I passed, more by grace than karma though. Of all my schooling getting this designation means the most to me because I did it as a single parent, and it took 5 years and 3 months to see through from beginning to end. I'm now enjoying one of the best tasting beers ever.
Wow! Good for you! What a wonderful accomplishment! I feel honoured that you are sharing it with us! That sounds like one yummy beer. Enjoy. Congratulations!!!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Subjective experience, the sensory buzz and awareness associated with a conscious mind
I'm sorry, I see no value in dreams and fantasies.
Everything I've discussed is factually accurate.
I apologize if I was not clear. I did not dispute your facts; I pointed out that your personal opinions and interpretations of the facts are just that: your personal, subjective opinions and interpretations.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I would like to address transcendent experiences and psychosis. The following is from Ken Wilber's book "A Brief History of Everything". He is discussing states and stages of consciousness. This is said about stage models of development: "All developmentalists, with virtually no exceptions, have a stage-like list, or even a ladder-like list, a holarchy of growth and development...because that is what fits their data. These stages are the result of empirical, phenomenological, and interpretive evidence and massive amounts of research data. These folks are not making this stuff up because they like ladders"
Individuals can have a spiritual experience--a peak experience of an altered state of consciousness--at almost any stage of their growth. The basic levels, from the lowest to the highest, are potentials in every person's being. So you can tap into the higher dimensions under various conditions--moments of elation, of sexual passion, of stress, of dream-like reverie, of drug-induced states, and even during psychotic breaks.
But look what happens. Say a person is at Kohlberg's moral stage 3. And say they have an experience, an influx of certain subtle-realm phenomena(ed: union with God/Goddess/Deity--experiences that occur cross-culturally) --perhaps an intense interior illumination. This can profoundly change a person's life and open them to new worlds, new dimensions, new modes of awareness.
And perhaps it can lead to an actual transformation or evolution or development in their consciousness. So if you give this person a moral-stage test, you might find that they have indeed transformed from moral stage 3 to ... moral stage 4. There is nowhere else for them to go! Research has consistently shown that these stages cannot be bypassed, any more than you can go from an atom to a cell and bypass molecules. So a person at moral stage 3 who has a profound spiritual experience might be motivated to move to the next stage--in this case, to stage 4. They do not, under any circumstances go from stage 3 to stage 7.
The genuinely spiritual or transpersonal stages of development (Kohler's stage 7 and beyond) depend for their development upon all of the previous developments in stages 6, 5, 4, 3 and so on. Each of those stages contributes something absolutely essential for the manifestation of stage 7. And although a person can have a peak experience of a higher dimension, the person's self still has to grow and develop and evolve in order to permanently accommodate to those higher or deeper dimensions, in order to turn an "altered state" into a "permanent trait".
A state is a passing experience. Whether transcendent or psychotic. Being at levels where one has integrated transcendent/spiritual states into actual permanent traits is not at all a passing state, but a lasting STAGE of consciousness. A stage of consciousness cannot be psychotic.
In my own case this is exactly how it worked for me. It took me approximately 8-10 years before I effectively integrated the numerous spiritual experiences I've had since I turned 30. It was a long challenging road, but once I had these experiences of Truth, far beyond what was normal, I had to move towards allowing that Truth to become a permanent experience rather than a glimmer. This road entailed a complete ongoing dedication to healing, growth and transcendence, based upon reading book upon book on any related subject, and including addressing each of my disorders/addictions through practical treatments.
...people can have spiritual experiences and peak experiences and all sorts of altered states, but they still have to carry those experiences in their own structure. They still have to grow and develop to the point that they can actually accommodate the depth offered by the peak experiences. "States" still must be converted to "traits". You still have to go from the acorn to oak if you are going to become one with the forest. So while "states" are important, "stages" are even more important.
...The ladder (ed: to higher states) can develop way ahead of the self's willingness to climb it... It's one thing to tap into a higher level; quite another to actually live there!
... People can temporarily access some very high rungs in the ladder or circle of awareness, but they refuse to actually live from those levels--they won't actually climb up there. Their center of gravity remains quite low, even debased.
And if they are to live up to their spiritual experiences, then they will have to grow and develop. They will have to start the developmental unfolding, the holarchical expansion, the actual inhabiting of the expanding spheres of consciousness. Their center of gravity has to shift--to transform--to these deeper or higher spheres of consciousness; it does no good to merely "idealize" them in theoretical chit-chat and talking religion.
So you can have a very powerful peak experience or satori. But then days, weeks, months later--where do you carry it? What happens to this experience? Where does it reside? Your actual self, your center of gravity, can only accomodate this experience according to its own structure, its own capacity, its own stage of growth and development upon which enduring spiritual realization itself depends. Evolution can be accelerated...but not skipped over.
By the grace surferdude referred to, I have been blessed with the right variables in my life that enabled me to go beyond being a bi-polar disordered person with spiritual transcendent episodes experienced through psychosis. I'm one of the unbelievably fortunate ones who has been guided to the degree of being able to transform, heal, overcome illness and own my higher spiritual nature.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Most of what you discussed can't be proven at all. So how is it "factually accurate" ?
Maybe it's factually accurate in your mind and in your opinion, but that's it.
Prove to me that all of our lives are already pre-determined by some enormous all encompassing script, which dictates every second of our lives and renders Free-Will an illusion? Prove it.
And for the record, dreams and fantasies are what have led to some of the most creative discoveries and inventions in the history of our species.
Writers for centuries now, have dreamed and created in their fictional (sci-fi..Fantasy....etc) works many things which inspired scientists. Scientists who later physically designed, engineered and created those very things; which were originally only dreamed of and created in the writers mind and jotted down on paper. Many scientists are dreamers and creative souls, themselves.
Most children love to dream and fantasize. The wonder, mystery, imagination and excitiment of being a child is an element/quality many people lose once reaching adulthood. But some of us retain that wonder....that curiosity.....that ability to dream and appreciate the mysteries of life....of the planet......of the universe. We grow up, but we remember what it was like and some us can still dream. We enter careers which are creatively orientated.
Despite all of our flaws, the things that make human beings special and sperate us from most animals; is the ability to creatively dream and to feel on a deep and profound level.
It's our creativity, our passion, our affection, our love, our lust, our desire.....our determination.......our intensity.......our ability to feel and live through both physical and emotional turmoil; and survive to learn our lessons and gain a slither of wisdom. Every time we go through it, we grow through it.
All that we experience whether good or bad. teaches us and makes us stronger. There's a price to pay for gaining even the slightest bit of wisdom. It takes decades and decades before most of us can gain any wisdom at all. But it's all worth it.
If you're not putting your heart and your soul into your life, if your not living to feel and experience all that is good and bad about love and life; then you're not living. You're simply existing.
Ok, right now, I am speaking through alcoholic influence, but I will do my best to make it legible.
Everything a person does they do for "reasons", even if they are unknown to them. Cause and effect, you said yourself : "All that we experience whether good or bad. teaches us and makes us stronger." amongst other statements that are in-line with determinism. Cause and effect means that the effect of ourselves is merely that of external causes, such as our parents. Our attitudes, behaviors and perceptions are molded by experience and genetics. This is totally undisputed in science. Angelica is taking about philosophy most of the time, I believe it's been described as "Hippy liberal" something or other. Which it is, it's hippy-talk, it's not reality. It's fantasy, and while dreams are good for art, they aren't for science, which is the study of reality. If a person has an experience beyond reality and can not measure it, well it's just ridiculous to believe it's fact. It's a made up fantasy, it doesn't happen. It's very simple.
These aren't just my interpretations of the facts. Most scientists believe what I'm saying to be true, including Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawkings and Charles Darwin. To deny reality is stupid, plain and simple and that is what is happening here.
If everything is determined by the past, then the future is set in stone.
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
By the grace surferdude referred to, I have been blessed with the right variables in my life that enabled me to go beyond being a bi-polar disordered person with spiritual transcendent episodes experienced through psychosis. I'm one of the unbelievably fortunate ones who has been guided to the degree of being able to transform, heal, overcome illness and own my higher spiritual nature.
See, you have a great ego Angelica. Your ego trumps any objective or emprical data presented to you.
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
See, you have a great ego Angelica. Your ego trumps any objective or emprical data presented to you.
If I were wrapped up in my ego, I would think it was because of my own self that the blessings in my life happened. Instead, I attribute the blessings of my life to the proper sources beyond my self.
Empirical: 1.derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory.
3.provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
Empirics: 1. One who is guided by practical experience rather than precepts or theory.
Considering my views were developed through empirics, and the empirical data of experience and observation, it might be your own ego that is trumping empirical data presented.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If I were wrapped up in my ego, I would think it was because of my own self that the blessings in my life happened. Instead, I attribute the blessings of my life to the proper sources beyond my self.
Empirical: 1.derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory.
3.provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
Empirics: 1. One who is guided by practical experience rather than precepts or theory.
Considering my views were developed through empirics, and the empirical data of experience and observation, it might be your own ego that is trumping empirical data presented.
lol, that's not what it means.
provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
I can not experience what you've experienced. I can not perform an experiment that I can represent for peer review to prove your theory. Your simplified definition of empirical means everything exists that has ever been experienced.
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
You'll have to take your issue up with dictionary.com, then, Ahnimus. Just because you delete your own self from an equation, and project that objectification onto everything else, apparently including dictionary definitions, does not make your view now over-ride dictionaries.
"Experience alone can decide on truth. ... Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world: all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)"
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Angelica is taking about philosophy most of the time, I believe it's been described as "Hippy liberal" something or other. Which it is, it's hippy-talk, it's not reality. It's fantasy...
"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." --Albert Einstein.
"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long common place concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken". --Albert Einstein
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Apparently, secondhand or theoretical is the opposite of empirical (antonym), firsthand, as in my firsthand experience, is synonymous with empirical.
Ok, quantify the experiment and present it to me in a format that is comprehensive and reproducible. I would like to do a scientific analysis and have it reviewed by the scientific community. If you are correct then we have negated everything we know about the universe and our place in it.
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 fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." --Albert Einstein.
"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long common place concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken". --Albert Einstein
I didn't see anything about fantasy in those quotes. I understand what Einstein is saying in a completely different manner. As I understand it, he is recognizing the value of philosophy and such as a gateway, but realizes that sometimes these percepts can become seemingly unbreakable over time.
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
Ok, quantify the experiment and present it to me in a format that is comprehensive and reproducible. I would like to do a scientific analysis and have it reviewed by the scientific community. If you are correct then we have negated everything we know about the universe and our place in it.
We haven't negated anything. Science is not all of the universe. The science you are talking about explains the physical aspects of the universe. Science springs from philosophy. Science does not replace philosophy. Science is a means of assessing and uncovering natural laws and attributes of life. Science is not natural law. Science is not life. Science is perfectly well and good in it's place in the universe.
A science that dominates and overtakes aspects of life outside it's grasp is not science but instead is scientism.
No matter what argument you use to back scientism and to back up dominating what science does not have dominion over--such as life, itself--your argument is automatically invalid, because natural law will be against you.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Science can explain everything, except your dream world. Think about it.
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
Using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, basically stimulating neurons non-invasively by a magnet, scientists can control what you do and you believe you made the choice.
At best these experiments show that under certain circumstances, scentists can override free will. What they have done is not disprove it. Also, I find the problem with this thread is that for there to be a debate of any substance we first have to agree on what free will is.
~*~*~*~*PROUD EVENFLOW PSYCHO #0026~*~*~*~*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
At best these experiments show that under certain circumstances, scentists can override free will. What they have done is not disprove it. Also, I find the problem with this thread is that for there to be a debate of any substance we first have to agree on what free will is.
From wikipedia:
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.
They all basically mean the same thing. Free-will as in the ability to control our choices outside of deterministic reality.
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
At best these experiments show that under certain circumstances, scentists can override free will. What they have done is not disprove it. Also, I find the problem with this thread is that for there to be a debate of any substance we first have to agree on what free will is.
Also, the thing is. To debate this issue you really have to look deep. For example, because scientists can over-ride or interfere with free-will by stimulating the brain, implies that free-will is a function of the brain, not the function of anything else.
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
"Everything is determined by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust - we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." -- Albert Einstein
"The initial configuration of the universe may have been chosen by God, or it may itself have been determined by the laws of science. In either case, it would seem that everything in the universe would then be determined by evolution according to the laws of science, so it is difficult to see how we can be masters of our fate." -- Stephen Hawking
"There are a lot of myths which make the human race cruel and barbarous and unkind. Good and Evil, Sin and Crime, Free Will and the like delusions made to excuse God for damning men and to excuse men for crucifying each other." - Clarence Darrow
"Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." --Charles Darwin
"The enormous value of the concept of free will in relieving parental shame and guilt is the only and overriding reason, in our opinion, that the lie of free will is well nigh universally taught to all children. If and when we can convince parents of total determinism, so they are freed from their own shame and guilt, they will no longer need to teach the vicious lie of free will to the world's children. A new world will be born." -- Peter Gill
"You will say that I feel free. This is an illusion, which may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, who, upon the pole of a heavy carriage, applauded himself for directing its course. Man, who thinks himself free, is a fly who imagines he has power to move the universe, while he is himself unknowingly carried along by it." -- Baron d'Hobach
"Whether or not we have personality disturbances, whether or not we have the ability to overcome deficiencies of early environment, is like the answer to the question whether or not we shall be struck down by a dread disease: "it's all a matter of luck." It is important to keep this in mind, for people almost always forget it, with consequences in human intolerance and unnecessary suffering that are incalculable." -- John Hospers
"Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only on these: A set of fixed, deterministic laws. A purely random set of accidents." -- Marvin Minsky
"The first dogma which I came to disbelieve was that of free will. It seemed to me that all notions of matter were determined by the laws of dynamics and could not therefore be influenced by human wills." -- Bertrand Russell
"A self is a repertoire of behavior appropriate to a given set of contingencies." -- B. F. Skinner
"To say that a man is sinful because he sins is to give an operational definition of sin. To say that he sins because he is sinful is to trace his behavior to a supposed inner trait. But whether or not a person engages in the kind of behavior called sinful depends upon circumstances which are not mentioned in either question. The sin assigned as an inner possession (the sin a person "knows") is to be found in a history of reinforcement." - B. F. Skinner
"In the mind there is no absolute or free will; but the mind is determined to wish this or that by a cause, which has also been determined by another cause, and this last by another cause, and so on to infinity." - Baruch Spinoza
"Everything happens through immutable laws, ...everything is necessary... There are, some persons say, some events which are necessary and others which are not. It would be very comic that one part of the world was arranged, and the other were not; that one part of what happens had to happen and that another part of what happens did not have to happen. If one looks closely at it, one sees that the doctrine contrary to that of destiny is absurd; but there are many people destined to reason badly; others not to reason at all others to persecute those who reason." - Voltaire
The real irony of all this, is science leading to God. Steven Hawkings one of the foremost physicists says in A Brief History of Time Pg. 127 "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of God who intended to create beings like us"
That's a pretty good argument. But, it doesn't explain what God is.
You have no scientific support, what you have is the support of scientists. Two completely different things.
~*~*~*~*PROUD EVENFLOW PSYCHO #0026~*~*~*~*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
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
Also, the thing is. To debate this issue you really have to look deep. For example, because scientists can over-ride or interfere with free-will by stimulating the brain, implies that free-will is a function of the brain, not the function of anything else.
No it implies that the brain is the medium through which free will manifests itself. For example if I smash up my teleivision right now it does not prove that the signal is no longer working it merely proves that the medium through which the signal actualizes itself is not working.
~*~*~*~*PROUD EVENFLOW PSYCHO #0026~*~*~*~*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
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
There is one regarding the ecological-systems viewpoint on behavioral development, but I can't find a source :(
David R. Schaffer's "Developmental Pscyhology" is how I learned about it.
It's pretty basic though, it just means that everyone is subjected to a different variety of ecosystem and this weighs on their development.
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 point out the absence of the study of free-will. All approaches to psychology, either subjective or objective disregard free-will. Psychology is typically considered the subjective approach to studying the mind, contrary to what Angelica has taught. Although Psychology has undergone some major changes to validate it.
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
Thanks.
This is difficult. To argue from a scientific perspective is not really possible, there is simply not enough information and research on this matter, what I have seen has seemed to be a stepping stone to further understanding rather that descisive evidence. From a philosophical perspective is again difficult, manily because I would prefer to kepp 'GOD' out of the equation because it's inclusion tends to cause anyone tlaking to deviate.
The reason I found your early examples of the wrist movement to be weak was simply that I do not see the body and conciousness to be synonyms. I can't decide that I am never going to take a piss again, but I can decide what book I'm going to read. I believe that conciousness, free will, has to exist within a biological housing and and that two have to have a connection, using the example of the book, what good is it if I decide to read a book but cannot make myself pick it up and turn the pages. The result of this connection is that the two become to be seen as synonyms, which they are not. I cannot explain how free will came about, it's causality, I am merely stating that logic tells me that it exists in some form.
~*~*~*~*PROUD EVENFLOW PSYCHO #0026~*~*~*~*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
Science can explain everything, except your dream world. Think about it.
I think it's that attitude that brings you head-on with angelica, and for that matter me. And I am a scientist of sorts. Well social sciences, but we use scientific methodology and statistics, which often are the center-pieces of science. And the key thing about science in my experience, is also knowing what you can or can't know based on scientific enquiry. What you can uncover and what you can't.
You posit that determinism is scientifically proved and sound and unproblematic. This is far from the case. True, some scientists have posited that the universe may be run on deterministic rules. And to some degree they may be right. But at least when they are applying their laws, they have to view the world as deterministic. Law = determinism. If you find a law, in order to use it, you must base it on determinism. That doesn't mean that the law is true, or is detailed enough.
And what angelica is on about, which I support, is about what is not physical (the way we think of it anyway), what is not rational and what is not scientific. And there are lots of things that are neither of these. With your statement here, you clearly state that you will refuse to consider anything of the sort. For your purposes science = reality. Frankly, that's your loss. And what angelica was about when quoting Einstein on the earthly origins of science, and how the structures that are seen to explain and order something often are in the way in discovering new things. Science is man-made. It is not given special insight, nor is it automatically true even if due process is followed. Science is about repeating things and writing down the results to enable prediction. And although it is a good method for many things, one must have in mind it's limitations. For instance things that cannot be repeated can never be scientific. Doesn't mean they never can happen. Science can be used to determine various mechanics and causations in the world, true. But that does not mean that because science can't find them, they aren't there... Science is about what we can be sure of. But there are a lot of things that are on the outside of what we can be sure of. Think of science as a small circle inside a larger circle that's reality and everything in it. Science is part of reality, it is not equal to it.
But if you refuse to go any way in acknowledging or accepting such a view, then the debate is really mute. If you cannot accept that there are or at least may be things that are beyond science, scientific enquiry or even logic, well I guess that's that.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Thanks.
This is difficult. To argue from a scientific perspective is not really possible, there is simply not enough information and research on this matter, what I have seen has seemed to be a stepping stone to further understanding rather that descisive evidence. From a philosophical perspective is again difficult, manily because I would prefer to kepp 'GOD' out of the equation because it's inclusion tends to cause anyone tlaking to deviate.
The reason I found your early examples of the wrist movement to be weak was simply that I do not see the body and conciousness to be synonyms. I can't decide that I am never going to take a piss again, but I can decide what book I'm going to read. I believe that conciousness, free will, has to exist within a biological housing and and that two have to have a connection, using the example of the book, what good is it if I decide to read a book but cannot make myself pick it up and turn the pages. The result of this connection is that the two become to be seen as synonyms, which they are not. I cannot explain how free will came about, it's causality, I am merely stating that logic tells me that it exists in some form.
See the thing is, you are saying it is causally bound. The only argument against determinism is that it isn't causally bound.
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 think it's that attitude that brings you head-on with angelica, and for that matter me. And I am a scientist of sorts. Well social sciences, but we use scientific methodology and statistics, which often are the center-pieces of science. And the key thing about science in my experience, is also knowing what you can or can't know based on scientific enquiry. What you can uncover and what you can't.
You posit that determinism is scientifically proved and sound and unproblematic. This is far from the case. True, some scientists have posited that the universe may be run on deterministic rules. And to some degree they may be right. But at least when they are applying their laws, they have to view the world as deterministic. Law = determinism. If you find a law, in order to use it, you must base it on determinism. That doesn't mean that the law is true, or is detailed enough.
And what angelica is on about, which I support, is about what is not physical (the way we think of it anyway), what is not rational and what is not scientific. And there are lots of things that are neither of these. With your statement here, you clearly state that you will refuse to consider anything of the sort. For your purposes science = reality. Frankly, that's your loss. And what angelica was about when quoting Einstein on the earthly origins of science, and how the structures that are seen to explain and order something often are in the way in discovering new things. Science is man-made. It is not given special insight, nor is it automatically true even if due process is followed. Science is about repeating things and writing down the results to enable prediction. And although it is a good method for many things, one must have in mind it's limitations. For instance things that cannot be repeated can never be scientific. Doesn't mean they never can happen. Science can be used to determine various mechanics and causations in the world, true. But that does not mean that because science can't find them, they aren't there... Science is about what we can be sure of. But there are a lot of things that are on the outside of what we can be sure of. Think of science as a small circle inside a larger circle that's reality and everything in it. Science is part of reality, it is not equal to it.
But if you refuse to go any way in acknowledging or accepting such a view, then the debate is really mute. If you cannot accept that there are or at least may be things that are beyond science, scientific enquiry or even logic, well I guess that's that.
Peace
Dan
Angelica and I both believe in determinism. But because of a subjective experience she doesn't accept it in it's entirety. That makes sense, I guess. But not from a skeptical point of view. Skeptics typically need some kind of repeatable proof.
Yea, Science is man-made, so is the term causality, so is consciousness and will. However, from the moment of birth the human being begins to determine causality. We are attuned to the causal structure or the universe. After all we are a part of it. As a social scientist, I would think that would be understood. Or perhaps I don't know what a social scientist is. This can be clear from even minor studies of human development, or simply by observing children. It's true how the brain develops in developmental biology, a child has trillions more neurons than an adult and is highly plastic. This is the stage for determining most of reality. If part of the brain is knocked out at this point, other neurons will take over the job. This is not true for adults and many of those neurons, dendrites and white matter fails to survive into adulthood as they serve no purpose. Right from the start, both biologically and psychologically speaking, the human being determines cause and effect.
I mean, it's such a contradiction to have both cause and effect and some kind of will. But maybe 2 + 2 does equal 22, what do I know?
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 meant to mention as well Dan, that science has lead society to better understanding. Most of how we live today is cause of science. We do not banish the parapolegic or decapitate the schizophrenic anymore. We do not view people as witches, warlocks and demons. This is because of what science has taught us about ourselves.
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
Angelica and I both believe in determinism. But because of a subjective experience she doesn't accept it in it's entirety. That makes sense, I guess. But not from a skeptical point of view. Skeptics typically need some kind of repeatable proof.
Yea, Science is man-made, so is the term causality, so is consciousness and will. However, from the moment of birth the human being begins to determine causality. We are attuned to the causal structure or the universe. After all we are a part of it. As a social scientist, I would think that would be understood. Or perhaps I don't know what a social scientist is. This can be clear from even minor studies of human development, or simply by observing children. It's true how the brain develops in developmental biology, a child has trillions more neurons than an adult and is highly plastic. This is the stage for determining most of reality. If part of the brain is knocked out at this point, other neurons will take over the job. This is not true for adults and many of those neurons, dendrites and white matter fails to survive into adulthood as they serve no purpose. Right from the start, both biologically and psychologically speaking, the human being determines cause and effect.
I mean, it's such a contradiction to have both cause and effect and some kind of will. But maybe 2 + 2 does equal 22, what do I know?
And I do follow some of the way on it, like Angelica. I just dont accept it in its entirety. Firstly because for us to verify it, we must have complete knowledge of it. And we dont have complete knowledge of anything. We are now on about the parts of psychology I never got a liking for, for various reasons. Put simply, it is about what neurotransmitters cause which moods and behaviour and so on. However, I always felt the causality of it was pretty unclear. OK, serotonin is associated with this and that. But what prompts the release of serotonin? Do you feel what you feel because of serotonin, or is serotonin released when you feel that way? And even if you can reproduce some of the effect with a pill, that does not mean 100% certainty that the chemical always comes first, and the mind is ever re-acting. Same way the experiment at the outset shows that one can fool people's will into believing they willed it. Does not mean that they never will something, or that the stimulus always comes first. Although it does raise questions.
Besides, does your argument here read then as we have free will as little toddlers, but once our brains are "stiffened" we are deterministic?
And also, deterministic states that it is completely certain that something will happen. Not reasonably sure or pretty sure. One thing is that habits, learned mind sets and so on has a huge influence on what a person thinks or does. But knowing the mindset and habits should then enable you to be completely sure how this person will act in every situation. Meaning everyone will always act predictably. I dont accept that for so many reasons, and angelica is onto many of them. (She also says it better than I could have)
And as I read it now, what you say about "from birth we determine causality" etc. Well, we are born into a system. A man-made system and a man-made way of seeing things. We are not born into objectivity. We all are subjectivities. 2+2=4 is true in a certain system of mathematics and logic constructed by men. In reality or other systems 2+2 may hold no meaning at all. That our brain is trained to determine cause and effect a certain way, does not mean it is true, objectively, outside our heads. Maybe our way of thinking automatically excludes much of reality.
I'm just saying you put too much into science and its results. And there's no reason to blow off philosophy or any transcendent view as "hippy talk". There are a lot of things we dont know. And just because you can put together a perspective from bits and pieces of science (who in its nature is biased towards determinism by its quest for laws) to make a certain picture, does not mean you have the full picture. The smaller circle is not the bigger circle...
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I apologize if I was not clear. I did not dispute your facts; I pointed out that your personal opinions and interpretations of the facts are just that: your personal, subjective opinions and interpretations.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
A state is a passing experience. Whether transcendent or psychotic. Being at levels where one has integrated transcendent/spiritual states into actual permanent traits is not at all a passing state, but a lasting STAGE of consciousness. A stage of consciousness cannot be psychotic.
In my own case this is exactly how it worked for me. It took me approximately 8-10 years before I effectively integrated the numerous spiritual experiences I've had since I turned 30. It was a long challenging road, but once I had these experiences of Truth, far beyond what was normal, I had to move towards allowing that Truth to become a permanent experience rather than a glimmer. This road entailed a complete ongoing dedication to healing, growth and transcendence, based upon reading book upon book on any related subject, and including addressing each of my disorders/addictions through practical treatments.
By the grace surferdude referred to, I have been blessed with the right variables in my life that enabled me to go beyond being a bi-polar disordered person with spiritual transcendent episodes experienced through psychosis. I'm one of the unbelievably fortunate ones who has been guided to the degree of being able to transform, heal, overcome illness and own my higher spiritual nature.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok, right now, I am speaking through alcoholic influence, but I will do my best to make it legible.
Everything a person does they do for "reasons", even if they are unknown to them. Cause and effect, you said yourself : "All that we experience whether good or bad. teaches us and makes us stronger." amongst other statements that are in-line with determinism. Cause and effect means that the effect of ourselves is merely that of external causes, such as our parents. Our attitudes, behaviors and perceptions are molded by experience and genetics. This is totally undisputed in science. Angelica is taking about philosophy most of the time, I believe it's been described as "Hippy liberal" something or other. Which it is, it's hippy-talk, it's not reality. It's fantasy, and while dreams are good for art, they aren't for science, which is the study of reality. If a person has an experience beyond reality and can not measure it, well it's just ridiculous to believe it's fact. It's a made up fantasy, it doesn't happen. It's very simple.
These aren't just my interpretations of the facts. Most scientists believe what I'm saying to be true, including Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawkings and Charles Darwin. To deny reality is stupid, plain and simple and that is what is happening here.
If everything is determined by the past, then the future is set in stone.
See, you have a great ego Angelica. Your ego trumps any objective or emprical data presented to you.
If I were wrapped up in my ego, I would think it was because of my own self that the blessings in my life happened. Instead, I attribute the blessings of my life to the proper sources beyond my self.
Empirical: 1.derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory.
3.provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
Empirics: 1. One who is guided by practical experience rather than precepts or theory.
Considering my views were developed through empirics, and the empirical data of experience and observation, it might be your own ego that is trumping empirical data presented.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
lol, that's not what it means.
provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
I can not experience what you've experienced. I can not perform an experiment that I can represent for peer review to prove your theory. Your simplified definition of empirical means everything exists that has ever been experienced.
"Experience alone can decide on truth. ... Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world: all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)"
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Synonyms 1, 2. practical, firsthand, pragmatic.
Antonyms 1, 2. secondhand, theoretical.
Apparently, secondhand or theoretical is the opposite of empirical (antonym), firsthand, as in my firsthand experience, is synonymous with empirical.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." --Albert Einstein.
"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long common place concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken". --Albert Einstein
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok, quantify the experiment and present it to me in a format that is comprehensive and reproducible. I would like to do a scientific analysis and have it reviewed by the scientific community. If you are correct then we have negated everything we know about the universe and our place in it.
I didn't see anything about fantasy in those quotes. I understand what Einstein is saying in a completely different manner. As I understand it, he is recognizing the value of philosophy and such as a gateway, but realizes that sometimes these percepts can become seemingly unbreakable over time.
We haven't negated anything. Science is not all of the universe. The science you are talking about explains the physical aspects of the universe. Science springs from philosophy. Science does not replace philosophy. Science is a means of assessing and uncovering natural laws and attributes of life. Science is not natural law. Science is not life. Science is perfectly well and good in it's place in the universe.
A science that dominates and overtakes aspects of life outside it's grasp is not science but instead is scientism.
No matter what argument you use to back scientism and to back up dominating what science does not have dominion over--such as life, itself--your argument is automatically invalid, because natural law will be against you.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
At best these experiments show that under certain circumstances, scentists can override free will. What they have done is not disprove it. Also, I find the problem with this thread is that for there to be a debate of any substance we first have to agree on what free will is.
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
From wikipedia:
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.
They all basically mean the same thing. Free-will as in the ability to control our choices outside of deterministic reality.
Also, the thing is. To debate this issue you really have to look deep. For example, because scientists can over-ride or interfere with free-will by stimulating the brain, implies that free-will is a function of the brain, not the function of anything else.
You have no scientific support, what you have is the support of scientists. Two completely different things.
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
Ok, well here is a place to start. I can help explain any of these things further, or let you know how it pertains to the issue.
Here are some links to many of the scientific theories and philosophical views.
Basic behavior of organisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotaxis
Hebbian Theory: Synaptic Plasticity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory
Cellular Automata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_Automaton
Cellular Automata: Rule 30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30
Benjamin Libet: Implications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjami...7s_experiments
Synapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse
Love: Chemical Basis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Chemical_basis
Physics: Destiny Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_theory
Free-Wll: Science and Free-Will
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-wi..._and_free_will
More are available upon request.
No it implies that the brain is the medium through which free will manifests itself. For example if I smash up my teleivision right now it does not prove that the signal is no longer working it merely proves that the medium through which the signal actualizes itself is not working.
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
These should be enough cheers. I'll leaf through them at some point today.
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
Information-processing in psychology, refers to the way the brain processes information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_processing
Jean Piaget, a well respected developmental psychologist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development
David R. Schaffer's "Developmental Pscyhology" is how I learned about it.
It's pretty basic though, it just means that everyone is subjected to a different variety of ecosystem and this weighs on their development.
(You may have read his quotes in the post above)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.F._Skinner
Psychology: Behaviorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism
I would point out the absence of the study of free-will. All approaches to psychology, either subjective or objective disregard free-will. Psychology is typically considered the subjective approach to studying the mind, contrary to what Angelica has taught. Although Psychology has undergone some major changes to validate it.
Thanks.
This is difficult. To argue from a scientific perspective is not really possible, there is simply not enough information and research on this matter, what I have seen has seemed to be a stepping stone to further understanding rather that descisive evidence. From a philosophical perspective is again difficult, manily because I would prefer to kepp 'GOD' out of the equation because it's inclusion tends to cause anyone tlaking to deviate.
The reason I found your early examples of the wrist movement to be weak was simply that I do not see the body and conciousness to be synonyms. I can't decide that I am never going to take a piss again, but I can decide what book I'm going to read. I believe that conciousness, free will, has to exist within a biological housing and and that two have to have a connection, using the example of the book, what good is it if I decide to read a book but cannot make myself pick it up and turn the pages. The result of this connection is that the two become to be seen as synonyms, which they are not. I cannot explain how free will came about, it's causality, I am merely stating that logic tells me that it exists in some form.
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
I think it's that attitude that brings you head-on with angelica, and for that matter me. And I am a scientist of sorts. Well social sciences, but we use scientific methodology and statistics, which often are the center-pieces of science. And the key thing about science in my experience, is also knowing what you can or can't know based on scientific enquiry. What you can uncover and what you can't.
You posit that determinism is scientifically proved and sound and unproblematic. This is far from the case. True, some scientists have posited that the universe may be run on deterministic rules. And to some degree they may be right. But at least when they are applying their laws, they have to view the world as deterministic. Law = determinism. If you find a law, in order to use it, you must base it on determinism. That doesn't mean that the law is true, or is detailed enough.
And what angelica is on about, which I support, is about what is not physical (the way we think of it anyway), what is not rational and what is not scientific. And there are lots of things that are neither of these. With your statement here, you clearly state that you will refuse to consider anything of the sort. For your purposes science = reality. Frankly, that's your loss. And what angelica was about when quoting Einstein on the earthly origins of science, and how the structures that are seen to explain and order something often are in the way in discovering new things. Science is man-made. It is not given special insight, nor is it automatically true even if due process is followed. Science is about repeating things and writing down the results to enable prediction. And although it is a good method for many things, one must have in mind it's limitations. For instance things that cannot be repeated can never be scientific. Doesn't mean they never can happen. Science can be used to determine various mechanics and causations in the world, true. But that does not mean that because science can't find them, they aren't there... Science is about what we can be sure of. But there are a lot of things that are on the outside of what we can be sure of. Think of science as a small circle inside a larger circle that's reality and everything in it. Science is part of reality, it is not equal to it.
But if you refuse to go any way in acknowledging or accepting such a view, then the debate is really mute. If you cannot accept that there are or at least may be things that are beyond science, scientific enquiry or even logic, well I guess that's that.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
This link was busted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#The_implications_of_Libet.27s_experiments
See the thing is, you are saying it is causally bound. The only argument against determinism is that it isn't causally bound.
Angelica and I both believe in determinism. But because of a subjective experience she doesn't accept it in it's entirety. That makes sense, I guess. But not from a skeptical point of view. Skeptics typically need some kind of repeatable proof.
Yea, Science is man-made, so is the term causality, so is consciousness and will. However, from the moment of birth the human being begins to determine causality. We are attuned to the causal structure or the universe. After all we are a part of it. As a social scientist, I would think that would be understood. Or perhaps I don't know what a social scientist is. This can be clear from even minor studies of human development, or simply by observing children. It's true how the brain develops in developmental biology, a child has trillions more neurons than an adult and is highly plastic. This is the stage for determining most of reality. If part of the brain is knocked out at this point, other neurons will take over the job. This is not true for adults and many of those neurons, dendrites and white matter fails to survive into adulthood as they serve no purpose. Right from the start, both biologically and psychologically speaking, the human being determines cause and effect.
I mean, it's such a contradiction to have both cause and effect and some kind of will. But maybe 2 + 2 does equal 22, what do I know?
And I do follow some of the way on it, like Angelica. I just dont accept it in its entirety. Firstly because for us to verify it, we must have complete knowledge of it. And we dont have complete knowledge of anything. We are now on about the parts of psychology I never got a liking for, for various reasons. Put simply, it is about what neurotransmitters cause which moods and behaviour and so on. However, I always felt the causality of it was pretty unclear. OK, serotonin is associated with this and that. But what prompts the release of serotonin? Do you feel what you feel because of serotonin, or is serotonin released when you feel that way? And even if you can reproduce some of the effect with a pill, that does not mean 100% certainty that the chemical always comes first, and the mind is ever re-acting. Same way the experiment at the outset shows that one can fool people's will into believing they willed it. Does not mean that they never will something, or that the stimulus always comes first. Although it does raise questions.
Besides, does your argument here read then as we have free will as little toddlers, but once our brains are "stiffened" we are deterministic?
And also, deterministic states that it is completely certain that something will happen. Not reasonably sure or pretty sure. One thing is that habits, learned mind sets and so on has a huge influence on what a person thinks or does. But knowing the mindset and habits should then enable you to be completely sure how this person will act in every situation. Meaning everyone will always act predictably. I dont accept that for so many reasons, and angelica is onto many of them. (She also says it better than I could have)
And as I read it now, what you say about "from birth we determine causality" etc. Well, we are born into a system. A man-made system and a man-made way of seeing things. We are not born into objectivity. We all are subjectivities. 2+2=4 is true in a certain system of mathematics and logic constructed by men. In reality or other systems 2+2 may hold no meaning at all. That our brain is trained to determine cause and effect a certain way, does not mean it is true, objectively, outside our heads. Maybe our way of thinking automatically excludes much of reality.
I'm just saying you put too much into science and its results. And there's no reason to blow off philosophy or any transcendent view as "hippy talk". There are a lot of things we dont know. And just because you can put together a perspective from bits and pieces of science (who in its nature is biased towards determinism by its quest for laws) to make a certain picture, does not mean you have the full picture. The smaller circle is not the bigger circle...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965