you talking about?
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Here it goes again, just a repeat of what was thrown around and has taken hold without one iota of curiosity on your part; just a conclusion based on air, nothing more.

You missed out, there was a guy who went absolutely mental for determinism recently, you could have pulled off some sort of Bonnie and Clyde heist with BM5 on your side.
A lot of people believe in determinism (which, by the way, is defined in such a way that doesn't allow for the reconciliation between "free will" (doing what one wants "freely" or without external constraint) and having no free will; i.e., the inability to choose both A and B equally, when there are meaningful differences between the two), but determinism alone is not the discovery. It is only the gateway to knowledge that was hidden behind this hermetically sealed door.
Top
ThinkOfOne
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2022 9:29 pm
Contact: Contact ThinkOfOne
Re: New Discovery
Post by ThinkOfOne » Tue Aug 12, 2025 3:03 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 2:10 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 7:38 am
I remember you, you were the one selling your dad's 3rd rate alternative to scientology based on determinism. First book's almost free, but then you pay to unlock all these extra levels, right?
What levels are you talking about?
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Here it goes again, just a repeat of what was thrown around and has taken hold without one iota of curiosity on your part; just a conclusion based on air, nothing more.

You missed out, there was a guy who went absolutely mental for determinism recently, you could have pulled off some sort of Bonnie and Clyde heist with BM5 on your side.
A lot of people believe in determinism (which, by the way, is defined in such a way that doesn't allow for the reconciliation between "free will" (doing what one wants "freely" or without external constraint) and having no free will; i.e., the inability to choose both A and B equally, when there are meaningful differences between the two), but determinism alone is not the discovery. It is only the gateway to knowledge that was hidden behind this hermetically sealed door.
The following seem to be a much better definition of "free will" as I understand it.

Free will suggests that our choices are not simply the inevitable outcome of prior events or external factors. Instead, we have the ability to initiate actions and make decisions that are not predetermined.

What is your understanding of "determinism" given the above definition of "free will"?
Top
peacegirl
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:02 pm
Contact: Contact peacegirl
Re: New Discovery
Post by peacegirl » Tue Aug 12, 2025 5:56 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 3:03 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 2:10 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 7:38 am
I remember you, you were the one selling your dad's 3rd rate alternative to scientology based on determinism. First book's almost free, but then you pay to unlock all these extra levels, right?
What levels are you talking about?
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Here it goes again, just a repeat of what was thrown around and has taken hold without one iota of curiosity on your part; just a conclusion based on air, nothing more.

You missed out, there was a guy who went absolutely mental for determinism recently, you could have pulled off some sort of Bonnie and Clyde heist with BM5 on your side.
A lot of people believe in determinism (which, by the way, is defined in such a way that doesn't allow for the reconciliation between "free will" (doing what one wants "freely" or without external constraint) and having no free will; i.e., the inability to choose both A and B equally, when there are meaningful differences between the two), but determinism alone is not the discovery. It is only the gateway to knowledge that was hidden behind this hermetically sealed door.
The following seem to be a much better definition of "free will" as I understand it.

Free will suggests that our choices are not simply the inevitable outcome of prior events or external factors. Instead, we have the ability to initiate actions and make decisions that are not predetermined.

What is your understanding of "determinism" given the above definition of "free will"?
It is true that our choices are not simply the inevitable outcome of prior events or external factors that remove the agent's ability to choose. It is the definition of determinism that is causing a split between these two opposing belief systems that are easily reconciled when a correct definition is given. We need a basis for communication or else this thread will die as it did 15 years ago.

We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false. So, without further ado, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note.
Top
21 posts 2

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 13, 2025 12:20 pm Hi everyone,

I'm trying to share a discovery that can lead to a world of peace and brotherhood (I know how this sounds; I hope you bear with me) but unfortunately I messed up trying to transfer my thread in "Introduce Yourself" to a more appropriate category. I hope people will join me here. This discovery lies hidden behind the door of determinism, but because the standard definition used in philosophical debates is not defined accurately, this debate hasn't made headway for thousands of years. I hope this new understanding pushes us forward in our effort to become enlightened human beings. Here is a little overview by AI: I've never used an AI summary before. I hope it encourages questions and doesn't cause confusion.

The document presents a philosophical and psychological exploration of a scientific discovery aimed at understanding human nature and achieving world peace by addressing the root causes of evil and conflict.

The Promise of World Peace
This text presents a groundbreaking discovery that could potentially end all forms of evil and conflict in human relations. ​

The author, Seymour Lessans, claims to have uncovered a psychological law of human nature that can lead to world peace. ​
The book argues that this discovery has been obscured by dogma and misunderstanding for decades. ​
It emphasizes that once this law is understood and applied, it will prevent the cycle of hurt and retaliation in human relations. ​
The author believes that this finding is factual and can be scientifically proven, not merely theoretical. ​

Historical Context and Skepticism
The text reflects on the historical skepticism surrounding revolutionary ideas and discoveries.

The author references past instances where significant scientific discoveries were initially ridiculed or dismissed.
He draws parallels between his findings and those of historical figures like Gregor Mendel, who faced skepticism despite their eventual validation.
The author urges readers to remain open-minded and not dismiss new ideas simply because they challenge established beliefs.
He highlights the importance of scientific inquiry and the dangers of dogmatic thinking in academia.

The Role of Education and Knowledge
The text critiques the educational system's resistance to new ideas and discoveries.

The author recounts his personal experiences with academic professionals who dismissed his claims based on his lack of formal education. ​
He argues that true knowledge should not be limited to those with formal credentials and that groundbreaking ideas can come from anyone.
The text emphasizes the need for open-mindedness in academia to foster innovation and discovery.
The author warns against the dangers of relying solely on established authorities to validate new knowledge.

The Nature of Truth and Understanding
This section discusses the relationship between truth, understanding, and the acceptance of new ideas.

The author asserts that mathematical and scientific truths do not depend on the authority of the person presenting them.
He emphasizes the need for readers to differentiate between undeniable truths and personal opinions or beliefs.
The text argues that many accepted ideas are based on fallacious reasoning and that true understanding requires deep analysis.
The author encourages readers to approach his findings with a willingness to learn and adapt their understanding.

The Vision for a New World
The text concludes with a hopeful vision for the future based on the author's discovery.

The author predicts that understanding this psychological law will lead to a "Golden Age" free from war and evil.
He believes that once this knowledge is widely accepted, humanity will unite to prevent future conflicts.
The text emphasizes the urgency of disseminating this knowledge to avert potential global disasters, such as nuclear war. ​
The author expresses confidence that this transition is not only possible but inevitable if the principles are understood and applied correctly.

The Intellectual Resistance to New Knowledge
The text discusses the challenges faced by individuals who present new scientific discoveries that contradict established beliefs held by educated elites.

Highly educated individuals often prioritize credentials over the validity of new ideas.
There is a parallel drawn between historical dogmatism in religion and contemporary scientific beliefs. ​
The author questions the certainty of established knowledge and encourages readers to consider the possibility of being wrong.
The text emphasizes the importance of objective investigation over blind adherence to tradition.

The Dogma of Free Will
The author argues that the widely accepted belief in free will is a barrier to understanding human nature and solving societal issues. ​

The belief in free will is compared to the outdated notion that the earth is flat.
The text asserts that 98% of people believe in free will, which hinders scientific progress.
The author claims that understanding determinism is crucial for addressing human problems like war and crime.
The text suggests that the belief in free will has been perpetuated by religion and education to justify moral accountability.

The Impact of Established Beliefs on Progress
The text illustrates how established beliefs can obstruct scientific inquiry and societal advancement.

Historical examples, such as the rejection of Galileo's findings, highlight the dangers of dogmatic thinking.
The author recounts personal experiences of attempting to share a groundbreaking discovery, only to be met with skepticism.
The text emphasizes that many professionals, including clergy and educators, resist ideas that threaten their established views.
The author argues that this resistance to change is detrimental to societal progress and understanding.

The Promise of a New Understanding
The author presents a vision of a future where understanding human nature leads to the decline of all evil.

The text claims that a scientific discovery can bring about a Golden Age free from war and crime.
The author believes that recognizing the non-freedom of will will lead to a transformation in human relations.
The text posits that this new understanding will render many professions obsolete, as societal issues will be resolved.
The author expresses hope that this knowledge will be universally accepted, leading to a significant positive change in humanity.

The Nature of Free Will and Determinism
The text explores the philosophical debate surrounding free will and determinism, arguing that free will cannot be proven true while determinism can be established as a reality. ​

Free will is defined as the ability to choose without compulsion. ​
The impossibility of proving free will true is emphasized, as it requires reversing time to show alternative choices. ​
The consensus of opinion suggests that free will exists, but this is merely a belief without mathematical proof. ​
Determinism, as the opposite of free will, can be proven true, while free will remains a theory. ​

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 3:54 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 13, 2025 12:20 pm Hi everyone,

I'm trying to share a discovery that can lead to a world of peace and brotherhood (I know how this sounds; I hope you bear with me) but unfortunately I messed up trying to transfer my thread in "Introduce Yourself" to a more appropriate category. I hope people will join me here. This discovery lies hidden behind the door of determinism, but because the standard definition used in philosophical debates is not defined accurately, this debate hasn't made headway for thousands of years. I hope this new understanding pushes us forward in our effort to become enlightened human beings. Here is a little overview by AI: I've never used an AI summary before. I hope it encourages questions and doesn't cause confusion.

The document presents a philosophical and psychological exploration of a scientific discovery aimed at understanding human nature and achieving world peace by addressing the root causes of evil and conflict.

The Promise of World Peace
This text presents a groundbreaking discovery that could potentially end all forms of evil and conflict in human relations. ​

The author, Seymour Lessans, claims to have uncovered a psychological law of human nature that can lead to world peace. ​
The book argues that this discovery has been obscured by dogma and misunderstanding for decades. ​
It emphasizes that once this law is understood and applied, it will prevent the cycle of hurt and retaliation in human relations. ​
The author believes that this finding is factual and can be scientifically proven, not merely theoretical. ​

Historical Context and Skepticism
The text reflects on the historical skepticism surrounding revolutionary ideas and discoveries.

The author references past instances where significant scientific discoveries were initially ridiculed or dismissed.
He draws parallels between his findings and those of historical figures like Gregor Mendel, who faced skepticism despite their eventual validation.
The author urges readers to remain open-minded and not dismiss new ideas simply because they challenge established beliefs.
He highlights the importance of scientific inquiry and the dangers of dogmatic thinking in academia.

The Role of Education and Knowledge
The text critiques the educational system's resistance to new ideas and discoveries.

The author recounts his personal experiences with academic professionals who dismissed his claims based on his lack of formal education. ​
He argues that true knowledge should not be limited to those with formal credentials and that groundbreaking ideas can come from anyone.
The text emphasizes the need for open-mindedness in academia to foster innovation and discovery.
The author warns against the dangers of relying solely on established authorities to validate new knowledge.

The Nature of Truth and Understanding
This section discusses the relationship between truth, understanding, and the acceptance of new ideas.

The author asserts that mathematical and scientific truths do not depend on the authority of the person presenting them.
He emphasizes the need for readers to differentiate between undeniable truths and personal opinions or beliefs.
The text argues that many accepted ideas are based on fallacious reasoning and that true understanding requires deep analysis.
The author encourages readers to approach his findings with a willingness to learn and adapt their understanding.

The Vision for a New World
The text concludes with a hopeful vision for the future based on the author's discovery.

The author predicts that understanding this psychological law will lead to a "Golden Age" free from war and evil.
He believes that once this knowledge is widely accepted, humanity will unite to prevent future conflicts.
The text emphasizes the urgency of disseminating this knowledge to avert potential global disasters, such as nuclear war. ​
The author expresses confidence that this transition is not only possible but inevitable if the principles are understood and applied correctly.

The Intellectual Resistance to New Knowledge
The text discusses the challenges faced by individuals who present new scientific discoveries that contradict established beliefs held by educated elites.

Highly educated individuals often prioritize credentials over the validity of new ideas.
There is a parallel drawn between historical dogmatism in religion and contemporary scientific beliefs. ​
The author questions the certainty of established knowledge and encourages readers to consider the possibility of being wrong.
The text emphasizes the importance of objective investigation over blind adherence to tradition.

The Dogma of Free Will
The author argues that the widely accepted belief in free will is a barrier to understanding human nature and solving societal issues. ​

The belief in free will is compared to the outdated notion that the earth is flat.
The text asserts that 98% of people believe in free will, which hinders scientific progress.
The author claims that understanding determinism is crucial for addressing human problems like war and crime.
The text suggests that the belief in free will has been perpetuated by religion and education to justify moral accountability.

The Impact of Established Beliefs on Progress
The text illustrates how established beliefs can obstruct scientific inquiry and societal advancement.

Historical examples, such as the rejection of Galileo's findings, highlight the dangers of dogmatic thinking.
The author recounts personal experiences of attempting to share a groundbreaking discovery, only to be met with skepticism.
The text emphasizes that many professionals, including clergy and educators, resist ideas that threaten their established views.
The author argues that this resistance to change is detrimental to societal progress and understanding.

The Promise of a New Understanding
The author presents a vision of a future where understanding human nature leads to the decline of all evil.

The text claims that a scientific discovery can bring about a Golden Age free from war and crime.
The author believes that recognizing the non-freedom of will will lead to a transformation in human relations.
The text posits that this new understanding will render many professions obsolete, as societal issues will be resolved.
The author expresses hope that this knowledge will be universally accepted, leading to a significant positive change in humanity.

The Nature of Free Will and Determinism
The text explores the philosophical debate surrounding free will and determinism, arguing that free will cannot be proven true while determinism can be established as a reality. ​

Free will is defined as the ability to choose without compulsion. ​
The impossibility of proving free will true is emphasized, as it requires reversing time to show alternative choices. ​
The consensus of opinion suggests that free will exists, but this is merely a belief without mathematical proof. ​
Determinism, as the opposite of free will, can be proven true, while free will remains a theory. ​

[quote="Eodnhoj7""]You are assuming all people want peace, this is an assumption does not hold true universally.


Okay...now to the crux.

You defined your terms.

These are your definitions

In philosophy anyone can define their terms as a word is defined according to context.
I understand very much how definitions are important so that we can communicate.

Both you, and other philosophers, use the defined terms to create a chain of reasoning.fff

Eodnhoj7 wrote:The chain of reasoning of both you and others is generally for the most part rational...A leads to B leads to C...etc.

So both you and others are convinced of your philosophy by degree of the appearance of reason...but the majority fail to see this reasoning for what it is: an appearance.

Why is reasoning an appearance? If it starts out with a false premise, then, of course, the conclusion will also be false, but I'm not sure where reasoning in itself, is just an appearance.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Because of the defined terms by which it began. In choosing infinite phenomena and infinite experiences the definition is a localizization of one possibly thing amidst the infinite.

Not so. Yes, we are all part of a localized point in time, but this has no reference to the fact that there are not an infinite amount of choices to pick from depending on our circumstances.

Eodnhoj7" wrote:There is no law by which one chooses the foundations of their argument.

Of course there is. Example: You are told that if you don't give the criminals what they want to know, they will kill you. The law here is that you are choosing to die or to live. Are you saying these choices are not driven by a law over which we have no control, and that either choice is as compelling as the other? According to you, A (to die) or B (not to die) are equal in value.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:The foundation is baseless at best, beyond that the foundations and argument justify each other in a circle, or the foundations lead to an infinite regress by which in finite time they are always changing or in the expanse fundamentally indefinite.

It is true that what we choose justifies our next move, but this does not mean it's a continue loop where there is no out if we don't see the benefit.

Now because the foundations of philosophical arguments are mere appearance there is no substance other than intent...this leads to a subjective state where a treatise, such as yours, is an expression of perception and less of truth.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Philosophical treatises are a means of trying to get people to see things a certain way and yet fails to take into account that the distinctions required to make them what they are are dependent upon another viewpoint being wrong.[/quote']

Also true, and free will is wrong.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:A universal philosophical system, by nature, is not within the nature of the system itself.

I agree. It's hard to see the truth in total perspective when we are looking at it from within the system itself. It's like seeing a tree without seeing the forest in which the tree lives and grows its roots.



It does take distinctions into account because we know people are different and their predispositions are different, but this does not negate the law of our nature that has the power to prevent what we don't want; namely, war and crime. Stick with me if you are so inclined. If not, that's okay too.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 1:37 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 3:54 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 13, 2025 12:20 pm Hi everyone,

I'm trying to share a discovery that can lead to a world of peace and brotherhood (I know how this sounds; I hope you bear with me) but unfortunately I messed up trying to transfer my thread in "Introduce Yourself" to a more appropriate category. I hope people will join me here. This discovery lies hidden behind the door of determinism, but because the standard definition used in philosophical debates is not defined accurately, this debate hasn't made headway for thousands of years. I hope this new understanding pushes us forward in our effort to become enlightened human beings. Here is a little overview by AI: I've never used an AI summary before. I hope it encourages questions and doesn't cause confusion.

The document presents a philosophical and psychological exploration of a scientific discovery aimed at understanding human nature and achieving world peace by addressing the root causes of evil and conflict.

The Promise of World Peace
This text presents a groundbreaking discovery that could potentially end all forms of evil and conflict in human relations. ​

The author, Seymour Lessans, claims to have uncovered a psychological law of human nature that can lead to world peace. ​
The book argues that this discovery has been obscured by dogma and misunderstanding for decades. ​
It emphasizes that once this law is understood and applied, it will prevent the cycle of hurt and retaliation in human relations. ​
The author believes that this finding is factual and can be scientifically proven, not merely theoretical. ​

Historical Context and Skepticism
The text reflects on the historical skepticism surrounding revolutionary ideas and discoveries.

The author references past instances where significant scientific discoveries were initially ridiculed or dismissed.
He draws parallels between his findings and those of historical figures like Gregor Mendel, who faced skepticism despite their eventual validation.
The author urges readers to remain open-minded and not dismiss new ideas simply because they challenge established beliefs.
He highlights the importance of scientific inquiry and the dangers of dogmatic thinking in academia.

The Role of Education and Knowledge
The text critiques the educational system's resistance to new ideas and discoveries.

The author recounts his personal experiences with academic professionals who dismissed his claims based on his lack of formal education. ​
He argues that true knowledge should not be limited to those with formal credentials and that groundbreaking ideas can come from anyone.
The text emphasizes the need for open-mindedness in academia to foster innovation and discovery.
The author warns against the dangers of relying solely on established authorities to validate new knowledge.

The Nature of Truth and Understanding
This section discusses the relationship between truth, understanding, and the acceptance of new ideas.

The author asserts that mathematical and scientific truths do not depend on the authority of the person presenting them.
He emphasizes the need for readers to differentiate between undeniable truths and personal opinions or beliefs.
The text argues that many accepted ideas are based on fallacious reasoning and that true understanding requires deep analysis.
The author encourages readers to approach his findings with a willingness to learn and adapt their understanding.

The Vision for a New World
The text concludes with a hopeful vision for the future based on the author's discovery.

The author predicts that understanding this psychological law will lead to a "Golden Age" free from war and evil.
He believes that once this knowledge is widely accepted, humanity will unite to prevent future conflicts.
The text emphasizes the urgency of disseminating this knowledge to avert potential global disasters, such as nuclear war. ​
The author expresses confidence that this transition is not only possible but inevitable if the principles are understood and applied correctly.

The Intellectual Resistance to New Knowledge
The text discusses the challenges faced by individuals who present new scientific discoveries that contradict established beliefs held by educated elites.

Highly educated individuals often prioritize credentials over the validity of new ideas.
There is a parallel drawn between historical dogmatism in religion and contemporary scientific beliefs. ​
The author questions the certainty of established knowledge and encourages readers to consider the possibility of being wrong.
The text emphasizes the importance of objective investigation over blind adherence to tradition.

The Dogma of Free Will
The author argues that the widely accepted belief in free will is a barrier to understanding human nature and solving societal issues. ​

The belief in free will is compared to the outdated notion that the earth is flat.
The text asserts that 98% of people believe in free will, which hinders scientific progress.
The author claims that understanding determinism is crucial for addressing human problems like war and crime.
The text suggests that the belief in free will has been perpetuated by religion and education to justify moral accountability.

The Impact of Established Beliefs on Progress
The text illustrates how established beliefs can obstruct scientific inquiry and societal advancement.

Historical examples, such as the rejection of Galileo's findings, highlight the dangers of dogmatic thinking.
The author recounts personal experiences of attempting to share a groundbreaking discovery, only to be met with skepticism.
The text emphasizes that many professionals, including clergy and educators, resist ideas that threaten their established views.
The author argues that this resistance to change is detrimental to societal progress and understanding.

The Promise of a New Understanding
The author presents a vision of a future where understanding human nature leads to the decline of all evil.

The text claims that a scientific discovery can bring about a Golden Age free from war and crime.
The author believes that recognizing the non-freedom of will will lead to a transformation in human relations.
The text posits that this new understanding will render many professions obsolete, as societal issues will be resolved.
The author expresses hope that this knowledge will be universally accepted, leading to a significant positive change in humanity.

The Nature of Free Will and Determinism
The text explores the philosophical debate surrounding free will and determinism, arguing that free will cannot be proven true while determinism can be established as a reality. ​

Free will is defined as the ability to choose without compulsion. ​
The impossibility of proving free will true is emphasized, as it requires reversing time to show alternative choices. ​
The consensus of opinion suggests that free will exists, but this is merely a belief without mathematical proof. ​
Determinism, as the opposite of free will, can be proven true, while free will remains a theory. ​

['quote"]You are assuming all people want peace, this is an assumption does not hold true universally.


Okay...now to the crux.

You defined your terms.

These are your definitions

In philosophy anyone can define their terms as a word is defined according to context.
I understand very much how definitions are important so that we can communicate.

Both you, and other philosophers, use the defined terms to create a chain of reasoning.fff[/qutoe]

Yes, that is a basic assumption because most people don't want to be shot in the head by a random attack.

The chain of reasoning of both you and others is generally for the most part rational...A leads to B leads to C...etc.

So both you and others are convinced of your philosophy by degree of the appearance of reason...but the majority fail to see this reasoning for what it is: an appearance.

Now why is reasoning an appearance?

Because of the defined terms by which it began. In choosing infinite phenomena and infinite experiences the definition is a localizization of one possibly thing amidst the infinite.

There is no law by which one chooses the foundations of their argument.

The foundation is baseless at best, beyond that the foundations and argument justify eachother in a circle, or the foundations lead to an infinite regress by which in finite time they are always changing or in the expanse fundamentally indefinite.

Now because the foundations of philosophical arguments are mere appearance there is no substance other than intent...this leads to a subjective state where a treatise, such as yours, is an expression of perception and less of truth.

Philosophical treatises are a means of trying to get people to see things a certain way and yet fails to take into account that the distinctions required to make them what they are are dependent upon another viewpoint being wrong.

A universal philosophical system, by nature, is not within the nature of the system itself.

It does take distinctions into account because we know people are different and their predispositions are different, but this does not negaste the law of our nature that has the power to prevent what we don't want; namely, war and crime. Stick with me if you are so inclined. If not, that's okay too.

Taking distinctions into account is a distinction. The only law is distinction, by nature of cause and effect, and in these regards morality does not necessarily relegate itself to a strict dualism of good and evil or peace and conflict without here being some sort of inherent paradox.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 1:41 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 1:37 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 3:54 am

['quote"]You are assuming all people want peace, this is an assumption does not hold true universally.[/quote

I'm not sure why my post didn't take. Before I repeat my post all over again, I want to see if my comment is recorded.


Okay...now to the crux.

You defined your terms.

These are your definitions



Yes, that is a basic assumption because most people don't want to be shot in the head by a random attack.

The chain of reasoning of both you and others is generally for the most part rational...A leads to B leads to C...etc.

It's not always that linear like that. We are not dominoes that fall over from antecedent events with no ability to choose, which reverts back to the conventional definition of determinism, which is not the definition he is using.

It does take distinctions into account because we know people are different and their predispositions are different, but this does not negate the law of our nature that has the power to prevent what we don't want; namely, war and crime. Stick with me if you are so inclined. If not, that's okay too.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Taking distinctions into account is a distinction. The only law is distinction, by nature of cause and effect, and in these regards morality does not necessarily relegate itself to a strict dualism of good and evil or peace and conflict without here being some sort of inherent paradox.

There is no paradox. Evil only means hurt. We can all distinguish between hurt that we try to avoid (unless we are masochists and like pain, in which case it's not a hurt), and our desire to avoid being hurt as best we can, which is what most of us consider evil (just another synonym), when using that word.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 2:57 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 1:41 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 1:37 pm

It's not always that linear like that. We are not dominoes that fall over from antecedent events with no ability to choose, which reverts back to the conventional definition of determinism, which is not the definition he is using.





There is no paradox. Evil only means hurt. We can all distinguish between hurt that we try to avoid (unless we are masochists and like pain, in which case it's not a hurt), and our desire to avoid being hurt as best we can, which is what most of us consider evil (just another synonym), when using that word.

I said arguments are generally linear.

Anyhow,

Free will is synonymous to randomness if there is no relation of the will to determinism.

"Evil only means to hurt" in what respect in light of pleasure seeking hedonism, in light of good corresponding historically to self sacrifice?

Eodnooj7 wrote:I said arguments are generally linear.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Anyhow,

Free will is synonymous to randomness if there is no relation of the will to determinism.

Eodnooj7 wrote:Evil only means to hurt" in what respect in light of pleasure seeking hedonism, in light of good corresponding historically to self sacrifice?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 3:22 pm Where do I sign up?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 2:20 pm whether it is through narcissism, hedonism, or the plain old taking advantage to gain at someone else's expense.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 3:22 pm Where do I sign up?