Paradoxical to the point that it seems to make no sense.
Why wouldn’t some people just do a bunch of atrocious things?
(Justified by “I’m not to blame for what I do”.)
And I’m not even talking about the 5% of the population who are psychopaths and sociopaths.
May be of a hidden caveat that some miss. “dont do as I say”.( sticks and stones can not rise to the level of literal harm.)They stay unfounded and paradoxically sink back to the bottom if raised, maybe leaving readers confounded.
Some people can sink back to the bottom if raised, but many people would have a hard time especially if they are retaliating against harm (imagined or real) done to them. The motto “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me” is inaccurate because words can cause serious harm.
I suppose Peacegirl, yet they can’t rise from mere unfounded libel to a staged framed up criminal act. They’d be carried out of court by kangoroos.
Peace girl says: ( cut out of context and the page is not left blank intentionally)
“to move in a different direction for needed satisfaction.”
What if no satisfaction of either kind is to be had, pleasurable or other wise,
Can you just hear one of the 3 musketeers mumble - en garde- incessantly?
He will have no retort but to impinge all negative rage to within himself, and sacrafice that cut away part of himself , positioned in the inner sanctum of his consciousness.
And thus become as god, were invited in…
That is what this whole discovery is about. I am asking people to read the first three chapters in sequence. To give you a short answer that will not be satisfactory, the reason the advance knowledge that there will be no consequences (no blame or punishment because the world knows, if you hurt someone intentionally or unintentionally it was beyond your control since will is not free) creates a situation that would give you no satisfaction in moving in the direction of striking this first blow.
You must have some kind of justification to hurt someone (even if that justification strikes out at random people due to built up rage from years of being hurt). Obviously if there is some sort of provocation, the justification to strike back would be a normal reaction that most of us have experienced. Turning the other cheek, although a noble effort, is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about preventing the first cheek from ever being struck thereby preventing the need to retaliate or turn the other side of our face.
When all hurt is removed from the environment (don’t jump to conclusions that this is impossible) that justifies hurting others, along with the knowledge that regardless of what is done, there will be no blame or punishment (e.g., even if you steal a million dollars), you are compelled (of your own free will or desire; this does not mean will is actually free) to move in a different direction for needed satisfaction.
If anyone is interested, it is imperative to give the author the benefit of the doubt before prematurely concluding that his claims can’t be true. That would not be a fair investigation. Just because he was an unknown does not mean his work isn’t credible.
In this world there is so much pent up rage that we hear of sniper shootings as if out of nowhere. The reasons people do what they do are varied, but just as a person can have many symptoms coming from the same disease process, so too, the rage that often shows up is a symptom of one disease process: the hurt that many people experience silently. How this rage is dissipated and eventually eliminated is all part of removing the hurt done to them. Please don’t jump to conclusions as to how this removal is possible. As the transition takes place (from a free will environment to a no free will environment), there will be less and less people capable of these crimes.
It seems like a good AI needs to be evolved, so that history will not be forgotten. But for that to happen, the bad AI has to somehow be thought the lessons of mistaken revisions should have thought it, for unless it learns it, they will be repeated with infinite repetition.
What do you expect to happen?
We should all accept what he wrote is true?
We should just change our behavior based on what he wrote?
So then how can one blame the justice system if they never had the choice in convicting the person that so did the deed to land them in that process? How can we blame anyone or anything. If you say “because we understand we are determined” then you just admitted to being free of it. Because freedom is the ability itself to ‘know’ or better yet ‘understand’ if one is a slave or not, to anything.
Person A commits societal mass agreed upon crime,
Judge convicts person A of crime and sentenced them.
So if person A never had the choice to commit said crime, judge never had to choice to convict said person A. So is there or is there not any way out of that scenario? Is there blame, anywhere? If no blame then how can responsibility exist at all? If there is no lower or upper than.
From my understanding, freedom is worked for, sacrificed for and earned. The will that is free, is earned through understanding more and more and it grows more free by this process. That is the lower and higher in consciousness, the differentiation. But if one chooses to understand the choice made now is less from before then it is inverted because one now sees through the paradox and has power to alter those choices. Aka determinism determining itself free.
You tell me pg, when has man ever been given the opportunity to willingly understand his own chains in any scenario ever? There has to be two or more variables in order for change to exist, so how is it possible then?
Just because someone else wrote something doesn’t make it true, that’s a fallacy, which I agree with you phyllo, we shouldn’t just ‘agree or disagree’ because it supports or does not support what we understand ourselves, in our own limited perspectives.
Absolutely not. But the only way for a discovery to be brought to light is with a basic understanding which you don’t have.
Artimus: So then how can one blame the justice system if they never had the choice in convicting the person that so did the deed to land them in that process? How can we blame anyone or anything. If you say “because we understand we are determined” then you just admitted to being free of it. Because freedom is the ability itself to ‘know’ or better yet ‘understand’ if one is a slave or not, to anything.
Artimas: No one is blaming the justice system. You are very confused.
Artimas: Person A commits societal mass agreed upon crime,
Judge convicts person A of crime and sentenced them.
So if person A never had the choice to commit said crime, judge never had to choice to convict said person A. So is there or is there not any way out of that scenario? Is there blame, anywhere? If no blame then how can responsibility exist at all? If there is no lower or upper than.
Peacegirl: No one is to blame Artimas.
Artimas: From my understanding, freedom is worked for, sacrificed for and earned. The will that is free, is earned through understanding more and more and it grows more free by this process. That is the lower and higher in consciousness, the differentiation. But if one chooses to understand the choice made now is less from before then it is inverted because one now sees through the paradox and has power to alter those choices. Aka determinism determining itself free.
Peacegirl: Your logic is confusing me. Where does choosing less than before enter into it?
Artimas: You tell me pg, when has man ever been given the opportunity to willingly understand his own chains in any scenario ever? There has to be two or more variables in order for change to exist, so how is it possible then?
Peacegirl: I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Could you give me an example?
My doubts come from the fact, that from my experience, people don’t make decisions and behave as the author describes.
For example, I don’t know of any driver who thinks he/she does not need to be careful because in the event of an accident, he/she can shift the blame onto someone else.
So show me that I don’t understand driver behavior and that the author does understand driver behavior.
My doubts come from the fact, that from my experience, people don’t make decisions and behave as the author describes.
For example, I don’t know of any driver who thinks he/she does not need to be careful because in the event of an accident, he/she can shift the blame onto someone else.
Peacegirl: Maybe you have only seen people who take full responsibility but there are many people who will do anything to lessen their part in an accident.
Phyllo: So show me that I don’t understand driver behavior and that the author does understand driver behavior.
Peacegirl: It’s not hard to observe. Get data from the police and you will see, especially in a serious accident where someone was responsible according to witnesses, the mitigating reasons they will offer to lessen or shift their responsibility. Why are excuses necessary otherwise?
Unless there was no doubt that they were responsible, most people would take that opportunity to try to prove their innocence, at least partially.
I already covered this in the other thread.
Rationalizations after an accident are not like motivations before a potential accident.
The lack of future rationalizations does not motivate anyone to be more careful.
And the other aspect of this is that, since nobody is going to blame you for the accident, you don’t even need rationalizations in the “new world”.
The idea that your conscience is going to eat away at you if you cause an accident and therefore you are going to be extra careful … that’s a wild idea. 
Phyllo: I already covered this in the other thread.
Rationalizations after an accident are not like motivations before a potential accident.
The lack of future rationalizations does not motivate anyone to be more careful.
Peacegirl: It actually does because the knowledge there will be no blame or questions asked as to who was at fault eliminates the advance justification that would allow someone to drive recklessly. Obviously most drivers are already doing everything they can to be careful drivers. This just adds more weight.
Phyllo: And the other aspect of this is that, since nobody is going to blame you for the accident, you don’t even need rationalizations in the “new world”.
Peacegirl: That is correct. You only need to convince yourself that your actions did not cause the accident. If you can’t, you will have to live with this weight of responsibility (especially if someone was hurt) since you cannot shift it away from yourself when no one is holding you responsible.
Phyllo: The idea that your conscience is going to eat away at you if you cause an accident and therefore you are going to be extra careful … that’s a wild idea.
Peacegirl: I agree, but that doesn’t make it any less true! It’s the advance knowledge there will be no consequences that presents consequences which are still worse. Most people in a serious accident want to be punished in some way because this is payment for what they did which eases conscience. When they can’t pay a price because they are not being blamed, they are compelled to be extremely careful anytime their actions could harm someone.
You restate the same things from the ‘bible’ without adding anything new. 
I’ll give you a few examples I can think of off the top of my head Pg. I appreciate the timely responses as well.
So in nature, separate from man. The lion understands a lot more than the Giselle or prey, does the lion ever give the prey the opportunity to understand more to free itself from that causal chain that is predator prey? Does nature ever give it? If so, why is there still that system of predator prey now, naturally.
In human terms, does a slave master willingly give books and knowledge to its slaves? No, because if so it would free the slave by it’s earning understanding. The master
Knows this and keeps the slave weak, ignorant, trapped in a loop that only benefits the master itself, the same concept as the natural predator prey cycle, just man made. Determinism works this same way but it has a twist, it actually wants the conscious to be free and that is what the process of understanding knowledge and consciousness itself is. It is what makes wisdom power. Now how our justice system should function should be based off of how much knowledge or understanding one had when a crime was committed in order to determine responsibility or innocence. The cycle works opposite for everything else in nature that isn’t conscious, EXCEPT for the conscious non greedy human, the greedy human way adopts that way of keeping slaves ignorant and self preservation and benefit. So if no free will or upper or lower, how does one separate from that?
If one understands the choice made previous wasn’t their own choice, does that not grant freedom and understanding to make a choice that is theirs? To avoid other external variables that may have an effect over said choosing? You can change just about anything these days, tastes, opinions, soon physical biology itself no doubt. That was the logic I meant, nothing to do with more or less. Understanding and knowledge grants more freedom but it is still paid for.