New Discovery

There’s really nothing I can add that hasn’t already been stated ad nauseum other than to say that I’m sorry you didn’t take the time to read anything I offered. You’re obviously not to blame because I know you can’t help yourself, but it’s futile for this conversation to continue as a result. If no one else participates, this thread will die a natural death and that’s okay too. I’m sorry iambiguous that we were not able to progress further. All I can say is that the laws of our nature that make us who we are do not always cooperate. :confused:

listen to your heart, peacegirl, before… you tell him… goodbye…

Yet again nature has compelled you to end an exchange with me. So, sure, yet again, nature might compel you to start it back up.

Here I can only assume that nature is compelling me to point out that bit by bit my arguments are chipping away at your arguments. And that can’t be good, right? You simply have too much invested psychologically in the comfort and consolation the author’s discovery has provided you. So, above all else, your defense mechanisms will kick in to sustain that.

Just as it has with all of the other objectivists I have encountered over the years – fierce folks adamantly convinced that in either the either/or world or the is/ought world, they and they alone have pinned human reality to the mat.

The irony here being that I can only assume the possibility that I am wrong regarding my own understanding of determinism…or in failing to understand the relationship you have between “no free will” and “choice”.

And that’s before acknowledging that in fact “I” may well embody some measure of autonomy here that is simply not understood by those who, unlike the author, actually do approach these relationships phenomenologically through actual experimentation with actual human brains in the act of actually choosing.

True.

But what peacegirl fails to provide [me] is the sort of empirical evidence that might encourage me to explore further the author’s discovery as it relates to this so-called “progressive” future. Is there anything at all that I can do [or an experiment that I can perform] in order fathom how the near future is both the embodiment of “no free will” and of “choice”?

What on earth – in terms of the behaviors we choose – does she mean by that? In other words, “for all practical purposes.”

After all, what are neuroscientists who explore this experientially doing but probing actual brains in the process of choosing. Are there chemical and neurological processes going on biologically in the brain such that it can finally be determined once and for all if any particular choice is only that which it ever could have been?

That’s why I always come back to dreams. In my own dream states, “I” am utterly convinced the interactions are “in reality”. My own dreams in particular because they almost always revolve not around the fantastic but around contexts that I am completely familiar with – childhood dreams, army dreams, war dreams, college dreams, political activist dreams, job dreams, family and friends dreams. They often involve people I once knew intimately. And “in the dreams” the events are unfolding not at all unlike they once did “in reality”. And they are astoundingly elaborate. I find myself reading things, hearing things, experiencing things in great detail.

How to explain that?

From my frame of mind however this discussion is for another thread. When morality is discussed in terms of particular political prejudices, I can only assume that value judgments are embodied in autonomy. Otherwise “right” and “wrong”, “progressive” and “regressive” behaviors are all embedded only in the psychological illusion of good and bad behavior.

If the brain is necessarily in sync with the laws of matter then anything it concludes about the is/ought world is merely another manifestation of the either/or world. The future will be only what in can be – only what it must be. You and I are just along for the inevitable ride. We are basically nature’s dominoes that “choose”.

But never choose in the sense that free will advocates are compelled to believe.

Or so it seems to me.

And she simply refuses to explore the points I raise about dasein and conflicting goods and political economy. In part because, once again, these things would pertain only to a world in which at least some measure of human autonomy exists.

Completely false. Like I said, if the premises are sound, the conclusion will be sound. The principle that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction IS SOUND, and the principle that nothing in this world has the power to make us do what we make up our mind not to do, IS SOUND. He also showed how conscience works given a different environment based on the two sided equation which you have no understanding of.

You are using the word “choice” as if “free” is automatically assumed. We can have options iambiguous, and still not have free will. That’s why he said the word choice is misleading because that would indicate we are free to choose this option or that option equally, or without compulsion, which is false.

For all practical purposes, the fact that we are compelled to choose what gives us greater preference is the underpinning of his entire discovery, since under new conditions we can’t prefer (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to hurt others without justification. It’s the most practical knowledge of all!

Exploring actual brains can do nothing to understand the behavioral aspect of what these brains do under environmental conditions. You believe that neuroscientists will have the answer when it’s right in front of you. You’re disrespecting him by saying it’s in his head, without understanding anything he wrote. How ironic!

We know our dreams are not real but they serve a purpose. We also know we have no control over our dreams, just like we don’t have control over other autonomic systems. What does this have to do the discussion? :-k

No they aren’t autonomous. Of course there are prejudices. These prejudices are based on the culture, the political climate, and the history of that culture which is all in sync with the laws of matter (as you put it).

There is no good and bad objectively. We’re not talking about good and bad. We’re talking about hurt, which is a real thing. If someone shoots you, I would say this person hurt you. I don’t think you would want to get shot which you would call a hurt to you. That’s what will be prevented unless you want to get shot. Then you don’t have to become part of the new world. :smiley:

We are just along for the ride. We have no control over what gives us greater satisfaction, and in that sense the future will be only what it can be – only what it must be. That’s true, but our choices are part of the necessary unfolding which will lead us in a direction that will bring sustenance and peace to the entire world.

Iambiguous, you refuse to read the book. The economic chapter is filled with how conflicting goods and political conflict will be eliminated only because everyone will never be poverty stricken where they need to hurt others (whether it’s hurting individuals or countries) for self-preservation. I’m not going to spoon feed this knowledge to you. You’re the one that’s losing out because of your stubborn resistance to reading what you don’t believe is possible. That’s your problem, not mine. And, btw, I will answer posts that are between you and others. I don’t want to answer posts from you directly because you make false accusations about the author and you tell me these premises are assumptions, which they are anything but.

I am going to read the original New Discovery thread you began back in 2007 to see what I can learn
I still do not know what it is that will eliminate all suffering but I shall hopefully discover it in there

Surruptitious75, why not read the actual text? I know you tried to buy the print book. I’m so sorry there was a problem. I’ll let you know when it’s been published. I suggest you read the first three chapters again. That’s not enough to understand how this knowledge plays out in the real world but it gives you a foundation. Reading posts from 2007 will be extremely frustrating.

I will be reading the actual text because you posted extracts from the first eight chapters
Anyone else who wants to truly understand the premise of the book can simply read them


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=157029&p=1878966#p1878966

I shall just read the extracts first so I will not be influenced by any negative criticism
I will then hopefully have a better understanding of what the author was trying to say
I will be open minded while I am reading them then after that will I read the criticism

I am getting the feel got the basic tenet: that determines flow: based on re-cogniscance, recognition, and that has very little way of coming to be by the sense of appearance through. Perception. I do not need to form the trancendential model here, because positivism is by definition causal, a posterior.
It justifies it’s self and reductionism is actually a causal derivitive through the maze of indeterminate similarities.
The model is inferred to be of a necessary product of near absolute contingency, separated by a scintilla of time space, causing the curvature .

Therefore, eternal repetition of divergence causes the imprint o of causal determinants to be scripted into the infinite re-cognition of memory, where the level of conscious memory recognizes the level of conscious predictor of the past or future presently.

It is time travel in the relative sense, but we are staying put while the situations and contexts are moving about us. We can’t stop it, because it only ‘appears’ to move about…

Movement of the pre-relative sort, is perceived uncertainty , as previous and partially derived before Newton
At lower levels, the straight line does not yet indicate partially derived segments belonging to a functionally derived curvature.

Ontological precedence over phenomenological recognition .
Reduction through approximation is a secondary process.

Don’t even have to read the book to realize that.

Rationale: pattern recognition by way of quantification (calculation) was made on basis of harmonic sound, rather then light. The predictor of relative time was by way of the velocity of light.

Yes, and then this principle bumps into the principle that nature compels us to move only in the direction of that which it has, in turn, already compelled us to conclude is the direction of our greater satisfaction. That principle then thought to be no less SOUND than yours.

Then what?

Well, then nature either compels others to move in the direction of one point of view or the other.

Whose conscience, pertaining to what environment, pertaining to what two-side equation, pertaining to what actual chosen behaviors?

What on earth does that mean?!!!

Yes, the aliens residing in autonomous part of the universe have the actual option to choose – to either note how the author’s own options reflected merely the psychological illusion of choice back then or to note how your own options today can never be more than nature compelling you to “choose” to come back into this exchange with me.

Only in my own rendition of determinism, it’s nature all the way down. And then all the way back to an explanation for existence itslef.

Note to others:

Is it even possible, in terms of the behaviors that we do choose, to encompass the meaning of “for all practicle purposes” in a more obscure, obtuse and hopelessly abstract manner.

From my frame of mind [compelled or not] it encompasses instead precisely how the author’s “discovery” above [encompassed in excerpts] is little more than an “intellectual contraption”.

She brings none of it down to earth, in my view.

Yes, I agree that probing the brain of a particular woman with an unwanted pregnancy hooked up to fMRI technology is not the same as probing it in the context of the choices/“choices” she makes on the way to the abortion clinic.

It’s just a start until the technology is shrunk down to an instrument able to be taken into the clinic with her.

But how on earth is the author’s discovery applicable to the brain of this woman making her choices. How on earth does he connect the dots between here and now and a progressive future where the hurt inflicted on the shredded fetus and the hurt inflicted on a woman forced to give birth somehow just go away. If, for now, only in the author’s head?

We know that in our dreams we are no less convinced that we are freely choosing to behave as we do. Or, rather, that’s the way it is in my dreams. Only upon waking do we become cognizant that this “reality” was created entirely by the brain in our brain.

Only how do we demonstrate in turn that our becoming cognizant of the dream upon waking is no less a necessary manifestation of nature having remarkably evolved into matter able to accomplish this?

Where is the author’s explanation for that?

And if you actually see no connection between the points I raise about dream reality and waking reality in a wholly determined universe, then, well, damned if I know.

Back again to that mysterious manner in which [here] you are in sync with my own frame of mind, but…

…but then make our “choices” both 1] a part of a necessary unfolding of history into that which it can only ever be and 2] able to particpate in the author’s “progressive” future in the moment of “choosing” to before the true “no free will world” kicks in.

In other words, whatever that means. And, no, for me, it’s not just “for all paractical purposes”. Even as an intellectual contraption itself it makes no sense to me.

But, I’m willing to acknowledge two things…

1] that the problem is me…your explanations are more reasonable than mine but I am unable to grasp them…though only as nature compels this to be

2] that we both have some measure of autonomy here…and that your reasoning is still more sophisticated than mine

peacegirl, you refuse to provide me with the sort of evidence that demonstrates to me that the author is able to bring his intellectual contraptions down to earth…such that I am enticed to explore his discovery in full

Besides, nature has yet to compel me to read it.

Right?

Okay, step by step, in regard to the global economy today, note how the author is convincing in persuading us to see this transformation more clearly.

Also, just out of curiosity, how did he react to the manner in which Marx and Engels also envisioned a progressive future predicated on the historical evolution of political economy into a classless society which as well minimized the pain and suffering of humanity?

Theoretically.

Of course they actually brought their own speculations down to earth by noting the actual evolution of political economy over the course of human interaction down through the ages. Focusing on the means of production and the manner in different types of human communities predicated social and political interactions – the superstructure – on these fundamental forces. The infrastructure. The economic base.

Over and over and over again you level this sort of accusation at me — in much the same manner that those who embrace free will would.

The irony then being completely lost on you.

Keep telling yourself that. After all, it’s not like you actually have the option not to. But that’s between you and nature.

But [compelled or not] I’m sticking to my own assumption. That, psychologically, this exchange with me is creating more and more cracks in your own objectivist font.

And that won’t be tolerated. Not for now. And I know this because it took years before the cracks finally led to the crumbling of my own objectivist font. Fonts, actually. God. No God.

No one I suspect would ever want to end up construing things as grimly as I do “here and now”. I sure as shit don’t.

And again the seeming simple minded but not simple question re-occurs, where is the assumptive reconstruction of an objective which can transcend self interest to the public domain?

Has the retrogression into a nihilism been made compatible enough phenomenally to induce enough power to will such a notion? ( to choose better and better options to improve everybody’s lot? Or is that a Marxian outdated economic problem set on failed projections? (Communism: 5 year plans)

For if immanent projections fail indifferent to transcending qualities, which confirm quantified universal production quotas, in a senseless truncated past and future objective economy, can such be transcendentalilly obvious to even low level ananysts?
The fact that such universally adapted theory did fail, presents the problem of immediate reapplication for any currently viable methodology contraindicated at best, and unsupportingly fallacious at worst.

youtu.be/T3JzcCviNDk

Yes, time is unthinkable , and consciousness of it defeats it’s eternal presence that is measured by it.
Or the measure of infinite duration, what we understand by eternity, is destroyed by it’s self, by the affected of it’s own immeasurability.
Yes but this fallacy, immersed in it’s own contradiction, is effectively a requisite mirror by which ‘it’ comes into being…
The birth of tragedy is in it’s own existential despair of an untangling of it’s being it’s self.

youtu.be/kB2Aypn5kMk

There is no “evil” when one is always ignorant to parts of the context in their intent and you can’t be both wise and evil, so there you go.

Not sure how nature can compel anyone to do anything externally when the very “compelled” being is the very same nature itself in different form and content. Determinism determined itself free by wisdoms/knowledges existence. That’s consciousness and the universe is inherently selfish, creation/manifestation holds traits of creator/spawner.

It’s funny too how people think they have no choice but to participate in this loop of malleable energy, I assure you if you have seen the nothing, the void, you would want to stay participating. Welcome to nature with comfort and complacency, seeing the incomprehensible breaks and baffles the mind like a stretching rubber band. We’re not “compelled” to be here by nature, we’ve chosen it but that seems to be just another lost memory.

Artimas , Peacegirl wrote,

"]Look how far we’ve come, but this formal transition will catapult us into the Golden Age of man — an age where there is no war, crime, or poverty

excellent. now that the human species has finally stopped bullshitting around, we can focus our collective efforts on space colonization, exploration and expansion.

the headlines will read: the year two-thousand-something… when humans got their shit together and finally stopped behaving like monkeys.
[/quote]
Just remember we couldn’t help but go through the necessary stages of evil to reach this turning point in history!
[/quote]
There is no “evil” when one is always ignorant to parts of the context in their intent and you can’t be both wise and evil, so there you go."

Ignorance really, is not bliss, contrary to popular opinion.
That frames the intensional of the natural progression, belies it’s intentional objectives."

It seems as of this qualification muzzled indications of how and why it was done this way.
Or rather, how or why!
The only loop is that which goes nowhere but is everywhere, nowhere to go.

there is no such thing as ‘evil’, but as close as we can come to calling someone evil would involve identifying the disparity between intent and action… so yeah, you’re sorta right. but really this quality ‘evil’ only amounts to incompetence, which is what we call that rift between one’s beliefs and one’s actions. in the context of this thread, this rift was identified as the incompetence of any individual or state that believes these three things in unison: that the structure of their current society is not conducive of excessive conflict, that partaking in such conflict purposely is immoral, and that those who do have objective knowledge of ‘right and wrong’ (of which there is none) also have the freewill (which doesn’t exist) to choose one or the other. it is these three systemic errors in reasoning that combine to produce the sum total of such egregious incompetence. now if anything were ‘evil’, it would be this.

but there’s more. what here appears to look like an excess of power as it is usually understood - the ruthlessness of a society that holds itself together even while these three fundamental errors are operating… and how this seems to demonstrate a body that is strong enough to incorporate its errors without jeopardizing its vitality - it is really a total absence of power in that this society demonstrates that it needs to lie in order to function. and here is where the problem of ‘intent’ is raised, and how what is most simply just a kind of incompetence now becomes something gross and contemptible.

that so many centuries have been spent in designing the erroneous theoretical and philosophical background against which western capitalism has evolved, is quite frankly astonishing. if it stood only on social darwinism and had the courage to accept the logical consequences of this premise, it wouldn’t be so contemptible. but it had to not only create an order in which a minority could live and prosper off the productive energies of a majority, but also devise carefully thought-out ideological trappings which would help it sustain itself against what would result from pure anarcho-capitalism. such things as ‘equal opportunity’, ‘moral right and wrong’ and ‘freewill’ would become cornerstones to this process. finally the glaring incompetence reveals itself to those who have greater insight into the machinery. these three fabrications aren’t just lies, but useful lies to a system that is so weak and with such cowardice, it cannot prosper without them. if it stopped holding to these lies, social darwinism in its purest and most volatile form would take life and quickly eliminate those who’ve relied on such lies to sustain their places of false power.

anywho what i’m saying here won’t make much sense unless you are able to assess great spans of history, their social and economic structures, and the respective ‘philosophies’ that backed them through their development. there is a very distinct pattern or direction of thought from platonism to analytical philosophy; the first comes into existence to back the aristocratic contempt for materialism… the last comes into existence to destroy that entire lineage of lies.

disposing of the myth of ‘freewill’ is a surgical strike against the status-quo and, ironically, frees those who are oppressed by such tyranny from being subject to the operant conditioning of guilt… something that is critically important to the status-quo for keeping those who are subordinate to it, under control.

it really is a big deal, dude… i mean as far as the social sciences are concerned. get the idea of freewill out of the heads of people and western capitalism will suffer a tremendous blow. greater attention will be paid to those environmental factors/circumstances which statistically produce crime and conflict, than ever before. and that’s precisely what the capitalist/conservatives don’t want to happen.