New discovery

[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.

 

This is a statement that must be proven, and has already been disproven by studying the human mind. It is a fact that causing pain causes some people to feel better, they are working on medication for this though..

 

Your ideas are admirable, and someday they may come into effect..

 

As I see it, this body of work is to confusing even for the general public, it must be easily understandable or it will never come to be. People want to understand, but get more and more frustrated when they can't..

[Biochemist]

This is good PG. I personally think you should have put this in post #1, and skipped the remaing several hundred posts

... man's will is not free.... the two-sided ... discovery. ...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.

This is the first non-sequitur. You are saying that people cannot be blamed for their actions, and yet, they have control over them. (And this is NOT mathematical- it is distracting to add that into the discussion). You are positing that people have control but not responsiblity. This would be characterized as an antinomy by most folks. Are you acknowledging this is an antinomy or are you suggesting this is a rational sequitur?

...Knowing IN ADVANCE ...that no one in the world will blame you for striking a first blow, prevents your desire to strike it.

This is experientially untrue. There are many instances where people either will not be blamed or feel they will not be blamed, and yet they still strike the first blow. This seems to be the core of your thesis, and yet it is very difficult to support.

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.

We have lots of examples of people that acted differently. Saddam Hussein. The spectators in the Roman Colliseum. Hitler's camp guards...

...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 there are certainly people who see the decrease in "price" as incremental justification, not as a preclusion to aggression. The previous list comes to mind.

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.

(Emphasis added) I cannot make these two sentences make sense in English. You are saying that I cannot help myself, and that I can help myself. Explain please.

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,...creates a situation that is unbearable to even contemplate.

Back to my list above. These folks seemed to actually enjoy horors too horrible for most folks to contemplate.

No one wants to feel the weight of guilt knowing that he cannot justify what he did to hurt someone.

Assuming they feel guit at all. Hussein? Hitler?

...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.

We seem to have hundreds (thousands?) of historical examples of people that got significant positive personal feedback from causing hurt to others. Why would you contend this will go away?

[infamous]

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.

I must have missed this post earlier so I would like to respond to your claim that this is the first honest thing you have heard me say. I would really like for you to retract that comment as everyting that I have written was done in complete honestly. I really don't like being called a liar, maybe you meant something else? Please clarify your use of the word "honest". I will be happy to let this go if you can explain how you may have in some way misspoke.

[Smokinjoe9]

We seem to have hundreds (thousands?) of historical examples of people that got significant positive personal feedback from causing hurt to others. Why would you contend this will go away?

 

My point exactly. The idea is inconsistant with history. which is neither here nor there, history is always in the making, but, inflicting pain will always be a part of history, it is the opposite of not inflicting pain..

[peacegirl]

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!

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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!

 

 

 

 

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?

 

The medical profession is going to change to an amazing degree. Many doctors justify procedures and surgeries on the grounds that they are absolutely necessary. But you are in for a big surprise! The changes that take place prevent the doctors from taking any unnecessary chances unless the patient's life is in danger or if by not doing the procedure or administering the medicine, the patient will surely get worse. If a doctor cannot justify this to himself, he will not be able to prescribe. But another wonderful change takes place. No one will lose his income once the transition gets underway (the economic system will be completely different), so the doctors will not have to be dishonest with themselves and others in order to earn a living.

 

 

In answer to your second question, people are not always honest when they say they want peace especially if they have a different view as to how peace is going to arrive. If they are in a field that fights for peace and justice, and someone else comes along and says they have the answer, it is not as welcome as you would think because it would be taking away what gives meaning to their life. That is all he meant by that.

[bumab]

In answer to your second question, people are not always honest when they say they want peace especially if they have a different view as to how peace is going to arrive. If they are in a field that fights for peace and justice, and someone else comes along and says they have the answer, it is not as welcome as you would think because it would be taking away what gives meaning to their life. That is all he meant by that.

 

I figured that would be the response. What reason do you have for accepting "his" (yours?) voice over the voice of those in those professions? Why should we take you at your word and not their's at theirs?

[infamous]

My point exactly. The idea is inconsistant with history. which is neither here nor there, history is always in the making, but, inflicting pain will always be a part of history, it is the opposite of not inflicting pain..

Very true Smokinjoe9; that's why serial killers will always be a sad fact in modern society. If one were to read this thread, I think they would get a real kick out of it. I truly wish that the lofty ideals that peacegirl has presented were possible, but to the contrary, it's foolish to think humans will, on their own, ever reach such goals.

[peacegirl]

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

 

This is a hypothetical situation because in the new world no one will ever contemplate hurting someone with a first blow. I am using this as an example to show you that once all blame is removed from the environment, and everyone knows in advance that they will not be blamed for anything, even if they kill someone, because the world knows man's will is not free, they cannot move in the direction. It is impossible to even take a chance of hurting someone under these conditions.

[infamous]

peacegirl would you please respond to my post number 394.

[peacegirl]

I figured that would be the response. What reason do you have for accepting "his" (yours?) voice over the voice of those in those professions? Why should we take you at your word and not their's at theirs?

 

I do not expect you to take my word for anything. I want you to see the reasoning for yourself so you can make your own decision. Ego is a serious problem and the higher up someone is in a leadership position the more he will be threatened by new knowledge. This is unfortunate because it is preventing this knowledge from coming to light.

[Fishteacher73]

Very true Smokinjoe9; that's why serial killers will always be a sad fact in modern society. If one were to read this thread, I think they would get a real kick out of it. I truly wish that the lofty ideals that peacegirl has presented were possible, but to the contrary, it's foolish to think humans will, on their own, ever reach such goals.

Just an aside, but it reminded me about serial killers. In doing research I have found that they really are not that modern of a phenomenon. Just the modern record keeping and foresics have allowed us to identify these killers a bit easier today.

[Smokinjoe9]

In answer to your second question, people are not always honest when they say they want peace especially if they have a different view as to how peace is going to arrive. If they are in a field that fights for peace and justice, and someone else comes along and says they have the answer, it is not as welcome as you would think because it would be taking away what gives meaning to their life. That is all he meant by that.

 

This is what we need to get past....lying is the opposite of the truth, right?

For the idea purposed, I would guess there needs to be a balancing of the scales(so to speak), is there one?

[infamous]

Please respond to my post 394.

[peacegirl]

This is a statement that must be proven, and has already been disproven by studying the human mind. It is a fact that causing pain causes some people to feel better, they are working on medication for this though..

 

Your ideas are admirable, and someday they may come into effect..

 

As I see it, this body of work is to confusing even for the general public, it must be easily understandable or it will never come to be. People want to understand, but get more and more frustrated when they can't..

 

What someone likes or dislikes will be entire up to them. If they want to jump off the Empire State Building it will be their business, no one elses. But the causes that would lead someone to want to do this are being removed. The causes of mental illness in general will no longer be present. It is difficult to envision such a world when it is so far removed from what we experience today, but it's coming.

 

I specifically state in the foreword that this book must be read at a snail's pace over and over again. Not just the first two chapters. As you read the book through, you will get a much better idea of how this knowledge can be easily put into practice. But science has to study it or it will be lost. It will take people like you and me and others to help spread the word. I can't do it alone.

[infamous]

peacegirl please respond to my post 394.

[peacegirl]

This is a statement that must be proven, and has already been disproven by studying the human mind. It is a fact that causing pain causes some people to feel better, they are working on medication for this though..

 

Your ideas are admirable, and someday they may come into effect..

 

As I see it, this body of work is to confusing even for the general public, it must be easily understandable or it will never come to be. People want to understand, but get more and more frustrated when they can't..

 

If someone wants to jump off the Empire State Building this will be his choice, although the causes that make someone want to do this are being removed. Mental illness in general will not be pressent. I know it is difficult envisioning such a world because it is so far removed from what we now experience, but it is on its way.

 

This knowledge is really not that difficult to understand if you study it carefully. Until scientists thoroughly analyze this work for authenticity, it will remain undiscovered. I hope that doesn't happen. It will take word of mouth to speed things up.

[peacegirl]

peacegirl please respond to my post 394.

 

What page is it on? I am not that great with computers yet.