Peacegirl is avoiding the scientific disproof here like the plague:
viewtopic.php?p=2729641#p2729641
I think however, that we must consider, that if peacegirl is disproven, she will shoot up a church.
Maybe we should just pat her on the back instead of treating her as a rational being.
That is not the way to win an argument… please adjust your manner to adhere with board rules.
I can edit it for you, but I have no idea what I’m editing it from?
No wonder it doesn’t seem reasonable to you. This chapter began on page 60 and you took an excerpt from 86 which was a conclusion based on the 26 pages that preceded it. Do you have any other questions before telling me there’s a fatal flaw. THAT seems unreasonable to me.
The chapter begins with a discussion of blame and responsibility. It presents the concept of THOU SHALL NOT BLAME. The real mechanics of how it would all work begins around page 75 (page 93 of the pdf) when the author is asked these questions:
I encourage people to read the chapter and decide for themselves whether it seems reasonable or not. (It’s about 34 pages long.)
What makes you think that by simply “removing” blame, people would become thoughtful and caring?
Some people are putting a lot of thought into their actions but many are not.
Some people already see themselves as blameless.
Some people are completely indifferent to the pain and suffering of others.
This new discovery would have no effect on these people.
Sorry, I forget the number of the post. I will try to post it again to see if it turns out on my end. If not, I’ll let it go. Not important.
Sorry peacegirl / mags,
Sometimes association gives me acid tongue sometimes. I think, if I remember correctly, that someone did the same thing to me about 6 years ago, it made me feel horrible.
Phyllo, you are getting way ahead of yourself and it’s not fair to the author. You said you know all about determinism, so what is his explanation of why man’s will is not free? His description is different than others, so you can’t just say you’re jumping ahead because you know the arguments.
What does this have to do with anything?
Because they are.
You are again basing your thoughts on the vantage point of a free will environment, which you cannot do if you want to understand this discovery.
Not in the environment that created them to be that way. You’re right, but we are talking about a different environment that would not create the same kind of individual.
It’s okay, you’re forgiven. We all do things we regret but we make amends and move on. 
“What does this have to do with anything?”
But seriously … I’m accepting that determinism is correct. That way we can move on to actual scenarios that arise in the world.
If the argument is based on the author’s particular definition of determinism, then it’s all a word game and it won’t produce results. As Ecmandu suggests, if it’s a law, then it ought to be working already - independently of any verbal gymnastics.
Well his argument requires gaining some sort of intellectual understanding of freewill and determinism which changes behavior. Somebody who is not putting thought into their decisions is not going to act any differently.
I don’t think that I’m doing that. Especially in this quote which really has nothing to do with freewill.
I think that you are assigning too much value to the environment.
Let’s consider a lion.
I don’t blame it for wanting to eat me. It doesn’t know or care whether I blame it or not. It’s still going to try to eat me. I’m food.
There are a lot of human predators which are thinking and acting exactly as a lion. I and others are their prey. I need to defend myself by discouraging the predator from attacking. It’s a practical necessity.
You think you think you think, yet you have absolutely no understanding of this discovery, which makes your opinion worth two cents.
I’m trying to discuss it and all I get is this sort of stuff.
It’s like I have to accept the ‘holy discovery’ before I can have a ‘valid’ comment. Disagreement is automatically wrong. 
Fair enough. I just hope you understand why a person could never do otherwise, or at the very least accept this fact so we can move on.
That is absolutely false. The FACT that man’s will is not free has never changed, but we needed the development of our species to recognize the importance of this knowledge to use it to our advantage.
[i]Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will —
Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those
who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going
to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must
come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence
not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later
it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s
will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are
compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Do you really think it was
an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the
sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or
freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to
fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains
developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly
when I did?
To show you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that
controls every aspect of this universe through invariable laws that we
are at last getting to understand, which includes the mankind as well
as the solar system, just follow this: Here is versatile man — writer,
composer,artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian,
architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief,
etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the
learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and
lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible not to
blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of
necessity and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to
why will is not free and what this means for the entire world which
perception was utterly impossible without the development and
absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of
history have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?
In reality we are all the result of forces completely beyond our
control. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we are
able to see for the very first time how it is now within our power to
prevent those things for which blame and punishment came into
existence.
[/i]
That is very true, and it’s a good question but this law does not necessitate a person put a lot of thought into what he knows he could never do in this new environment such as rob, steal, connive, burglarize, or murder.
This has more so to do with conscience than thoughts. Even children will not desire to take advantage of others when this principle is put into practice and they learn from an early age what it means that man’s will is not free (which can be simplified depending on their age obviously)
You are again basing your thoughts on the vantage point of a free will environment, which you cannot do if you want to understand this discovery.
It has everything to do with free will. You disagree because people in our present environment are often indifferent to the pain and suffering of others. But this can only occur in a free will environment. You have not carefully read this chapter or you would have had more questions regarding the two-sided equation. Do you even know what it is?
We can’t escape our interaction with the environment which has an enormous impact on how our feelings are expressed.
A lion kills for self-preservation. We also will kill for self-preservation if there is no other way to survive. When we are secure in our ability to sustain our standard of living, we humans will not have to hurt others in order that we may live.
It is true that some people have certain predispositions based on a mixture of their genetics and environment. This sometimes compels them to lash out at innocent people when their rage explodes just like a pressure cooker. It is a practical necessity to defend oneself by any means possible. But we are talking about a new world where the causes that lead to a person who has this predisposition from ever being given the opportunity to express itself.
Sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention but when you say “I think” it means it’s your opinion which I’m not interested in because opinions don’t mean much. Opinions are not facts. Have you heard the movie quote: “Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one?” 
I don’t know what you expect.
The author wrote his thoughts/opinions in the book. You have thoughts/opinions about the value of the book and whether it correctly describes the world and human behavior as it exists now and how it will be in the future. People who read it will have their own thoughts and opinions about it.
I see some human behavior (fact) and I don’t think it will change as a result of this new discovery (opinion). I don’t see any reason why it would.
But perhaps you think that the book contains facts and not the author’s opinions. And that places the author and book above the forum discussion. There are references to “mathematical impossibility” which may lead you in that direction. Be careful and skeptical when applying mathematics to human behavior.
They were not his opinions. If they were just his opinion, this would not be a discovery.
[i]In order for this discovery to be adequately understood the reader
must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and
false, but understand the difference between a mathematical relation
and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly
confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to
clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated
through the years. For purposes of clarification please note that the
words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable’, and are
interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.
Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself.
The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to
win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to
stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen
because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or
because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated then
it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the
truth, but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost. However,
when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion,
government, education and all others want, which include the means
as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because
we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding
of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are
compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas
that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial?
This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can. [/i]
If something is a known fact, is there a need for an opinion? Obviously this discovery is not recognized, so people interject their opinion. It is also true that science can be wrong which is why they use the term “scientific theory”.
Did you read the second chapter thoroughly? I asked you if you could explain the two-sided equation, and you didn’t answer. I don’t mean to put you on the spot, but if you don’t know what the two-sided equation is (which is the core of the discovery), how can you say you don’t think this discovery will change human behavior?
I know it does. Isn’t it ironic that this knowledge came out of philosophical thought and because it’s a discovery, it is beyond the forum discussion? So we should never take philosophy to higher ground where it really counts?
Many theories as to how world peace could be achieved have been proposed, yet
war has once again taken its deadly toll in the 21st century. The dream of peace has
remained an unattainable goal — until now. The following pages reveal a scientific discovery
regarding a psychological law of man’s nature never before understood. This finding was
hidden so successfully behind layers and layers of dogma and misunderstanding that no one
knew a deeper truth existed. Once this natural law becomes a permanent condition of the
environment, it will allow mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction —
preventing the never-ending cycle of hurt and retaliation in human relations. Although this
discovery was borne out of philosophical thought, it is factual, not theoretical, in nature.
Let me repeat what was in the post above so that you understand that he’s not talking about math per se, but is using the term to mean undeniable:
For purposes of clarification please note that the
words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable’, and are
interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.
All this rather self-contradictory paragraph says is
I am right.
That the same mind that wrote this paragraph has determined that an arguement is undeniable is not a good sign about that evaluation. Notice that it never says what it is. It seems like it is not an inductive conclusion. It seems implicitly to be deductive. But oddly this is never stated, as if the author knows very little about epistemology. Phyllo pointed out that mathematics is problematic when applied to human behavior. This is also true regarding deductive reasoning. And this would be very much the case when one is arguing that some future set of events must take place, universally.
What the heck. I am going to say that that is a fact.
I will also say that it is a fact that the quotes from the book seem to come from a somewhat disordered mind.
It is also a fact that the arguments are not undeniable, but will be denied. So it is not mathematical, it is not scientific and it is deniable.
It moves then, undeniably, into the realm of opinion, and one that may or may not be worth discussing.
One could look at this as an invitation to join the human race.
Where is it contradictory? He was just stating that this is not a form of logic.
He was only following where the corollary leads. From there he could see that this world is not only possible but inevitable because we cannot move against what is in our best interest.
Hahaha, this is so funny. Where did you get that idea based on what I’ve given you?
Anything can be denied if it is not understood. I can deny that I’m typing this right now. Does it mean I’m right? No.
It’s not an opinion that man’s will is not free, and it’s not an opinion that nothing has the power to make a person do something that he makes up his mind not to do. You are probably a compatibilist. I find these people more resistant to the truth than the libertarians.
What is that supposed to mean?
Peacegirl,
You show that you don’t even know what a compatibalist is.
A compatibalist doesn’t believe thought can exist without a structure to facilitate it. The compatabilist argue SELF will (not freewill) because freewill implies things like smoking a cigarette when there are no cigarettes in existence.! FREE will is obviously false!!
What people mean when they use this expression is SELFWILL!
So, how does one prove selfwill then?
It’s very simple:
We are using neurons to decide how those neurons are going to fire.
This is a scientific fact (the invention of neuroleptics for example)
That’s neurons using themselves to decide how they want to be.
This is characteristic of sentience. It’s also compatabilism… subject requires object.
I know what compatibilism is. It’s trying to make determinism and free will compatible using their definition of free will.
That is not it Ecmandu, especially as it relates to the free will/determinism debate. Why are you skirting the real issue? Free will, according to compatibilists (self will, if you like), means that as long as a person did not have a gun to their head, and did not have a serious addiction or OCD like behavior, then a person has the “free will” to be held responsible.
Calling it by another name doesn’t change what it is.
I didn’t know this is the definition of compatibilism. Compatibilism, based on what I know, tries to use a version of “free will” that gives some people a free pass depending on whether a person was constrained by a mental illness such as OCD, drug addiction, or was being forced at gunpoint. Others, who were not constrained in this way are considered to have the “free will” (according to their made up definition) to make the right choice based on reason. Isn’t that the theme? In other words, their definition is no different than the libertarians in that they are saying if a person has a choice (other than the constraints already mentioned), they have free will. Actually, no one has free will. It’s just that it’s easier to see that a person who has these compulsions have a more difficult time making the “right” choice while those who don’t have these compulsions could make the “right” choice, or the choice that the moralists consider to be right.