Revolution in Thought

[Nick_A]

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:17 pm

I get that because an axiom is not proven. I used the word axiom so we could move forward. Call it dogma, call it a premise, call it whatever you want. The label is irrelevant.



Once again, call it whatever you want but this does not negate the UNDENIABLE FACT that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. That is the definition I AM BRINGING TO THE TABLE, not the conventional definition of cause/effect leaving out the agent entirely.

Well PG if you're looking for peace you won't find it here.

I haven't read the thread but if it is any consolation the above makes sense to me. In fact the book "Gravity and Grace" which includes essays and letters by Simone Weil actually refers to your thoughts. She refers to gravity as it concerns "being" as the results of universal laws which devolve matter into creation. Every mechanical action is the result of gravity or the involutionary effects of universal laws. What appears as greater satisfaction is just the process of devolution into lower levels of creation

The only exception is grace which enables qualities of consciousness to evolve back to their source. This relationship between involution and evolution cannot be verified by science but is verified through experiential psychology. Knowledge of this type cannot concern the collective reacting to universal laws but only to individuals who for whatever reason have become able to experience them.

[peacegirl]

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:17 pm

I get that because an axiom is not proven. I used the word axiom so we could move forward. Call it dogma, call it a premise, call it whatever you want. The label is irrelevant.



Once again, call it whatever you want but this does not negate the UNDENIABLE FACT that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. That is the definition I AM BRINGING TO THE TABLE, not the conventional definition of cause/effect leaving out the agent entirely.

Well PG if you're looking for peace you won't find it here.

I haven't read the thread but if it is any consolation the above makes sense to me. In fact the book "Gravity and Grace" which includes essays and letters by Simone Weil actually refers to your thoughts. She refers to gravity as it concerns "being" as the results of universal laws which devolve matter into creation. Every mechanical action is the result of gravity or the involutionary effects of universal laws. What appears as greater satisfaction is just the process of devolution into lower levels of creation

Wrong.

The only exception is grace which enables qualities of consciousness to evolve back to their source. This relationship between involution and evolution cannot be verified by science but is verified through experiential psychology. Knowledge of this type cannot concern the collective reacting to universal laws but only to individuals who for whatever reason have become able to experience them.

You have your philosophy but you have no understanding of what I'm even talking about.

[FlashDangerpants]

What entry fee? I cannot share the entire book, sorry. I have to choose the subject that is the most important for the purposes of bringing this discovery to light. Once again, this is not my first rodeo and I'm not willing to change the subject just because you want me to, when I know where it will lead. Let it go Dangerpants.

Nobody really wants you to share the whole book, we don't want to read it, what he ave seen so far is bad.
You have the power of description and explanation, please begin to use it, describe this weird faster than light vision thing.
Don't hide behind a book you are unlikely to be selling to anybody here.

Your rodeos are your problem. Your desire to hide crazy sounding things from us until you have our money simply illustrates that you are just here to sell us something.

.

Any simulation is going to be a microcosm of the real thing, but it would help. That being said, it would be difficult to create a no blame environment on a small scale to mimic what this knowledge can do for the betterment of humankind.

You said this thing was falsifiable, and you said " Geeeezzeee!!!!" to go with it. Now you are consenting that it is not.

Geeeezzeee!!!!

You are the one that said it's unfalsifiable because anything short of large scale proof (not just a small simulation) would mean nothing.

And you stated that a small scale test, which you can't even describe in any detail, would only give a 'clue'. So you agree with me.

Now, what's this crazy nonsense about perception that you are so desperate not to discuss. Obviously the guy writing that Amazon review knows something you don't want anyone here to know.

[peacegirl]

Nobody really wants you to share the whole book, we don't want to read it, what he ave seen so far is bad.
You have the power of description and explanation, please begin to use it, describe this weird faster than light vision thing.
Don't hide behind a book you are unlikely to be selling to anybody here.

Your rodeos are your problem. Your desire to hide crazy sounding things from us until you have our money simply illustrates that you are just here to sell us something.

You said this thing was falsifiable, and you said " Geeeezzeee!!!!" to go with it. Now you are consenting that it is not.

Geeeezzeee!!!!

You are the one that said it's unfalsifiable because anything short of large scale proof (not just a small simulation) would mean nothing.

And you stated that a small scale test, which you can't even describe in any detail, would only give a 'clue'. So you agree with me.

I understand your belief regarding small samples, but I didn't even mention what size sample it would be. You immediately said it would tell us nothing.

Now, what's this crazy nonsense about perception that you are so desperate not to discuss.

Because this is more important. I never got to explain why this "truism" matters yet you immediately think it will tell us nothing. You're dead wrong.

Obviously the guy writing that Amazon review knows something you don't want anyone here to know.

That's not it at all. I'm upset that he lied and now his review gives a false impression that the material is without merit. It's difficult to get people who would have the capacity to understand what is written to read the book and give a fair and balanced commentary, because, like you (who has the capacity) jumps to all kinds of premature conclusions. I paid one time (like $50) to have a person in a book group to read the book, and the girl didn't understand it at all. It was a waste of money. It will probably take people who already believe in determinism to want to learn more. I can't make headway with people who believe that they have free will. They refuse to listen because it upsets their worldview too much and they can't handle it. I tried to explain that the accurate definition of determinism does not remove the agent, nor does it take away the kind of freedom that everyone wants to have. The only thing it takes away is the belief that people do what they do, achieve what they achieve, etc., of their own free will. This knowledge allows for a new type of world where the justification to hurt another will no longer be a preferable choice when the hurt to them is removed. That's it in a nutshell.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are the one that said it's unfalsifiable because anything short of large scale proof (not just a small simulation) would mean nothing.

And you stated that a small scale test, which you can't even describe in any detail, would only give a 'clue'. So you agree with me.

I understand your belief regarding small samples, but I didn't even mention what size sample it would be. You immediately said it would tell us nothing.

Let me remind you what you have claimed so that you can stop misrepresenting it. Here you are stating a small experiment would fix the falsification problem...

A simulation of this new world on a smaller scale could prove that these principles work. So stop saying it can't be falsified and keep an open mind. Geeeezzeee!!!!

And here you are getting out of your depth on that same claim...

I agree that a small sample would not satisfy, but it could give a clue. I don't think anything short of implementing this knowledge to show it's validity will satisfy you, and I do understand. But just because you are not satisfied (because the empirical proof has yet to be shown), does not make this knowledge inaccurate.

Now you are trying to reverse ferret yet again, nobody is fooled by this, stop being silly. If you want to claim that a small scale experiment can confirm your hypothesis that once people believe your thing they will automatically become pacifists... define your experiment. Include details necessary for a real experiment such as how you would select the participants and ensure that you had a fully representative sample, plus what you would recognize as proof you were wrong.

Now, what's this crazy nonsense about perception that you are so desperate not to discuss.

Because this is more important. I never got to explain why this "truism" matters yet you immediately think it will tell us nothing. You're dead wrong.

You're having that discussion with Logik more than me. Although he is right. Nothing at all hinges on the question of free will, it makes no difference to life or our understanding of life. It only could make any difference if there were some way to turn back time and make the same choice a second time, in which case it either would or would not be possible to select differently from the available options. Unless you are the inventor of a time machine, you are wasting your life on the least important available controversy. It is of greater benefit to science and mankind to argue about whether a hotdog is a sandwich or not.

Irrespective, you are hiding something from us. It seems to be something you feel we would laugh at. You might as well rip off the band aid.

Obviously the guy writing that Amazon review knows something you don't want anyone here to know.

That's not it at all. I'm upset that he lied and now his review gives a false impression that the material is without merit. It's difficult to get people who would have the capacity to understand what is written to read the book and give a fair and balanced commentary, because, like you (who has the capacity) jumps to all kinds of premature conclusions. I paid one time (like $50) to have a person in a book group to read the book, and the girl didn't understand it at all. It was a waste of money. It will probably take people who already believe in determinism to want to learn more. I can't make headway with people who believe that they have free will. They refuse to listen because it upsets their worldview too much and they can't handle it. I tried to explain that the accurate definition of determinism does not remove the agent, nor does it take away the kind of freedom that everyone wants to have. The only thing it takes away is the belief that people do what they do, achieve what they achieve, etc., of their own free will. This knowledge allows for a new type of world where the justification to hurt another will no longer be a preferable choice when the hurt to them is removed. That's it in a nutshell.

I sort of feel sympathy that you paid somebody to read your book. But let's face it, if she did read and analyse it as a philosopher would, you would have still asserted that she didn't understand it. that is your default claim for everybody who doesn't share your enthusiasm. You are too far gone to consider that there are errors in your work. That is a much sadder state of affairs than the 50 wasted bucks.

Your problem is much worse than people who want to believe in free will not taking on your message. People like me who get the stuff about agency and freedom aren't going to buy your schtick exactly because we understand better than you. There is no way for you to move from non free will that doesn't alter anything substantive, to some magical world where mere realisation of the fact makes everybody an altruistic pacifist. It's literally an incoherent claim, a self basting turkey of an argument.

[Nick_A]

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:17 pm

I get that because an axiom is not proven. I used the word axiom so we could move forward. Call it dogma, call it a premise, call it whatever you want. The label is irrelevant.



Once again, call it whatever you want but this does not negate the UNDENIABLE FACT that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. That is the definition I AM BRINGING TO THE TABLE, not the conventional definition of cause/effect leaving out the agent entirely.

Well PG if you're looking for peace you won't find it here.

I haven't read the thread but if it is any consolation the above makes sense to me. In fact the book "Gravity and Grace" which includes essays and letters by Simone Weil actually refers to your thoughts. She refers to gravity as it concerns "being" as the results of universal laws which devolve matter into creation. Every mechanical action is the result of gravity or the involutionary effects of universal laws. What appears as greater satisfaction is just the process of devolution into lower levels of creation

Wrong.

The only exception is grace which enables qualities of consciousness to evolve back to their source. This relationship between involution and evolution cannot be verified by science but is verified through experiential psychology. Knowledge of this type cannot concern the collective reacting to universal laws but only to individuals who for whatever reason have become able to experience them.

You have your philosophy but you have no understanding of what I'm even talking about.

Apparently I don't know what you are talking about. Just point me to the Amazon review so I can read what you refer to. Since as I understand it all mechanical life including the Man animal is drawn to what offers satisfaction for it which is what you implied. I don't see why I am so wrong.

I can't make headway with people who believe that they have free will. They refuse to listen because it upsets their worldview too much and they can't handle it. I tried to explain that the accurate definition of determinism does not remove the agent, nor does it take away the kind of freedom that everyone wants to have. The only thing it takes away is the belief that people do what they do, achieve what they achieve, etc., of their own free will. This knowledge allows for a new type of world where the justification to hurt another will no longer be a preferable choice when the hurt to them is removed. That's it in a nutshell.

Many including me understand that free choice can only be a quality for conscious individuals. Man as a creature of reaction mistakenly calls the reaction to a dominant desire free will. You are not alone with this concept. Free will is a human potential. As we are, we react to dominant desires either natural or learned.

You seem to be referring to the human potential to awaken conscience. Again conscience like human consciousness is a potential for conscious beings which is our potential.

Step one is verifying and admitting what we are or what is known as the human condition. Then those interested can discuss what can be done to heal it

[henry quirk]

"I can't make headway with people who believe that they have free will. They refuse to listen because it upsets their worldview too much and they can't handle it."

Speakin' only for me: I read and see only wordplay. I'm not upset: just unmoved.

#

"I tried to explain that the accurate definition of determinism does not remove the agent, nor does it take away the kind of freedom that everyone wants to have."

Speakin' (again) only for me: there's only one kind of freedom worth havin' and it ain't what your dad is selling.

[Wascal's Pager]

Irrespective, you are hiding something from us.

Ya think?

[-1-]

Also, please, answer this, I beg you: is the book written by a person whose moniker on this site is "prof"?

It turns out to be sadder than that. Prof has only wasted his own life promoting an obviously junk theory to a world that doesn't care.
This poor sap has inherited that sort of thing as a family business.

Jesus sold a junk theory, and it was a hit for a long-long time. Then it wore itself out in about 2000 years, and the theory is considered by consensus as wishful fiction, as a control-building fairy-tale.

New theories of the sort (how to live life in a happy state for all eternity) gets to meet all kinds of skepticism.

Even theories of how to reach true happiness in a finite interval is met by disdainful skepticism.

"We don't need no education." -- Pink Floyd.

"We don't need another hero." -- Tina Turner

[Nick_A]

-1-

Jesus sold a junk theory, and it was a hit for a long-long time. Then it wore itself out in about 2000 years, and the theory is considered by consensus as wishful fiction, as a control-building fairy-tale.

You are confusing Jesus with the Prince of Darkness. Satan has been pushing wishful thinking from the beginning. You have to give the devil his due. Satan has done a helluva job. A true expert in spreading BS.

[Logik]

You are all washed up. I've said over and over that this "truism" isn't the discovery. But I already see the writing on the wall, and I'm in humor mode because it's ironically humorous that you think you're the quintessential think tank, when you are anything but. As you all look at me as some kind of fundie, I look at all of you all as arrogant, pompous know-it-all's. You all think because you took philosophy in school you now are experts on epistemology, but you're experts on nothing. Each group I have encountered, there was a lesson to be learned, and my time here has been no exception. But all good things must come to an end.

It's a shame that I have to repeat myself...

If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.

[Walker]

I said this understanding that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction is the gateway to the discovery. Why don’t any of you listen?

15 word summary. That’s the spirit!

Response:
Many people do get satisfaction from self-sabotage, but moving towards what results in suffering is a deluded move towards that kind of satisfaction, and that’s caused by ignorance.

[-1-]

-1-

Jesus sold a junk theory, and it was a hit for a long-long time. Then it wore itself out in about 2000 years, and the theory is considered by consensus as wishful fiction, as a control-building fairy-tale.

You are confusing Jesus with the Prince of Darkness. Satan has been pushing wishful thinking from the beginning. You have to give the devil his due. Satan has done a helluva job. A true expert in spreading BS.

How can God or Satan push an agenda when they don't exist? Answer that, my dear Nick_A.

[-1-]

You are all washed up. I've said over and over that this "truism" isn't the discovery. But I already see the writing on the wall, and I'm in humor mode because it's ironically humorous that you think you're the quintessential think tank, when you are anything but. As you all look at me as some kind of fundie, I look at all of you all as arrogant, pompous know-it-all's. You all think because you took philosophy in school you now are experts on epistemology, but you're experts on nothing. Each group I have encountered, there was a lesson to be learned, and my time here has been no exception. But all good things must come to an end.

have you tried http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewforum.php?f=115 yet? That site runs on much more disciplined contributors than this one. Maybe they can help you. I am not promising or guaranteeing anything, but the level and sobriety of thinking is much better there than here. I am not kidding this time, and it's not hate speaking from me.

Give it a try, girl, maybe you'll encounter more success there.

If you go there, please say "hi" to Vat there. (Vat- Username.) Tell him -1- says hi.

[Belinda]

-1- wrote:

How can God or Satan push an agenda when they don't exist? Answer that, my dear Nick_A.

One doesn't know whether or not Nick uses these names in a poetic sense, metaphorically. When I give him the benefit of the doubt and presume that he is using the old allegory I'm disappointed that all Nick has said is that the Jesus Christ theory ethic is right and those who disagree are wrong. What I'd hoped for was support for the Jesus Christ theory.

Apology for the diversion. My excuse is that there is no use in complaining any more about the so-called "revolution in thought" or the book that purports to change thought.