…hmm. Gotta admit, peacegirl, I haven’t been given much to chew on…
As to your not participating in other threads because you don’t feel you have a grasp of the material, how about just asking questions about things, or proposing paraphrases in terms of your own understanding (at the risk, of course, of being corrected).
If you want to sell an idea that’s not selling itself, you gotta find a way to shmooze. Just a thought. 
You are way off track my friend. I must have touched a nerve and I’m sorry for that. Sleep well.
Sorry, the post was repeated twice.
Thank you for the suggestion, but I can’t be a liar in all honesty. If I don’t understand something, I need to admit it. That does not mean that just because I don’t understand one thing, that I don’t have a grasp on another. It’s amazing how false conclusions are drawn, and we’re talking about people who should know better regarding premises and conclusions. I don’t want to do the very thing I can’t stand other people doing, which is to offer an opinion based on very little knowledge. If you think I’m being naiive, I’m really sorry. I just can’t act like I know something when I don’t. I put the entire book out there (I have the rights to this), in the hope of the internet gaining momentum. I think that is happening as we speak. Only time will tell whether this work is authentic or not. In the meantime, we all must go on with our lives. I’m just sorry that the people who have the capacity for understanding are the very ones who are quick to judge a book by its cover.
peacegirl, hi
Perhaps part of the focus at least should be asking if determinism is right, if we all truly believed we were slaves to it I.e. biological robots, then law and morals become redundant, this idea I think could just as easily lead to chaos or even our complete destruction. …but we’ll come to that later on…
Before we can even go there firstly we have to show if there is something beyond the material which is ‘involved’ [!!!] in the processes of the brain, causality and decision making generally.
There are a few things we can begin with…
Information doesn’t exist [in material form]; thus all aspects of the mind which are info, are non material.
Colour cannot be found anywhere in the electromagnetic spectrum; hence all aspects of the mind that involve colour cannot be found in our physical makeup.
2b. Brightness/lightness/contrast, also cannot be found in the em spectrum; the intensity of light frequencies hitting the eye, tell the mind that something is bright or dark, they are not light/dark themselves.*
*I would think that we could go through all the senses and arrive at similar findings. Indeed, it is very difficult to say exactly what is material in the universe e.g. the makeup of atoms and subatomic particles may be seen more as relationships between energy epicentres, some of which are semi-manifest/partly existent.
Btw, I was having this debate last night whilst nearly sleeping ~ which is rather fun.
Next post…
Logical contradiction? If the will is not free there is nothing outside the set of made choices. Determinism is like a string whereby one thing determines the next without distraction, to make a choice you have to break the line. if it is not so, then the author should use a different term.
No it makes us complete slaves to the processes! How can one say; the will is not free, then in the next breath that this gives us freedom. With determinism there is no will at all and no self except as properties of the biological robot, it is no different to a machine or a brick.
You wouldn’t be a liar by entering a discussion and seeking to understand it through dialogue. You’d be free to admit your lack of understanding, and express that which you do understand. It is important for others to have the opportunity to explain to those who do not understand. For instance, in the present thread you might explain the position more to we who do not understand, rather than simply referring us to the primary source. First and foremost, we’re interested in what you have to say, not yet another book.
Well, if you don’t understand one thing, that may very well relate to how well you understand something else. It depends on whether the things are related.
Yes, as a Teacher, you’re no doubt aware that good pedagogy involves breaking things down and teaching them in a developmental manner, not just plopping down the whole thing in advance and saying, “Questions?”
Is your opinion of the text in question informed through a critical awareness of related perspectives? If not, you may want to learn more about other persoectives in order to strengthen your own understanding of the text.
Think of it this way: you are being cruel to yourself by the way you’re setting things up. Philosophy has a deep and rich history of ceaseless critical inquiry. When someone simply shows up unannounced and says “Here it is”, that someone sets themselves up to be thoroughly analysed, if you will. So, by not participating in the broader forum, or at least doling out the text’s arguments in a structured way in your own words (as opposed to relying on others to guess the “truth”, and repeatedly responding that they don’t have it yet), you’re doing a disservice both to yourself and the text.
If the message of the text is worth sharing, it should be shared in a critically informed mannner, otherwise you just become another target of derision attempting to prove that everyone is wrong (and this is by no means an uncommon plight, as anyone spending time on a forum such as this can attest)…
So relax, get comfortable, and let us get to know you… maybe even teach you something, if you’ll allow us. 
That has been the argument since time immemorial, but there has been something misunderstood regarding the will, which has caused a lot of confusion.
I appreciate your trying to help me Oughtist, I really do. But I am not trying to prove everyone wrong. That is not my intention. I also do not want to come off as if I’m preaching. I’m kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place because what is required of me (to express everything in my own words before there can be a discussion) is not going to do the book justice. As far as you all teaching me something, I always learn something new when I’m conversing with people. It’s not a one way street. 
The choice is already made though ~ hence one may not make a choice.
How?
This is the part I am trying to get too. What is being misunderstood?
Just because we have the ability to pick between alternatives (which, in philosophical circles, would automatically negate determinism), does not make those choices free. There is much misunderstanding here. During each moment of our existence, from moment to moment, there is a compulsion to pick the choice that gives the greatest satisfaction, rendering any other choices in this comparison, impossible. The author writes:
To prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want
to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the sametime, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.
I’d suggest there remains a relevant issue pertaining to mental illness here… Also, something to do with 72 virgins.
…sorry, lost the first half of my post above ^^
Good to hear. I trust you take your Schopenhaurian signature seriously? If so, then no sense complainin’! Also, don’t be too worried about “doing the book justice”… do yourself justice and develop your understanding of how to express itby going through the gauntlet (if, of course, you feel it’s actually worth it).
Your questions as to whether mental illness will exist are very relevant. The main point I was making earlier was that certain mental illnesses often come from hurt that one has experienced. It is these types of mental illnesses that will be virtually wiped out due to changes in the environment. If someone is mentally ill due to a birth defect, that is a different story.
I’m not sure how long the discussion will last but at least the people here will have ‘the choice’ (lol) to read the book in the future, if they so desire.
Ok, here’s a different tact: start by describing what you think the major weakness(es) of the theory is, and seek to explicate its strengths by describing how they relate to that weakness. That way you get to avoid appearing to be “preachy” and yet are able to share the more convincing aspects of the position. It allows others to see that you have a critical perspective on your favored position.
Hmmm, I really don’t know what the weaknesses are except for the fact that, if it is proven to be a genuine discovery, it won’t be able to solve every problem in the universe. If the author turns out to be right, it will be able to do what it claims to be able to do; that is, prevent war, crime, and hatred between man and man, but it won’t be able to solve other problems such as global warming, genetic mutations, and natural disasters. This will require more scientific investigation.