Ichthus77: “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?
Peacegirl: Because people will not be constrained by any manmade laws. These laws will be superseded by a higher law. They will be free to do whatever they want. The only boundary that their conscience will not allow is striking a first blow.
The only way I can think that you would be able to do that is to take away a person’s ability to act (even think) aggressively. But not all aggression should count as a first (or other) blow. Even if you make self-defense moot (because no first blow), the lowest levels of conflict resolution … including coming to any agreement on anything… would have to be considered not merely cooperative, not merely assertive, but aggressive.
Or where do you draw the line between advocacy and antagonism?
[quote=“Ichthus77”]
The only way I can think that you would be able to do that is to take away a person’s ability to act (even think) aggressively.
Peacegirl: Nobody is taking away a person’s ability to act aggressively if he wants to.
Ichthus77: But not all aggression should count as a first (or other) blow. Even if you make self-defense moot (because no first blow), the lowest levels of conflict resolution … including coming to any agreement on anything… would have to be considered not merely cooperative, not merely assertive, but aggressive.
Peacegirl: What conflict are you talking about that would require aggression?
Ichthus77: Or where do you draw the line between advocacy and antagonism?
Peacegirl: I’m trying to answer questions that can only be answered fully when the blueprint of this new world is grasped. You are basing your questions on an environment that will not create antagonism or the need for advocacy. If I’m misunderstanding you, please be more detailed but remember there is only so much I can explain in a post when no one cares to study the work.
If you deactivate that part of the brain, you won’t even be able to say no to an impulse at conflict with another impulse you want to say yes to internally. For creatures without free will… well… that’s where we would go with that, except we would know what we can’t say no to is harming self/others in ways we feel hopeless to prevent.
That’s going to produce copious amounts of dissonance.
Are you going to pump people full of drugs (poison, false positive affect that will be interpreted as bribe and not decrease COGNITIVE dissonance, for those who still manage to have memory of being able to say no)?
The way forward is …not this.
There is no freedom without antagonism. Any blueprint without antagonism is mapping the stagnant.
Plus I think a cognitive workaround that will make the shutoff defunct is that even if we can’t say no… we can say yes louder and drown out impulses/input we wish we could say no to. We just have to stay focused on the louder yes so it doesn’t feel like an aggressive no & get shut off.
Deactivate that part of the brain? Where does “no free will” (according to the correct definition) take away our ability to think through yes and no impulses?
This just shows me how easily people can misconstrue what they have no understanding of, and please don’t tell me you understand because you understand squat. People are not autonomatically antagonistic or aggressive unless there is something to be antagonistic or aggressive about. We aren’t going to keep a world of hatred, war, crime, and poverty in order to keep these angry emotions alive.
You mad?
Let’s talk about an aggressive (negative-affect) yes, an aggressive (negative-affect) no, a neutral yes, a neutral no, and a positive-affect yes and a positive-affect no …
If you take away aggressive (negative affect) … you leave positive affect yes/no (consent/decline)… & meh.
You take out moral indignation, which is an aggressive no that is GOOD. How is a person going to function whose whole system is homeostatic around (interwoven with) moral indignation?
I mean where do you get the idea that people should actually know your blueprint inside and out before they can say stuff like “any blueprint without antagonism maps the stagnant”? Even if you’re right about that (you’re not), you can’t even feel right about that without moral indignation. This is a death sentence for all inquiry.
Now this I also agree with you on… as well as the other point that I have yet to reply back to you, on. Forgot what it was…
When those that think antagonism denotes and exemplifies free-will, then wonder why others are repelled by them and they don’t like self-equalling-other in those such instances because it is anti-them, then the proposition denotes selfishness and instant-gratification/a false high, not free-will.
The blind, wanting to lead the blind… so lacking any insight, in-order to be able to do so.
The world has been being controlled by the additives in food pharmaceuticals and vaccines for well over a decade now, by suppressing the nervous system… it is that, which has been leading to the new ‘creation’ of 100s (1000s?) of modern-illnesses, which then need more ‘new’ pharmaceuticals to remedy them.
That is why your average soy-boy/girl, or processed-vegan-food eater, or living-off-of-takeaways-and-ready-meals worker, are unhealthy and out-of-shape “Yes sir/no sir” compliant zombified-shadows of their former selves.
That’s ^^^ why, they insist on putting preservatives in all produce that doesn’t even need preserving.
What is the chapter where the author talks of the solution to the issue, please? I don’t need to read the whole book.
Who said you can’t say no? You’re not a robot where you are being controlled by some outer force or puppeteer pulling strings? This is complete science fiction. You drown out “no” because “yes” is the desired choice. Nothing changes in the brain. What changes are the conditions of the environment. This is not rocket science but it still may be hard to grasp if you think “no free will” means being a slave to someone else’s demands.
Antagonism isn’t necessarily equal to free will (depending how each term is defined…equivocation abounds hilariously), but, if you aren’t able to say no, you are 1) at the mercy of the strongest impulse or/of the other, 2) unable to select (say yes/no)… choose… consent. Free will can be construed as an unhindered yes, but that is only one sense (a very shallow one) of the word free, as just clarified.
We are all (except one) at odds with self=other. No exceptions (except one). [This only applies to persons… conscious (non)human AI/OI included. Even grains of sand, if programmed for it.]
ICYMI, as you appear to’ve.
Treating self as other, and applying that to one’s own competing impulses, means some impulses are going to lose in favor of others that win. The only way to have no losers is to remove our ownership of the impulses—say, anonymize them and throw them all into a pot—and ONLY focus on (pick out) the impulses we have in common with others. We aren’t saying an aggressive no in that case, so there are (in affect) no losers. Note to Ec.
None of that is true.
The only true abuse is an abuse through neglect.
People talk about negative and positive abuse …
But all positive abuse upon you is a lack of defenders (negative abuse). Negative abuse is generally considered the lack of feeding someone when they’ll die of hunger and positive abuse is generally considered something like raping them or putting a bullet through their head.
Both are actually negative abuse
Of course you can say “yes” or “no”. Aggressiveness is not so much in the tone of how you give a yes or a no, but rather in the action. Wouldn’t you want Russia (the aggressor) to stop bombing the Ukraine? And wouldn’t this make for a better world?
NO, it isn’t. It is the very thing that is contributing to what it is trying to prevent.
They will have to learn how to stop being the judge of what other people do. In other words, they will have to learn to mind their own business. Believe it or not, this minding of other people’s business was necessary in the world of judgment, but now they won’t have to judge because no one will be doing those things that require this judgment.
What is moral indignation but an accusation of what someone else did that is judged wrong by others.
Ec,
Lying by omission (negative lying) & lying by commission (positive lying) are both lying, but permitted in order to save a life.
You are well aware positive/negative have a different sense in the context of affect. Negative affect is actual dissonance, not merely a lack of pleasurable affect or cognitive joy.
I’m not talking about lying or honesty here.
Honesty is when you are part of the movement to free runaway slaves with secret compartments in your house but lie saying they’re not there.
To not lie is to say, “oh yeah, I am hiding them, they’re here in this secret compartment”
There’s actually a diagnosed mental illness where you can’t lie…. People who have it live miserable lives.
Honesty is different than not lying.
To know that the placeholder “god” is an omnisexual means that god playing all the spirits as a complete person who never experiences suffering but only joy when giving each unique spirit what they want forever.
God cannot be harmed by giving the biggest peice of shit what they want forever. God even has the power to experience bliss if that person wants to murder someone. What do we say?
God is Omni nothing.
You’re right, honesty/integrity sometimes requires lying.
When God says “Thy will be done,” he is not approving it. He is only approving our ability to choose/reject love. Just like when soldiers fight for our freedom to make a Jackass movie out of our life. He is not a dictator, and has a greater responsibility to the prime directive of noninterference…which does have a limit only he knows.
You really do need to read the book, or at least the first three chapters. The most important thing to remember is that regardless of the area of concern, CONSCIENCE WILL BE OUR GUIDE. In this world, people will do whatever they can to make a profit regardless of who gets hurt. In the new world, no one will be able to lie to the public, or to themselves, regarding anything they are unsure about. Honesty will be the best policy even if they have to admit they really don’t know. What would be the point of lying when it could only cause guilt if someone should get hurt as a result of their false advertising, and know that no one on earth, even the one that was hurt, would blame them for what is their responsibility? The economic system in the new world will give people so much security (by guaranteeing their present income with a chance to improve their standard of living) that there won’t be a need to cheat or lie in order not to be a loser.
It’s a bribe, and unless you know everything there is to know, all you have is best interpretation of the data available to you. Science does not deal in certainty, and logical validity does not guarantee correspondence… or good judgment. Don’t throw out the cup of sugar with the broken eggshells 
And please don’t scoop up eggs off the floor & add them to cake. Thank you.