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

[Jarhyn]

You can make two choices in a given moment

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

I will also note that the ambiguity of what you mean by "moment" is also problematic.

It could be construed to apply to a specific reference frame in space and time, but there is also a sense of moment which could be applied to a moment of time *across* space, and in the moment of time across space, I exist in infinite number in infinite places exactly as I am now, but in myriad varying contexts, to make different decisions based on those differences in context, and so I make infinite choices in every given moment.

 

[peacegirl]

You can make two choices in a given mome

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

You can make two choices in a given moment

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

I was challenging that we can make two choices in a given moment. We can only make one choice in succession. I can absolutely be limited to a given moment because we live from moment to moment.

 

[peacegirl]

You can make two choices in a given moment

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

I will also note that the ambiguity of what you mean by "moment" is also problematic.

It could be construed to apply to a specific reference frame in space and time, but there is also a sense of moment which could be applied to a moment of time *across* space, and in the moment of time across space, I exist in infinite number in infinite places exactly as I am now, but in myriad varying contexts, to make different decisions based on those differences in context, and so I make infinite choices in every given moment.

This is turning into fantasy. Let's get down to reality—where we actually live. All this fantasizing about infinite numbers in infinite places in myriad varying contexts is not going to grant you free will in the here and now.

 

[Jarhyn]

You can make two choices in a given mome

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

You can make two choices in a given moment

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

I was challenging that we can make two choices in a given moment. We can only make one choice in succession.

And again with the modal error: as soon as you modally scope the subject with CAN, the subject becomes incompatible with the predicate. It is a syntax error.

"In a given moment" cannot address the subject of "can" because the subject of "can" necessarily exists independent of any given moment.

The "we" that can is not exactly the "we" that do, and any sentence that crosses the boundary of selection is invalid, just as any sentence that talks about itself is invalid.

And to be clear, I talk about self referential and circular sentence groups specifically to highlight a trivial example of invalid syntax that appears valid, so that you understand that this is a wide class of errors commonly made by the naive.

 

[DBT]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Then I can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

 

[peacegirl]

You can make two choices in a given moment

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

I was challenging that you can make two choices in a given moment. I thought that had a question mark. I must have accidentally left it out. I thought I said “you CAN’T make two choices in a given moment.”

 

[peacegirl]

You can make two choices in a given mome

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

You can make two choices in a given moment

And again a modal violation.

"You can" deals with something that explicitly cannot be limited to "in a given moment". This is a valid-seeming but invalid construction of language.

I was challenging that we can make two choices in a given moment. We can only make one choice in succession.

And again with the modal error: as soon as you modally scope the subject with CAN, the subject becomes incompatible with the predicate. It is a syntax error.

"In a given moment" cannot address the subject of "can" because the subject of "can" necessarily exists independent of any given moment.

I said “I cannot” not “I can.”.

The "we" that can is not exactly the "we" that do, and any sentence that crosses the boundary of selection is invalid, just as any sentence that talks about itself is invalid.

And to be clear, I talk about self referential and circular sentence groups specifically to highlight a trivial example of invalid syntax that appears valid, so that you understand that this is a wide class of errors commonly made by the naive.

You are being condescending and it doesn’t become you.

 

[peacegirl]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Then I can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

I am not sure how I can answer you without using the book as a guide. This is why I gave the link to the first three chapters which is foundational and sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Making the claims he did are already suspect. I don’t want to add to everyone’s suspicion by sabotaging his demonstration, which has to be in the exact order it was written or people are going to get confused and tell me was wrong only because it was not explained clearly.

 

[Jarhyn]

you can make two choices in a given moment

And again you fail with a modal violation!

How... Do you seriously not see it?

It's like a broken record, or maybe that scene from Guardians of the Galaxy where Drax has something to right over his head in the most ironic way possible, regardless of how fast his reflexes are.

This construction is syntactically invalid. There is no universe where this series of words makes sense any more than the series of words "this sentence is false".

Even trying to ask the question means you are thinking about something that is pure nonsense, trying to incorrectly use language.

You cannot validly restrict the subject of "can" to a single place in space and time. The subject of can operates in a modal scope definitionally not bound to any single place or time.

 

[DBT]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Then I can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

I am not sure how I can answer you without using the book as a guide. This is why I gave the link to the first three chapters which is foundational and sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Making the claims he did are already suspect. I don’t want to add to everyone’s suspicion by sabotaging his demonstration, which has to be in the exact order it was written or people are going to get confused and tell me was wrong only because it was not explained clearly.

You can use the book as a guide. Your explanation of the authors discoveries should be based on what is written in the book, just in the form of a clear summary of his key elements for transforming human behaviour.

 

[peacegirl]

you can make two choices in a given moment

And again you fail with a modal violation!

How... Do you seriously not see it?

It's like a broken record, or maybe that scene from Guardians of the Galaxy where Drax has something to right over his head in the most ironic way possible, regardless of how fast his reflexes are.

This construction is syntactically invalid. There is no universe where this series of words makes sense any more than the series of words "this sentence is false".

Even trying to ask the question means you are thinking about something that is pure nonsense, trying to incorrectly use language.

You cannot validly restrict the subject of "can" to a single place in space and time. The subject of can operates in a modal scope definitionally not bound to any single place or time.

You can't be serious. Are you saying that we can be at two places at once or that the rules change because we are at a different moment from a second ago (I hope you're not telling me that moments don't exist that tell us whether it is morning, afternoon, or night), or even that a different frame of reference on earth gives us free will to choose otherwise? I am not saying that we don't have options to consider, but that in no way means that the options we are considering are anything more than a passing thought. Just because they are possibilities while we are considering them does not put them into the realm of reality once we throw them out as considerations. We live in the here and now, not up in the clouds or in a different universe where gravity goes up, where pink elephants fly, and where we can make free choices because we are not constrained by our heredity and environment and therefore can make alternate choices regardless of the antecedents that brought us to where we are at this moment. That's complete science fiction, don't you see that? I guess anything is possible with modal logic, but modal logic does not bring what is possible down to what is actual. Let's bring this discussion down to earth; how's that for an idea?

 

[peacegirl]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Then I can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

I am not sure how I can answer you without using the book as a guide. This is why I gave the link to the first three chapters which is foundational and sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Making the claims he did are already suspect. I don’t want to add to everyone’s suspicion by sabotaging his demonstration, which has to be in the exact order it was written or people are going to get confused and tell me was wrong only because it was not explained clearly.

You can use the book as a guide. Your explanation of the authors discoveries should be based on what is written in the book, just in the form of a clear summary of his key elements for transforming human behaviour.

I’m trying but I cannot leave gaps just because you demand a shortened summary. I will not risk it for fear that this discovery will be thrown out for no other reason that it was not explained correctly due to your requirements. Mind you, we are in agreement overall so let’s not ruin it for what we agree on.

 

[peacegirl]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Then I can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

I am not sure how I can answer you without using the book as a guide. This is why I gave the link to the first three chapters which is foundational and sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Making the claims he did are already suspect. I don’t want to add to everyone’s suspicion by sabotaging his demonstration, which has to be in the exact order it was written or people are going to get confused and tell me was wrong only because it was not explained clearly.

You can use the book as a guide. Your explanation of the authors discoveries should be based on what is written in the book, just in the form of a clear summary of his key elements for transforming human behaviour.

I’m trying but I cannot leave gaps just because you demand a shortened summary. I will not risk it for fear that this discovery will be thrown out for no other reason that it was not explained correctly due to your requirements. Mind you, we are in agreement overall so let’s not ruin it for what we agree on.

I do want to say at this point that the standard definition of determinism is causing problems. The idea that the past is causing the present is false since the past is gone and cannot cause us to do anything. We learn from the past and make decisions always in the present, but this is a completely different animal than being forced by previous events to do what we do, which Pood was trying to elucidate. This is a true modal fallacy. There is no necessity such that we have to choose a particular option that determinism would push on us, but this is just a problem with definition and in no way grants us free will. If you can accept that all we have is the present (even temporarily), I can move on and explain, according to this author, why man's will is not free, which leads to the discovery itself: the two-sided equation. Are you game?

 

[Jarhyn]

we can be at two places at once

The "we" addressed by can is explicitly at infinite places across all of space and time.

The "we" addressed by shall is explicitly at a specific bounded reference frame centered at a specific location in space and time.

Yet again, when you start the preposition with "we can" and then jump away from that subject trying to instead access the "singleton" interpretation of "we", you are committing a modal violation.

 

[peacegirl]

we can be at two places at once

The "we" addressed by can is explicitly at infinite places across all of space and time.

The "we" addressed by shall is explicitly at a specific bounded reference frame centered at a specific location in space and time.

Yet again, when you start the preposition with "we can" and then jump away from that subject trying to instead access the "singleton" interpretation of "we", you are committing a modal violation.

So how would you reframe the sentence so that "shall" is used instead of "we" in order not to commit a modal violation? You'll have to show me how you translate computer systems to having free will and consciousness. They are machines and respond to inputs. They do not have emotions. You can compare them to sentient beings in certain aspects, but they are not sentient. I really don't think the venacular I used made a difference if what I said was understood by the listener. Language is meant to communicate, not confuse, and I think this one statement was effective enough so as not to cause confusion. All I was simply saying is that we cannot be at two different places in space at the same time, and we cannot make more than one choice at the same time, regardless of where we are positioned in space or where we are positioned in time. The fact that you are here in space and I am there, and your time in California is three hours earlier than my time, does nothing to negate the fact that we cannot make more than one choice at any given moment. I need to move on, or I'll never be able to get past page 1 at this rate. At the very least, I need to explain the author's definition of determinism, which is slightly different from the standard usage—in order to have a basis for further discussion.

 

[Jarhyn]

So how would you reframe the sentence so that "shall" is used instead of "we can" in order not to commit a modal violation

"We(instance) shall only do one thing at some specific point in space and time"

"We(type) can make different choices depending on the larger place and time we find ourselves."

That's all you can get.

You don't get "we can only do one thing at one specific point in space and time". Such a sentence mixes the modal scope of can with the modal scope of shall.

This means that "did" does not constrain "can". Ever.

Also, to be fair, I'm heavily inferring what your question should have been asking instead of what it actually asked, which was, again, containing an error.

I have fixed the error in the quote as such.

The issue is, I suppose, this frustrates hard determinists who are hard-headedly determined to make exactly that modal scope violation.

 

[Jarhyn]

You'll have to show me how you translate computer systems to having free will and consciousness. They are machines and respond to inputs. They do not have emotions. You can compare them to sentient beings in certain aspects, but they are not sentient

Responding to this one in a separate post...

I don't think you understand for the first part about what an "emotion" is, or what you mean by "sentience".

You don't even understand how an eye works, so I don't think I am going to trust your intuitions on the subject of emotions or how to create or design them or what would be required for that.

In short, you don't know whether computers have emotions. You don't know whether computers are machines driven by pure and absolute emotion, feelings so extreme they are only characterized by 0 and 1 on a normal scale! You have no idea what an emotion is (though I hope I have given you a hint).

So how ignorant is it to say with such confidence that computers lack them because mere intuition might suggest that they don't?

 

[DBT]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Off can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

I am not sure how I can answer you without using the book as a guide. This is why I gave the link to the first three chapters which is foundational and sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Making the claims he did are already suspect. I don’t want to add to everyone’s suspicion by sabotaging his demonstration, which has to be in the exact order it was written or people are going to get confused and tell me was wrong only because it was not explained clearly.

You can use the book as a guide. Your explanation of the authors discoveries should be based on what is written in the book, just in the form of a clear summary of his key elements for transforming human behaviour.

I’m trying but I cannot leave gaps just because you demand a shortened summary. I will not risk it for fear that this discovery will be thrown out for no other reason that it was not explained correctly due to your requirements. Mind you, we are in agreement overall so let’s not ruin it for what we agree on.

I do want to say at this point that the standard definition of determinism is causing problems. The idea that the past is causing the present is false since the past is gone and cannot cause us to do anything. We learn from the past and make decisions always in the present, but this is a completely different animal than being forced by previous events to do what we do, which Pood was trying to elucidate. This is a true modal fallacy. There is no necessity such that we have to choose a particular option that determinism would push on us, but this is just a problem with definition and in no way grants us free will. If you can accept that all we have is the present (even temporarily), I can move on and explain, according to this author, why man's will is not free, which leads to the discovery itself: the two-sided equation. Are you game?

If past conditions of the world do not evolve into current and future conditions of world, it's not determinism. The past is not sitting there causing current conditions, it is now the present state of the world.

 

[peacegirl]

So how would you reframe the sentence so that "shall" is used instead of "we can" in order not to commit a modal violation

"We(instance) shall only do one thing at some specific point in space and time"

The only difference I see with: “We shall only do one thing at some point in space and time” versus “We can only do one thing at some point in space and time” is that the word “shall” implies one has a free choice where “can” does not, according to modal logic which has its own set of problems.

"We(type) can make different choices depending on the larger place and time we find ourselves."

That's all you can get.

I still don’t see the error coming from an incompatibilist perspective. I’m not denying that we have choices therefore this is not under debate. What IS under debate is whether those choices are free, which they are not due to our inner nature that is under a compulsion to choose what is judged by us to be the most preferable unless we are choosing between A and A where no compulsion either way is present.

Choices are made based on contingents that are within our purview. They are often based on objective analysis in combination with our needs, desires, goals, and many other factors that come into play. The decision making process is fully deterministic from our brain gathering information, to comparing the potential consequence of each option, to finally making a decision. The decision to choose one thing in preference to another, could not have been otherwise by the very fact that the other option/options were less preferred, giving us no choice whatsoever.

We cannot move against our very nature which is the movement away from dissatisfaction of some kind to a place of greater satisfaction, not less. For that reason the word choice is illusory because we don’t have one in reality. To repeat: We cannot choose what we prefer less when what we prefer more is available and only one choice can be made at any given moment in time. Could have done otherwise therefore is a useless concept.

You don't get "we can only do one thing at one specific point in space and time". Such a sentence mixes the modal scope of can with the modal scope of shall.

This means that "did" does not constrain "can". Ever.

The only thing that constrains the words shall or did or can is our nature that pushes us in a particular direction. That’s what I meant when I said we can only make one choice at each moment in time. Think about it. Have you ever made two competing decisions simultaneously? One has to yield to the other because of physics itself.

Also, to be fair, I'm heavily inferring what your question should have been asking instead of what it actually asked, which was, again, containing an error.

I have fixed the error in the quote as such.

The issue is, I suppose, this frustrates hard determinists who are hard-headedly determined to make exactly that modal scope violation.

You seem to be making a distinction that I’m not. I’m not saying that determinism is coercing me to choose something against my will. What I am choosing is in line with my will, not against it. Therefore “I shall choose” versus “I can choose” is indistinguishable from my perspective because they both lead to one choice and one choice only.

 

[peacegirl]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Off can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

I am not sure how I can answer you without using the book as a guide. This is why I gave the link to the first three chapters which is foundational and sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Making the claims he did are already suspect. I don’t want to add to everyone’s suspicion by sabotaging his demonstration, which has to be in the exact order it was written or people are going to get confused and tell me was wrong only because it was not explained clearly.

You can use the book as a guide. Your explanation of the authors discoveries should be based on what is written in the book, just in the form of a clear summary of his key elements for transforming human behaviour.

I’m trying but I cannot leave gaps just because you demand a shortened summary. I will not risk it for fear that this discovery will be thrown out for no other reason that it was not explained correctly due to your requirements. Mind you, we are in agreement overall so let’s not ruin it for what we agree on.

I do want to say at this point that the standard definition of determinism is causing problems. The idea that the past is causing the present is false since the past is gone and cannot cause us to do anything. We learn from the past and make decisions always in the present, but this is a completely different animal than being forced by previous events to do what we do, which Pood was trying to elucidate. This is a true modal fallacy. There is no necessity such that we have to choose a particular option that determinism would push on us, but this is just a problem with definition and in no way grants us free will. If you can accept that all we have is the present (even temporarily), I can move on and explain, according to this author, why man's will is not free, which leads to the discovery itself: the two-sided equation. Are you game?

If past conditions of the world do not evolve into current and future conditions of world, it's not determinism. The past is not sitting there causing current conditions, it is now the present state of the world.

I didn't say that past conditions of the world do not evolve into current and future conditions, but the past does not cause...The memory of what just occurred allows us, in the present, to use that information to contemplate, ponder, ruminate, and ultimately to decide. Now that you brought this up, I have no choice but to cut and paste. I take that back. I have a choice, but it gives me greater satisfaction to cut and paste in the hope that certain things can be clarified. Once I act on my decision, I could not have done otherwise because anything other than the choice I made would have been less preferable or satisfying, which is a direction that is impossible to go given my inborn nature. I hoped that people would have read the first three chapters, but this isn't happening, which is forcing me (or compeling me to find another way to get my points across) even if I have to spoonfeed it to everyone. Unfortunately, my discussing the first and second chapters, which are fundamental, are not going to be in the right order and will create more questions than would have been necessary if people had just taken the time to read.