New discovery

[peacegirl]

Actually, it shows how poorly you explain.This is not a law of nature. It is a hypothesis (if we are speaking English). And your hypothesis is not proven.

 

There are other hypotheses (such as classic determinism) that are also not proven, but are at odds with your hypothesis. Neither your hypothesis nor classic determinism are disproven (except for the nuances of doubt sown by quantum mechanics). So, which of these non-disproven hypotheses is better?

 

I am not going to squabble over definitions of determinism. You could have thousands but none of them hold the key to peace because they are conjecture only. The only one that is valid is the one that can be proven in reality. Definitions mean absolutely nothing unless they reflect what is real.

[Biochemist]

If I feel that what someone says might be helpful, I will be more than happy to apply their ideas, but if I believe it will cause more confusion, I will have to decline not because I am not listening but because I don't think it will work.

I don't think that any approach could possibly cause more confusion than the path you are following. You are apparently oblivious to the lack of clarity and structure in your text.

 

Can you post a SINGLE ONE PARAGRAPH POST with the "discovery" in it? If you cannot, I will assume you are making this up, or do not understand the discovery yourself.

[infamous]

I never said you were dense; but I do believe the information contradicts so much of what we have been taught that sometimes people fail to absorb what they are reading. This is not anyone's fault. I am just hoping the barrier that prevents you from understanding can be broken through. I also believe that Chapter Three would clear things up for you. It is a short chapter but it shows how careless accidents must come to an end when these principles become a part of the environment. But I would be afraid to ask permission. I would probably be clobbered. :shrug:

Ya know peacegirl, I believe that you are really a loving person. I would also like the world to be a place where everyone could respond to others with respect and consideration. You must truly be a sweet individual for being so persistant with this utopian viewpoint. I think if we were all to meet you in person, not a one of us would find you unpleasant. But trying to discuss this topic with you over this forum is becoming more and more difficult with each passing moment. Remember just one suggestion, I'm certain it will help improve this situation. Try to become a part of the discussion and give up trying to lead everyone into something they refuse to accept. You will have more luck getting favorable responses.

[Biochemist]

I am not going to squabble over definitions of determinism. You could have thousands but none of them hold the key to peace because they are conjecture only. The only one that is valid is the one that can be proven in reality. Definitions mean absolutely nothing unless they reflect what is real.

Let me be clear for you:

 

WE ARE NOT SQUABBLING OVER DEFINITIONS!!!!! (Was that clear?)

 

What I said was YOUR POSITION IS A HYPOTHESIS, not a fact-based discovery. Further

 

YOU HAVE NOT EVEN OFFERED A PROOF FOR ANYTHING. (Was that clear?)

 

I am about to give up.

[Biochemist]

...Try to become a part of the discussion and give up trying to lead everyone into something they refuse to accept. You will have more luck getting favorable responses.

Interesting, Inf. I am frankly not even to the point yet of acceptance/rejection. I am just trying to figure out what PG is saying. Some of this stuff is so inarticulate, that it looks like Hare Krishna chants. I went back through some of the posts, and I found (quickly) a couple of dozen sentences, that are impossible to interpret in normal English. It is the appearance-of-complexity through convoluted style that irritates me. I thik that easily half of the posts could be completely deleted and it would ADD clarity.

 

It reminds me of editing documents that were written by young staff guys at one of my previous consulting firms. They would come in with a three page document, and I would edit it down to six sentences. I would ask them to iidentify anything missing in my six sentences. They (of course) couldn't.

 

Those kids were trainable. The evidence suggests that PG is not.

[infamous]

Let me be clear for you:

 

WE ARE NOT SQUABBLING OVER DEFINITIONS!!!!! (Was that clear?)

 

What I said was YOUR POSITION IS A HYPOTHESIS, not a fact-based discovery. Further

 

YOU HAVE NOT EVEN OFFERED A PROOF FOR ANYTHING. (Was that clear?)

 

I am about to give up.

Hang in there Bio. peacegirl is at heart interested in a better world. I believe that if she gets to know us here at Hypography a little better, she will find her place. There is just a lack of understanding on both sides of the isle. I was ready to give up on her a while ago, but I decided to stick with it a little longer because I believe that her desire is an honest one.

[bumab]

I too think PG is trying to share something that's inherently pretty well intentioned. It's just a little misguided and innapropriate for the audience and format.

 

Actually, it reminds me of a lot of religous doctrines (as far as I've interpreted it :shrug:). Mankind can't help but do evil sometimes. Realizing that, we have no reason to retaliate, and in fact have more reason to forgive.

 

But hell, I've tried to sum it up a couple times. I could be way off from PG's intentions....

[infamous]

Interesting, Inf. I am frankly not even to the point yet of acceptance/rejection. I am just trying to figure out what PG is saying. Some of this stuff is so inarticulate, that it looks like Hare Krishna chants. I went back through some of the posts, and I found (quickly) a couple of dozen sentences, that are impossible to interpret in normal English. It is the appearance-of-complexity through convoluted style that irritates me. I thik that easily half of the posts could be completely deleted and it would ADD clarity.

 

It reminds me of editing documents that were written by young staff guys at one of my previous consulting firms. They would come in with a three page document, and I would edit it down to six sentences. I would ask them to iidentify anything missing in my six sentences. They (of course) couldn't.

 

Those kids were trainable. The evidence suggests that PG is not.

You may be right Bio. but I'm willing to give her some more time to sort things out. I like you find her posts very incoherent at best, but I think she has a good heart.

[Biochemist]

Hang in there Bio. peacegirl is at heart interested in a better world. I believe that if she gets to know us here at Hypography a little better, she will find her place. There is just a lack of understanding on both sides of the isle. I was ready to give up on her a while ago, but I decided to stick with it a little longer because I believe that her desire is an honest one.

You are a good man, Inf.

[infamous]

You are a good man, Inf.

Not so Bio. any goodness that I may demonstrate comes from a much higher source than myself.

[peacegirl]

I don't think that any approach could possibly cause more confusion than the path you are following. You are apparently oblivious to the lack of clarity and structure in your text.

 

Can you post a SINGLE ONE PARAGRAPH POST with the "discovery" in it? If you cannot, I will assume you are making this up, or do not understand the discovery yourself.

 

The first chapter in my book explains why man's will is not free. The second chapter explains the two-sided equation which is the discovery. It is two-sided. The first side is the understanding that we cannot blame anyone for what they do once the truth of our nature is understood. The other side of the equation is that nothing can cause someone to commit a crime for over this he has mathematical control. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink (but this does not mean man's will is free).

 

It works like this: Knowing IN ADVANCE (which is the key) that no one in the world will blame you for striking a first blow, prevents your desire to strike it. The thought of hurting someone, knowing in advance that no one would strike back in retaliation (even though someone might be terribly hurt), does not give a person any satisfaction. Remember, you have not committed the crime yet. You are still contemplating whether it is worth the risk. The reason we get satisfaction in the world of free will is because we can pay a price if caught which justifies the act. But in the new world, even if everyone watched you commit a crime right in view, they would not blame you because they know your will is not free and you cannot help yourself. But you know you can help yourself because nothing can make you hurt someone if you choose not to.

 

When all blame is removed; when no one will ever accuse you for doing what you know is a hurt to someone else (a first blow), and you also know that there is no price to be paid because the world does not hold you responsible, but you know you would be responsible because you don't have to hurt someone this way if you don't want to, (and you cannot shift the blame away from yourself for the same reason), creates a situation that is unbearable to even contemplate. No one wants to feel the weight of guilt knowing that he cannot justify what he did to hurt someone. He can't even lie to himself when no one blaming him. How can he excuse what he has done when no one is holding him responsible?

 

In other words, hurting someone knowing they will never hold you responsible even though you know you are responsible cannot be justified. Remember, we can only move in one direction and that is toward greater satisfaction, and we cannot get greater satisfaction in hurting someone when not hurting them becomes the better alternative.

[peacegirl]

You are a good man, Inf.

 

Thank you so much for hanging in there. You made me smile. :shrug:

[peacegirl]

I too think PG is trying to share something that's inherently pretty well intentioned. It's just a little misguided and innapropriate for the audience and format.

 

Actually, it reminds me of a lot of religous doctrines (as far as I've interpreted it :shrug:). Mankind can't help but do evil sometimes. Realizing that, we have no reason to retaliate, and in fact have more reason to forgive.

 

But hell, I've tried to sum it up a couple times. I could be way off from PG's intentions....

 

Why is this not the right audience. I think you guys are perfect because you have the capacity for understanding if you just bear with me. The format? Well, I can't help being a little longer than is desired but as I said before, I cannot sacrifice clarity for brevity.

 

This is not a religious doctrine at all. "Though we would all like to see an end to evil there are two issues that need to be considered. No one could be pleased if their source of income was taken away as well as the very thing that gives meaning to their existence. Doctors are sincerely interested in making their patients well, but they want to be the ones to do it. Religion would like to see us delivered from evil, but in some manner that confirms what has been looked for – Judgment Day.

 

The Chinese government would like to see an end to all evil, but in terms of communism. Is it possible for the supporters of socialism and communism to relinquish the thought that they are right, when they think they are not wrong? Politicians would like to see an end to all evil, but they want to find the solution. Would it be possible for the leaders of capitalism to willingly resign their jobs when they think their services are no longer required?

 

How is it humanly possible for the organizations that fight for peace, for health, for security, those that wage a war against the evils of humanity to be sincerely happy about the very removal of the things they need for their ultimate satisfaction? As we have seen, new knowledge is not always welcome when it comes from an outsider. Everybody would like to see a great change; "I have a dream" said Dr. Martin Luther King, "this view from the mountain top, but no one desires any intruders or interlopers."

[bumab]

Why is this not the right audience.

 

It's fine now that we are getting responses. The quick cut and paste with no regard to questions was inappropriate. Thanks for the response!

 

This is not a religious doctrine at all.

 

I didn't mean to say it was, simply that I saw a lot of similarities.

 

"Though we would all like to see an end to evil there are two issues that need to be considered. No one could be pleased if their source of income was taken away as well as the very thing that gives meaning to their existence. Doctors are sincerely interested in making their patients well, but they want to be the ones to do it. Religion would like to see us delivered from evil, but in some manner that confirms what has been looked for – Judgment Day.

 

I've heard this philosophy before, and it suffers from many flaws, not the least of which is the many doctors who truely WOULD like to see an end to sickness, and only treat it because they recognize they are well-equiped to help. By your account, if sickness began to disappear, doctors would run around getting people sick, just so they would have somebody to treat!

 

How is it humanly possible for the organizations that fight for peace, for health, for security, those that wage a war against the evils of humanity to be sincerely happy about the very removal of the things they need for their ultimate satisfaction?

 

Only if you define somebodies ultimate satisfaction as being that fight. You've made the leap from "people follow their personal satisfaction in all things" to "people's personal satisfaction is their occupation." It's self-conflicting. As soon as the good guys start winning, they would become the bad guys so they (as good guys) are still needed.

 

Am I misunderstanding?

[Smokinjoe9]

It works like this: Knowing IN ADVANCE (which is the key) that no one in the world will blame you for striking a first blow, prevents your desire to strike it. The thought of hurting someone, knowing in advance that no one would strike back in retaliation (even though someone might be terribly hurt), does not give a person any satisfaction. Remember, you have not committed the crime yet. You are still contemplating whether it is worth the risk.

 

This is a good summary, I understand this summary, I disagree with this summary, but it is a good starting point for the understanding of the idea..

[Buffy]

This is still facinating to read. At 5.5 posts PER HOUR to this thread now, its a little hard to even keep up, but I'll throw in my encouragement to you all to continue!

 

Lurking in wonder,

Buffy

[Smokinjoe9]

Remember, you have not committed the crime yet. You are still contemplating whether it is worth the risk.

 

Herein, lies one of the first problems with this idea.....To contemplate risk gives way to hurting/not hurting, am I wrong?