“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[steve_bank]

The short answer is Pg can not answer.

For me understanding theory of evolution makes me feel connected to all life on the planet. I understand the interdependence of all life on the planet that makes human life possible. I do not feel superior to any life on the planet.

From Naturalism by dentition anything that exists is natural. There can be no supernatural. No need for a god creator.

From moral philosophy enlightened self interest. By suppressant others I in turn support my own survival. An expression of the ancient Golden Rule.

Buddhism, seeing the world as it is making peace with it.

Rationalism, reason over emotion.

So Peacegirl your philosophy means what to you? All you do is lengthy cut and paste from your book and try to refute others. You never articulate whoa it means to yourself.

You posted that we are somehow holding you back, go ahead and express your philosophy. How willi work to transform humanity? How does it FORTRAN yourself?

Stop blaming others for your problems on the forum. Take responsibility for what you post, or does your version of determinism pre4clide free choce and responsibility?

Lets get down to the nuts and bolts of how yorr philosophy works.

This is not a game or a contest unless you make it so.

 

[peacegirl]

The short answer is Pg can not answer.

For me understanding theory of evolution makes me feel connected to all life on the planet. I understand the interdependence of all life on the planet that makes human life possible. I do not feel superior to any life on the planet.

No one is saying otherwise, so why bring this up?

From Naturalism by dentition anything that exists is natural. There can be no supernatural. No need for a god creator.

Again, why bring this up when a personal god doesn't enter into this proof.

From moral philosophy enlightened self interest. By suppressant others I in turn support my own survival. An expression of the ancient Golden Rule.

Self-interest relates to self-preservation, not the golden rule. If a person judges the golden rule to be hurtful because he must steal to save himself, he won't follow it. It's just a rule that not everyone can abide by depending on their circumstances. THAT IS HUMAN NATURE, and your argument doesn't change a thing.

Buddhism, seeing the world as it is making peace with i

Buddhism has wisdom to help people in the world we are living, but we are talking about a new world, where these philosophies will be put to rest because they aren't needed. Again, this does not mean they have no value. They have their place in a free will environment that needs these belief systems for us to cope.

Rationalism, reason over emotion.

So Peacegirl your philosophy means what to you? All you do is lengthy cut and paste from your book and try to refute others. You never articulate whoa it means to yourself.

You posted that we are somehow holding you back, go ahead and express your philosophy. How willi work to transform humanity? How does it FORTRAN yourself?

Stop blaming others for your problems on the forum. Take responsibility for what you post, or does your version of determinism pre4clide free choce and responsibility?

Steve, this has nothing to do with blame, okay? I will not spend hours and hours of time posting to a group of people who refuse to hear me out because they believe from the get go, that this author was wrong. This is not at all what anyone would expect in a think tank.

Lets get down to the nuts and bolts of how yorr philosophy works.

This is not a game or a contest unless you make it so.

I have. You have never asked a pertinent question, NOT ONE. This tells me you aren't listening. Instead, you are searching for something to defend. This is not how new knowledge will ever have a chance to be thoroughly investigated, in our lifetime, if people think the way you do.

 

[WAB]

I can't make much sense of it. Not how it relates to 'real time vision' or how world peace could possibly be achieved through some sort of mysterious transformation of human nature and behaviour.

DBT, I never got to the core of his discovery. No one asked me to go any further after I posted the two principles that lead to his discovery. Does anyone know what the two principles are? I wanted to show how they come together to create the two-sided equation. Then I wanted to show what must change in the environment for this law of our nature to work. The corollary that goes along with man's will not being free (Thou Shall Not Blame) was never extended because no philosopher, up until now, could see how not blaming could actually prevent what no one wants (war, crime, hatred, poverty, etc.) rather than encourage it. It takes a lot for me to paste what no one seems to be reading in earnest and with a sincere desire to understand, or they would be anxious to hear more.

Peacegirl, you say you have not gotten to the core of your father's discovery. Haven't you considered that if you explain his ideas as thoroughly as you can, that it might generate more interest? Why put so much emphasis on people reading the book? Especially when that is quite obviously not helping? What's more important, that people understand your father's discovery, or that people read the book?

I have read portions you've put up and quite frankly they have failed to ignite any interest for me. And this comes from someone who's read Ayn Rand, L. Ron Hubbard, and Erich von Daniken with particular interest (if not agreement).

 

[peacegirl]

I can't make much sense of it. Not how it relates to 'real time vision' or how world peace could possibly be achieved through some sort of mysterious transformation of human nature and behaviour.

DBT, I never got to the core of his discovery. No one asked me to go any further after I posted the two principles that lead to his discovery. Does anyone know what the two principles are? I wanted to show how they come together to create the two-sided equation. Then I wanted to show what must change in the environment for this law of our nature to work. The corollary that goes along with man's will not being free (Thou Shall Not Blame) was never extended because no philosopher, up until now, could see how not blaming could actually prevent what no one wants (war, crime, hatred, poverty, etc.) rather than encourage it. It takes a lot for me to paste what no one seems to be reading in earnest and with a sincere desire to understand, or they would be anxious to hear more.

Peacegirl, you say you have not gotten to the core of your father's discovery. Haven't you considered that if you explain his ideas as thoroughly as you can, that it might generate more interest? Why put so much emphasis on people reading the book? Especially when that is quite obviously not helping? What's more important, that people understand your father's discovery, or that people read the book?

I have read portions you've put up and quite frankly they have failed to ignite any interest for me. And this comes from someone who's read Ayn Rand, L. Ron Hubbard, and Erich von Daniken with particular interest (if not agreement).

This is so crazy. What have you read? You must have read Ann Rynd, L. Ron Hubbard, did you not? Did you not read their books in their entirety? I don't get how you can judge what you read here, when I have not posted his discovery or the extension. Unless you actually bought the book for $10, there is no way you could understand the book, no way in hell.

 

[peacegirl]

You can even borrow it from the library, so you can't say I'm doing this for lucre. If I could post the entire book here, I would, but I don't think it would matter because people have already made up their minds, in advance, that he couldn't be right.

 

[WAB]

I can't make much sense of it. Not how it relates to 'real time vision' or how world peace could possibly be achieved through some sort of mysterious transformation of human nature and behaviour.

DBT, I never got to the core of his discovery. No one asked me to go any further after I posted the two principles that lead to his discovery. Does anyone know what the two principles are? I wanted to show how they come together to create the two-sided equation. Then I wanted to show what must change in the environment for this law of our nature to work. The corollary that goes along with man's will not being free (Thou Shall Not Blame) was never extended because no philosopher, up until now, could see how not blaming could actually prevent what no one wants (war, crime, hatred, poverty, etc.) rather than encourage it. It takes a lot for me to paste what no one seems to be reading in earnest and with a sincere desire to understand, or they would be anxious to hear more.

Peacegirl, you say you have not gotten to the core of your father's discovery. Haven't you considered that if you explain his ideas as thoroughly as you can, that it might generate more interest? Why put so much emphasis on people reading the book? Especially when that is quite obviously not helping? What's more important, that people understand your father's discovery, or that people read the book?

I have read portions you've put up and quite frankly they have failed to ignite any interest for me. And this comes from someone who's read Ayn Rand, L. Ron Hubbard, and Erich von Daniken with particular interest (if not agreement).

This is so crazy. What have you read? You must have read Ann Rynd, L. Ron Hubbard, did you not? Did you not read their books in their entirety? I don't get how you can judge what you read here, when I have not posted his discovery or the extension. Unless you actually bought the book for $10, there is no way you could understand the book, no way in hell.

Look, I'm trying to help you out. Sheesh!

Did I say I understood the book??? I said quite simply that I read some of the portions you posted but that they failed to interest me. Rand, Hubbard, Daniken, et al, managed to interest me. I've read just about everything Rand published, one Daniken book, and about three quarters of Dianetics, by Hubbard, which was obviously written expressly for suckers.

What I suggest, since you missed it, is that perhaps you can generate some interest in the book your father wrote by simply offering a summary or explanation of his so-called discovery. Which you steadfastly refuse to do. If the discovery were actually so amazing as to be world-changing, you would be EAGER to get it out, in any way possible. But you seem more interested in selling the book. Notice I wrote "seem".

 

[peacegirl]

I can't make much sense of it. Not how it relates to 'real time vision' or how world peace could possibly be achieved through some sort of mysterious transformation of human nature and behaviour.

DBT, I never got to the core of his discovery. No one asked me to go any further after I posted the two principles that lead to his discovery. Does anyone know what the two principles are? I wanted to show how they come together to create the two-sided equation. Then I wanted to show what must change in the environment for this law of our nature to work. The corollary that goes along with man's will not being free (Thou Shall Not Blame) was never extended because no philosopher, up until now, could see how not blaming could actually prevent what no one wants (war, crime, hatred, poverty, etc.) rather than encourage it. It takes a lot for me to paste what no one seems to be reading in earnest and with a sincere desire to understand, or they would be anxious to hear more.

Peacegirl, you say you have not gotten to the core of your father's discovery. Haven't you considered that if you explain his ideas as thoroughly as you can, that it might generate more interest? Why put so much emphasis on people reading the book? Especially when that is quite obviously not helping? What's more important, that people understand your father's discovery, or that people read the book?

I have read portions you've put up and quite frankly they have failed to ignite any interest for me. And this comes from someone who's read Ayn Rand, L. Ron Hubbard, and Erich von Daniken with particular interest (if not agreement).

This is so crazy. What have you read? You must have read Ann Rynd, L. Ron Hubbard, did you not? Did you not read their books in their entirety? I don't get how you can judge what you read here, when I have not posted his discovery or the extension. Unless you actually bought the book for $10, there is no way you could understand the book, no way in hell.

Look, I'm trying to help you out. Sheesh!

I apologize. My nerves are frayed.

Did I say I understood the book??? I said quite simply that I read some of the portions you posted but that they failed to interest me. Rand, Hubbard, Daniken, et al, managed to interest me. I've read just about everything Rand published, one Daniken book, and about three quarters of Dianetics, by Hubbard, which was obviously written expressly for suckers.

What I suggest, since you missed it, is that perhaps you can generate some interest in the book your father wrote by simply offering a summary or explanation of his so-called discovery.

I did that. I even posted the first chapter and some of the second, but when no one asked me to keep going, I stopped, because I could tell my posts were falling on deaf ears.

Which you steadfastly refuse to do. If the discovery were actually so amazing as to be world-changing, you would be EAGER to get it out, in any way possible. But you seem more interested in selling the book. Notice I wrote "seem".

If I were interested in money, I wouldn't have offered it for $1.00. Amazon wouldn't let me go lower than that. Someone didn't like that it wasn't for free, because he said if a million people bought the book for a dollar, I would be a millionaire, and he didn't like that. He didn't realize that if I sold that many books , it would have most likely reached those in power who could have confirmed its veracity, and our world would be on its way to a lasting peace. Sure, it would be nice to break even (I have spent a lot getting his books formatted and converting his tapes to CDs and then mp3s: $4,000 alone) and even make a little profit (it would be nice not to penny pinch for the rest of my life), but for anyone to accuse me of a money-making scheme are out of their cotton-pickin' minds.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

I posted some of my influences trying to get you to follow suit. What is the problem?

Something like .. rejecting free will and believing in determinism will eliminate war by ... ?
Rejecting free will and believing in determinism will change human behavior by ... ?

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

I posted some of my influences trying to get you to follow suit. What is the problem?

Something like .. rejecting free will and believing in determinism will eliminate war by ... ?
Rejecting free will and believing in determinism will change human behavior by ... ?

If you had read my posts (which are better than anything I can explain in my own words), why is man's will not free? I gave it to everyone. Were you paying attention, or were you thinking about what you're having for dinner? lol I also continued with Chapter Two, showing exactly how this will change human conduct. Now it's all messed up because some people probably were not here when I posted Chapter One. How can a book be carefully analyzed like this? Here is the last paragraph of Chapter One. It's sad that people are not taking the time to follow his observations because it may change their perspective on human nature. Does anyone want to hear Chapter Two, or have they already made up their minds that there's nothing here of any value?

----------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER ONE: THE HIDING PLACE

p. 52 The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ has been seriously misunderstood, for although it is impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO, since absolutely nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point. Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for his people, and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement even though he constantly faced the possibility of death. But this doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater satisfaction to face death than to forgo his fight for freedom. Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being forced to do something against his will. What he actually meant was that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable, so rather than continue suffering this way, he preferred, as the lesser of two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this because he wanted to, not because some external force made him do this against his will. If by talking he knew that someone he loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point, for though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not have liked what he did, but he wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind before proceeding.

This knowledge was not previously available, and what is revealed as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something fantastic to behold, for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no accident, but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed. And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or principles — that nothing can compel man to do anything against his will because over this his nature allows absolute control — and that his will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction — will reveal a third invariable law, the discovery to which reference has been made.

 

[bilby]

I never got to the core of his discovery.

And you never will.

Because ultimately the objective is not bringing about peace or harmony, but is about selling the book.

 

[steve_bank]

Again nothing new that I can see, a rehash of the old philosophical debate. If tha is the revolutionary new idea it is a bit anticlimactic. And who were these transferred people he witnessed? Again sounds like Jesus and the miraculous gospel stories. Preaching an absolute morality.

Still don't see how this miraculous transformation stops wars.

Obviously Pg can not answer, although she is convinced she does.

At this point we may be just be inflicting pain. She is as welcome to her beliefs as is anyone on the forum.

 

[peacegirl]

I never got to the core of his discovery.

And you never will.

I asked if anyone wants to understand his discovery found in Chapter Two. Nobody responded. Maybe you’ll be the first? Nah, it won’t happen!

Because ultimately the objective is not bringing about peace or harmony, but is about selling the book.

You will refuse to believe anything other than what you have already concluded, therefore it will be a waste to even try to open your mind.

 

[peacegirl]

Again nothing new that I can see, a rehash of the old philosophical debate.

How can you say that? It’s very disturbing that you answer in such a way that you appear to have read and understood Chapter One. By your remarks, you obviously haven’t.

If tha is the revolutionary new idea it is a bit anticlimactic. And who were these transferred people he witnessed? Again sounds like Jesus and the miraculous gospel stories. Preaching an absolute morality.

Still don't see how this miraculous transformation stops wars.

How can you? I haven’t even posted his discovery in Chapter Two. This is insane!

Obviously Pg can not answer, although she is convinced she does.

What do you mean by that? I’m bending over backwards for you people, and you stick your noses in the air! I have to say you’re not the cream of the crop the way you’re all acting!

At this point we may be just be inflicting pain. She is as welcome to her beliefs as is anyone on the forum.

These are not beliefs Steve. Try again!

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

I calls it lie I sees it.

You are welcome to your beliefs. You declare an absolute truth based in your scripture just like Christians.

Believe it or not, some who have debated with you were trying to help you improve your presentation, even though they disagree with you. Even with your hostility.

There is an old pearl of wisdom, if you want to change the world first change yourself.

 

[bilby]

I never got to the core of his discovery.

And you never will.

I asked if anyone wants to understand his discovery found in Chapter Two. Nobody responded. Maybe you’ll be the first? Nah, it won’t happen!

Because ultimately the objective is not bringing about peace or harmony, but is about selling the book.

You will refuse to believe anything other than what you have already concluded,

That is both false and insulting.

therefore it will be a waste to even try to open your mind.

My mind is open. But not so open that my brains fall out.

You can persuade me of anything, even things I am hugely skeptical about, and all you need are facts, evidence, and logic.

Sadly, you have yet to indicate that you have any, or even that you know what these things are.

 

[DBT]

I can't make much sense of it. Not how it relates to 'real time vision' or how world peace could possibly be achieved through some sort of mysterious transformation of human nature and behaviour.

DBT, I never got to the core of his discovery. No one asked me to go any further after I posted the two principles that lead to his discovery. Does anyone know what the two principles are? I wanted to show how they come together to create the two-sided equation. Then I wanted to show what must change in the environment for this law of our nature to work. The corollary that goes along with man's will not being free (Thou Shall Not Blame) was never extended because no philosopher, up until now, could see how not blaming could actually prevent what no one wants (war, crime, hatred, poverty, etc.) rather than encourage it. It takes a lot for me to paste what no one seems to be reading in earnest and with a sincere desire to understand, or they would be anxious to hear more.

Isn't the core of the discovery the whole point? Shouldn't that be explained?


I have read the parts of the book that have posted, yet cannot see a connection between real time seeing (which is obviously wrong) and transforming human behaviour. The same with the free will issue. How would that transform our wants and needs and how we go about what we want or need? Never mind determinism.

For instance, how would this inexplicable discovery transform a Trump or a Putin and make them better men, concerned with world peace and equality?

How could it work? I don't see that possibility in anything that I have read.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

I posted some of my influences trying to get you to follow suit. What is the problem?

Something like .. rejecting free will and believing in determinism will eliminate war by ... ?
Rejecting free will and believing in determinism will change human behavior by ... ?

I'm trying with my entire being to explain why THE MEANING OF DETERMINISM will change the way humans react.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

I calls it lie I sees it.

You are welcome to your beliefs. You declare an absolute truth based in your scripture just like Christians.

Believe it or not, some who have debated with you were trying to help you improve your presentation, even though they disagree with you. Even with your hostility.

There is an old pearl of wisdom, if you want to change the world first change yourself.

I don't mind people trying to help me, but in this case, they can't help me because they have no idea whether their efforts are correct, since they have assumed their premises are sound, and that is the very thing being disputed; therefore, it proves nothing. I am not here to play word games, but when you look at the argument, you cannot help but see the flaws.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

I calls it lie I sees it.

You are welcome to your beliefs. You declare an absolute truth based in your scripture just like Christians.

Believe it or not, some who have debated with you were trying to help you improve your presentation, even though they disagree with you. Even with your hostility.

There is an old pearl of wisdom, if you want to change the world first change yourself.

How can you change yourself when you are compelled to choose what you believe to be the best choice under your circumstances? You don't have a clue, Steve, after everything I have tried to explain. Listen up for those who are deaf: The only way to change one's choices (that are judged as wrongdoing) is to change one's circumstances that have led to those choices.

 

[peacegirl]

I never got to the core of his discovery.

And you never will.

I asked if anyone wants to understand his discovery found in Chapter Two. Nobody responded. Maybe you’ll be the first? Nah, it won’t happen!

Because ultimately the objective is not bringing about peace or harmony, but is about selling the book.

You will refuse to believe anything other than what you have already concluded,

That is both false and insulting.

therefore it will be a waste to even try to open your mind.

My mind is open. But not so open that my brains fall out.

You can persuade me of anything, even things I am hugely skeptical about, and all you need are facts, evidence, and logic.

Facts and evidence matter, but not logic, which can be valid but far from sound. I may have to repeat this excerpt a hundred times for it to sink in.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean “undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the “exact sciences” to be exact and scientific. Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition. Your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity.