New discovery

[Biochemist]

Biochemist, you might think of a discovery as something that deals with something other than human nature. But this is a discovery. It is new thought, and it is undeniable. Therefore, it is a discovery.

How could you possibly contend that a thought is completely new?????? And a thought is an idea, not a discovery. You don't discover thoughts, you think them. As in "form an oipinion". Which is what this is. There is absolutely nothing factual in this at all. There are some sequiturs. Some are logical, some are not. There is absolutely nothing undeniable (whatever you mean by that).

 

This conversation is incredibly difficult because of your terminology .

[peacegirl]

"This proves conclusively that the only time man can say, "I couldn't help myself because my will is not free', or offer any other kind of excuse, is if someone said he could help himself or blamed him in any way so he could make this effort to shift his responsibility, right?"

 

"You are absolutely correct."

 

"Which means that only in the world of free will, in a world of judgment, can this statement "I couldn't help myself because my will is not free" be made, since it cannot be done when man knows he will not be blamed.

[peacegirl]

Remember, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper when you are held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by others.

 

Constantly criticized by the standards that prevailed man was compelled, as a motion in the direction of satisfaction, to be dishonest with everyone, including himself, while refusing to accept that which was his responsibility.

[peacegirl]

It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as the Ten Commandments which came into existence out of God's will, as did everything else, and consequently you have come to believe through a fallacious association of symbols that these words which judge the actions of others are accurate.

 

How was it possible for the Ten Commandments to come into existence unless religion believed in free will? But in reality, when murder is committed it is neither wrong nor right just what someone at a certain point in his life considered better for himself under circumstances, which included the judgment of others and the risks involved; and when the government or personal revenge retaliates by taking this person's life this too was neither right nor wrong, just what gave greater satisfaction.

[peacegirl]

Neither the government or the murderer are to blame for what each judged better under their particular set of circumstances; but whether they will decide to think and react as before will depend not on any moral values, not on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right and wrong but solely on whether the conditions under which they were previously motivated remain the same; and they do not remain as before because the knowledge that man's will is not free reveals facts never before understood.

[peacegirl]

The very moment the dethronement of free will makes it known that no one henceforth will be held responsible for what he does because his will is not free, and there will be no more criticism or blame regardless of his actions, it becomes impossible for him to blame someone or something else as the cause for what he knows he has done because he also knows that no one is blaming him.

 

Man is prevented from excusing or justifying his own actions which compels him, completely beyond his control but of his own desire, not only to be absolutely honest with himself and others since there is no way he can shift the blame, but to assume full responsibility for everything he does.

[Biochemist]

I think I answered most of the questions.

Could we get a consensus that she might not have answer most of our questions? I am backlogged 10 or 20.

[peacegirl]

How is it humanly possible for him to desire lying to me or you when he is not being given the opportunity since his actions are not being judged; and how is it possible for him to make this effort to shift his responsibility when he knows that no one is holding him responsible?

 

In the world of free will man was able to absolve his conscience in a world of right and wrong and get away with murder the very things our new knowledge that man's will is not free positively prevents. We can now see how the confusion of words and the inability to perceive certain type relations have compelled many thinkers who could not get beyond this impasse to assume, as Durant did, that if man knew his will was not free it would give him a perfect opportunity to take advantage of this knowledge."

[Smokinjoe9]

If someone does what everybody considers right as opposed to wrong, that is, if this person acts in a manner that pleases everybody, is it possible to blame him for doing what society expects of him? This isn't a trick question, so don't look so puzzled. If your boss tells you that he wants something done a certain way and you never fail to do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you for doing what he wants you to do?"

 

"No, it is not possible. I agree."

 

"Consequently, if you can't be blamed for doing what is right, then it should be obvious that you can only be blamed for doing something judged wrong, is that right?"

 

"I agree with this."

 

I do not agree with this and never will....

It is easily possible for your boss to blame you for doing it wrong even though you are doing what he says, especially if he/she has more than one personality. It could just depend on mood...

[peacegirl]

"I am still not satisfied with the explanation. If it was not for our penal code what is to prevent man from taking more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered? Furthermore, what is to stop him from satisfying his desires to his heart's content when he knows there will be no consequences or explanations necessary?

 

In the previous example it is obvious that the boy who spilled the milk cannot desire to shift the blame when he knows his parents are not going to question what he did, but why should this prevent him from spilling the milk every day if it gives him a certain satisfaction to watch it seep into the rug? Besides, if the father just spent $1000 for carpeting, how is it humanly possible for him to say absolutely nothing when the milk was not carelessly but deliberately spilled?"

[peacegirl]

"These are thoughtful questions but they are like asking if it is mathematically impossible for man to do something what would you do if it is done? How is it possible for B (the father) to retaliate when it is impossible for B to be hurt? Contained in this question is an assumption that deliberate and careless hurt will continue. As we proceed with this investigation you will understand more clearly why the desire to hurt another will be completely prevented by this natural law."

 

"Even though I cannot disagree with anything you said so far, I still don't understand how or why this should prevent man from stealing more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered; and how is it humanly possible for those he steals from and hurts in other ways to excuse his conduct?"

[bumab]

Could we get a consensus that she might not have answer most of our questions? I am backlogged 10 or 20.

 

I'd vote for that, and I'd like to say they are at the beginning of the queue :circle:

 

But hey- any answer is a good start.

[peacegirl]

"We are right back where we were before, the fiery dragon – but not for long. Now tell me, would you agree that if I did something to hurt you, you would be justified to retaliate?"

 

"I certainly would be justified."

 

"And we also have agreed that this is the principle of ‘an eye for an eye', correct."

 

"Correct."

 

"Which means that this principle, ‘an eye for an eye', does not concern itself with preventing the first blow from being struck but only with justifying punishment or retaliation, is this also true?"

 

"Yes it is."

[peacegirl]

"And the principle of ‘turning the other cheek'; doesn't this concern itself with preventing the second cheek from being struck, not the first cheek?"

 

"That is absolutely true."

 

"Therefore, our only concern is in preventing the desire to strike this first blow, for then, if this can be accomplished, our problem is solved. If the first cheek is not struck, there is no need to retaliate or turn the other side of our face. Is this hard to understand?"

 

"It's very easy, in fact. I am not a college graduate, and I can even see that relation."

[bumab]

How about a summary (a generous one):

 

We have free will.

Since we can only do what's best for us, our will is constrained.

A constrained will is not free.

We do not have free will.

Since we do not have free will, we cannot blame others for what they've done wrong.

Since we are no longer blaming people, we are doing what's best for the world and us.

Back to line 2.

 

Repeat indefinitly.

[peacegirl]

"Let us further understand that in order for you to strike this first blow of hurt, assuming that what is and what is not a hurt has already been established (don't jump to conclusions), you would have to be taking a certain amount of risk, that is, you would be risking the possibility of retaliation or punishment, is that correct?"

 

"Not if I planned a perfect crime."

 

"The most you can do with your plans is reduce the element of risk, but the fact that somebody was hurt by what you did does not take away his desire to strike a blow of retaliation. He doesn't know who to blame but if he did, you could expect that he would desire to strike back.

[peacegirl]

Consequently, his desire to retaliate ‘an eye for an eye' is an undeniable condition of our present world as is also your awareness that there is this element of risk involved, however small. This means that whenever you do anything at all that is risky you are prepared to pay a price for the satisfaction of certain desires.

 

You may risk going to jail, getting hanged or electrocuted, shot, beaten up, losing your eye and tooth, or being criticized, reprimanded, spanked, scolded, ostracized or what have you, but this is the price you are willing to risk or pay in order to satisfy certain desires. Can you disagree with this?"