peacegirl
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2024
- Messages
- 1,297
- Gender
- Female
- Basic Beliefs
- I believe in determinism which is the basis of my worldview
Thanks!I hope it goes well for you.
Thanks!I hope it goes well for you.
He had no chance. He was never given the benefit of the doubt, which he kindly asked for. I am not posting this to start this thread again, but I am sharing this to show that the people who are the "guardians of truth" may be wrong even though they are using certain standards to determine what is true.
I am moving on, but I gave a lot of time and energy to this thread. I need closure. In the effort to find the crank, they have lost their objectivity. It's sad because I have read the threads on determinism, and they are missing out on the problem that would reconcile these two opposing ideologies for our benefit. People are more interested in proving the author wrong before they even know what he's talking about. Nevermind...no matter what I say, it will make no difference to anyone once they believe their analysis proves him wrong, which did not.
Although the basic principle has been an infallible guide and miraculous catalyst through the labyrinths of human relations, it cannot assist me here; but it did not help other scientists discover atomic energy, nor was it used to reveal itself. However, that of which it is composed, this perception of undeniable relations that escapes the average eye will take us by the hand and demonstrate, in a manner no one will be able to deny, that there is absolutely nothing to fear in death because we will be born again and again and again. This does not mean what you might think it means because the life you live and are conscious of right now has no relation whatsoever to you and your consciousness in another life. Therefore, I am not speaking of reincarnation or a spiritual world of souls or any other theory, but of the flesh, of a mind and body alive and conscious of existence as you are at this moment. Are you smiling? Can’t you see, once again, Eric Johnston refusing to listen because he was so certain man’s will is free, or Nageli not investigating Mendel’s discovery because the very core was regarded as impossible? Didn’t many of you smile when first hearing that man does not have five senses? I expect you to be skeptical, but please give me the benefit of the doubt and deny my discovery after you have studied the relations, not before.
It's sad because I have read the threads on determinism, and they are missing out on the problem that would reconcile these two opposing ideologies for our benefit.
I did everything I could Pood. For the sake of argument, that's fine, and it would have shown that we could not have done otherwise, and more importantly, where this leads. All I have gotten is attacks, and I'm tired.It's sad because I have read the threads on determinism, and they are missing out on the problem that would reconcile these two opposing ideologies for our benefit.
Here is another example of your obdurate immunity to learning anything.
I explained to you from the get-go that in philosophical discourse, there is a standard known as arguendo, or, “for the sake of argument.” It means that discussants can provisionally accept, for the sake of argument, a premise such as, “man’s will is not free.” They don’t have to agree with the premise, but they can provisionally accept it, just to see what follows from it. I explained to you that what you want to do FIRST in a philosophical exchange is establish the VALIDITY or your argument — that your conclusion follows from your premises. Had you proceeded in the fashion I recommended — simply asking discussants to accept that “man’s will is not free” for the sake of argument, to see where the argument leads — I, and I believe all others, would have done so.
It is sound, very very sound. I even said his premises must be correct. That means man's will must not be free. WE cannot move in a direction that is least satisfying given our options. It's that simple but you keep saying it's circular, a tautology. Even if it was a tautology (ie. see Steve Patterson), this in itself doesn't prove that we can move against our very nature which is to always move in a direction that we believe is better for ourselves (even if it means committing suicide).Then we could see if your conclusion, about the two-sided equation, follows from the stated premises. If it did, you’d have a valid argument. Only THEN would we check to determine the truth of the premises. If the premises are all true and the conclusion follows from them, then the argument is more than valid — it is SOUND.
Your advice was well-intentioned, but you are so against this author in every respect, I can't move forward. Not only was your rebuttal to the fact that we have no free will wrong, but you cannot dare to think that he could have been right about the eyes. There's nowhere for me to go unfortunately. I cannot beat my head against wall. I will move on and find other ways to bring this knowledge to light, but it's sad because the people here debating the subject of the free will/determinism debate think the discussion is moot and has no real meaning. How wrong they are.Had you proceeded in this way, the way I recommended, we could have focused on your author’s “two-sided equation” without the distraction or arguing about free will and determinism. That argument would have only come later, when we were investigating whether your premises should be thought true or not.
But of course, you completely ignored my well-intentioned advice, and insisted on “proving” from the start that “man’s will is not free.” And, as a consequence of your insistence on proving your first premise in a stage when you should have been trying to prove that your conclusion follows from your stated premises, you lost all chance to elaborate on your two-sided equation. In other words, you fully disregarded advice that would have been very useful to you, because you are immune to learning anything.
It's a vaguely interesting notion, and one which I am sure many people have arrived at independently - as I did myself.I know exactly what the author is claiming about being born again and again, without reincarnation or the supernatural, and with the life you live now bearing no relation to past or future lives.
It's a vaguely interesting notion, and one which I am sure many people have arrived at independently - as I did myself.I know exactly what the author is claiming about being born again and again, without reincarnation or the supernatural, and with the life you live now bearing no relation to past or future lives.
It falls short of being a claim or hypothesis, simply because it is unconnected to anything real. It is impossible to test, and it cannot possibly help us to change anything about anything in any way, even if true - it's just a speculative notion without purpose or value; A mental timewaster.
I don't know what Clark says about death. Lessans proves that death is not the end. Obviously, you can't die and come back to tell the tale, so he had to make inferences based on his observations while alive.He had no chance. He was never given the benefit of the doubt, which he kindly asked for. I am not posting this to start this thread again, but I am sharing this to show that the people who are the "guardians of truth" may be wrong even though they are using certain standards to determine what is true.
There are no “guardians of truth” in science. Why do you keep repeating this strawman even after we have explained to you why it is wrong about a hundred times? It is astounding how immune you are to learning anything at all.
The standard in science is that there are no guardians of truth and to trust no one, especially yourself. The gold standard in science is empiricism, evidence, model-building, and then testing the model repeatedly and subjecting it to peer review. These are the ways we know exactly how light and sight work — that light is an electromagnetic wave that needs to arrive at our eyes before we can see anything; which necessarily means we always see things as they were in the past; and science is how we know that the eye is a sense organ.
I am moving on, but I gave a lot of time and energy to this thread. I need closure. In the effort to find the crank, they have lost their objectivity. It's sad because I have read the threads on determinism, and they are missing out on the problem that would reconcile these two opposing ideologies for our benefit. People are more interested in proving the author wrong before they even know what he's talking about. Nevermind...no matter what I say, it will make no difference to anyone once they believe their analysis proves him wrong, which did not.
Although the basic principle has been an infallible guide and miraculous catalyst through the labyrinths of human relations, it cannot assist me here; but it did not help other scientists discover atomic energy, nor was it used to reveal itself. However, that of which it is composed, this perception of undeniable relations that escapes the average eye will take us by the hand and demonstrate, in a manner no one will be able to deny, that there is absolutely nothing to fear in death because we will be born again and again and again. This does not mean what you might think it means because the life you live and are conscious of right now has no relation whatsoever to you and your consciousness in another life. Therefore, I am not speaking of reincarnation or a spiritual world of souls or any other theory, but of the flesh, of a mind and body alive and conscious of existence as you are at this moment. Are you smiling? Can’t you see, once again, Eric Johnston refusing to listen because he was so certain man’s will is free, or Nageli not investigating Mendel’s discovery because the very core was regarded as impossible? Didn’t many of you smile when first hearing that man does not have five senses? I expect you to be skeptical, but please give me the benefit of the doubt and deny my discovery after you have studied the relations, not before.
I know exactly what the author is claiming about being born again and again, without reincarnation or the supernatural, and with the life you live now bearing no relation to past or future lives. It’s the precisely the claim that Tom Clark makes at naturalism.org. I have linked that article, but I’m sure you did not read it. I have no idea why, since Clark agrees with your author on this and you could enlist him as an ally at least on this one particular claim.
However, I’d ask your author and Clark the same question: What is your evidence to support this claim? Indeed, how would it be possible even to find any evidence to support it?
If you believe it's a mental timewaster, all you have to do is ignore what he wrote.It's a vaguely interesting notion, and one which I am sure many people have arrived at independently - as I did myself.I know exactly what the author is claiming about being born again and again, without reincarnation or the supernatural, and with the life you live now bearing no relation to past or future lives.
It falls short of being a claim or hypothesis, simply because it is unconnected to anything real. It is impossible to test, and it cannot possibly help us to change anything about anything in any way, even if true - it's just a speculative notion without purpose or value; A mental timewaster.
Asessing that a particular notion is a waste of time, is not, itself, necessarily a waste of time.If it's a mental timewaster, why post at all?It's a vaguely interesting notion, and one which I am sure many people have arrived at independently - as I did myself.I know exactly what the author is claiming about being born again and again, without reincarnation or the supernatural, and with the life you live now bearing no relation to past or future lives.
It falls short of being a claim or hypothesis, simply because it is unconnected to anything real. It is impossible to test, and it cannot possibly help us to change anything about anything in any way, even if true - it's just a speculative notion without purpose or value; A mental timewaster.
I don't know what Clark says about death. Lessans proves that death is not the end. Obviously, you can't die and come back to tell the tale, so he had to make inferences based on his observations while alive.
I'm glad that whatever people have arrived at independently regarding death has given them comfort.It's a vaguely interesting notion, and one which I am sure many people have arrived at independently - as I did myself.I know exactly what the author is claiming about being born again and again, without reincarnation or the supernatural, and with the life you live now bearing no relation to past or future lives.
Oh, so you're implying he was incapable of logical thinking?Asessing that a particular notion is a waste of time, is not, itself, necessarily a waste of time.If it's a mental timewaster, why post at all?It falls short of being a claim or hypothesis, simply because it is unconnected to anything real. It is impossible to test, and it cannot possibly help us to change anything about anything in any way, even if true - it's just a speculative notion without purpose or value; A mental timewaster.
In the same way that if I identify someone as an idiot who clearly is incapable of logical thinking, I am not declaring that logical thinking is, itself, an impossibility.
I read a little bit. I'm going to read the rest as soon as I have a moment. Maybe there are commonalities between his ideas on death and Lessans' observations. Lessans did say that the knowledge he discovered could be found by others because these observations are part of the real world, not of the imagination. I don't need an ALLY. If anything, I need an ally for his first discovery (because it's so important), not his discovery regarding what happens when we die. You were so close to getting the core of his discovery but not quite. Then your compatibilist ideas and your modal fallacy snuck in and ruined any further discussion. You can't get beyond the notion that free will and determinism are opposites. You cannot sneak in free will in a form that says "we could have done otherwise." What you did was a semantic shift, changing the definition of free will to make it appear as if free will and determinism are compatible. They are not. It's a contradiction to say we have free will and we don't have free will. Can't you see that? Compatibilism says we are free if we don't have a gun to our head or don't have OCD or another addiction. The truth is we don't have free will even if we don't have a gun to our head, don't have OCD, or don't have an addiction. We don't have freedom of the will, never did have it, and never will have it, end of story. If you had understood what he meant by "we are compelled, of our own free will," you would have seen that the way this free will is used IS COMPATIBLE because it only means "we are compelled, of our own desire—because we want to." We still get to choose what we want to choose, just not of our own free will. You really haven't understood his definition. You are going by the conventional definition, which is problematic. Of all the threads on this topic, this one actually delivers a solution to many of life's ills.I don't know what Clark says about death. Lessans proves that death is not the end. Obviously, you can't die and come back to tell the tale, so he had to make inferences based on his observations while alive.
Well, peacegirl, you would know what he says about death, wouldn’t you, if you would simply read the link I gave you in this thread — and first gave you some 13 years ago!
He says about death exactly what your writer says. And as I explained to you 13 years ago, you should CONTACT him, and show him your writer’s chapter about death. You would have an ALLY, at least on this one particular topic. Indeed, if you could have been bothered to look at the link I gave, you would have known that yet another person came up with the same idea, which he calls “existential passage.” Clark began promoting this other writer’s ideas because they agreed with his own, and I’m sure he would be thrilled to discover that your writer came up with the same idea, and did so even before they did.
But you won’t even read what Clark, who agrees with your author, wrote. How pathetic is that?
Who said anything about "comfort"?I'm glad that whatever people have arrived at independently regarding death has given them comfort.It's a vaguely interesting notion, and one which I am sure many people have arrived at independently - as I did myself.I know exactly what the author is claiming about being born again and again, without reincarnation or the supernatural, and with the life you live now bearing no relation to past or future lives.
No, I can assure you that that is not what I am implying.Oh, so you're implying he was incapable of logical thinking?Asessing that a particular notion is a waste of time, is not, itself, necessarily a waste of time.If it's a mental timewaster, why post at all?It falls short of being a claim or hypothesis, simply because it is unconnected to anything real. It is impossible to test, and it cannot possibly help us to change anything about anything in any way, even if true - it's just a speculative notion without purpose or value; A mental timewaster.
In the same way that if I identify someone as an idiot who clearly is incapable of logical thinking, I am not declaring that logical thinking is, itself, an impossibility.
I'm glad that whatever people have arrived at independently regarding death has given them comfort.It's a vaguely interesting notion, and one which I am sure many people have arrived at independently - as I did myself.I know exactly what the author is claiming about being born again and again, without reincarnation or the supernatural, and with the life you live now bearing no relation to past or future lives.
Oh, so you're implying he was incapable of logical thinking?Asessing that a particular notion is a waste of time, is not, itself, necessarily a waste of time.If it's a mental timewaster, why post at all?It falls short of being a claim or hypothesis, simply because it is unconnected to anything real. It is impossible to test, and it cannot possibly help us to change anything about anything in any way, even if true - it's just a speculative notion without purpose or value; A mental timewaster.
In the same way that if I identify someone as an idiot who clearly is incapable of logical thinking, I am not declaring that logical thinking is, itself, an impossibility.
Then you were insinuating that I am incapable of logical thinking. It's not nice bilby.Who said anything about "comfort"?I'm glad that whatever people have arrived at independently regarding death has given them comfort.It's a vaguely interesting notion, and one which I am sure many people have arrived at independently - as I did myself.I know exactly what the author is claiming about being born again and again, without reincarnation or the supernatural, and with the life you live now bearing no relation to past or future lives.
No, I can assure you that that is not what I am implying.Oh, so you're implying he was incapable of logical thinking?Asessing that a particular notion is a waste of time, is not, itself, necessarily a waste of time.If it's a mental timewaster, why post at all?ThIt falls short of being a claim or hypothesis, simply because it is unconnected to anything real. It is impossible to test, and it cannot possibly help us to change anything about anything in any way, even if true - it's just a speculative notion without purpose or value; A mental timewaster.
In the same way that if I identify someone as an idiot who clearly is incapable of logical thinking, I am not declaring that logical thinking is, itself, an impossibility.
It actually is. If you read and reread what he wrote, you would have understood more thoroughly why he was so confident in his claim. He did not say light impulses don't do what they do. They do everything science states, from entering the retina to the optic nerve to being transduced into impulses that the brain receives. What does not occur is the brain's ability to turn these impulses into images. Light does not bounce off of objects taking the information with it through space/time. This is an assumption on the part of science, which Lessans refutes. As far as being logical, it's just as logical as any other version of sight.I'm glad that whatever people have arrived at independently regarding death has given them comfort.It's a vaguely interesting notion, and one which I am sure many people have arrived at independently - as I did myself.I know exactly what the author is claiming about being born again and again, without reincarnation or the supernatural, and with the life you live now bearing no relation to past or future lives.
Oh, so you're implying he was incapable of logical thinking?Asessing that a particular notion is a waste of time, is not, itself, necessarily a waste of time.If it's a mental timewaster, why post at all?It falls short of being a claim or hypothesis, simply because it is unconnected to anything real. It is impossible to test, and it cannot possibly help us to change anything about anything in any way, even if true - it's just a speculative notion without purpose or value; A mental timewaster.
In the same way that if I identify someone as an idiot who clearly is incapable of logical thinking, I am not declaring that logical thinking is, itself, an impossibility.
Light at the eye/instant vision is not logical.
I contacted him years ago, and he wasn't interested in a personal call. He didn't know who I was and didn't give me much time to explain. He told me to join his facebook group. That was the end of that.The extended existential passage hypothesis, which shows that your author now has a number of allies in this argument about what happens after we die. Since your writer came up with this idea decades before they did, why don’t you contact them and exchange work and ideas?
Nice? No, it's not nice. Though the length of time it took you to work it out does demonstrate it to be true.Then you were insinuating that I am incapable of logical thinking. It's not nice bilby.Who said anything about "comfort"?I'm glad that whatever people have arrived at independently regarding death has given them comfort.It's a vaguely interesting notion, and one which I am sure many people have arrived at independently - as I did myself.I know exactly what the author is claiming about being born again and again, without reincarnation or the supernatural, and with the life you live now bearing no relation to past or future lives.
No, I can assure you that that is not what I am implying.Oh, so you're implying he was incapable of logical thinking?Asessing that a particular notion is a waste of time, is not, itself, necessarily a waste of time.If it's a mental timewaster, why post at all?ThIt falls short of being a claim or hypothesis, simply because it is unconnected to anything real. It is impossible to test, and it cannot possibly help us to change anything about anything in any way, even if true - it's just a speculative notion without purpose or value; A mental timewaster.
In the same way that if I identify someone as an idiot who clearly is incapable of logical thinking, I am not declaring that logical thinking is, itself, an impossibility.
I thought you were accusing me of being incapable of logical thinking, but I saw in the next post that you were not. The length of time it takes to work something out does not necessarily mean a lack of ability in logical thinking, even if further demonstration were needed.Nice? No, it's not nice. Though the length of time it took you to work it out does demonstrate it to be true.Then you were insinuating that I am incapable of logical thinking. It's not nice bilby.Who said anything about "comfort"?I'm glad that whatever people have arrived at independently regarding death has given them comfort.It's a vaguely interesting notion, and one which I am sure many people have arrived at independently - as I did myself.I know exactly what the author is claiming about being born again and again, without reincarnation or the supernatural, and with the life you live now bearing no relation to past or future lives.
No, I can assure you that that is not what I am implying.Oh, so you're implying he was incapable of logical thinking?Asessing that a particular notion is a waste of time, is not, itself, necessarily a waste of time.If it's a mental timewaster, why post at all?It falls short of being a claim or hypothesis, simply because it is unconnected to anything real. It is impossible to test, and it cannot possibly help us to change anything about anything in any way, even if true - it's just a speculative notion without purpose or value; A mental timewaster.
In the same way that if I identify someone as an idiot who clearly is incapable of logical thinking, I am not declaring that logical thinking is, itself, an impossibility.
If further demonstration were needed.