“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[bilby]

The basic theme in all the books appears to be I HAVE MADE A GREAT DISCOVERY, ME!!! It will transform the world. The dogmatic science is gettng in the way of my great discvery beng reveqaled.

As I said the claim of a revealed great secret knowledge is common throughout history.

His claim was that it will transform the world within 25 years.

Lessans has now been dead for 35 years. It's beginning to look as though his predictions were slightly less mathematically certain than he claimed.

 

[peacegirl]

I can't stop a duck from quacking.

An objective look.

 

[peacegirl]

The basic theme in all the books appears to be I HAVE MADE A GREAT DISCOVERY, ME!!! It will transform the world. The dogmatic science is gettng in the way of my great discvery beng reveqaled.

As I said the claim of a revealed great secret knowledge is common throughout history.

His claim was that it will transform the world within 25 years.

Lessans has now been dead for 35 years. It's beginning to look as though his predictions were slightly less mathematically certain than he claimed.

You missed the front matter.

Please understand that when the 20th century is mentioned, it is referring to the period when this finding was first uncovered. The prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken place. Although it has been more than 60 years, no such investigation has been conducted, and, to this day, this discovery remains in obscurity. Due to the time lapse since the book’s last printing, additional contemporary examples have been added to demonstrate how these principles apply to the current state of the world, but please rest assured that the core of the discovery has not been altered in any way and is explained in the author’s own words. Although some of the references are dated, the knowledge itself couldn’t be timelier. For purposes of consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the book. No discrimination was intended.

 

[pood]

I can't stop a duck from quacking.

An objective look.

The rules here are you are supposed to summarize the crappy lying videos you post. Also, what does your latest crap about diet doing in this thread? Are you desperately trying to change the subject again? (Answer: yes, obviously.)

 

[peacegirl]

I can't stop a duck from quacking.

An objective look.

The rules here are you are supposed to summarize the crappy lying videos you post. Also, what does your latest crap about diet doing in this thread? Are you desperately trying to change the subject again? (Answer: yes, obviously.)

I was responding to unapologetic, which I'm entitled to do. How do you know it's a crappy video if you haven't listened to it? Basically, he is giving the good and bad of a carnivore diet. He was being objective. Isn't that what you want?

 

[pood]

I can't stop a duck from quacking.

An objective look.

The rules here are you are supposed to summarize the crappy lying videos you post. Also, what does your latest crap about diet doing in this thread? Are you desperately trying to change the subject again? (Answer: yes, obviously.)

I was responding to unapologetic, which I'm entitled to do. How do you know it's a crappy video if you haven't listened to it? Basically, he is giving the good and bad of a carnivore diet. He was being objective. Isn't that what you want?

You are supposed to provide a summary in your own words of videos that you post.

But I understand. You can’t even explain in your own words your writer’s argument on free will and determinism. It is too much for you.

If anyone wants to eat a carnivore diet or a “lion diet,” go for it. But humans are omnivores, not carnivores, and we are certainly not lions.

I will happily continue to eat tons of fruits and vegetables.

Why are you posting this stuff in this thread?

 

[peacegirl]

I can't stop a duck from quacking.

An objective look.

The rules here are you are supposed to summarize the crappy lying videos you post. Also, what does your latest crap about diet doing in this thread? Are you desperately trying to change the subject again? (Answer: yes, obviously.)

I was responding to unapologetic, which I'm entitled to do. How do you know it's a crappy video if you haven't listened to it? Basically, he is giving the good and bad of a carnivore diet. He was being objective. Isn't that what you want?

You are supposed to provide a summary in your own words of videos that you post.

But I understand. You can’t even explain in your own words your writer’s argument on free will and determinism. It is too much for you.

Who are you fooling? After all this time, I've bent over backwards trying to get you to see that indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism. Compatibilism is a bait and switch effort to define free will in a way that makes free will appear compatible with determinism, but it fails because free will implies that we could have chosen otherwise after it was made, which is impossible.

If anyone wants to eat a carnivore diet or a “lion diet,” go for it. But humans are omnivores, not carnivores, and we are certainly not lions.

I will happily continue to eat tons of fruits and vegetables.

Why are you posting this stuff in this thread?

Because conversations get diverted, especially when there's no progress. I will also eat fruits and veggies but many people do well on this kind of diet, probably because they eliminated a lot of junk food as well.

 

[unapologetic]

I was responding to unapologetic,

No need. what you say has lost all credibility for me.
I asked nothing, nor said nothing about the carnivore diet. You are talking to yourself. Seek help.

 

[peacegirl]

I was responding to unapologetic,

No need. what you say has lost all credibility for me.
I asked nothing, nor said nothing about the carnivore diet. You are talking to yourself. Seek help.

Sorry to disturb you.

 

[DBT]

I can't stop a duck from quacking.

An objective look.

The rules here are you are supposed to summarize the crappy lying videos you post. Also, what does your latest crap about diet doing in this thread? Are you desperately trying to change the subject again? (Answer: yes, obviously.)

I was responding to unapologetic, which I'm entitled to do. How do you know it's a crappy video if you haven't listened to it? Basically, he is giving the good and bad of a carnivore diet. He was being objective. Isn't that what you want?

You are supposed to provide a summary in your own words of videos that you post.

But I understand. You can’t even explain in your own words your writer’s argument on free will and determinism. It is too much for you.

Who are you fooling? After all this time, I've bent over backwards trying to get you to see that indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism. Compatibilism is a bait and switch effort to define free will in a way that makes free will appear compatible with determinism, but it fails because free will implies that we could have chosen otherwise after it was made, which is impossible.

If anyone wants to eat a carnivore diet or a “lion diet,” go for it. But humans are omnivores, not carnivores, and we are certainly not lions.

I will happily continue to eat tons of fruits and vegetables.

Why are you posting this stuff in this thread?

Because conversations get diverted, especially when there's no progress. I will also eat fruits and veggies but many people do well on this kind of diet, probably because they eliminated a lot of junk food as well.

There is no progress because the claim of 'light at the eye/ instant vision" has no merit.

As for the idea of modified determinism, I still haven't seen a rational description of it, or how it may bring about world peace.

 

[steve_bank]

I think the cure for war is more fiber in the diet.

Global constipation makes people grouchy.

This is the greatest discovery of all time. The proof is the fact that it is written by me in my post.

 

[peacegirl]

I can't stop a duck from quacking.

An objective look.

The rules here are you are supposed to summarize the crappy lying videos you post. Also, what does your latest crap about diet doing in this thread? Are you desperately trying to change the subject again? (Answer: yes, obviously.)

I was responding to unapologetic, which I'm entitled to do. How do you know it's a crappy video if you haven't listened to it? Basically, he is giving the good and bad of a carnivore diet. He was being objective. Isn't that what you want?

You are supposed to provide a summary in your own words of videos that you post.

But I understand. You can’t even explain in your own words your writer’s argument on free will and determinism. It is too much for you.

Who are you fooling? After all this time, I've bent over backwards trying to get you to see that indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism. Compatibilism is a bait and switch effort to define free will in a way that makes free will appear compatible with determinism, but it fails because free will implies that we could have chosen otherwise after it was made, which is impossible.

If anyone wants to eat a carnivore diet or a “lion diet,” go for it. But humans are omnivores, not carnivores, and we are certainly not lions.

I will happily continue to eat tons of fruits and vegetables.

Why are you posting this stuff in this thread?

Because conversations get diverted, especially when there's no progress. I will also eat fruits and veggies but many people do well on this kind of diet, probably because they eliminated a lot of junk food as well.

There is no progress because the claim of 'light at the eye/ instant vision" has no merit.

But it really does have merit! You just can’t visualize it yet. Bear in mind that light travels and the photons are constantly replaced, but the absorption and reflection of the object do not.

As for the idea of modified determinism, I still haven't seen a rational description of it, or how it may bring about world peace.

Then you didn’t read the first three chapters. Since you know this has to do with the corollary that goes with having no free will, jump to Chapter Three, which will give you some idea of how this principle works.

 

[DBT]

I can't stop a duck from quacking.

An objective look.

The rules here are you are supposed to summarize the crappy lying videos you post. Also, what does your latest crap about diet doing in this thread? Are you desperately trying to change the subject again? (Answer: yes, obviously.)

I was responding to unapologetic, which I'm entitled to do. How do you know it's a crappy video if you haven't listened to it? Basically, he is giving the good and bad of a carnivore diet. He was being objective. Isn't that what you want?

You are supposed to provide a summary in your own words of videos that you post.

But I understand. You can’t even explain in your own words your writer’s argument on free will and determinism. It is too much for you.

Who are you fooling? After all this time, I've bent over backwards trying to get you to see that indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism. Compatibilism is a bait and switch effort to define free will in a way that makes free will appear compatible with determinism, but it fails because free will implies that we could have chosen otherwise after it was made, which is impossible.

If anyone wants to eat a carnivore diet or a “lion diet,” go for it. But humans are omnivores, not carnivores, and we are certainly not lions.

I will happily continue to eat tons of fruits and vegetables.

Why are you posting this stuff in this thread?

Because conversations get diverted, especially when there's no progress. I will also eat fruits and veggies but many people do well on this kind of diet, probably because they eliminated a lot of junk food as well.

There is no progress because the claim of 'light at the eye/ instant vision" has no merit.

But it really does have merit! You just can’t visualize it yet. Bear in mind that light travels and the photons are constantly replaced, but the absorption and reflection of the object do not.

As for the idea of modified determinism, I still haven't seen a rational description of it, or how it may bring about world peace.

Then you didn’t read the first three chapters. Since you know this has to do with the corollary that goes with having no free will, jump to Chapter Three, which will give you some idea of how this principle works.

I find the book to be problematic. Which is why I asked you to give a definition/description of the authors concept of determinism and how it may bring about world peace.

I asked several times, but have yet to see a clear definition of this modified form of determinism or how it could bring about world peace.

Maybe I missed it. If so, a summary or a link to the relevant post would be appreciated.

 

[peacegirl]

I can't stop a duck from quacking.

An objective look.

The rules here are you are supposed to summarize the crappy lying videos you post. Also, what does your latest crap about diet doing in this thread? Are you desperately trying to change the subject again? (Answer: yes, obviously.)

I was responding to unapologetic, which I'm entitled to do. How do you know it's a crappy video if you haven't listened to it? Basically, he is giving the good and bad of a carnivore diet. He was being objective. Isn't that what you want?

You are supposed to provide a summary in your own words of videos that you post.

But I understand. You can’t even explain in your own words your writer’s argument on free will and determinism. It is too much for you.

Who are you fooling? After all this time, I've bent over backwards trying to get you to see that indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism. Compatibilism is a bait and switch effort to define free will in a way that makes free will appear compatible with determinism, but it fails because free will implies that we could have chosen otherwise after it was made, which is impossible.

If anyone wants to eat a carnivore diet or a “lion diet,” go for it. But humans are omnivores, not carnivores, and we are certainly not lions.

I will happily continue to eat tons of fruits and vegetables.

Why are you posting this stuff in this thread?

Because conversations get diverted, especially when there's no progress. I will also eat fruits and veggies but many people do well on this kind of diet, probably because they eliminated a lot of junk food as well.

There is no progress because the claim of 'light at the eye/ instant vision" has no merit.

But it really does have merit! You just can’t visualize it yet. Bear in mind that light travels and the photons are constantly replaced, but the absorption and reflection of the object do not.

As for the idea of modified determinism, I still haven't seen a rational description of it, or how it may bring about world peace.

Then you didn’t read the first three chapters. Since you know this has to do with the corollary that goes with having no free will, jump to Chapter Three, which will give you some idea of how this principle works.

I find the book to be problematic. Which is why I asked you to give a definition/description of the authors concept of determinism and how it may bring about world peace.

I asked several times, but have yet to see a clear definition of this modified form of determinism or how it could bring about world peace.

Maybe I missed it. If so, a summary or a link to the relevant post would be appreciated.

DBT, I gave you a sample of how we can prevent careless behavior, and you let it slip by your fingers. If you can’t even meet me halfway by reading a few pages that would help you understand, there is nothing more I can do. You might as well exit this thread because it will go nowhere.

 

[pood]

I can't stop a duck from quacking.

An objective look.

The rules here are you are supposed to summarize the crappy lying videos you post. Also, what does your latest crap about diet doing in this thread? Are you desperately trying to change the subject again? (Answer: yes, obviously.)

I was responding to unapologetic, which I'm entitled to do. How do you know it's a crappy video if you haven't listened to it? Basically, he is giving the good and bad of a carnivore diet. He was being objective. Isn't that what you want?

You are supposed to provide a summary in your own words of videos that you post.

But I understand. You can’t even explain in your own words your writer’s argument on free will and determinism. It is too much for you.

Who are you fooling? After all this time, I've bent over backwards trying to get you to see that indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism. Compatibilism is a bait and switch effort to define free will in a way that makes free will appear compatible with determinism, but it fails because free will implies that we could have chosen otherwise after it was made, which is impossible.

If anyone wants to eat a carnivore diet or a “lion diet,” go for it. But humans are omnivores, not carnivores, and we are certainly not lions.

I will happily continue to eat tons of fruits and vegetables.

Why are you posting this stuff in this thread?

Because conversations get diverted, especially when there's no progress. I will also eat fruits and veggies but many people do well on this kind of diet, probably because they eliminated a lot of junk food as well.

There is no progress because the claim of 'light at the eye/ instant vision" has no merit.

But it really does have merit! You just can’t visualize it yet. Bear in mind that light travels and the photons are constantly replaced, but the absorption and reflection of the object do not.

More zeppelin tethers.

How is it possible for light to be at the eye instantly even as you concede that it takes light time to get to the eye?

 

[pood]

I can't stop a duck from quacking.

An objective look.

The rules here are you are supposed to summarize the crappy lying videos you post. Also, what does your latest crap about diet doing in this thread? Are you desperately trying to change the subject again? (Answer: yes, obviously.)

I was responding to unapologetic, which I'm entitled to do. How do you know it's a crappy video if you haven't listened to it? Basically, he is giving the good and bad of a carnivore diet. He was being objective. Isn't that what you want?

You are supposed to provide a summary in your own words of videos that you post.

But I understand. You can’t even explain in your own words your writer’s argument on free will and determinism. It is too much for you.

Who are you fooling? After all this time, I've bent over backwards trying to get you to see that indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism. Compatibilism is a bait and switch effort to define free will in a way that makes free will appear compatible with determinism, but it fails because free will implies that we could have chosen otherwise after it was made, which is impossible.

If anyone wants to eat a carnivore diet or a “lion diet,” go for it. But humans are omnivores, not carnivores, and we are certainly not lions.

I will happily continue to eat tons of fruits and vegetables.

Why are you posting this stuff in this thread?

Because conversations get diverted, especially when there's no progress. I will also eat fruits and veggies but many people do well on this kind of diet, probably because they eliminated a lot of junk food as well.

There is no progress because the claim of 'light at the eye/ instant vision" has no merit.

But it really does have merit! You just can’t visualize it yet. Bear in mind that light travels and the photons are constantly replaced, but the absorption and reflection of the object do not.

As for the idea of modified determinism, I still haven't seen a rational description of it, or how it may bring about world peace.

Then you didn’t read the first three chapters. Since you know this has to do with the corollary that goes with having no free will, jump to Chapter Three, which will give you some idea of how this principle works.

I find the book to be problematic. Which is why I asked you to give a definition/description of the authors concept of determinism and how it may bring about world peace.

I asked several times, but have yet to see a clear definition of this modified form of determinism or how it could bring about world peace.

Maybe I missed it. If so, a summary or a link to the relevant post would be appreciated.

You did not miss anything. She is not able to do what you ask.

 

[peacegirl]

I can't stop a duck from quacking.

An objective look.

The rules here are you are supposed to summarize the crappy lying videos you post. Also, what does your latest crap about diet doing in this thread? Are you desperately trying to change the subject again? (Answer: yes, obviously.)

I was responding to unapologetic, which I'm entitled to do. How do you know it's a crappy video if you haven't listened to it? Basically, he is giving the good and bad of a carnivore diet. He was being objective. Isn't that what you want?

You are supposed to provide a summary in your own words of videos that you post.

But I understand. You can’t even explain in your own words your writer’s argument on free will and determinism. It is too much for you.

Who are you fooling? After all this time, I've bent over backwards trying to get you to see that indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism. Compatibilism is a bait and switch effort to define free will in a way that makes free will appear compatible with determinism, but it fails because free will implies that we could have chosen otherwise after it was made, which is impossible.

If anyone wants to eat a carnivore diet or a “lion diet,” go for it. But humans are omnivores, not carnivores, and we are certainly not lions.

I will happily continue to eat tons of fruits and vegetables.

Why are you posting this stuff in this thread?

Because conversations get diverted, especially when there's no progress. I will also eat fruits and veggies but many people do well on this kind of diet, probably because they eliminated a lot of junk food as well.

There is no progress because the claim of 'light at the eye/ instant vision" has no merit.

But it really does have merit! You just can’t visualize it yet. Bear in mind that light travels and the photons are constantly replaced, but the absorption and reflection of the object do not.

As for the idea of modified determinism, I still haven't seen a rational description of it, or how it may bring about world peace.

Then you didn’t read the first three chapters. Since you know this has to do with the corollary that goes with having no free will, jump to Chapter Three, which will give you some idea of how this principle works.

I find the book to be problematic. Which is why I asked you to give a definition/description of the authors concept of determinism and how it may bring about world peace.

I asked several times, but have yet to see a clear definition of this modified form of determinism or how it could bring about world peace.

Maybe I missed it. If so, a summary or a link to the relevant post would be appreciated.

You did not miss anything. She is not able to do what you ask.

What the hell! Can't you scroll down to Chapter Three with your cursor? Are you disabled?

 

[DBT]

I can't stop a duck from quacking.

An objective look.

The rules here are you are supposed to summarize the crappy lying videos you post. Also, what does your latest crap about diet doing in this thread? Are you desperately trying to change the subject again? (Answer: yes, obviously.)

I was responding to unapologetic, which I'm entitled to do. How do you know it's a crappy video if you haven't listened to it? Basically, he is giving the good and bad of a carnivore diet. He was being objective. Isn't that what you want?

You are supposed to provide a summary in your own words of videos that you post.

But I understand. You can’t even explain in your own words your writer’s argument on free will and determinism. It is too much for you.

Who are you fooling? After all this time, I've bent over backwards trying to get you to see that indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism. Compatibilism is a bait and switch effort to define free will in a way that makes free will appear compatible with determinism, but it fails because free will implies that we could have chosen otherwise after it was made, which is impossible.

If anyone wants to eat a carnivore diet or a “lion diet,” go for it. But humans are omnivores, not carnivores, and we are certainly not lions.

I will happily continue to eat tons of fruits and vegetables.

Why are you posting this stuff in this thread?

Because conversations get diverted, especially when there's no progress. I will also eat fruits and veggies but many people do well on this kind of diet, probably because they eliminated a lot of junk food as well.

There is no progress because the claim of 'light at the eye/ instant vision" has no merit.

But it really does have merit! You just can’t visualize it yet. Bear in mind that light travels and the photons are constantly replaced, but the absorption and reflection of the object do not.

As for the idea of modified determinism, I still haven't seen a rational description of it, or how it may bring about world peace.

Then you didn’t read the first three chapters. Since you know this has to do with the corollary that goes with having no free will, jump to Chapter Three, which will give you some idea of how this principle works.

I find the book to be problematic. Which is why I asked you to give a definition/description of the authors concept of determinism and how it may bring about world peace.

I asked several times, but have yet to see a clear definition of this modified form of determinism or how it could bring about world peace.

Maybe I missed it. If so, a summary or a link to the relevant post would be appreciated.

You did not miss anything. She is not able to do what you ask.

What the hell! Can't you scroll down to Chapter Three with your cursor? Are you disabled?

I don't see it. Can you quote the given definition or description of this modified form of determinism?

 

[peacegirl]

I can't stop a duck from quacking.

An objective look.

The rules here are you are supposed to summarize the crappy lying videos you post. Also, what does your latest crap about diet doing in this thread? Are you desperately trying to change the subject again? (Answer: yes, obviously.)

I was responding to unapologetic, which I'm entitled to do. How do you know it's a crappy video if you haven't listened to it? Basically, he is giving the good and bad of a carnivore diet. He was being objective. Isn't that what you want?

You are supposed to provide a summary in your own words of videos that you post.

But I understand. You can’t even explain in your own words your writer’s argument on free will and determinism. It is too much for you.

Who are you fooling? After all this time, I've bent over backwards trying to get you to see that indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism. Compatibilism is a bait and switch effort to define free will in a way that makes free will appear compatible with determinism, but it fails because free will implies that we could have chosen otherwise after it was made, which is impossible.

If anyone wants to eat a carnivore diet or a “lion diet,” go for it. But humans are omnivores, not carnivores, and we are certainly not lions.

I will happily continue to eat tons of fruits and vegetables.

Why are you posting this stuff in this thread?

Because conversations get diverted, especially when there's no progress. I will also eat fruits and veggies but many people do well on this kind of diet, probably because they eliminated a lot of junk food as well.

There is no progress because the claim of 'light at the eye/ instant vision" has no merit.

But it really does have merit! You just can’t visualize it yet. Bear in mind that light travels and the photons are constantly replaced, but the absorption and reflection of the object do not.

As for the idea of modified determinism, I still haven't seen a rational description of it, or how it may bring about world peace.

Then you didn’t read the first three chapters. Since you know this has to do with the corollary that goes with having no free will, jump to Chapter Three, which will give you some idea of how this principle works.

I find the book to be problematic. Which is why I asked you to give a definition/description of the authors concept of determinism and how it may bring about world peace.

I asked several times, but have yet to see a clear definition of this modified form of determinism or how it could bring about world peace.

Maybe I missed it. If so, a summary or a link to the relevant post would be appreciated.

You did not miss anything. She is not able to do what you ask.

What the hell! Can't you scroll down to Chapter Three with your cursor? Are you disabled?

I don't see it. Can you quote the given definition or description of this modified form of determinism?

The only difference is that the past doesn't cause the present (it is that already. As a comparison, four doesn't cause 2 plus 2, it is that already), which means that even though will is not free because you are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, nothing can make you do what you make up your mind not to do, for you have absolute control over this. This is huge because you can't use the excuse that determinism made you kill someone. You killed someone because it gave you greater satisfaction at that moment rather than not to do this, for whatever reason. This equation actually prevents the very thing that no ideology could prevent (whether free will, compatibilism, or the present definition of determinism) because it doesn't include the other side of the equation. Can you imagine giving half of an equation and being told it doesn't work?

 

[pood]

What the hell! Can't you scroll down to Chapter Three with your cursor? Are you disabled?

What the hell? Can’t you answer a simple question? Are you demented?

How is it possible for light to be at the eye instantly even as you concede that it takes light time to get to the eye?