New discovery

[infamous]

IMO most of PG post are cut and paste from "the work" that she seems intyent on compliling and selling. She believes it but cannot debate it because they are not her ideas and possibly does not understand the ramifications of some of here concluded "undeniable facts" that are incorect. This is about as informative as getiibg a visit from the Jehova Witnesses. The evidence essentially boils down to "It's like I said eventhough I have no evidence to support it. It's in the book.".

I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head Fish, maybe the reason peacegirl continues to ask us to answer our own questions is because she doesn't really quite understand the concept well enough herself.

[peacegirl]

I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head Fish, maybe the reason peacegirl continues to ask us to answer our own questions is because she doesn't really quite understand the concept well enough herself.

 

Good try Infamous, but it won't work. I know what this man has. You seem to know as much about this knowledge as I do so explain what you disagree with. Point out where this author is wrong. That is not asking too much. I am not asking something that is unfair. After all, you are the one that is so sure he has nothing of value. So the least you can do is explain your position.

[Fishteacher73]

So the least you can do is explain your position.

 

An interesting idea.....

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl; We all would like a friendly discussion, not a lecture. If I may make a suggestion; Try a question and answer session, a few one liners and wait for some response. You will have much more success if you try to join in the discussion instead of trying to lead it. We understand that you are quite convinced and you have that right. Just try listening for a change, I'm sure you also have something to learn. A very intelligent man once said "say what you have to say in the least number of words you can organize and still make your point, you might get someone listen". And be ready to answer questions instead of trying to avoid them by telling us that we must find answers to our own questions.

 

How can I explain something new unless I lead the conversation. What you say doesn't make sense. As I said earlier, this is not an equal give and take. I have something to explain before there can be an objective discussion. I will discuss anything about this discovery with anyone but they can't just tell me I don't have a discovery. That is similar to the people who said it was impossible that a plane can get off the ground. Who cares what people said; it did not change the fact that they were wrong. The only problem is that until the truth was known by scientists, airplanes would still be in the rudimentary stages of development, if at all. What am I supposed to do? I am willing to answer questions just as I have been. I answered everyone so far unless I missed one by accident.

 

I am trying to be brief but if it compromises the content, I must sacrifice briefness for clarity. Just because I have something to say of import which requires me to post my thoughts doesn't cause me to have a deaf ear. In fact, I am a very careful listener and so far nobody has explained what the discovery is, yet they are very quick to judge what they don't understand.

[infamous]

Good try Infamous, but it won't work. I know what this man has. You seem to know as much about this knowledge as I do so explain what you disagree with. Point out where this author is wrong. That is not asking too much. I am not asking something that is unfair. After all, you are the one that is so sure he has nothing of value. So the least you can do is explain your position.

OK peacegirl, here is my position. First point; I have already stated that I agree with determinism as you also do. Nothing new here, I just arrive at my opinion from a different angle than you do. The whole point of dissagreement is your title,"New Discovery". There is absolutely nothing new about it. If you think the members of this forum were just born yesterday, you have a lot to learn. I've given you some wise suggestions but all you want to do is argue. I recommend again that this thread be moved to the strange claims forum.

[peacegirl]

An interesting idea.....

 

Fish, go back and reread my posts, especially the second half, and you will find the answer.

I will not bore people by explaining the same thing again. I was already told I am too repetitive. It is up to you to read what I already explained. I am sure you will answer your own questions.

[peacegirl]

IMO most of PG post are cut and paste from "the work" that she seems intyent on compliling and selling. She believes it but cannot debate it because they are not her ideas and possibly does not understand the ramifications of some of here concluded "undeniable facts" that are incorect. This is about as informative as getiibg a visit from the Jehova Witnesses. The evidence essentially boils down to "It's like I said eventhough I have no evidence to support it. It's in the book.".

 

How can anyone explain something so intricate that it can change human relations and just use question and answer format before it is explained? I really hope you are joking. This is very disturbing to me. I do give proof; if you can't find the proof that is because you were not looking or maybe because you have too many theories that are conflicting in your mind to allow you to even see what is written. And do me a favor? Don't compare me with religious fanatics. I am not anything of the kind.

[peacegirl]

Quite honored I'm sure. Look, I will read through it again, I promise. Maybe I missed something, or maybe I'm just not smart enough to get it. We can agree on determinism, right, or have I missunderstood that also?? If I have, maybe you need to restate your position in more simple terms. In some respects it's like reading in circles, that is not meant to be disrespectfull. It is just the truth, and I'm not the only one that has taken this position. Again, no disrespect intended, it is just very difficult to follow your line of thought.

 

Wow! That is the first honest thing I heard you say. I can understand that you might not have understood it the first time and I appreciate that you aren't giving up. After you reread it maybe one or two times, I will answer any questions. I will restate in different words anything that might have confused you. The only thing that would upset me is if you give up; you can ask me 100 questions but don't give up. That would be very sad in my eyes.

[peacegirl]

This is exactly how the authors of the Bible felt....Which by the way has a lot of the same premise in it.

 

It was clearly stated that Christ had incursions of thought when he said on the cross, "They know not what they do" but he did not know how to stop people form hurting him by turning the other cheek. The difference between this knowledge and that of Ghandi and Christ was that they got struck on the first cheek before people eventually stopped the killings. This knowledge prevents the first cheek from being struck, thereby preventing the need to either turn the other cheek or strike back. In an age of atomic energy, this is very important because being struck on the first cheek could kill thousands if not millions.

[Fishteacher73]

If people do not understand the basis for your "discovery", delving deeper into it will not answer the questions... If someone does not understand basic clac, handing them a dif. eq. text will not help. There have been issues brought up with some of the steps that you have taken to arive at your position. You have used vague, misleading, or just plain erroneous selection of terms and expect those of us that accept the standard definitions of such to roll over and accept your new terms because you have said so.

The closest thing to evidence you have brought up is philisophical. Mental construct provide no evidence. This is a philisophical/metaphysical concept and you are trying to use misleading physics and ill applied science to support a slightly mutated concept that is centuries old.

 

The pseudo-determinism you purpose is that basically free-will flows down hill, so although it is free it cannot acvt in any other way. An intersting interpretation of free.

 

The lack of free will absolves blame. True, but punishment or fear of punishment can be a causitive agent and still applies as a valid recourse.

 

Then you transpose God and natural law...That may fly some places, but you will find much staunch oppostion to the equating the two as interchangebable here.

 

As stated earlier, ths is a discussion forum, not a pulpit or lecturn. The community here expects one to be able withsatnd the scrutiny and criticism on the basic scientific method.

[peacegirl]

I'm just asking a question here so don't get angry with me, OK? You say: "we are making an unconscious decision to move away from what dissatisfies us". How can we make a decision unconsciously about what is satisfying to us? Because what satisfies must by definition be a conscious act.

 

Once again, it just shows me how little you read. It specifically stated: It is easy, in many cases, to recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other times to comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of dissatisfaction. There are many subconscious factors at play that helps determine what gives someone greater satisfaction. The fact remains: whether conscious or subconscious we are moving away from that which dissatisfies toward that which satisfies. That is the law of our nature and it cannot be disproven.

[Fishteacher73]

The fact remains: whether conscious or subconscious we are moving away from that which dissatisfies toward that which satisfies. That is the law of our nature and it cannot be disproven.

 

Sounds a bit like objecivism...

[peacegirl]

Man will invent new ways to shift the blame even if you take away all presently known ways.

 

Infamous, how can man shift the blame when he is not being accused? Try it. It can't be done.

[Fishteacher73]

I blame my ex all the time... She puts me in the most fantastic moods... There is no accusation. I blame the dog when I step in poop. There is no accusation. They are the causative factors.

[infamous]

I blame my ex all the time... She puts me in the most fantastic moods... There is no accusation. I blame the dog when I step in poop. There is no accusation. They are the causative factors.

Exactly Fish; How can anyone live in this world without scrutinizing their own actions and also the actions of others. Must I walk around with a smile on my face when I really feel like frowning. In the real world, people react to circumstances with a great deal of predictabilty. You step on my toes and I'm liable to step right back. This is a law of humanity that can't be easly changed. Slap me on one cheek and I'm just going to stand there, I think not. It may be the right thing to do but your not going to get many people to react this way. Frankly, to satisfy my self, I think I'll be moving from A to B. If you'll read between the lines Fish, I think you'll get my drift.

[Biochemist]

What is at odds with the dictionary besides my explanation of determinism?

I have posted a number of items already, but this would be a partial list of words you use repeatedly in a context that confuses me:

 

1) Undeniable- You use" undeniable" in context where you are making a logical assertion. In some cases the assertion is reasonable, but still clearly an opinion. None of the contexts I saw were incontrovertible (which is what I think you meant when you said undeniable)

2) Mathematical- You use this to mean (I think) logical. Many of the examples were not even clearly logical consequences. In some cases they were logical possibilities.

3) Discovery- You talk repeatedly about this "discovery", and describe it as a new thought. A thought is not a discovery. It can be a postulate, an assertion, an opinion, or a hypothesis, but not a discovery

4) Knolwedge- You keep describing this body of thought as knowledge. It might be a theory or a hypothesis, or even a body of thought, but not knowledge.

 

I don't think you ever responded to my request to identify how my summary in post 198 was incorrect. You responded once and said it was wrong (except step one), but never said why.

[Biochemist]

Once again, it just shows me how little you read. ...

PG- I would prefer it if you stop saying this. The volume of stuff you posted is, frankly, mostly unintelliglble, and poorly internally consistent. It is reasonable for folks to ask for clarification. I remain convinced that all of the text you posted could have been easily consolidated into two pages. Give us some credit for attempting to plow through this poorly written text.