A New Discovery

Anyone intersted in a new discovery that can prevent many of the atrocities that our world is experiencing? I know this sounds nuts, and I know what I know, and I also am very cognizant of the fact that I will be up against a lot of argument, but nevertheless I am willing to try to explain a very important work in order for those who are truly searching for answers to learn something of major import. If there is anyone out here who is interested, let me know because I won't be here indefinitely. Thanks.

Not to seem TOO sarcastic.
But feel free to enlighten us

"No blame = no guilt = no responsiblity"
Pretty much true if determinism is true. The solution as far as I know is to stop thinking in terms of punishment for the sake of punishment. But instead punishment only in the goal of stopping future crimes.
We hate the crime not the criminal, but we may have to hurt the criminal so the crime won't occur again.

In any case, I'd like to hear more.

"No blame = no guilt = no responsiblity"
Pretty much true if determinism is true. The solution as far as I know is to stop thinking in terms of punishment for the sake of punishment. But instead punishment only in the goal of stopping future crimes.
We hate the crime not the criminal, but we may have to hurt the criminal so the crime won't occur again.

In any case, I'd like to hear more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if we hate the crime and not the criminal, we haven't been able to stop the crime even through threats of punishment. People who want to hurt others are not stopped by punishment alone. Some people will risk the threat of being put to death in order to get what they want. Unfortunately, that has been the only avenue available to stop those who would hurt us, but look at where it has gotten us; more crime, more hatred, more wars, and more retaliation. The problem is that the weapons are getting more sophisticated where are civilization could be wiped out, and the hatred between nations is leading to deadly attacks all over the world. Does this look like we are making progress?

Are we talking on the level of nations or people? If its people, then we should punish them or all hell will break loose.
If its nations, well its debateable. Personally, I'm making peace with our good muslim friends and getting ourselves independant from their theocratic leaders' oil.
But sometimes we can't make friends, for example, already existing terrorists should be killed, unless killing them is likely to cause an uproar with other muslims and cause THEM to join the war.

I'll continue tomorrow if there is an interest. I'll define determinism and then explain the actual discovery. From there, I will show you how this knowledge allows man to veer in a different direction preventing the chain of blame and retaliation that is destroying our world.

Yeah, there is no proof of anything in there except the possibly lack of proof for determinism and free will.

"From there, I will show you how this knowledge allows man to veer in a different direction preventing the chain of blame and retaliation that is destroying our world."
Alright, retaliation CAN be a nescessary and good thing. Germany doesn't hate us now, why? Because we smashed their army to bits and took over, but then we, showed them why they need to be our buddies. We gave them food and aid. And today despite US - Euro tensions, Germany is an ally or at least a very good friend of the US.

But anyway please show us the rest, and all of it this time. I don't want to go on forever like this. And you act like it will solve all of the world's problems which is highly doubtful no matter how groundbreaking this is.

Fine, but you have to realise its very frustrating to talk to someone who is presenting you a world panacea, but cannot justify except in step by step arguments who have no apparent relation to the problem.

"First of all, you are making an assumption that what I have can't solve the world's problems and you don't this you are only guessing. Secondly, I cannot show you the rest in one post."
Its an educated guess, I heard nothing about this 600 page book on the news and if it is a world panacea it would have been. That's why I'm going to assume its a bit of gibberish until you produce some good reasoning that provides a solution to the problems of today.

"This book happens to be almost 600 pages. How can I condense 600 pages into one more post? You tell me. "
Just post the point or conclusion of the book, or post what GWBush should do to solve the world's problems.

I already told you I wanted to hear it, continue.

I read the first 3 posts I am absolutely certain you could be more succint!
*sigh* I'll read the other ones now.
(you could have said assuming free will does not exist...)

And here's my argument against free will :
The only way free will is possible is in fact that a human's actions cannot be predicted. If he can be either through psychology or analysis of the chemicals in his brain, then he does not have free will, he acts much like a machine.
Free will asserts that a man's moral choice is not based affected by anything, otherwise it wouldn't be free, because you can manipulate him to choose one choice over the other.
If the choice is not based on anything in the physical world, the decision is for all intents and purposes random.

Though random is not free will, how can we ever be held accountable for our actions if those actions are based on random decisions?

So in conclusion, I agree with your fairly long winded point that free will doesn't exist.
Please be briefer (plleeeaase) and simply explain what you would have people do to solve people's troubles and THEN explain why.

Please continue...

"that nothing can compel man to do anything against his will because over this his nature allows absolute control; and that his will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction –"
I'm not sure I agree with the first statement ahem. The scond is absolutely true however.

"will reveal a third invariable law – the discovery to which reference has been made."
Finally.

I'm sorry for appearing so harsh. But a lot of what you posted seems fairly unnescessary to me. Of course that might be because I don't believe in free will in the first place.
But anyway, I'm sorry, now please show us the ground breaking new stuff.

"Do you really think it was an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don't roast or freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly when I did?"
Yes it was an accident, why dod such an unlikely thing as the Earth being at just the right speed, proper distance etc? There are billions and billions of stars out there (or was it trillions), one of them was bound to get lucky and have a habitable planet.

" an accident that our bodies and brains developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly when I did? "
This could be called an accident. Life develops randomly those who have bad random mutations die, and those (in our case) with intelligence and social ability live. Its no surprise.

"There is absolutely no way this new world, a world without war, crime and all forms of hurt to man by man can be stopped from coming into existence. When it will occur, however, depends on when this knowledge can be brought to light."
I eagerly await

"– ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AT THIS POINT SINCE NOTHING CAN FORCE YOU TO HURT ME AGAINST YOUR WILL UNLESS YOU WANT TO – you are compelled, completely of your own free will, to relinquish this desire to hurt me because it can never satisfy you to do so under these conditions."
What? What if your my great uncle I hate and I want to kill you for inheritance? What if I can gain something from killing you. What if killing you gives me satifsfaction? I don't understand this at all. He assumes that we only want to kill if we're going to get blamed for it?

"Furthermore, if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no one in the entire world is going to blame you or question your conduct, is it possible for you to make others culpable, to extenuate the circumstances, to lie or try to shift your responsibility in any way?"
They might not blame you, but they certainly might gain satisfaction from retaliation. Vengeance can be both very satisfying as well as help make OTHERS realise there is a risk (read : possible loss of satisfaction) when they kill someone. Either way, you would have to lie to not create a situation where others would derive satisfaction from killing you.

"Just bear in mind that when there is no blame of any kind, man can only go in one direction for satisfaction and that is not to hurt others with a first blow."
That is a huge assumption. I would steal things if I could not be blamed, thus hurting others and profiting myself. I do not understand this idea at all.

"But when all blame is removed from the environment, and he knows in advance that he will not be blamed by anyone anywhere, he cannot justify what he is about to do.

The choice to hurt someone with a first blow would be a movement in the direction of dissatisfaction, which is impossible. "
Or perhaps, he does not feel guilt. Or perhaps can derive greater satisfaction from hurting someone then the guilt will.

"By turning the other cheek (which also proves in a mathematical manner that man's will is not free), it absolutely prevents the second cheek from being struck because it is impossible, as the people of India demonstrated, to get satisfaction from continuing to hurt those who refuse to fight back, but as history has shown many were killed just by being struck on the first cheek."
And would hitler have stopped killing jews by turning the other cheak? The russians thought Stalin's purges were a good thing, this is the opposite of blame, and yet Stalin killed more then Hitler.

"My imparting the knowledge that no one will again blame you in any way, judge your actions or tell you what to do will mathematically prevent your first cheek from being struck which is necessary in a world of atomic energy when an entire nation can be wiped out from being struck on the first cheek."
Here he adds a few scientific words which have clearly no place here. The equations he speaks of should be, and are, metaphors, there is no mathematical equation for human morals.

Now, I'm a bit at a loss here. I'll assume I've made a mistake in my interpretation, and that his logic is sound. But I'd like a helping hand in understanding this.