New Discovery

I am a Nietzschean, and according to Nietzsche “there are no philosophies, only philosophers”. So my philosophy is indistinguishable from what I am. You are asking me to put my Sauwelioshood aside for a moment - ah, like so many others!

As I said, I don’t believe in a “God” (an “infinite intelligence guiding our planet”).

How would you know?

Exactly: and that part of the equation is flawed!

Again, what do you mean by “we”? This is how I first meant the question. Are you a substance dualist? If not, you must agree that “we” consist completely of the same stuff as the rest of the universe, and that we are therefore fully determined by it (even before the first blow). Or do you believe there is a ghost in the machine that is somehow separate from it and can yet influence (indeed, even control) it? Making it not even a “real” ghost (which would move right through the machine if it tried to exert force on it)?

“The mathematical concept of the person”… Pray tell me, then: where does the person begin? Where does it end? Is the person its body? Or is it somehow separate? You need not answer this if you already answered my questions about the ghost in the machine above.

There is no “you”; your body is just part of the stream of events that resulted in my (body’s) being hit.

Why should I care about my family? And what about the person who doesn’t have any family? Don’t bring family into it - let’s rephrase it as follows:

“If you knew that by raping someone, you would be killed instantly, would you be able to control your passion?”

That would probably be a factor in the equation. I don’t think it would matter, though, to anyone really overwhelmed by passion (as in “crimes” of passion). Though it would then probably rather be killing than raping.

Only if one is still thinking rationally enough to weigh such things against each other.

Pray tell me then, what is the other half of the equation?

“Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will is not
free because it is his nature that he must always move in the direction of
greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that nothing can make
man do to another what he makes up his mind not to do - for over this he
has absolute control – let us observe what miracle happens when these two
laws are brought together to reveal a third law. Pay close attention because
I am about to slay the fiery dragon with my trusty sword which will reveal
my discovery, reconcile the two opposite principles ‘an eye for an eye’ and
‘turn the other cheek’, and open the door to this new world.”

At the present moment of time 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 has the power, that no one can cause or
compel you to do anything against your will; and this other, who is standing
on this spot called there to where you plan to move from here also knows
positively that you cannot be blamed anymore for your motion from here to
there because the will of man is not free. This is a very unique two-sided
equation which reveals that while you know you are completely responsible
(MEANING THAT WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR, YOU ARE THE ONE RESPONSIBLE,
NOT SOMETHING ELSE)
for everything you do, everybody else knows that you
are not to blame
because you are compelled to move in the direction
of greater satisfaction
during every moment of your existence
(this proves that man’s will is not free and by not
being blamed you are compelled to accept what is
your responsibility. This in no way contradicts the fact
that man’s will is not free).

Now if you know absolutely and positively that not
only I, but everyone on earth, will never blame or punish
you for hurting me in some way because you know we are
compelled to completely excuse what we know is definitely
beyond your control, is it mathematically possible (think
very carefully about this because it is the most crucial point thus
far – the scientific discovery referred to) 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 who is the one to be hurt, will ever
hold you responsible, criticize or question your action,
ever desire to hurt you in return for doing what must now be
considered a compulsion beyond your control?
(We know there are sociopaths that are so damaged
that their conscience will not control their desire to
strike out at others even with the change in our environment
to no blame, but this is a rare occurrence and will become
more rare with of passage of time. This does not negate
the validity of this discovery).

Remember, you haven’t hurt me yet, (the new condition of no blame changes the entire landscape of human relations thus changing the determinants that compell one to choose one thing over another; if you don’t understand this then you must reread the author’s definition of determinism, which cannot be denied if understood) and you know (this is the other side
of the equation) as a matter of undeniable knowledge
that absolutely nothing can compel you to hurt me unless you
want to, for over this you have mathematical control;
consequently, your motion, your decision as to what
is better for yourself is still a choice between two
alternatives – to hurt me or not to hurt me.

And when it fully dawns on you that should you go ahead with this decision to hurt me, you will not be blamed in any way because no one wants to hurt you in return for doing what everyone now
understands is a compulsion beyond your control –
ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL
AT THIS POINT SINCE NOTHING CAN MAKE YOU HURT
ME UNLESS YOU WANT TO –you are compelled,
completely of your own free will (your desire), to reliquish
this desire to hurt me because it can never satisfy you to do so
under these conditions.

Furthermore, if you know as a matter of positive
knowledge that no one in the entire world is going to blame you or question
your conduct, is it possible for you to make others culpable, to extenuate the
circumstances, to lie or try to shift your responsibility in any way?
As was
just demonstrated, it is not possible, just as the same answer must apply to
the question is it possible to make two plus two equal five.
[b]How can you shift what you know you have done,
whether intentional or unintentional, when no one is holding you responsible?

This proves
conclusively that the only time you can say, “I couldn’t help myself because
my will is not free”, or offer any kind of excuse, is when
you know you are
being blamed for this allows you to make this effort to shift your
responsibility. Let me explain this in still another way.

When you know you are not going to be blamed for what you do, it also
means that you must assume complete responsibility for everything you do
since you cannot shift it away from yourself under the changed conditions [how can you shift the blame to someone else when you are not being blamed? Again this is impossible. Try to do it and you will see it cannot be done].

We have become so confused by words in logical relation that while we
preach this freedom of the will we say in the same breath that we could not
help ourselves, and demonstrate our confusion still more by believing that
the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, would lessen our responsibility when
instead it does the exact opposite. Did you ever see anything more
ironically humorous? The only time you can use the excuse that your will
is not free is when the world believes it is free. The world of free will has
allowed people to lie and cheat in order to get what they want and then shift
responsibility away from themselves when questioned. Many philosophers
have gotten confused over this one point because they believe that a world
without blame would make matters worse, decreasing responsibility and
giving man a perfect opportunity to take advantage of others without having
to worry about consequences. But this can only occur when man knows he
will be blamed, which allows him to come up with reasonable excuses.
How is it possible to come up with excuses when one is already excused?

That is real nonsense. Every event is determinate - that is what determinism means! There is always only one possible course of events.

Who is disagreeing with this? There is only one possible
course of events and there could never have been two
parallel worlds. There is only one world, but what changes
when this law becomes a condition of the environment [when all blame and punishment are removed], is that mankind will veer in a completely direction but still acting according to his nature.
This law PROVES that man’s will is not free; what changes
are the determinants. You are confused over the second part
of the two-sided equation but hopefully you will put on your
thinking cap and stop using your knowledge as the frame of reference. [You will resist
this knowledge if you feel threatened in some way but I am working
with you because I believe you are sincerely trying to understand].
Then you will easily grasp what is written. You certainly have the capacity.

I have already replied to this. I think it is absolute nonsense. What do you mean by “make up his mind”? To sincerely intend? But intention is only a very small part of the equation (a conscious part - but most of what we do and decide happens unconsciously).

Does man have absolute control over his mind? I think not. And anyway, how do you distinguish “man” from his “mind”? Do you mean that his body has absolute control over his mind? Or his mind? But his mind cannot control itself, it can only be that a part of his mind controls another (different) part of his mind.

But I never do anything that I am responsible for, as I have no free will.

I don’t have to.

Ah, I have it now. You are not sketching the case where I am not being blamed. In your scenario, I am being blamed - by myself (or rather, a part of myself: my conscience…). This is the real flaw in your whole argumentation.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I side with Membrain. While I’m curious because of how you trumped it up, I have plenty of other books to choose from. Since many of those are recognized as well-assembled and influential, a book posted on an internet forum by an author who is unnamed (I don’t think you’ve named him, anyway) needs to work pretty hard to get me to commit. I read the intro, and skimmed a lot of the rest, and it honestly didn’t seem to be going anywhere I haven’t been before.
What are you trying to show?

You are right. You can’t have free will and determinism at the same time, this is true. I am not contradicting the FACT that man’s will is not free. I don’t know if you will continue to listen, but if you do, as I said before, you will get it. Until then, you must put your preconceptions aside.

It is not too complicated if people come with an open mind and not as a challenge to prove this knowledge wrong. It can’t be proven wrong and you will know this once you grasp the principles entirely. It is more complicated than “Love One Another”. We have been saying that for years and it doesn’t always work, BUT THIS KNOWLEDGE DOES WORK.

Less satisfaction does not mean no satisfaction.

But I don’t have a block. I don’t even believe in free will! But the consequence of the absence of free will is that nobody is responsible.

Nietzsche’s Greek society need not be a free will society. So that doesn’t get in the way. As for my definition of determinism: please give me an accurate definition that leaves room for responsibility.

I know I can’t, but then again I don’t have to, so it isn’t a problem that I can’t. I am not blaming myself (and neither is my conscience).

But I know I am not responsible for it, as I don’t have free will.

Only the former applies here. There is nothing that is unjustifiable in this scenario, as everything is justified (or rather, neither justified nor unjustified, as the whole concept of “justice” is senseless in this scenario).

My dear girl, I have already proven it wrong. And it was not because I wanted to “win” the argument, but because I disagreed with the argumentation.

Sauwelios, you did not prove this knowledge wrong. If you can’t understand the two-sided equation, which does not in any way, shape, or form contradict ‘no free will’, then you need to keep trying if it interests you. If it doesn’t then we can end the conversation; it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other.

If you can’t understand that nothing in this world can cause you to do something against your will, but that does not make your will free, then you need to keep listening. Other people who aren’t quite sure, but are willing to continue asking questions, are the people who will eventually spread this knowledge. I am not going to go on the defensive because I don’t have to. I know that I know that I know only because this knowledge contains within itself proof of its veracity.

I understand the two-sided equation completely; so much so that I understand one side of it is flawed. It would be worth it for you to listen to this: it’s a perfect example of true philosophical thinking:

“You are not [contrary to what you claim] sketching the case where I am not being blamed. In your scenario, I am being blamed - by myself (or rather, a part of myself: my conscience…). This is the real flaw in your whole argumentation.”

You can welcome this introduction to the world of philosophy (and you may even thank me for it), or you can continue your pseudo-philosophic occupations.

Thank you very, very much for going to the trouble of outlining the book. I learned, for example, that there are “three” main discoveries. That helps with focus.

I did have one more favor to ask:

Can I get little statements after each title to paraphrase what the title means? Short two, three, four-word titles can be ambiguous and somewhat cryptic. A short 5-to-10 word explanation would be really helpful. For example:

CHAPTER ONE - THE HIDING PLACE (withing our own minds)
CHAPTER TWO - THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION (the nature of math)

You see my guesses. Are they right? If not, you can see the need for clarification.

My current first choice for a read is this chapter:

MY THIRD AND FINAL DISCOVERY; THE EXTENTION OF A MATHEMATICAL RELATION INTO THE WORLD BEYOND DEATH

I expect that I will be able to come up with some observations concerning things that we think happen after death.

Thanks again.

You can think you are correct, and go your merry way; but you are not understanding something and I wish that instead of being so sure of yourself, just like Nageli was (and he was a leading authority), be a little humble and question as a young child would instead of using your pseudo-philosophic occupation as the end all of truth.

Man’s will is not free?? Why bother getting up in the morning!

Hi my real name, how are you? I don’t think you read the definition of determinism that this author has set forth. We are not robots or automatons reacting to a determinant with no will. You MUST read the first chapter and then you will see that getting up in the morning is a choice (although not a free one) that people can make, or they can go back to sleep, or commit suicide. Once they make a choice, they could have never done otherwise, at that moment, because it gave them greater satisfaction. If you really want to understand this, you need to study it and I’ll be here to answer questions afterwards. It is worthwhile reading in spite of everything that has been said to the contrary.

Your author seems to be a pessimist on the topic of choice. All his talk seems to be about lesser evils, when free will has more to do with choosing a positive good. Limitations on free will are not existential, that is, they are situational problems, not a problem with the will itself. I see his future world as an Orwellian one, where no one ever acts for what they really want. I think that’s the result of his position.

As for the first chapter, I tired of it since it seemed to be hackneyed discussion about how no one has ever discovered what he discovered and how this will revolutionise the world. Good luck.

By the way, I like your author’s underlining discussions after the arguments. I think it’s good rhetoric and it puts the argument into simpler language to understand.

It is not rhetoric. He tried very hard to make it as clear as he could, but when the world uses logic in so many arguments, they can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion. I have an uphill battle but I ain’t giving up. Maybe I will add one more chapter to help clarify certain things. It takes reading the entire book at least twice for understanding. I have been with this knowledge for many years and that is the only reason I have a clearer grasp of these principles.

Oh, I’m sure it is pretty flattering to compare yourself (or your author) to Galilei and the like.

You want your readers to be like young children, because you want them to believe…

My occupation is not pseudo-philosophic - stop parroting my words. I have razed down your precious castle-in-the-air, and though I take it that you are attached to this castle - perhaps the original author was your father? -, I think this is a fine opportunity for you to grow up (become a woman instead of a girl). Our failures may be valuable lessons - if we are not too proud, or rather proud enough, to admit defeat. A little humility would be in place, I’ll agree with you on that: you come barging into a philosophy forum with your fancy theories and preach (not to mention accept) them as Gospel truth. You are no better than a Christian Fundamentalist who sticks to his Bible no matter what.

I will leave if there is no further interest. You won!