Revolution in Thought

[peacegirl]

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.

First of all, this knowledge is absolutely revolutionary because of the changes that will take place in our environment. I never said we would become pacifists. This just shows me how confused you are because you read nothing. How can you expect to understand a 30 year work without reading it? It's delusional and pompous at the same time. Forget the experiment, the only thing that would prove he was right all along is when people recognize the veracity of his proof on paper, just like we can prove on paper that the math was right which then is used to build a bridge that will not collapse. Although this knowledge is not math per se, the analogy will suffice.

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.

That is completely false. Turning back the clock and being able to make a different choice would change past circumstances, but that doesn't mean this knowledge won't change future circumstances in a way that's difficult to fathom. Can you imagine a world without war, crime, and poverty? It's very difficult which makes people feel that it's an impossible feat.

This natural law,
which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully
behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the
development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering
this well concealed law and demonstrating its power a catalyst, so to
speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic
change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing
what will be called miracles though they do not transcend the laws of
nature.

The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, and
all the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in a
different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and
their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in
such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If this is
difficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss what
I have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what I tried
to prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And the
reason must be that you judged such a permanent solution as
impossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, which
is a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed and
compared to our present understanding of human nature.

War seems
to be an inescapable feature of the human condition which can only
be subdued, not eradicated. But we must insert a question mark
between the empirical fact that a feature is characteristic of human
life as we know it, and the empirical claim that this feature is a
sociological inevitability. Another reason that war is viewed as an
unfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due to
suffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream or
have the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace.
The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that his
mind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone who
dares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous and
unfounded.

Down through history there has always been this skepticism before
certain events were proven true. It is only natural to be skeptical, but
this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific
miracle. You may reason that many people have been positive that
they were right but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also
be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this
reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong
because I am positive. The first astronomer who observed the
mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that enabled him to
predict an eclipse was positive and right, as well as the space scientist
who foretold that one day man would land on the moon. Edison when
he first discovered the electric bulb was positive and right. Einstein
when he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive and right
— and so were many other scientists — but they proved that they
were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am
doing.

If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then
only am I wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive
or dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive
over something that is undeniable such as two plus two equals four.
Just bear in mind how many times in the course of history has the
impossible (that which appeared to be) been made possible by
scientific discoveries which should make you desire to contain your
skepticism enough to investigate what this is all about.

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.

There's no bandaid to rip off. I'm not interested in discussing his other two discoveries because they are secondary to this one. If I can't get you to open the book to understand this, I have no desire to discuss anything else.

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.

It's okay if people here don't share my enthusiasm. I'm more sad for them because they are losing out, truly. They will forget about this thread, never open the book's pages, and will have missed an important work because they're positive he was wrong. The $50 was necessary to see that the average individual who is not versed in the free will/determinism debate, can have a hard time. She glossed over the book, pulled out sentences to remark on so she could satisfy the review requirements. I refuted what she wrote on my website. I need people who will give this book what it deserves; a careful reading.

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.

This is not about pacifism. Do you see how you're jumping to false conclusions?

Spinoza made matters worse for himself
financially, but at that moment of time he had no free choice because
it gave him greater satisfaction to let her cheat him out of what he was
entitled to by law. Both of them were moving in the direction of what
gave them satisfaction. Spinoza’s sister had no understanding of this
knowledge nor did the world at that time, although Spinoza himself
knew that man’s will is not free. Consequently, he allowed others to
hurt him with a first blow by turning the other cheek. He was
excommunicated from the synagogue while being God-intoxicated,
which seems to be a contradiction. You would think that a person
would be thrown out for being an atheist but not for being a God-
intoxicated man.

The fact that I know God is a reality doesn’t
intoxicate me. I know that the sun is also a reality but when the heat
gets unbearable, should I jump for joy? There is no comparison
between Spinoza and myself. He was a gentle man, I am not. He
refused to blame his sister for stealing what rightfully belonged to him
because he was confused and believed she couldn’t help herself. I, on
the other hand, would never advocate turning the other cheek when
someone can get the advantage by not turning it. He excused her
conduct, but if someone tried to take what belonged to me I’d fight
him tooth and nail.

If an aggressive country should start a war before
this knowledge is released, it is only natural that we fight back with
everything we’ve got. Turning the other cheek under these conditions
could lead to further harm, which is why most people reject the
pacifist position. How is it humanly possible not to fight back when
one is being hurt first, which goes back to the justification of ‘an eye
for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ I personally would get greater
satisfaction defending myself or retaliating against those people who
would do, or have done, things to hurt me and my family. I’m not a
saint, but a scientist of human conduct. Most of mankind is
compelled, for greater satisfaction, to move in this direction.
Therefore, it should be clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not
Blame, does not mean that you should suddenly stop blaming because
you have discovered that man’s will is not free. It only means at this
point that we are going to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where
it takes us, something that investigators like Durant have never done
because the implications prevented them from opening the door
beyond the vestibule.

<snip>

Because my
discovery was purely scientific, my attention was drawn to an article
by Eric Johnston, now deceased, who was once among other things the
President of the Motion Pictures Association. It appeared in the
November 6, 1960 issue of This Week Magazine of The Baltimore
Sun.

“If there is one word which characterizes our world in this exciting
last half of the twentieth century, the word is change. Change in
political life; change in economic life; change in social life; change in
personal life; change in the hallmark of our times. It’s not gradual,
comfortable change. It is sudden; rapid; often violent. It touches and
often disrupts whole cultures and hundreds of millions of people.
Behind it all lies an explosive growth in scientific knowledge and
accomplishment. Some 90% of all the scientists who ever lived are
living today, and the total accumulation of scientific knowledge is
doubling every ten years. But this is reality. If we remember that,
then we will never flinch at change. We will adjust to it, welcome it,
meet it as a friend, and know it is God’s will.” Since my discovery
would bring about the greatest change in all of history, it appeared
that this man would be willing to let me explain my findings. By
convincing him on the phone that it was now possible to put a
permanent end to all war as a result of my discovery, he agreed to
meet me on a Sunday afternoon in Washington, D.C. Our
conversation went as follows:

“I’m really not a scientist, Mr. Lessans, and in all probability you
should be talking to someone else. Your claims are absolutely
fantastic, but I want you to know that even though I wrote an article
about science, I am not a scientist. Besides, after you hung up I
became more skeptical of claims such as yours because they not only
sound impossible but somewhat ridiculous in view of man’s nature.
Frankly, I don’t believe your claims are possible, but I am willing to
listen if it doesn’t take too long and if I can see some truth to your
explanation; I do have another engagement but I can devote at least
one hour. Would you get right on with it?” I then told him the story
about the earth being flat and he smiled at this, and then told him
that a theory exists regarding man’s nature that is accepted as true by
98% of mankind, and I pointed out that this theory is actually
preventing the decline and fall of all evil because it has closed a door
to a vast storehouse of genuine knowledge.

“I will be as brief as possible, Mr. Johnston, but in order for me to
reveal my discovery it is absolutely necessary that I first show you its
hiding place because they are related to each other.”

“What is this theory?” he asked.

“You see, Mr. Johnston, most people believe consciously or
unconsciously that man’s will is free.”

“What’s that? Did I hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell me
that man’s will is not free?”

“That is absolutely right, Mr. Johnston. I don’t believe it; I know
this for a mathematical fact. My discovery lies locked behind the door
marked ‘Man’s Will is Not Free,’ just like the invariable laws of the
solar system were concealed behind the door marked ‘The Earth is
Round’ — until some upstart scientist opened it for a thorough
investigation.”

“I have always believed it to be free, but what difference does it
make what I think; the will of man is certainly not going to be
affected by my opinion, right?”

“That part is true enough (do you recall the comparison), but if
the will of man is definitely not free isn’t it obvious that just as long
as we think otherwise we will be prevented from discovering those
things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery,
consequently, it does make a difference. The opinion of our ancestors
that the earth was flat could never change its actual shape, but just as
long as the door marked ‘The Earth Is Round’ was never opened
thoroughly for an investigation by scientists capable of perceiving the
undeniable but involved relations hidden there, how were we ever to
discover the laws that allow us now to land men on the moon?”

“Your door was opened many times through the years by some of
the most profound thinkers and never did they come up with any
discoveries to change the world.”

“It is true that determinism was investigated by people who were
presumed profound thinkers, but in spite of their profoundness none
of them had the capacity to perceive the law that was hidden there.
Most people do not even know it is a theory since it is preached by
religion, government, even education as if it is an absolute fact.”

Mr. Lessans, I don’t know what it is you think you have
discovered but whatever it is, as far as I personally am concerned, it
cannot be valid because I am convinced that man’s will is free. Thank
you very much for coming out but I’m not interested in discussing
this matter any further.” And he would not let me continue.

Now stop to think about this for one moment. A discovery has
been made that will go down in history as that which will change the
entire world of human relations for the better, yet because it
challenges a theory which is held by many world religions there is a
hostile reaction when it is questioned. This is a perfect example of
how this preemptive authority of false knowledge which is passed along
from generation to generation by theology, by government, and by
various other sources does not even allow a person to open his mind
to hear the explanation.

The theologians I contacted, though they
admit they pray to God for deliverance from evil also believe it is
impossible for man to accomplish this apparent miracle. In a sense
they are right because the law that was discovered is equivalent to the
law that inheres in the solar system, over which we have no control.
Any system of established dogma that is based on a false belief needs
to be addressed so that the truth can be revealed. This is much easier
said than done because the knowledge of what it means that man’s will
is not free was buried deeper than atomic energy, and presents
problems that are almost insurmountable. Convincing a few people
of this truth is one thing; convincing the entire world is something
else. Supposing the very people whose understanding it is necessary
to reach refuse to examine the facts on the grounds that the discovery
could not be valid because it starts out with the premise that man’s
will is not free.

To show you how confused are those who have been
guiding us, a rabbi was told that the author of the book “Decline and
Fall of All Evil” has the permanent solution to every problem of
human relation, and he replied, “How do we know that God wants us
to remove all evil?” Now you tell me, if he is doubtful of this why do
all theologians ask God in the Lord’s Prayer to deliver us from evil?

[Atla]

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?

The world has always been deterministic and people have always moved towards greater satisfaction. Which is most of the time the satisfaction of having power over others; having superior status/dominating/one-upping others. What's the new discovery?

[peacegirl]

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?

The world has always been deterministic and people have always moved towards greater satisfaction. Which is most of the time the satisfaction of having power over others; having superior status/dominating/one-upping others. What's the new discovery?

I’m glad I don’t have to get you to see that we have always moved in the direction of greater satisfaction. I can’t start over. I will post the link to the first three chapters shortly. The people in this thread have made it nearly impossible to meet their demand for a quick synopsis, which will never do the book justice.

[Logik]

I’m glad I don’t have to get you to see that we have always moved in this direction. I can’t start over. No one here seems interested. I will post the link to the first three chapters shortly. The people here have made it nearly impossible to meet their demands for a quick synopsis, which doesn’t do the book justice.

But you did make the most important synopsis of all! This book contains unfalsifiable truth.

And that's enough.

[Atla]

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?

The world has always been deterministic and people have always moved towards greater satisfaction. Which is most of the time the satisfaction of having power over others; having superior status/dominating/one-upping others. What's the new discovery?

I’m glad I don’t have to get you to see that we have always moved in the direction of greater satisfaction. I can’t start over. I will post the link to the first three chapters shortly. The people in this thread have made it nearly impossible to meet their demand for a quick synopsis, which will never do the book justice.

Or you could post how you would deal with the problem that most people get more satisfaction from power than from altruism.

[FlashDangerpants]

First of all, this knowledge is absolutely revolutionary because of the changes that will take place in our environment. I never said we would become pacifists. This just shows me how confused you are because you read nothing. How can you expect to understand a 30 year work without reading it? It's delusional and pompous at the same time. Forget the experiment, the only thing that would prove he was right all along is when people recognize the veracity of his proof on paper, just like we can prove on paper that the math was right which then is used to build a bridge that will not collapse. Although this knowledge is not math per se, the analogy will suffice.

You wrote that it is testable through an experiment and that was a way to deal with the falsification problem. Now you are explicitly denying that, and blamng me for your own error.

You are however also validating the scathing review on Amazon that you keep pretending is a lie, but clearly is very well informed.

I use the term pacifism as a gernalisation in reference to your end of all war claim. There's no point getting pissy about that, it's a reasonable enough shortcut. Your book does contain a lot of pacifist language such as this "I am announcing a scientific discovery that will make war an absolute impossibility"

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.

That is completely false. Turning back the clock and being able to make a different choice would change past circumstances, but that doesn't mean this knowledge won't change future circumstances in a way that's difficult to fathom. Can you imagine a world without war, crime, and poverty? It's very difficult which makes people feel that it's an impossible feat.

Pay attention. The question of whether we have free will or not is irrelevant because it changes nothing either way. We only make each decision one time, you can describe that as the decision that had to be made because free will is an illusion we all must live with. Henry can describe it as the choice he made because he has a free will. The only way to discern which description was correct would be to invent a time machine and let people make those same decisions again and again to see if they would ever choose otherwise to the only way they ever did in the moment. That's why the free will debate does not in any way matter. I am trying to explain a philosophical thing to you, you can either learn from it, or just fail. I don't care very much.

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.

There's no bandaid to rip off. I'm not interested in discussing his other two discoveries because they are secondary to this one. If I can't get you to open the book to understand this, I have no desire to discuss anything else.

Then it's your word versus that reviewer, and you are the evasive one, so automatically less trusted.

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.

It's okay if people here don't share my enthusiasm. I'm more sad for them because they are losing out, truly. They will forget about this thread, never open the book's pages, and will have missed an important work because they're positive he was wrong. The $50 was necessary to see that the average individual who is not versed in the free will/determinism debate, can have a hard time. She glossed over the book, pulled out sentences to remark on so she could satisfy the review requirements. I refuted what she wrote on my website. I need people who will give this book what it deserves; a careful reading.

You think you've refuted a lot of stuff, you are consistently wide of the mark though and really don't show much capacity for improvement. So I'm afraid the reviewer you took down on your website probably is in a similar situation to everyone else who has tried to help you see the wood for the trees.

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.

This is not about pacifism. Do you see how you're jumping to false conclusions?

You like that rodeo analogy for how many times you have done this before don't you? Well, do you think this is my first rodeo? I have seen plenty of pissants who hope to escape a tricky situation by focusing on one some minor pedantic detail like that, it's yawn inducing, and a waste of energy because I can just copy and paste the same claim with the offending detail altered and the point still works perfectly well....

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 ensures the elimination of virtually every bit of hurt in human relations. It's literally an incoherent claim, a self basting turkey of an argument.

See how pointless it was not to let me use pacifism as a shortcut? It was easy enough to sort out direct quotes to largely the same effect.

[peacegirl]

I’m glad I don’t have to get you to see that we have always moved in this direction. I can’t start over. No one here seems interested. I will post the link to the first three chapters shortly. The people here have made it nearly impossible to meet their demands for a quick synopsis, which doesn’t do the book justice.

But you did make the most important synopsis of all! This book contains unfalsifiable truth.

And that's enough.

You're a broken record. It is falsifiable. If the principles don't work, then it's falsified. Nuff said!

[Logik]

I’m glad I don’t have to get you to see that we have always moved in this direction. I can’t start over. No one here seems interested. I will post the link to the first three chapters shortly. The people here have made it nearly impossible to meet their demands for a quick synopsis, which doesn’t do the book justice.

But you did make the most important synopsis of all! This book contains unfalsifiable truth.

And that's enough.

You're a broken record. It is falsifiable. If the principles don't work, then it's falsified. Nuff said!

So why can’t you provide a single example of what you would consider valid example of the principle not working?

Not even one!

[peacegirl]

The world has always been deterministic and people have always moved towards greater satisfaction. Which is most of the time the satisfaction of having power over others; having superior status/dominating/one-upping others. What's the new discovery?

I’m glad I don’t have to get you to see that we have always moved in the direction of greater satisfaction. I can’t start over. I will post the link to the first three chapters shortly. The people in this thread have made it nearly impossible to meet their demand for a quick synopsis, which will never do the book justice.

Or you could post how you would deal with the problem that most people get more satisfaction from power than from altruism.

This is not about altruism per se, although it's human nature to want to help others in serious need. Sure, there's some people who don't care about the well-being of anyone except themselves. But you said "most" people get more satisfaction from power than from altruism. That's a false dichotomy and I don't think it's at all accurate. The economic system in the new world is going to be so different that the financial insecurities that people now have will evaporate, thereby eliminating the need for charities to step in to help.

[Logik]

Here is my revolutionary knowledge.

Everything peacegirl says is wrong.

It is a falsifiable principle if it doesn’t work.

[peacegirl]

But you did make the most important synopsis of all! This book contains unfalsifiable truth.

And that's enough.

You're a broken record. It is falsifiable. If the principles don't work, then it's falsified. Nuff said!

So why can’t you provide a single example of what you would consider valid example of the principle not working?

Not even one!

I will give you a valid example but you won't be satisfied because you will tell me that that's not good enough; that I need to prove it with some experiment. But that would not work because it would be contaminated since we're living in a free will environment (an environment where many people would take advantage of others if they had the opportunity) and the results would be skewed. Johnathan Schooler's experiment was skewed due to this very reason. This knowledge would be falsified if, under the new conditions set forth, people could still choose to hurt others with a first blow (not a retaliatory blow) as a preferable alternative.

[peacegirl]

Here is my revolutionary knowledge.

Everything peacegirl says is wrong.

It is a falsifiable principle if it doesn’t work.

That's very true, and it is a falsifiable principle. And it's a correct principle if it does work.

[Logik]

Here is my revolutionary knowledge.

Everything peacegirl says is wrong.

It is a falsifiable principle if it doesn’t work.

That's very true, and it is a falsifiable principle. And it's a correct principle if it does work.

Since I am the one who discovered the principle I am telling you it always works.

There's no example where it doesn't.

So it's falsifiable in words only but not in practice.

[Atla]

I’m glad I don’t have to get you to see that we have always moved in the direction of greater satisfaction. I can’t start over. I will post the link to the first three chapters shortly. The people in this thread have made it nearly impossible to meet their demand for a quick synopsis, which will never do the book justice.

Or you could post how you would deal with the problem that most people get more satisfaction from power than from altruism.

This is not about altruism per se, although it's human nature to want to help others in serious need. Sure, there's some people who don't care about the well-being of anyone except themselves. But you said "most" people get more satisfaction from power than from altruism. That's a false dichotomy and I don't think it's at all accurate. The economic system in the new world is going to be so different that the financial insecurities that people now have will evaporate, thereby eliminating the need for charities to step in to help.

If what you think about human nature was true, we would already be living in an utopistic world..

[Walker]

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.

On the contrary to hate, it sounds like rationality speaking from you.

That proffered known road graciously banishes the ignorance of a possible pathway to satisfaction.

Rolling Stones.