New Discovery

They were not his opinions. If they were just his opinion, this would not be a discovery.

[i]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’ in order 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 cost. 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 and 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. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can. [/i]

If something is a known fact, is there a need for an opinion? Obviously this discovery is not recognized, so people interject their opinion. It is also true that science can be wrong which is why they use the term “scientific theory”.

Did you read the second chapter thoroughly? I asked you if you could explain the two-sided equation, and you didn’t answer. I don’t mean to put you on the spot, but if you don’t know what the two-sided equation is (which is the core of the discovery), how can you say you don’t think this discovery will change human behavior?

I know it does. Isn’t it ironic that this knowledge came out of philosophical thought and because it’s a discovery, it is beyond the forum discussion? So we should never take philosophy to higher ground where it really counts?

Many theories as to how world peace could be achieved have been proposed, yet
war has once again taken its deadly toll in the 21st century. The dream of peace has
remained an unattainable goal — until now. The following pages reveal a scientific discovery
regarding a psychological law of man’s nature never before understood. This finding was
hidden so successfully behind layers and layers of dogma and misunderstanding that no one
knew a deeper truth existed. Once this natural law becomes a permanent condition of the
environment, it will allow mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction —
preventing the never-ending cycle of hurt and retaliation in human relations. Although this
discovery was borne out of philosophical thought, it is factual, not theoretical, in nature.

Let me repeat what was in the post above so that you understand that he’s not talking about math per se, but is using the term to mean undeniable:

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’ in order to be exact and scientific.

All this rather self-contradictory paragraph says is

I am right.

That the same mind that wrote this paragraph has determined that an arguement is undeniable is not a good sign about that evaluation. Notice that it never says what it is. It seems like it is not an inductive conclusion. It seems implicitly to be deductive. But oddly this is never stated, as if the author knows very little about epistemology. Phyllo pointed out that mathematics is problematic when applied to human behavior. This is also true regarding deductive reasoning. And this would be very much the case when one is arguing that some future set of events must take place, universally.

What the heck. I am going to say that that is a fact.

I will also say that it is a fact that the quotes from the book seem to come from a somewhat disordered mind.

It is also a fact that the arguments are not undeniable, but will be denied. So it is not mathematical, it is not scientific and it is deniable.

It moves then, undeniably, into the realm of opinion, and one that may or may not be worth discussing.

One could look at this as an invitation to join the human race.

Where is it contradictory? He was just stating that this is not a form of logic.

He was only following where the corollary leads. From there he could see that this world is not only possible but inevitable because we cannot move against what is in our best interest.

Hahaha, this is so funny. Where did you get that idea based on what I’ve given you?

Anything can be denied if it is not understood. I can deny that I’m typing this right now. Does it mean I’m right? No.

It’s not an opinion that man’s will is not free, and it’s not an opinion that nothing has the power to make a person do something that he makes up his mind not to do. You are probably a compatibilist. I find these people more resistant to the truth than the libertarians.

What is that supposed to mean?

Peacegirl,

You show that you don’t even know what a compatibalist is.

A compatibalist doesn’t believe thought can exist without a structure to facilitate it. The compatabilist argue SELF will (not freewill) because freewill implies things like smoking a cigarette when there are no cigarettes in existence.! FREE will is obviously false!!

What people mean when they use this expression is SELFWILL!

So, how does one prove selfwill then?

It’s very simple:

We are using neurons to decide how those neurons are going to fire.

This is a scientific fact (the invention of neuroleptics for example)

That’s neurons using themselves to decide how they want to be.

This is characteristic of sentience. It’s also compatabilism… subject requires object.

I know what compatibilism is. It’s trying to make determinism and free will compatible using their definition of free will.

That is not it Ecmandu, especially as it relates to the free will/determinism debate. Why are you skirting the real issue? Free will, according to compatibilists (self will, if you like), means that as long as a person did not have a gun to their head, and did not have a serious addiction or OCD like behavior, then a person has the “free will” to be held responsible.

Calling it by another name doesn’t change what it is.

I didn’t know this is the definition of compatibilism. Compatibilism, based on what I know, tries to use a version of “free will” that gives some people a free pass depending on whether a person was constrained by a mental illness such as OCD, drug addiction, or was being forced at gunpoint. Others, who were not constrained in this way are considered to have the “free will” (according to their made up definition) to make the right choice based on reason. Isn’t that the theme? In other words, their definition is no different than the libertarians in that they are saying if a person has a choice (other than the constraints already mentioned), they have free will. Actually, no one has free will. It’s just that it’s easier to see that a person who has these compulsions have a more difficult time making the “right” choice while those who don’t have these compulsions could make the “right” choice, or the choice that the moralists consider to be right.

Peacegirl,

Almost everyone on earth is such a moron, that it’s certainly difficult to ascribe agency to them…

However, it is infantalizing (disrespectful) to them to not give them the full reprocussions (not no reprocussions) of that agency if they want it.

I wanted to add to this…

When you are judging someone … not always, but for the most part, you let them go …

It’s a catch and release program.

Some of these people will feel immense gratitude for mercy.

Many will not. Those people don’t feel the humility of mercy, rather, they think in their mind that they have dominated you, just like they dominated in ways that brought them to justice in the first place… I come within seconds of seeing their reaction to mercy like a ton of bricks on them.

Forgiveness is not some dominance game, it’s a sacred trust.

There are three basic things you must be to gain respect in life: you must be logical, reasonable and sympathetic

Peacegirl: Everyone has agency.

Ecmandu: However, it is infantalizing (disrespectful) to them to not give them the full reprocussions (not no reprocussions) of that agency if they want it.

Peacegirl: You mean consequences? If that’s true why do people do everything to avoid consequences? It’s true that some people may feel bad about something they caused and may want to be punished.

People are not all like that.

Phyllo brought sociopaths up as well, and you scoffed at him.

These people consider it a calculated risk to terrorize human beings, and many who are caught don’t try to avoid it, they’ll be like, “yeah, I guess you caught me, but I had a good run for awhile”

They accept the consequences if they come to bear, like eating a nectarine … it’s almost a nothing, they’ve prepared their entire lives to being caught.

For them, it’s better to go to prison for 50 years than to not have killed one innocent.

I’d say in general about you, you are very sheltered and have not “been around the block” once yet, let alone many times.

Also, I edited about half this post before you replied, you may want to read the edits:

viewtopic.php?p=2729750#p2729750

Peacegirl: This isn’t my first rodeo! I’ve been around for quite awhile! lol

People are not all like that.

Phyllo brought sociopaths up as well, and you scoffed at him.

Peacegirl: I didn’t scoff at him. I just told him he’s looking at what occurs in today’s environment.

Ecmandu: These people consider it a calculated risk to terrorize human beings, and many who are caught don’t try to avoid it, they’ll be like, “yeah, I guess you caught me, but I had a good run for awhile”

Peacegirl: You are right. Some people are willing to take the risk.

Ecmandu: They accept the consequences if they come to bear, like eating a nectarine … it’s almost a nothing, they’ve prepared their entire lives to being caught.

Peacegirl: They probably know eventually they’ll get caught.

Ecmandu: For them, it’s better to go to prison for 50 years than to not have killed one innocent.

Peacegirl: Yes that’s true. They have no feelings.

Ecmandu: I’d say in general about you, you are very sheltered and have not “been around the block” once yet, let alone many times.

Peacegirl: This isn’t my first rodeo! I’ve been around for quite awhile! lol

Peacegirl,

Every single reply that you made to my post that you replied to, demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that you haven’t even been around the block even once.

I’m not even going to bother with all of it, but I’ll just take this part:

Peacegirl stated: I didn’t scoff at him. I just told him he’s looking at what occurs in today’s environment.(in response to phyllo)

Ecmandu’s reply: phyllo is telling you that because this is today’s environment, nobody will be deterred in your system. Your system is psychopath heaven!!!

Literally, you’re entire philosophy, this silly book, is nothing but psychopath heaven.

So you state something like: “well if everyone obeyed me, the world will be at peace!!”

Billions of people have tried that argument before!!

It doesn’t work!

If I WANTED TO WRITE (as a psychopath) the book that would bring me psychopath heaven, and the psychopathic children of my children of my children psychopathic heaven as well… I’d write this book!!!

People who haven’t been this sheltered are not that dumb.

Actually, if they didn’t give you the benefit of the doubt of just not being life wise… they’d have to conclude that YOU !! Are a psychopath!! Trying to trick all of us !!

I can’t waste my time responding to your lack of insight as well as your lack of robust investigation. Like I said, compatibilists think they have disclosed something great therefore they’re extremely defensive but all they’ve done is repackaged free will with the same problems that we have dealt with for centuries, but also in terms of having nothing new to bring to the table that could actually be of benefit to our world!

And MagsJ goes at me from my replies…

But will leave this one alone.

I can actually start a whole thread as a proof that this is more offensive than my reply earlier!

There is nothing remotely offensive about her reply to you at all
Address what she is saying instead of making such silly assertions
For this is a serious topic that deserves contributions of substance

She’s stating: don’t judge anyone, especially psychopaths, because they need the least judgement of anyone …

That’s a line that you don’t cross in any species.

She literally thinks that if you are kind to psychopaths, that world will be at peace, and that the world not being at peace, is because we aren’t kind to psychopaths, that it’s OUR fault if we get tortured by psychopaths.

This is not the way existence works.

It’s extremely inflammatory.

She is completely negating the concept of boundaries.

Besides, she already lost the debate by calling it the highest natural law, when nobody follows it.

That’s laughable.

That is not what I’m saying AT ALL! It’s your lack of understanding that’s getting in the way!!

This book is about preventing the psychopathic mind from developing in the first place, not in condoning behavior that none of us want. You are displaying extreme ignorance Ecmandu!

OMG, you’re out in left field! Our fault if we get tortured by psychopaths? Did I say that? I am only trying to show, as much as you can’t stand to hear it, that determinism prevents the very acts of crime that all of the punishment in the world could never achieve. I already said that during the transition to this new world, if there are people that are so far gone, so mentally deranged, that they have no conscience at all, then this principle may not help them and they will need to be institutionalized. But as a new generation is born, the kind of environment that created these psychopaths will no longer be a factor. Mental illness will be virtually wiped out!! No more psychopaths and no more sociopaths. Wouldn’t that make you happy, or does it hurt your pride to think that your precious compatibilism (that you believe you’ve proved) only perpetuates the same old status quo?

You are right, this is not the way existence works as long as we are living in a free will environment. Our entire civilization is based on the belief that will is free. It’s inflammatory because you don’t understand this knowledge one whit.

Just read the second chapter and there are some serious flaws in it that have to be addressed :

The distance of the Earth from the Sun was not a determined event [ it actually took 200 million years for the Earth to form ]
It was a random event whereby all possible outcomes had an equal chance of occurring which is the opposite of determinism
So using the strong anthropic principle and fine tuning arguments as a reason to justify human existence is entirely fallacious

There is no mathematical certainty at all that God exists - proofs are for hypotheses and conjectures not metaphysical beings

There is no evidence to suggest that the elimination of a genuine reason for blame will actually result in there being no more
Just because someone is not responsible for something does not mean they will not be blamed anyway - that will still happen
For the reasons as to why someone gets blamed for something are not always logical - sometimes it is something else entirely

The foundation of the book is very flawed if these first two chapters are anything to go by
They also ignore the fact that before a final choice is made the will of man is actually free

Apart from you and your father has anyone - especially philosophers - ever accepted the entire premise of the book unconditionally ?
If the answer to this question is no that might be telling you something important so have you ever considered any of the criticisms ?

That was not his discovery. If he was wrong about how long it took for the Earth to form, it’s an incidental. Please keep that in mind.

"

WOW! He never said God was a personal being. That was made very clear early on.
[i]
By a similar process of working our problem backwards we can
officially launch the Golden Age which necessitates the removal of all
forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so that
each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants to do.
Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation
of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide
rule which God has given us as a guide.

By now I hope you
understand that the word God is a symbol for the source of everything
that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil using
the word God only as a symbol for the former. Actually no one gave
me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force
that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the
direction of satisfaction and for me to be satisfied after reading Will
Durant’s analysis of free will it was necessary to disagree with what
obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not
satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving
that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke.

To say that God
made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my
nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is
absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is
concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun;
regardless of how much there is I don’t know about this ball of fire
does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and
regardless of what words I employ to describe God does not change the
fact that He is a reality. You may ask, “But isn’t there quite a
difference between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the
description of the sun could be inaccurate, but I know it is a part of
the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing and
say this is God, therefore we must assume because of certain things
that God is a reality, correct?”

We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a
discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or believed
that there was a design to this universe by the fact that the solar
system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon,
earth, planets and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some
internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now
that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free and at the very
moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration
compels man to veer sharply in a new direction although still towards
greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the
sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as
the solar system only we never knew it because part of the harmony
was this disharmony between man and man which is now being
permanently removed. [/i]

You’ll need to read the whole book at least twice. You’re jumping to a premature conclusion. Obviously, we can’t just stop blaming. That would make every crook happy as a lark. There will be a transitional period from one world to the other, which may be very gradual. As people become citizens, the police force will be reduced in just proportion.

If you are so sure the book is flawed then you must really understand it, so for starters what is the two-sided equation in your own words?

[quote="They also ignore the fact that before a final choice is made the will of man is actually free[/quote]
Absolutely not. Before a final choice is made man has a choice, but how can it be free when he cannot move in any other direction but “greater” satisfaction, not less? Your analysis so far is completely flawed and lacking depth.

What difference would that make surreptitious? Srsly??? I’ve been criticized by lots of people who are doing what you’re doing, making quick judgments without carefully reading the book or asking questions. They skim, can’t tell me what the discovery is, and then have the chutzpah to tell me it’s flawed! People rush to judgment especially when it doesn’t jive with their worldview. And even if it does, they will jump to the conclusion that it’s a religious work because he uses the word God. Amazing!