Determinism

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
3481

[i] Inthe world of free will man blamed man and excused himself. In the
new world man will be excused by man for everything he does and
consequently will be compelled, of his own free will, to hold himself
responsible without justification. In other words, once man knows
that he is truly responsible for what others will be compelled to
excuse and he would be unable to justify, he is given no choice but
to forgo the contemplation of what he foresees can give him no
satisfaction. It becomes an impenetrable deterrent because under
these conditions no person alive is able to move in this direction for
satisfaction, even if he wanted to. This natural law raises man’s
conscience to such a high degree because there is no price he can
pay when all humanity, including the one to be hurt, must excuse
him.

“I am still having a difficult time. Could you explain the two-
sided equation again?”

At this present moment of time or life you are standing on this
spot called here, and are constantly in the process of moving to
there. You know as a matter of positive knowledge that nothing,
no one can cause or compel you to do anything to another you
don’t want to do, and this other who is standing on this spot called
there to which you plan to move from here, also knows positively
that you cannot be blamed for your motion from here to there,
regardless of what is done. Now if you know as a matter of positive
knowledge that not only I but everyone on the planet will never
blame or punish you for hurting me in some way, because you
know that we are compelled to completely excuse what is beyond
your control, is it mathematically possible (think about this
carefully) for you to derive any satisfaction whatever from the
contemplation of this hurt when you know beyond a shadow of
doubt that no one, including myself, will ever hold you responsible,
ever criticize your action, ever desire to hurt you in return for doing
what is completely beyond your control? But remember, you
haven’t hurt me yet, and you know (this is the other side of the
equation) that you do not have to hurt me unless you want to,
consequently your motion from here to there is still within your
control. Therefore the moment it fully dawns on you that this
hurt, should you go ahead with it, will not be blamed, criticized or
judged in any way because no one wants to hurt you for doing what
must be considered a compulsion beyond your control (once it is
established that man’s will is not free), you are compelled,
completely of your own free will, to relinquish this desire to hurt
me because it can never give you any satisfaction under these
conditions, which proves that A — everybody on the planet — has
the power to control B — everybody else — by letting B know, as
is being done with this book, that no one will ever be blamed for
anything that is done.

In other words, the knowledge that there
will be no consequences presents consequences that are still worse
making it impossible to consider this as a preferable alternative for
how is it possible to derive satisfaction knowing there will be no
consequences for the pain you willfully choose to inflict on others?
The reaction of no blame would be worse than any type of
punishment society could offer. It is important to remember that
punishment and retaliation are natural reactions of a free will
environment that permit the consideration of striking a first blow
because it is the price man is willing to risk or pay for the
satisfaction of certain desires. But when they are removed so the
knowledge that they no longer exist becomes a condition of the
environment, then the price he must consider to strike the first
blow of hurt — all others are justified — is completely out of his
reach because to do so he must move in the direction of conscious
dissatisfaction, which cannot be done. If will was free we could not
accomplish this simply because we would be able to choose what is
worse for ourselves when something better is available, but this law
of our nature will give us no alternative when we are forced to obey
it in order to derive greater satisfaction.[/i]

3482

I guess that’s a No then… and I revived this thread back to (a better) life, too.

3483

[i]The solution to this impasse which removes the implications is
now very obvious because the advance knowledge that man will not
be blamed for the hurt he does to others (this is the solution
worked backwards) mathematically prevents those very acts of evil
for which blame and punishment were previously necessary.
Instead of being able to absolve one’s conscience by justifying an
act of crime or some other form of hurt because of the knowledge
that he will be blamed and punished (which permitted efforts to
shift his responsibility while encouraging what had to be criticized
and condemned), he is prevented from deriving any satisfaction
from the contemplation of this hurt by the realization that he will
never be blamed, criticized, punished or judged for doing what he
knows everyone must condone, while being denied a satisfactory
reason with which to excuse his contemplated conduct. I will
rephrase this in a slightly different way: Instead of being able to
absolve one’s conscience by being given the opportunity to justify
an act of crime or some other form of hurt which permitted the
shifting of one’s responsibility while at the same time encouraging
the crime, the knowledge that will is not free and what this means
actually prevents an individual from deriving any satisfaction from
the contemplation of this hurt to another by the realization that he
will not be blamed, criticized, judged, or punished for this act.

The
difference between this principle and the principle Christ preached
— “Turn the other cheek,” is that the former prevents the first
cheek from ever being struck whereas Gandhi, in his bid for
freedom and his belief in nonviolence, was forced to turn the other
cheek although the first cheek was struck over and over again which
took an untold number of lives. Secondly, man must be willing to
die in order for turning the other cheek to be effective,
consequently innumerable abuses cannot be prevented which starts
a chain reaction of retaliation. Besides, how is it possible not to
strike back when your very being moves in this direction for
satisfaction? Gandhi said, “Kill us all or give us our freedom; we
will not resist anything you do to us,” compelling those in power,
after many were already slain, to find more satisfaction in leaving
them alone. Many minorities, such as the Blacks, cannot apply
this psychology because the situation does not call for such a
sacrifice. How are these people to turn the other cheek when they
are underpaid, overtaxed, and judged by Whites as one of the
inferior races? It has been their effort to correct these abuses —
not by turning the other cheek — that has brought these people
this far. By turning the other cheek (which also proves in a
mathematical manner that man’s will is not free), it absolutely
prevents the second cheek from being struck because it is
impossible, as the people of India demonstrated, to get satisfaction
from continuing to hurt those who refuse to fight back, but as
history has shown many were killed just by being struck on the first
cheek. My imparting the knowledge that no one will again blame
you in any way, judge your actions or tell you what to do will
mathematically prevent your first cheek from being struck which is
necessary in a world of atomic energy when an entire nation can be
wiped out from being struck on the first cheek. Let us, once again,
observe what the perception of undeniable relations tells us.

 At this moment of time in our present world of free will you are

trying to decide whether to hurt me in some way but you have had
everything removed that could be used to justify this act. You
simply see an opportunity to gain at my expense, but should you
decide against it you will not be a loser. In other words, you are
considering the first blow which means that you are planning to do
something to me that I do not want done to myself. You realize
that there is a certain risk involved, if caught, because you must
face the consequences. If the crime, misdemeanor or offense is not
that serious, although you know you will be questioned and blamed,
you may be able to get away with it by offering all kinds of
reasonable excuses as to why you had no choice. But if no excuse
is acceptable as in a court of law after you have been found guilty,
or when your parents, boss or others know you are obviously at
fault, you could be sent to prison, electrocuted, hanged, gassed,
whipped, severely punished in some other way, scolded,
reprimanded, ostracized, criticized, discharged, beat up or any
number of things. You don’t want this to happen if it can be
avoided, but if you can’t satisfy your desire unless the risk is taken,
you are prepared to pay a price for the crime of hurting me with a
first blow. Under these conditions it is impossible for your
conscience to exercise any control over your desires because you
cannot feel any guilt just as long as you are prepared to suffer the
consequences. Now let’s imagine for a moment that you are living
in the new world and are confronted with a choice of whether or not
to hurt me.

 As before you are trying to decide whether to hurt me in some

way but you have had everything removed from which you might
have been able to justify your act. You simply see an opportunity
to gain at my expense, but you will not be a loser if you decide
against it. In other words, you are contemplating the first blow
under changed conditions. You know as a matter of undeniable
knowledge that nothing in this world has the power, that no one
can compel you to do anything against your will, for over this you
know you have absolute control (you can lead a horse to water but
you can’t make him drink). This means that you are completely
responsible for your actions even though, due to circumstances, you
may prefer hurting me.

To make absolutely certain that you know
this is an undeniable law, try to shift away from yourself what is
your responsibility or to some extraneous factor when you know
that no one in the world will ever hold you responsible. It cannot
be done, which was already proven. This does not mean that other
people are not often responsible for the hurt we do as part of a
chain reaction as when an employer is forced to lay off his
employees because the money to pay them has stopped coming in
to him, but no one is blaming him for what is obviously not his
responsibility and therefore it isn’t necessary for him to offer
excuses. [/i]

3484

[i]As you are contemplating hurting me in some way, I know as
a matter of positive knowledge that you cannot be blamed anymore
because it is an undeniable law that man’s will is not free. This is
a very unique two-sided equation for it reveals that while you know
you are completely responsible for everything you do to hurt me, I
know you are not responsible. For the very first time you fully
realize that I must excuse you because it is now known that man
must always select of available alternatives the one that offers
greater satisfaction, and who am I to know what gives you greater
satisfaction. Consequently, you are compelled to realize that
should you desire to hurt me in any way whatsoever you must also
take into consideration the knowledge that under no conditions will
I strike you back because it can never satisfy me to hurt you for
doing what I know you are compelled to do. This prevents you
from thinking excuses in advance because you know you are already
excused. You cannot say, “I couldn’t help myself because my will
is not free,” because you know I already know this. You cannot
apologize or ask for forgiveness because you are already forgiven
and no one is blaming you. This means that should you decide to
hurt me with this first blow or be careless and take the risks that
lead to a first blow, and I would have to choose between retaliating
or turning the other cheek, you would know that I would be
compelled by my nature to find greater satisfaction in turning the
other cheek because of the undeniable fact that I would know you
had no choice, since your will is not free. Remember, you haven’t
hurt me yet; consequently, this is still a choice under consideration.
And when it fully dawns on you that this hurt to me will never be
blamed, judged or questioned in any way because I don’t want to
hurt you in return for doing what must now be considered a
compulsion beyond your control — ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW
IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AT THIS POINT
SINCE YOU HAVEN’T HURT ME YET — you are compelled,
completely of your own free will, so to speak, to relinquish this
desire to hurt me because it can never give you greater satisfaction
under the changed conditions. [Note: It must be understood that
the expression ‘of your own free will,’ which is an expression I use
throughout the book, only means ‘of your own desire,’ but this does
not mean will is free. If you need further clarification, please
reread Chapter One].

In other words, when you know that others
will never blame or punish you for what they are compelled to
excuse, but also that the other factors truly responsible for the
dissatisfaction which engendered the consideration of hurting
others as a possible solution will be permanently removed as a
consequence of following our slide rule in all of its ramifications,
you will be given no opportunity to ever again strike another blow
of hurt. It becomes the worst possible choice to hurt another when
it is known there will be no blame because there is no advantage in
hurting those whom you know are compelled to turn the other
cheek for their satisfaction. Conscience, this guilty feeling over
such an act, will not permit it because you will get less satisfaction,
not more. Let me say again that if man’s will was free we could not
accomplish this because we would be able to choose what is less
satisfying when something more satisfying is available.

 The knowledge that man will no longer be blamed for striking

a first blow since his will is not free — when he knows that nobody,
absolutely nothing, can compel him to hurt another this way unless
he wants to for over this he knows he has absolute control — enters
a condition or catalyst never before a permanent factor in human
relations and mathematically prevents those very acts of hurt for
which blame was previously necessary in a free will environment.
Remember, it takes two to tango — each person and the rest of
mankind — therefore this discovery which prevents man from
desiring to hurt others is only effective when he knows in advance,
as a matter of positive knowledge, that he will never be blamed or
punished no matter what he does.

“Wait a second. Will you admit that if I strike you first you are
perfectly justified in striking back?”

“Of course you are not justified in striking a person who is
compelled to do what he does by the laws of his nature.”

“But you know that an individual doesn’t have to strike another
if he doesn’t want to.”

“But if he wants to, isn’t it obvious that this desire is
completely beyond his control because it is now known man’s will
is not free?”

“Are you trying to tell me that if someone strikes me I must
turn the other cheek because he couldn’t help himself?”

“That’s exactly right. How is it humanly possible to justify
some form of retaliation when you know that the person who hurt
you is moved by laws over which he has absolutely no control?”

“But I do have mathematical control over not hurting you, if
I don’t want to.”

“I don’t know that, because it is impossible for me to judge
what you can and cannot do since you are compelled to move in the
direction of greater satisfaction, and I don’t know what gives you
greater satisfaction. Consequently, you are compelled to realize
that should you desire to hurt me in any way whatsoever, you must
also take into consideration the knowledge that under no
conditions will I strike you back because it can never satisfy me to
hurt you for doing what I know you are compelled to do, since your
will is not free.”

“Now I get it. Then when I fully realize that under no
conditions will you ever strike back because you must excuse what
you know I am compelled to do — when I know that I am not
compelled to hurt you unless I want to for over this I have
mathematical control — I am given no alternative but to forgo the
desire to hurt you simply because, under the new conditions, it is
impossible for me to derive even the smallest amount of
satisfaction.”

Wonderful! If each reader is able to understand that there are
two sides to this equation, then he will be able to follow me as I
extend it into every part of our lives. [Please note that I am
demonstrating how the basic principle can prevent the first cheek
from ever being struck. If our cheek has not been struck, there is
no need to strike back or turn the other side of our face. If you
find it confusing as to how the basic principle prevents the desire
to hurt others as a preferable alternative, it is important that you
reread this chapter in order to grasp the two-sided equation, which
is the very foundation of this discovery]. As we follow the corollary,
Thou Shall Not Blame, which will act as an infallible slide rule and
standard as to what is right and wrong while solving the many
problems that lie ahead, we will be obeying the mathematical
wisdom of this universe which gives us no choice when we see what
is truly better for ourselves. By removing all forms of blame which
include this judging in advance of what is right and wrong for
others, we actually prevent the first blow of injustice from being
struck.[/i]

3485

[i]This corollary is not only effective by your realization that
we (all mankind) will never blame you for any hurt done to us, but
also by our realization that any advance blame, this judging of what
is right for someone else strikes the first blow since it is impossible
to prevent your desire to hurt us by telling you we will never blame
this hurt when we blame the possibility by telling you in advance
that it is wrong. In other words, by judging that it is wrong to do
something, whatever it may be, we are blaming the possibility of it
being done which only incites a desire to challenge the authority of
this advance accusation that has already given justification.
Therefore, in order to prevent the very things we do not want which
hurt us, it is absolutely imperative that we never judge what is right
for someone else.

But remember, it is not the knowledge that
man’s will is not free that compels him to give up this judging in
advance what is right for others, otherwise the government, the
unions, the religions, all the writers who make a living expressing
their opinions as to what is right and wrong with the world, with
love, marriage, children, business, education, etc., would suddenly
give up their manner of earning a living which is a mathematical
impossibility. Do you think that the manufacturers of candles and
other inferior forms of lighting wanted to give up what gave them
a source of income when electricity was discovered? They were
compelled to adjust because they couldn’t find a market for their
obsolete products except on a smaller scale. Do you think the
adulterers want to give up their fun, the single males the pleasure
of sexual intercourse before marriage? Do you think the people
who are getting wealthy on the sweat, brawn, tears and insecurity
of extremely low wages will give this up just because God thunders
down from heaven — Thou Shall Not Blame? Do you think that
religion will willingly give up its great power and influence when it
is learned that the will of man is not free — which reveals that God
is a mathematical reality?

The truth of the matter is that everyone
will be compelled of his own free will to give up anything that hurts
another in any way simply because this hurt will be considered
worse under the new conditions. This, my friends, is the great
secret of God’s infinite wisdom, which gives man no free choice as
to the direction he must travel for greater satisfaction. However,
it is extremely important for every individual to know that what
came about on our planet was exactly as it was supposed to be.
This, of course, doesn’t mean that the future will continue like the
past, but it does mean that no one is to blame in any way for what
happened and consequently everyone is permitted to turn himself
upside down for the purpose of dumping out anything and
everything for which he holds himself responsible; but remember we
are prevented from repeating an action that formerly hurt someone
by the knowledge that we will never be blamed for what we know we
can prevent, giving us no satisfaction. The solution lies in the fact
that the people truly responsible for all the evil, hurt and crime, for
which they cannot be held responsible, are actually unconscious of
this responsibility, and instead blame an individual who is not at
fault for the very things of which they are innocently guilty.
Therefore the problem is to bring to the surface, with a
mathematical, infallible line of demarcation, these hidden facts.
Your philosopher Socrates grasped this when he said “I know that
I don’t know; other men don’t know either but think they know.”
But now we know that we know, for the actual responsibility lies
with everyone who judges and tacitly blames the actions of another
before anything is even done. However, this advance blame is not
only contained in our customs, conventions, morals and laws, but
in the very words that describe fallacious differences of value which
permit superior, inferior, better, worse, good, bad, and innumerable
other words and expressions to be used in relation to different
individuals. We are completely absolved of all responsibility for
anything we have ever done in the past, and will never be blamed by
anyone in the future, but the present is our very own responsibility
since no one will ever again tell us what to do or what is better for
ourselves.
As we end this chapter, there is one vital point that appears
contradictory and needs clarification.[/i]

3486

[i]If the knowledge that man’s
will is not free is supposed to prevent that for which blame and
punishment were previously necessary, and if a person who saw his
child deliberately kidnapped and killed would be compelled to desire
revenge as a normal reaction in the direction of satisfaction, how
can this knowledge prevent some form of retaliation? Just because
you have learned that man’s will is not free is not a sufficient
explanation as to why you should not want to avenge this child’s
murder by tracking down the criminal and cutting his heart out
with a knife, so once again we must understand what God means
when He mathematically instructs us not to blame.

 When the

knowledge in this book is released and understood, every person as
always will be standing on this moment of time or life called here,
so to speak, and preparing to move to the next spot called there.
As the principles set forth in this book become a permanent part
of the environment, you will know that the person who kidnapped
and killed your child or committed some other form of hurt which
occurred prior to the release of this knowledge — regardless of how
much you hate and despise what was done — will never blame in
any way your desire for retribution, which means that he will never
run and hide to avoid your act of revenge because this is a form of
tacit blame; and when it fully dawns on you that he will never make
any effort to fight back no matter what you do to him, never lift a
hand to stop whatever you desire to do, it becomes impossible for
you to derive any satisfaction from this act of retaliation especially
when you know that he will never again be permitted by his
conscience — because of the realization that he will not be blamed
— to do to another what was originally done to you and your
family. As a result, the chain of retaliation will be broken which
will prevent any further criminal behavior.

 Time and time again a person desiring personal revenge has

been able to experience a certain amount of control over his desire,
but never to the degree that will permit this Great Transition to get
under way — with the help of our slide rule. Presently, the man
seeking revenge finds great satisfaction in contemplating what he
is going to do to get even, but is prevented not because he decides
not to blame when learning that man’s will is not free, but only
because the other person on whom he desires to vent his venom has
been given the knowledge of how to prevent this retaliation, while
the one seeking revenge knows how to prevent the recurrence of a
similar situation. When he fully realizes that the perpetrator whom
he wishes to hurt in return will never desire to retaliate with further
hurt, or desire to commit another crime to anyone anywhere, he is
compelled to lose his desire for revenge because it is impossible to
derive any satisfaction from the advance knowledge that he will be
excused by the entire world.

 The full realization that he can no

longer justify this act of personal revenge because no one will
consider it wrong or tell him what to do (remember, no longer will
anyone judge what is right for another); that he will be able to do
what he wishes to this person without any form of justification
because he knows in advance that he will not be blamed and that
everyone, including the one to be retaliated upon, will be compelled
of their own free will to completely excuse what is definitely not his
responsibility — ALTHOUGH HE KNOWS IT WOULD BE
HIS RESPONSIBILITY — makes him desire to forgo what he
knows he doesn’t have to do. He knows he is not under any
compulsion to do what has not yet been done, and when he
becomes aware that no one henceforth will judge his actions; that
he is completely free from the trammels of public opinion to do,
without the slightest fear of criticism, whatever he thinks is better
for himself; that he will not even be punished by the laws that were
created for this purpose, it becomes mathematically impossible for
him to desire hurting this other person under these conditions
regardless of what was originally done to him. It would be
equivalent to deriving satisfaction from continuing to beat up an
individual who, though fully able to fight back, refuses to lift a
hand in his own defense. This allows the Great Transition to get
under way without any fear of harm. Let us observe why the
perpetrator can no longer continue his crime spree under the
changed conditions.[/i]

3487

[i]The potential kidnapper or criminal who is standing on this
moment of time called here when this knowledge is released and
before the act is done, is prevented from further contemplation of
his crime by the realization that he will never be blamed, judged,
criticized, or punished for this act (and by the removal of all forms
of tacit blame which unconsciously gave him the motivation and
justification), which compels him to get greater satisfaction in his
motion to there by giving up what he was contemplating. Up until
the present time there was nothing powerful enough to prevent
man from risking his life to satisfy a desire regardless of who got
hurt because the satisfaction of possible success outweighed the
dissatisfaction of possible failure; but when he becomes conscious
that a particular reaction of no blame will be the only response to
his actions by the entire world regardless of what he is
contemplating, he will be compelled, completely beyond his control,
but of his own free will or desire, to refrain from what he now
foresees can give him absolutely no satisfaction. How can he
possibly find satisfaction in doing something that the world must
excuse, but he can no longer justify? This natural law of man’s
nature gives him no alternative but to obey it in order to derive
greater satisfaction, and will prevent the first blow from ever being
struck. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, and
slowly unravel the causes of war, crime, and hatred — which are
deep-rooted and interwoven — we will get a glimpse into the future
and envision how life will be when all hurt in human relations
comes to a peaceful end.

 There will be many volumes extending this law into every area

of human interaction. The answer to the world’s problems will
satisfy Communism and Capitalism, the Blacks and the Whites,
the Jews and the Christians, the Catholics and the Protestants, the
rich and the poor, the cops and the robbers. However, it must be
understood that in the world of free will innumerable wars,
revolutions, and crimes were a reaction to various forms of hurt
which did not allow any alternative but to retaliate. Consequently,
man was compelled to blame, criticize and punish as the only
possible alternative when judged by his undeveloped mind. When
those about to fight back discover that they will no more be
retaliated upon, it is also necessary for them to realize that the
factors responsible for this consideration of war and crime, as the
lesser of two evils, will also be removed; and are those responsible
given any choice but to remove these factors when they know that
those who they have been hurting will never blame them for this?

 To fully understand the fact that conscience — our feeling of

guilt — was never allowed to reach the enormous temperature
necessary to melt our desire to even take the risk of striking a first
blow, it is only necessary to observe what must follow when a
crucible is constructed wherein this new law can effectively operate.
It was impossible for any previous stage of our development to have
understood the deeper factors involved which was necessary for an
adequate solution, just as it was impossible for atomic energy to
have been discovered at an earlier time because the deeper relations
were not perceived at that stage of development; but at last we have
been granted understanding which reveals a pattern of harmony in
the mankind system equal in every way with the mathematical
accuracy of the solar system, and we are in for the greatest series of
beneficent changes of our entire existence which must come about
as a matter of necessity the very moment this knowledge is
understood.

 Although this book only scratches the surface, it lays

the foundation for scientists to take over from here. The
undeniable knowledge I am presenting is a blueprint of a new world
that must come about once this discovery is recognized, and your
awareness of this will preclude you from expressing that this work
is oversimplified. Because it would take many encyclopedias
combined to delineate all of the changes about to occur, it would
have been much too long for a book that was written for the express
purpose of providing mankind with a general outline. It will be up
to future scientists to extend these principles in much greater
depth. As we leave this chapter I hope I have made it clear that just
as long as man is able to justify hurting others, he is not striking
a first blow. Before I demonstrate how this justification is
permanently removed by preventing the insecurities that have
permeated our economic system and justify the act of
self-preservation by whatever means necessary, I will allow you an
opportunity to see exactly what happens in a human relation where
this justification is already removed.

In the next chapter, l shall
reveal how all automobile accidents and carelessness must come to
a permanent end. Before we move on, I must clarify a very
important point. Christ and Spinoza turned the other cheek and
paid the consequences because the justification to hurt them was
never removed, but I am going to demonstrate how it is now
possible to prevent the first cheek from being struck which renders
obsolete the need to turn the other cheek or retaliate. Although
Gandhi won freedom for his people and Reverend King won certain
civil rights, they accomplished this at great expense. However, all
was necessary because we are moving in the direction of greater
satisfaction over which we have no control because this is God’s law
or will. At this point, I suggest that you study carefully, once
again, Chapter Two and then discuss it to make certain you
understand that if you find any flaw it exists only in your not
understanding the principles, for they are undeniable.[/i]

3488

And yet currently in LA California looters are walking into stores - filling their bags with goods - and walking out the store without paying. The reason is that they know that they will not be blamed or prosecuted as long as they didn’t steal more than $950.

The next day they do it again. The goods are then sold on the beach - for money.

So the theory actually worked in reverse - theft increased because they knew they were not going to be prosecuted. Their “greater satisfaction” was in having goods to sell on the beach - for money.

3489

Obviously (by a different theory) it is not good enough to merely remove the punishment. You must also remove any reward for doing it anyway (such as gaining more money or proving more power).

3490

Did you read the chapter? He said this cannot be applied in a free will environment. You need to look at this from a broader vantage point that the author has outlined. Most of all you need to be patient in order to understand how this new world can actually be executed.

3491

Even if a reward was an incentive for something, how could someone take advantage by cheating or what have you in this environment?

3492

Well that’s inconvenient. Because that means it can’t be tested before you switch everything to the new environment.

And then if it doesn’t work as expected, you got problems …

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_in_a_poke

3493

What she is saying is that you have to remove all freewill and become totally communist in order to see the wonderful paradise to come - but not until ALL people give up ALL freedoms, rewards, and punishments. - give up all life and we can all know peace - because there will be no evil. :smiley:

And yes - “a pig in a poke”. - exactly. =;

3494

What the hell?? Communist? Give up all freedoms? Where did you come up with this nonsense. It’s the polar opposite! You could not have concluded anything of the sort from this chapter. I hope you’re joking!

3495

It’s really no different than any mathematical equation or formula that is in its tentative or simulated form before applying it in a real life situation. For example, we went to the moon with the absolute confidence that the trajectory would get them where they wanted to go. And it worked because they used their accurate equations. This occurs all the time. We build bridges but the architects plan it beforehand to make sure the materials and structure can withhold a certain amount of weight and wear and tear. Same with airplanes. Yes, this is different only in the sense that we are not dealing with a physical object but the principles still apply. This knowledge is our trajectory to a better world that has nothing to do with communism or any kind of control.

3496

You build the rocket components and test them on the ground. Then you assemble it and do unmanned tests. Then you do manned tests with a test pilot at the controls. Only after all those tests can you be confident that you have a rocket which will work.

That’s how you get to another planet.

3497

A simulation can help but it’s not the same thing as flying out of the earth’s atmosphere. There are many things that have to go right based on the best testing available but bottom line is that there is no other way to prove that they will arrive safely without accuracy in their equations.

3498

I hope there’s interest after reading chapter two. You have to be patient. There is a lot to cover.

3499

In Defense of Compatibilism: A Response to Edwards and Coyne
written by Ben Burgis at the quillette website

Yes! Defining free will and determinism and compatibilism into existence. You make an argument about Mary aborting her unborn baby/clump of cells and then insist that the truth of the argument is predicated entirely on how you define the meaning of all the words in it. Then if Mary asks if she is choosing an abortion of her own volition you ask her if she agrees with what you insist your own definition of the words used in the argument are and must be. And, if she doesn’t, the discussion of the actual abortion itself is put aside until there is a firm commitment on the definitions.

Interesting perhaps but first we are back to figuring out whether we are “free”, free or “free” to connect the dots between freedom and moral responsibility.

As though determinism as I “understand” it does not include defining things.

So, in regard to confronting Mary, unsure if she is able to freely opt to choose either abortion or birth, what do the compatibilists here among us “tell” her?

Pick one…

(a) freedom from coercion,
(b) some more sophisticated compatibilist definition of freedom, or
(c) contra-causal freedom

…and explain to Mary why you did.

If, as I understand determinism, the unborn baby/clump of cells [which above I called Jane] is aborted she was never going to not be aborted if in fact Mary “chooses” to abort her. And if Mary was never able to choose not to abort her, how can she be held morally responsible?

3500

It’s so weird that in a philosophical thoughtful forum not one person responded to my posts. It’s just crazy.