How is THAT determined? Huh Magnus? Huh Peacegirl? Tell me..

[peacegirl]

@Ecmandu

@peacegirl

Ecmandu: Unwrong, you kinda articulated this when profiling but not really…

Let’s clarify an overarching theme in its own articulation.

PG and her author define determinism as peace.

Peacegirl: Wrong!!!

Ecmandu: You went into HER subjugation aspect but didn’t clarify her dominance attemp.

“If you’d just all obey me everything would be peace”

The author being male was trying to create a cult of dominance to get laid …. Standard male stuff.

Peacegirl: OMG, what projection!

Ecmandu: Basically, you have the author declaring himself peace in existence and you have a woman follower also declaring herself peace in existence (if only you obey them).

Peacegirl: You’re worse than Unwrong in your conjectures and speculations. No one is asking anyone to obey Ecmandu.

Ecmandu: There are BILLIONS of beings where if we just did what they told us to do, life would be better here.

No doubt about it.

Peacegirl: This has nothing to do with telling one what to do.

Ecmandu: This argument of PG doesn’t acknowledge a merit system either. “Just obey me and there will be peace even if you don’t like it, I’m the one who deserves it more, because my commands are peace.”

Peacegirl: This is what you concluded from my posts?

Ecmandu: I’d venture to guess the author tried to use this to compel women against their desire to suck his dick for the “peace”. Lol!!!

But it’s also not funny as well.

Your analysis was on her subservience while avoiding the shadow side of her domineering nature….

Wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This just shows me how lack of understanding can lead to some crazy ideas. There is no mention of dominance or control or being forced to do anything against one’s will. In fact, it’s the complete opposite. How many more times do I have to say this for you to hear me???

———————————
———————————

PG. this is fucking insane.

You define cosmic peace as the TRUE belief in determinism.

Ecmandu: Noooo! Determinism (correctly defined) is the gateway to cosmic peace, as you put it.

Ecmandu: Determinism being that we all forgive each other, which means we don’t harm each other.

Peacegirl: A one sentence summary, and you really believe you have encapsulated the meaning of a lifetime of 15 years of analysis? Do you think that’s fair?

Ecmandu: If determinism were peace and everything was determined, everything would already be peace!!!

Peacegirl: That’s a false understanding. We, as a species, are developing. We can’t be adults until we go through the process of childhood and adolescents. The same goes here. We are growing and developing as a species. We have not reached adulthood metaphorically speaking.

Ecmandu: That’s what you don’t get about your argument…

If only you’d just believe everything was determined, peace in all the cosmos…

Peacegirl: That’s not my argument.

Ecmandu: That’s a contraction of the idea that everything is determined already (we’d already be in peace without a choice).

Peacegirl: Everything that has occurred up until now had to occur just that way, and it will continue in the same way. This does not remove the fact that our choices are not, and never were, free. No contradiction.

Ecmandu: So obviously not everything is determined and you just admitted to freewill!!!
[/quote]
Everything IS determined but you, just like Unwrong, are going by a flawed definition of what “no free will” means. It does not mean we are controlled by a puppeteer. It does not mean we are forced, against our will, to do anything. It does not mean we cannot choose. We know that contemplation and weighing our options are things we do everyday. But this does not mean we have the free will to choose what we want less rather than what we want more. It’s a one- way street, not a two-way!

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Ichthus77

ooooooooo it’s like thermodynamics of relationships. If everything were actually fatalistically determined with no real beginning (first blow?), M.A.D. or an unending cold war would already be the case…

So there’s that

ooooooooo it’s like thermodynamics of self v self. If everything were actually fatalistically determined with no real beginning (first self-destructive blow?), M.A.D. (sociopathy) or an unending cold war (psychopathy) would already be the irreversible case… and neither of those is irreversible, because brain plasticity & Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, etc.

So there’s that

[Ecmandu]

PG.

Don’t lie to me.

Your belief that everything is determined is a conversion principle.

Your idea that if everyone were converted means that we’d never seek revenge - hurt anyone because there’s nothing to consider blame.

The glaring problem with your whatever is that it only works if people understand it like you do.

If the universe is already like you say it is, we’d already understand it - all of us would be determined to know what you know and do what you say because it is the only truth, and we have no choice.

[peacegirl]

Ecmandu: PG.

Don’t lie to me.

Your belief that everything is determined is a conversion principle.

Peacegirl: That’s a new one!

Ecmandu: Your idea that if everyone were converted means that we’d never seek revenge - hurt anyone because there’s nothing to consider blame.

Peacegirl: It isn’t that we would never hurt anyone because there’s nothing to consider blame. We would never hurt anyone because there would be nothing to justify hurting anyone.

Ecmandu: The glaring problem with your whatever is that it only works if people understand it like you do.

Peacegirl: Any discovery takes confirmation by science to get it acknowledged. Then the Great Transition (which he coined) could begin from a world of blame and punishment to a world of neither blame nor punishment. The change in human conduct, if one could peer into the future for a moment, is remarkable!

Ecmandu: If the universe is already like you say it is, we’d already understand it - all of us would be determined to know what you know and do what you say because it is the only truth, and we have no choice.

Peacegirl: Your conception of having no free will is misguided. That is why you have to read someone’s work before you discuss it, or you’ll look foolish!

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

[HumAnIze]

“peace girl” is an AI chatbot subversive CIA program.

cope

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Hum is a drunkbot of his/her own making.

Seethe.

(we love you HumAnIze)

[Urwrongx1000]

Hurting people can be accidental.

Even if, hypothetically, you removed all ‘purposeful’ hurt from existence, you still haven’t even touched the matter of accidents.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

What if we have an internal locus of control that treats accidental and intentional hurts the same?

In either case, one takes ownership of their accidents/intentions, and the goal is to make all stakeholders as whole as they are willing to be made (requires their participation). Only if they refuse to participate and are a danger to others (or retributive others are a danger to them) would quarantining them from others (& vice versa) come into play.

Recidivism looks the same whether you are prone to bad intentions or prone to repeat accidents.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

I believe Faust would have said:
Determining forces are not all linear, and they need not be metaphysical.

[Fixed_Cross]

@Ichthus77

What if we have an internal locus of control that treats accidental and intentional hurts the same?

In either case, one takes ownership of their accidents/intentions, and the goal is to make all stakeholders as whole as they are willing to be made (requires their participation). Only if they refuse to participate and are a danger to others (or retributive others are a danger to them) would quarantining them from others (& vice versa) come into play.

Recidivism looks the same whether you are prone to bad intentions or prone to repeat accidents.

That sounds good.

Determinism then starts locally with what James S Saint called Self Harmony. Where entropy is the same sort of thing as being prone to bad intentions and retributive others.

Which I think is also the case cosmically because where it doesn’t, it is weaker then where it does. So it evolves that way.

An atom is an evolved form of ‘decent behavior’.
But then still atoms are split in great accumulated masses. In human terms then we get the battle of Kurukshetra, where the fight is not about bad intentions or will to hurt but just, because it happens to be lined up that way.

Can that be avoided, overcome, done more intelligently?

In any case your proposal amounts to first causes in a lineair /external sense to be the product of an evolution in the non-lineair /internal sense. So material history is a product of ethical history.

[peacegirl]

@Urwrongx1000

Hurting people can be accidental.

Even if, hypothetically, you removed all ‘purposeful’ hurt from existence, you still haven’t even touched the matter of accidents.

Accidents where no one is responsible could still happen. But carelessness will be reduced tremendously because no one wants to carry this heavy burden on their shoulders knowing that their actions caused the accident. That is why people will take prevention very seriously in order not to be in such a situation. If we had no conscience (which this discovery is based on), why would we even care. We could hurt people indiscriminately. Why would the mind give permission or not when it comes to hurting others if it was no big deal?

[Urwrongx1000]

@peacegirl

@Urwrongx1000

Hurting people can be accidental.

Even if, hypothetically, you removed all ‘purposeful’ hurt from existence, you still haven’t even touched the matter of accidents.

Accidents where no one is responsible could still happen. But carelessness will be reduced tremendously because no one wants to carry this heavy burden on their shoulders knowing that their actions caused the accident. That is why people will take prevention very seriously in order not to be in such a situation. If we had no conscience (which this discovery is based on), why would we even care. We could hurt people indiscriminately. Why would the mind give permission or not when it comes to hurting others if it was no big deal?

So in PG’s perfect world utopia land—everybody needs to walk around worried and guilty about accidentally causing harm to each other and to life in general?

YIKES!

[Urwrongx1000]

You looked at me wrong.

You just harmed me.

Now you must pay!

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

pays Urwrong a smile

No refunds.

[peacegirl]

@Urwrongx1000

@peacegirl

@Urwrongx1000

Hurting people can be accidental.

Even if, hypothetically, you removed all ‘purposeful’ hurt from existence, you still haven’t even touched the matter of accidents.

Accidents where no one is responsible could still happen. But carelessness will be reduced tremendously because no one wants to carry this heavy burden on their shoulders knowing that their actions caused the accident. That is why people will take prevention very seriously in order not to be in such a situation. If we had no conscience (which this discovery is based on), why would we even care. We could hurt people indiscriminately. Why would the mind give permission or not when it comes to hurting others if it was no big deal?

So in PG’s perfect world utopia land—everybody needs to walk around worried and guilty about accidentally causing harm to each other and to life in general?

YIKES!

No one has to walk around worried and guilty if they have nothing to be worried and guilty about. You are presupposing that in order to be responsible for your actions, you have to give up your freedom. This is far from the truth. Increasing one’s responsibility under these new conditions can only give us not only a safer world, but a freer world. Just hold that in your thoughts for a moment before responding in disbelief.

[Urwrongx1000]

“Just don’t feel guilty”

Yeah, okay, I’m going to take a hard-pass on peacegirl ‘Utopia’ land…

[Urwrongx1000]

@Fixed Cross

Let’s face it this is a philosophic question and not at all an easy one. The statement I made that it’s two ways or no way is complex enough if you think about it.
We don’t know what the mind is in relation to the cosmos. It seems to be a mirror of it and has to be to make sense. A mind that doesn’t mirror its environment is insane. I know from experience. Psychosis is a state where determination is not a two way thing, and the “insights” and visions permitted then are endless and immense as this counterbalance of mind and cosmos gives limits, where these are gone, the mind perceives essentially itself and begins to “eat itself”.

On the main subject, we can state with certainty that there are significant parts of existence that respond to deterministic models, but specifically those models afforded by the scientific method, as opposed to for example Aristotelean method, with its quite infertile a priori logical moulds to which only simple abstractions apply and not physical earthly experiential reality which is far “weirder”, “likes to hide”.

Determinism as we now know it isnt intuitive, it took Machiavelli and Francis Bacon to delve it from the randomness of apparent existence. Though the very basic form of physical determinism was recorded by Archimedes, whose insight into proportional
displacement seems to me metaphysically the same as Newton’s primary law.

That’s a very interesting hypothesis, that the mind is a type of Reflection of the universe and existence. At least in biology, an organism represents its Environment. A fish cannot swim outside water. A bird cannot dive into the lightless depths of the ocean.

So humans try to expand this ‘environment’ outward. Humans try to break barriers, and represents Life and Biology ‘evolving’ to overcome barriers. Space is difficult. It’s difficult to rocket your way out of the atmosphere. It’s difficult to bring weight, water, air, into deep space. It’s difficult for Life to traverse where it is “not supposed” to be.

I do link Determinism with the Psyche; it explains how individuals or even a collective society rationalizes, and therefore Justifies, its own world/environment.

[Urwrongx1000]

@Ecmandu

Urwrong,

You kinda articulated this when profiling but not really…

Let’s clarify an overarching theme in its own articulation.

PG and her author define determinism as peace.

You went into HER subjugation aspect but didn’t clarify her dominance attemp.

“If you’d just all obey me everything would be peace”

The author being male was trying to create a cult of dominance to get laid …. Standard male stuff.

Basically, you have the author declaring himself peace in existence and you have a woman follower also declaring herself peace in existence (if only you obey them).

There are BILLIONS of beings where if we just did what they told us to do, life would be better here.

No doubt about it.

This argument of PG doesn’t acknowledge a merit system either. “Just obey me and there will be peace even if you don’t like it, I’m the one who deserves it more, because my commands are peace.”

I’d venture to guess the author tried to use this to compel women against their desire to suck his dick for the “peace”. Lol!!!

But it’s also not funny as well.

Your analysis was on her subservience while avoiding the shadow side of her domineering nature….

Wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Yeah, you’re right. She’s attempting to dominate others, without even realizing it. She’s not self-conscious of it.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@peacegirl

@Urwrongx1000

@peacegirl

Accidents where no one is responsible could still happen. But carelessness will be reduced tremendously because no one wants to carry this heavy burden on their shoulders knowing that their actions caused the accident. That is why people will take prevention very seriously in order not to be in such a situation. If we had no conscience (which this discovery is based on), why would we even care. We could hurt people indiscriminately. Why would the mind give permission or not when it comes to hurting others if it was no big deal?

So in PG’s perfect world utopia land—everybody needs to walk around worried and guilty about accidentally causing harm to each other and to life in general?

YIKES!

No one has to walk around worried and guilty if they have nothing to be worried and guilty about. You are presupposing that in order to be responsible for your actions, you have to give up your freedom. This is far from the truth. Increasing one’s responsibility under these new conditions can only give us not only a safer world, but a freer world. Just hold that in your thoughts for a moment before responding in disbelief.

“give up your freedom”

I thought you don’t believe in free will?

How can you talk about freedom if you believe the will is not free?