which just proved don hebb wrong. if true; the newer discoveries would be made by young scientists. this is not the case. in fact; it's the younger scientists that insist they are right or their way is the proper way. (sound like anyone here?) it is the older mind which draws from experience.
If you ignore the possibility of other variables.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I view it as a solid understanding of the field of research to which I've dedicated much of my time. I really have no idea what affect selenium has on cattle feed. It's not my area of interest. I suspect that if I were to engage in such conversation with you, I would need to be prepared with a solid understanding. I concede to you that your knowledge of cattle feed surpasses my own. Would you not grant me the same respect?
i really try to. but when you close your mind to other possabilities; it's hard to respect that. if you presented it as a possability; i could respect that much more than having something shoved down my throat. i've been around long enough to see things come and go. theories; procedures; and everything else. if i wasn't interested; i wouldn't still be reading. but again; i'm reading with an open mind and viewing it as a possability and making my determination from there.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
i really try to. but when you close your mind to other possabilities; it's hard to respect that. if you presented it as a possability; i could respect that much more than having something shoved down my throat. i've been around long enough to see things come and go. theories; procedures; and everything else. if i wasn't interested; i wouldn't still be reading. but again; i'm reading with an open mind and viewing it as a possability and making my determination from there.
So it's just my character you've closed your mind to?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i really try to. but when you close your mind to other possabilities; it's hard to respect that. if you presented it as a possability; i could respect that much more than having something shoved down my throat. i've been around long enough to see things come and go. theories; procedures; and everything else. if i wasn't interested; i wouldn't still be reading. but again; i'm reading with an open mind and viewing it as a possability and making my determination from there.
I'm curious what the other possibility is? The Cartesan Theatre?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
jeez guys why don't you just whip 'em out and we'll see whose is bigger?
No contest
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Oh, are we talking about intellect? Damn, you might have me beat.
What happened to this thread? It was swarming, and just as it started to get interesting it turned desolate.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm curious what the other possibility is? The Cartesan Theatre?
maybe we haven't found it yet? maybe it's been right in front of our eyes all along?
in 1635 galleleo was ordered assassinated because he presented the theory that the earth revolved around the sun. which of course went against all known knowledge at that time. neither of us can say for sure. my research shows that 125 years ago; beef was healthy to eat and promoted good health. it also shows that beef today causes cancer. current law forbids me from announcing a cure for cancer until it can be recreated "in pill form" because of pharmacutical laws.
so honestly; i don't know what the other possability could be. i won't close my mind because each day brings new discoveries. therefore we won't find THE ANSWER. we only find answers until more information is discovered.
maybe we haven't found it yet? maybe it's been right in front of our eyes all along?
in 1635 galleleo was ordered assassinated because he presented the theory that the earth revolved around the sun. which of course went against all known knowledge at that time. neither of us can say for sure. my research shows that 125 years ago; beef was healthy to eat and promoted good health. it also shows that beef today causes cancer. current law forbids me from announcing a cure for cancer until it can be recreated "in pill form" because of pharmacutical laws.
so honestly; i don't know what the other possability could be. i won't close my mind because each day brings new discoveries. therefore we won't find THE ANSWER. we only find answers until more information is discovered.
But, yet, you choose to believe an alternative. What alternative is that?
How does your cure for cancer work? Does it work on metastatic cancer or tumors alone?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I have respect for his position as a rational deliberator, it's his opinions of myself I do not respect.
Yet his "position as a rational deliberator" are precisely the cause of those opinions. Furthermore, respect would imply an alternative, an opposite that would be unworthy of respect. As a hard determinist, how could you possibly believe in that alternative?
Yet his "position as a rational deliberator" are precisely the cause of those opinions. Furthermore, respect would imply an alternative, an opposite that would be unworthy of respect. As a hard determinist, how could you possibly believe in that alternative?
Hate the deed, not the man.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yet his "position as a rational deliberator" are precisely the cause of those opinions. Furthermore, respect would imply an alternative, an opposite that would be unworthy of respect. As a hard determinist, how could you possibly believe in that alternative?
If you say "rational", if you are referring to rational processes, then wouldn't you say an opinion is also based on other criteria, such as emotional responses beyond reason as well?
Also, in hard determinism, doesn't one believe that choices are made all the time between alternatives, but that they are determined by all kinds of factors supposedly rendering the will predisposed rather than free?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If you say "rational", if you are referring to rational processes, then wouldn't you say an opinion is also based on other criteria, such as emotional responses beyond reason as well?
I would say that, yes. However, I fail to see how a hard determinist can define any moral differentiation between an emotional decision and a reasoned one in the absence of self as an acting agent. Both would simply be reactions.
Also, in hard determinism, doesn't one believe that choices are made all the time between alternatives, but that they are determined by all kinds of factors supposedly rendering the will predisposed rather than free?
A billiard ball doesn't make a "choice" to go left or go right. It is simply pushed left or right. A different path would imply a different strike, and only one path exists.
But, yet, you choose to believe an alternative. What alternative is that?
How does your cure for cancer work? Does it work on metastatic cancer or tumors alone?
honestly; i don't believe in anything. i know it sounds insane but i haven't been given enough evidence in any direction. i listen to everything and maybe one day i'll reach a conclusion. when the unknowns and variables can be taken into account.
i would actually like your input on my cancer findings. what i need to do is isolate the compound that kills the cancer. first i need to identify it though. i'll pm you when i get a chance and maybe you can help. i'm sure i'm just missing something but i need another set of eyes to look at it. i'll try to get it to you tomorrow.
honestly; i don't believe in anything. i know it sounds insane but i haven't been given enough evidence in any direction. i listen to everything and maybe one day i'll reach a conclusion. when the unknowns and variables can be taken into account.
i would actually like your input on my cancer findings. what i need to do is isolate the compound that kills the cancer. first i need to identify it though. i'll pm you when i get a chance and maybe you can help. i'm sure i'm just missing something but i need another set of eyes to look at it. i'll try to get it to you tomorrow.
Sounds good. An interesting method of isolation was mentioned on the HHMI lecture series on Infection Diseases and biomolecular science. The process involves 80,000 different tests performed by quite an elaborate machine. If you could get your hands on one.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I would say that, yes. However, I fail to see how a hard determinist can define any moral differentiation between an emotional decision and a reasoned one in the absence of self as an acting agent. Both would simply be reactions.
I have the impression that Ahnimus thinks the self is an acting agent. This is why I think there are only small, actually insignificant differences between what he, yourself and myself are debating (for example, the differences between us three are more a matter of which aspect we each tend to put our focus on which is minor considering we tend to essentially see the exact same stuff. Also, we've obviously got personality clashes. I believe that like you or I, he fully gets the self aspect, but he wonders why we think that's a big deal, which is because he doesn't give that aspect much the time of day).
Ahnimus, do you see the self as an acting agent?
A billiard ball doesn't make a "choice" to go left or go right. It is simply pushed left or right. A different path would imply a different strike, and only one path exists.
When we are talking about a hard determinist, we are talking about a human being that has volition, unlike a billiard ball. I'm under the impression that Ahnimus recognizes human volition. So, the determinist makes the choices based on emotions, reason, intuition, or otherwise, it's based on reasons and purposes below the surface within, or forces without that humans tens to be largely unaware of.
Again, Ahnimus, if I am misconstruing this compared to your beliefs, please let me know where you differ.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I have the impression that Ahnimus thinks the self is an acting agent. This is why I think there are only small, actually insignificant differences between what he, yourself and myself are debating (for example, the differences between us three are more a matter of which aspect we each tend to put our focus on which is minor considering we tend to essentially see the exact same stuff. Also, we've obviously got personality clashes. I believe that like you or I, he fully gets the self aspect, but he wonders why we think that's a big deal, which is because he doesn't give that aspect much the time of day).
Ahnimus, do you see the self as an acting agent?
Depends how self is defined, B.F. Skinner defines it as "A self is a repertoire of behavior appropriate to a given set of contingencies." by that definition the self is synonymous with the rest of the human agent.
When we are talking about a hard determinist, we are talking about a human being that has volition, unlike a billiard ball. I'm under the impression that Ahnimus recognizes human volition. So, the determinist makes the choices based on emotions, reason, intuition, or otherwise, it's based on reasons and purposes below the surface within, or forces without that humans tens to be largely unaware of.
Again, Ahnimus, if I am misconstruing this compared to your beliefs, please let me know where you differ.
Pretty much, but like a billiard ball being struck by several cues, we are motivated to follow certain paths, while simultaneously being motivated to follow other paths. That is of course a loose metaphor.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Depends how self is defined, B.F. Skinner defines it as "A self is a repertoire of behavior appropriate to a given set of contingencies." by that definition the self is synonymous with the rest of the human agent.
Pretty much, but like a billiard ball being struck by several cues, we are motivated to follow certain paths, while simultaneously being motivated to follow other paths. That is of course a loose metaphor.
Do you believe the human has volition, given all the variables that are at base of that volition, then? Which again, include the processes that go back to brain functioning, and even further through evolutionary processes and physical laws, etc.? Do you believe that the human being has the choice on how to respond to all of the variables they meet with in the external world? Even considering the choice to respond will be based on the evolutionarily determined brain and it's specific processes?
Say someone is not aware of all this unconscious stuff. They will tend to react to life situations, rather than respond. At the same time, we can also, at any time, depending on what is determined, become aware of the necessity to think things through and actually respond. We choose all day long, albeit unconsciously many times, everything, including what beliefs to hold. Many of us give up our power to choose our beliefs and then I see that we have chosen to accept what we've been taught. We have made our choice unconsciously.
Do you agree with this stuff?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Do you believe the human has volition, given all the variables that are at base of that volition, then? Which again, include the processes that go back to brain functioning, and even further through evolutionary processes and physical laws, etc.? Do you believe that the human being has the choice on how to respond to all of the variables they meet with in the external world? Even considering the choice to respond will be based on the evolutionarily determined brain and it's specific processes?
Say someone is not aware of all this unconscious stuff. They will tend to react to life situations, rather than respond. At the same time, we can also, at any time, depending on what is determined, become aware of the necessity to think things through and actually respond. We choose all day long, albeit unconsciously many times, everything, including what beliefs to hold. Many of us give up our power to choose our beliefs and then I see that we have chosen to accept what we've been taught. We have made our choice unconsciously.
Do you agree with this stuff?
Yup. There is only one hard determinist I know of that claims to actually live life without the illusion of free-will; Susan Blackmore. All others, including myself, recognize the necessity of the illusion, but Susan claims it's not necissary. I'll elaborate more on that as I read on in her book.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yup. There is only one hard determinist I know of that claims to actually live life without the illusion of free-will; Susan Blackmore. All others, including myself, recognize the necessity of the illusion, but Susan claims it's not necissary. I'll elaborate more on that as I read on in her book.
So, I'm going to collect this together and show you why I, or anyone else sees that they have free will, under this description, even though you and I up to here agree probably exactly and you see that we don't...in a minute. I believe farfromglorified exactly agrees, too. This is why I see that both you and him are arguing misunderstandings rather than actual differences.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
farfromglorified, do you believe the human has volition, given all the variables that are at base of that volition? Which again, include the processes that go back to brain functioning, and even further through evolutionary processes and physical laws, etc.? Do you believe that the human being has the choice on how to respond to all of the variables they meet with in the external world? Even considering the choice to respond will be based on the evolutionarily determined brain and it's specific processes?
Say someone is not aware of all this unconscious stuff. They will tend to react to life situations, rather than respond. At the same time, we can also, at any time, depending on what is determined, become aware of the necessity to think things through and actually respond. We choose all day long, albeit unconsciously many times, everything, including what beliefs to hold. Many of us give up our power to choose our beliefs and then I see that we have chosen to accept what we've been taught. We have made our choice unconsciously.
Do you agree so far farfromglorified? If you have anything to disagree with, or add, please do so.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yup. There is only one hard determinist I know of that claims to actually live life without the illusion of free-will; Susan Blackmore. All others, including myself, recognize the necessity of the illusion, but Susan claims it's not necissary. I'll elaborate more on that as I read on in her book.
Okay, Ahnimus. We've already discussed that religious or spiritual people see the determined aspects as "God's will". "Everything happens for a reason". You agree that you and them are looking at the same dynamics and calling it something different in regards to "what is meant to be", right?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Okay, Ahnimus. We've already discussed that religious or spiritual people see the determined aspects as "God's will". "Everything happens for a reason". You agree that you and them are looking at the same dynamics and calling it something different in regards to "what is meant to be", right?
Correct, but on the other hand, they tend to advocate Good and Evil, and free-choice in some other regard. Their difficulty is in explaining exactly what they mean.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Okay, Ahnimus. We've already discussed that religious or spiritual people see the determined aspects as "God's will". "Everything happens for a reason". You agree that you and them are looking at the same dynamics and calling it something different in regards to "what is meant to be", right?
um......not all spiritual people believe in God or God's will or that everything happens for a reason.
Correct, but on the other hand, they tend to advocate Good and Evil, and free-choice in some other regard. Their difficulty is in explaining exactly what they mean.
The problem you are talking about is not related to God. If it were I would do the same thing, and I think you realize I am reasonable. (edit: reasonably so, at least)
What you are referring to is the psychological problem of our split psyche. Interestingly, this concept relates to our biblical fall from Grace. Humans are in such a place that we teach duality from birth. Included in up/down, back/forth etc, we have right/wrong. It's opposites. It is general human behaviour (except for people who seek a holisitic or non-split view) to do what you are referring to. We are taught some aspects of life and ourselves are "bad" and we start to deny them. We put them in the Jungian shadow, which furthermore distorts everything we look at. We see the whole world split into opposites. Our inner filters are clogged with these distorted judgments we've been taught. People are looking through these preconceived ideas and cannot see what really exists. Even if we did not have religion, it would not solve the problem because the issue is about the human psyche. Does this make sense? Any thoughts?
I have spent the past maybe five years doing "shadow work" which includes facing and addressing this stuff, so I can return my thinking to wholeness. The result is I have become so much more integrated, and the outcome has been a dramatically increased sense of reality appraisal compared to where I used to be. I will continue to clear up these distortions as they parade before my eyes in the actions of other people, in each day. By my subjective view, I take responsibility for all of the ugliness and "bad", or undesirableness I see outside of me. ANY "negative trait" I see in others, I own it as a reflection of my split inner view. This way I clear up my distortions. You might understand why a subjective reality view is an effecive tool for doing this type of work.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
If you ignore the possibility of other variables.
i really try to. but when you close your mind to other possabilities; it's hard to respect that. if you presented it as a possability; i could respect that much more than having something shoved down my throat. i've been around long enough to see things come and go. theories; procedures; and everything else. if i wasn't interested; i wouldn't still be reading. but again; i'm reading with an open mind and viewing it as a possability and making my determination from there.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
So it's just my character you've closed your mind to?
jeez guys why don't you just whip 'em out and we'll see whose is bigger?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm curious what the other possibility is? The Cartesan Theatre?
No contest
No, really my intellectual endowments are bigger!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Oh, are we talking about intellect? Damn, you might have me beat.
What happened to this thread? It was swarming, and just as it started to get interesting it turned desolate.
maybe we haven't found it yet? maybe it's been right in front of our eyes all along?
in 1635 galleleo was ordered assassinated because he presented the theory that the earth revolved around the sun. which of course went against all known knowledge at that time. neither of us can say for sure. my research shows that 125 years ago; beef was healthy to eat and promoted good health. it also shows that beef today causes cancer. current law forbids me from announcing a cure for cancer until it can be recreated "in pill form" because of pharmacutical laws.
so honestly; i don't know what the other possability could be. i won't close my mind because each day brings new discoveries. therefore we won't find THE ANSWER. we only find answers until more information is discovered.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
But, yet, you choose to believe an alternative. What alternative is that?
How does your cure for cancer work? Does it work on metastatic cancer or tumors alone?
Yet his "position as a rational deliberator" are precisely the cause of those opinions. Furthermore, respect would imply an alternative, an opposite that would be unworthy of respect. As a hard determinist, how could you possibly believe in that alternative?
Hate the deed, not the man.
Huh?
You did both.
Also, in hard determinism, doesn't one believe that choices are made all the time between alternatives, but that they are determined by all kinds of factors supposedly rendering the will predisposed rather than free?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I would say that, yes. However, I fail to see how a hard determinist can define any moral differentiation between an emotional decision and a reasoned one in the absence of self as an acting agent. Both would simply be reactions.
A billiard ball doesn't make a "choice" to go left or go right. It is simply pushed left or right. A different path would imply a different strike, and only one path exists.
honestly; i don't believe in anything. i know it sounds insane but i haven't been given enough evidence in any direction. i listen to everything and maybe one day i'll reach a conclusion. when the unknowns and variables can be taken into account.
i would actually like your input on my cancer findings. what i need to do is isolate the compound that kills the cancer. first i need to identify it though. i'll pm you when i get a chance and maybe you can help. i'm sure i'm just missing something but i need another set of eyes to look at it. i'll try to get it to you tomorrow.
Sounds good. An interesting method of isolation was mentioned on the HHMI lecture series on Infection Diseases and biomolecular science. The process involves 80,000 different tests performed by quite an elaborate machine. If you could get your hands on one.
Ahnimus, do you see the self as an acting agent?
When we are talking about a hard determinist, we are talking about a human being that has volition, unlike a billiard ball. I'm under the impression that Ahnimus recognizes human volition. So, the determinist makes the choices based on emotions, reason, intuition, or otherwise, it's based on reasons and purposes below the surface within, or forces without that humans tens to be largely unaware of.
Again, Ahnimus, if I am misconstruing this compared to your beliefs, please let me know where you differ.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Depends how self is defined, B.F. Skinner defines it as "A self is a repertoire of behavior appropriate to a given set of contingencies." by that definition the self is synonymous with the rest of the human agent.
Pretty much, but like a billiard ball being struck by several cues, we are motivated to follow certain paths, while simultaneously being motivated to follow other paths. That is of course a loose metaphor.
Say someone is not aware of all this unconscious stuff. They will tend to react to life situations, rather than respond. At the same time, we can also, at any time, depending on what is determined, become aware of the necessity to think things through and actually respond. We choose all day long, albeit unconsciously many times, everything, including what beliefs to hold. Many of us give up our power to choose our beliefs and then I see that we have chosen to accept what we've been taught. We have made our choice unconsciously.
Do you agree with this stuff?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yup. There is only one hard determinist I know of that claims to actually live life without the illusion of free-will; Susan Blackmore. All others, including myself, recognize the necessity of the illusion, but Susan claims it's not necissary. I'll elaborate more on that as I read on in her book.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Say someone is not aware of all this unconscious stuff. They will tend to react to life situations, rather than respond. At the same time, we can also, at any time, depending on what is determined, become aware of the necessity to think things through and actually respond. We choose all day long, albeit unconsciously many times, everything, including what beliefs to hold. Many of us give up our power to choose our beliefs and then I see that we have chosen to accept what we've been taught. We have made our choice unconsciously.
Do you agree so far farfromglorified? If you have anything to disagree with, or add, please do so.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Correct, but on the other hand, they tend to advocate Good and Evil, and free-choice in some other regard. Their difficulty is in explaining exactly what they mean.
um......not all spiritual people believe in God or God's will or that everything happens for a reason.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
What you are referring to is the psychological problem of our split psyche. Interestingly, this concept relates to our biblical fall from Grace. Humans are in such a place that we teach duality from birth. Included in up/down, back/forth etc, we have right/wrong. It's opposites. It is general human behaviour (except for people who seek a holisitic or non-split view) to do what you are referring to. We are taught some aspects of life and ourselves are "bad" and we start to deny them. We put them in the Jungian shadow, which furthermore distorts everything we look at. We see the whole world split into opposites. Our inner filters are clogged with these distorted judgments we've been taught. People are looking through these preconceived ideas and cannot see what really exists. Even if we did not have religion, it would not solve the problem because the issue is about the human psyche. Does this make sense? Any thoughts?
I have spent the past maybe five years doing "shadow work" which includes facing and addressing this stuff, so I can return my thinking to wholeness. The result is I have become so much more integrated, and the outcome has been a dramatically increased sense of reality appraisal compared to where I used to be. I will continue to clear up these distortions as they parade before my eyes in the actions of other people, in each day. By my subjective view, I take responsibility for all of the ugliness and "bad", or undesirableness I see outside of me. ANY "negative trait" I see in others, I own it as a reflection of my split inner view. This way I clear up my distortions. You might understand why a subjective reality view is an effecive tool for doing this type of work.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!