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

[peacegirl]

I wasn't talking about force. The perception of a need to do things differently is not just a matter of being forced. A change in circumstance may generate an internal feeling or desire to do things differently, which is a rational response to changing conditions. Your will is modified and you act accordingly.

That is true. In regard to this knowledge, the only thing that changes is the desire to strike a first blow. If a first blow is not struck, we don’t have to strike back or turn the other cheek. IOW, when the conditions of the environment change, so will our responses to it. This discovery is about preventing the very things that blame and punishment were previously necessary as part of our development. I am jumping ahead though and why it’s important to read in the order it was written.

 

[peacegirl]

I am not here to debate, and I know people don't like that since these forums are meant for just that. The problem is that people cannot debate what they know nothing or very little about. My hope is to share the author's position.

Just so you know, preaching is explicitly forbidden here by the ToU of the board.

I’m not preaching bilby. I’m sharing a work and in order to share it, I have to post a link to it. If this is against the rules and if I am restricted to this degree, then let the moderators give me a citation and I will leave. Why should I work so hard to explain this discovery to people who don’t want to hear it? Is the form of how something is expressed (e.g. whether it’s in book form or in the course of conversation) more important than the knowledge it’s conveying—you know, the actual content?

 

[bilby]

I am not here to debate, and I know people don't like that since these forums are meant for just that. The problem is that people cannot debate what they know nothing or very little about. My hope is to share the author's position.

Just so you know, preaching is explicitly forbidden here by the ToU of the board.

Wow, how disingenuous can you be? I’m not preaching bilby.

Really?

I am not here to debate

Hmmm.

I’m sharing a work and in order to share it, I have to post a link to it. If that is not allowed, let the moderators give me a citation and I will gladly leave. Why should I work so hard to explain something important when it’s not appreciated. I will go somewhere where it is..

Posting a link and then discussing its content is not preaching.

Posting a link, or your own words for that matter, with no intent to discuss it, but rather with the implied demand that people should just believe it without further debate, is the very essence of preaching.

As is declaring in advance that nobody in your audience is qualified to question the material you post.

 

[peacegirl]

I am not here to debate, and I know people don't like that since these forums are meant for just that. The problem is that people cannot debate what they know nothing or very little about. My hope is to share the author's position.

Just so you know, preaching is explicitly forbidden here by the ToU of the board.

Wow, how disingenuous can you be? I’m not preaching bilby.

Really?

I am not here to debate

Hmmm.

I’m sharing a work and in order to share it, I have to post a link to it. If that is not allowed, let the moderators give me a citation and I will gladly leave. Why should I work so hard to explain something important when it’s not appreciated. I will go somewhere where it is..

Posting a link and then discussing its content is not preaching.

Posting a link, or your own words for that matter, with no intent to discuss it, but rather with the implied demand that people should just believe it without further debate, is the very essence of preaching.

Whoever said that it’s not open for discussion? The only requirement for a productive discussion comes after a concept is explained in as much detail as possible. In all honesty, how can something be discussed when no one has the slightest idea what the author is trying to demonstrate? I will say again that if Nietzsche was here, and he said we cannot have a conversation until you read my book, no one would say a word.

As is declaring in advance that nobody in your audience is qualified to question the material you post.

I never said that either, but you cannot debate what has not been introduced. This is not a repeat of the same old discussion repackaged! This is a new understanding of what it means to have no free will but, more importantly, how it benefits us. That should excite you to want to know more, rather than to find a way to shut me down.

 

[bilby]

I am not here to debate, and I know people don't like that since these forums are meant for just that. The problem is that people cannot debate what they know nothing or very little about. My hope is to share the author's position.

Just so you know, preaching is explicitly forbidden here by the ToU of the board.

Wow, how disingenuous can you be? I’m not preaching bilby.

Really?

I am not here to debate

Hmmm.

I’m sharing a work and in order to share it, I have to post a link to it. If that is not allowed, let the moderators give me a citation and I will gladly leave. Why should I work so hard to explain something important when it’s not appreciated. I will go somewhere where it is..

Posting a link and then discussing its content is not preaching.

Posting a link, or your own words for that matter, with no intent to discuss it, but rather with the implied demand that people should just believe it without further debate, is the very essence of preaching.

Whoever said that it’s not open for discussion?

You did:

I am not here to debate

The only requirement for a productive discussion comes after a concept is explained in as much detail as possible. In all honesty, how can something be discussed when no one has the slightest idea what the author is trying to demonstrate? I will say again that if Nietzsche was here, and he said we cannot have a conversation until you read my book, no one would say a word.

I can assure you that you are mistaken. Nobody here would give Nietzsche any more respect than they give any other poster.

They wouldn't even know it was him.

As is declaring in advance that nobody in your audience is qualified to question the material you post.

I never said that either, but you cannot debate what has not been introduced. This is not a repeat of the same old discussion repackaged! This is a new concept of what it means to have no free will but, more importantly, how it benefits us. That should excite you to want to know more, rather than to find a way to shut me down.

You are shutting yourself down.

If you have something to say, just say it. There's no need for a preamble about how unfairly you expect it to be treated if, as, and when you ever get around to it.

Indeed, such a preamble is the fallacy of poisoning the well.

 

[peacegirl]

I am not here to debate, and I know people don't like that since these forums are meant for just that. The problem is that people cannot debate what they know nothing or very little about. My hope is to share the author's position.

Just so you know, preaching is explicitly forbidden here by the ToU of the board.

Wow, how disingenuous can you be? I’m not preaching bilby.

Really?

I am not here to debate

Hmmm.

I’m sharing a work and in order to share it, I have to post a link to it. If that is not allowed, let the moderators give me a citation and I will gladly leave. Why should I work so hard to explain something important when it’s not appreciated. I will go somewhere where it is..

Posting a link and then discussing its content is not preaching.

Posting a link, or your own words for that matter, with no intent to discuss it, but rather with the implied demand that people should just believe it without further debate, is the very essence of preaching.

Whoever said that it’s not open for discussion?

You did:

It’s not open for discussion or debate until there is something to discuss or debate. That’s what I meant. I am saying this because I know how confused people can get when they take things out of context like they did in the other forum. I will not repeat that again.

I am not here to debate

The only requirement for a productive discussion comes after a concept is explained in as much detail as possible. In all honesty, how can something be discussed when no one has the slightest idea what the author is trying to demonstrate? I will say again that if Nietzsche was here, and he said we cannot have a conversation until you read my book, no one would say a word.

I can assure you that you are mistaken. Nobody here would give Nietzsche any more respect than they give any other poster.

I highly doubt that you would treat him the same as me and tell him he will be reported if he puts the links to his book/s.

They wouldn't even know it was him.

Funny!

View attachment 48868

As is declaring in advance that nobody in your audience is qualified to question the material you post.

I never said that either, but you cannot debate what has not been introduced. This is not a repeat of the same old discussion repackaged! This is a new concept of what it means to have no free will but, more importantly, how it benefits us. That should excite you to want to know more, rather than to find a way to shut me down.

You are shutting yourself down.

How? I prefaced by saying after the chapters are read, we can discuss them.

If you have something to say, just say it. There's no need for a preamble about how unfairly you expect it to be treated if, as, and when you ever get around to it.

Indeed, such a preamble is the fallacy of poisoning the well.

I don’t mean to poison the well! I am just trying to make sure this knowledge is explained well so there are no misunderstandings!

 

[DBT]

Context cannot transform fallacy into reality. Context cannot transform the contention of 'light at the eye/instant vision' into an accurate model of reality, that this is indeed how the eye works. That's not how vision works.