What Im gatherhering from Mike is he is mostly the way I used to be, or maybe any of us who had adopted wierwille/way international theology to one degree or another. It's obvious from reading mike's posts he is desperately trying to make wierwille fit with science/neuroscience, etc.
No. Not desperate, and not trying to have ulterior motives.
Just interested.
I was interested in free will versus determinism approximately 4 years before taking the PFAL class.
Besides, there IS NO substantial theology we were given by VPW on free will, just those 3 bare tips I got from him that have helped guide me in my research.
If ever I was desperate, it was when I started realizing that Roger Penrose, Quantum, and Godel would not be helping me in my studies on free will.I had been counting on all 3, but they all fizzled out around 2002.For several years I didn’t know WHAT I believed about free will.
But then an astounding idea came that rescued me.
I have never mentioned this here, because it is so strange.But it was the solution to the mirror riddle that inspired minFW about 9 years ago.Oddly, Daniel Dennett tried his hand at the mirror riddle some 35 years ago, so I sent him my solution.
He and Douglas Hofstadter (the Godel man)collaborated on a book called “The Mind’s Eye” long ago, and they included a little bit on the mirror riddle. When I sent my mirror solution to Hofstadter he wrote back and told me it was the same solution he came up when he was a teenager.His father won a Nobel Prize in Physics, so I was not too embarrassed.
No, not desperate.
Yes, very fascinated.
*/*/*/*/*
And ANOTHER THING you all get wrong about me, my position, my morality, and my writing (and BTW there are a lot of things you get wrong!), is my motivation(s) for posting.
I do want people to come back to written PFAL to get blessed, but I’ve said that a thousand ways, already. I am not so focused on preaching PFAL as much lately, ESPECIALLY on this Free Will thread.
On this thread, and the NT Canon thread, I am exercising my writing skills and my explanatory skills. I am learning to communicate this topic of free will to a different crowd, and that brings me a lot of benefits.
With the canon thread, it was pretty much only Walter, Bernita, and Bo Reheard that I ever discussed that topic with, and that was 45 years ago, so my canon writing got a revival and great benefits in that thread.
I did this same thing 15 years ago with two threads on the mirror riddle, which had NOTHING to do with PFAL. Then I figured we all needed some comedy relief from the “mike wars” and I think it worked…. a little.
One very specific benefit I get from discussing these “unfinished” topics of mine here is boilerplate.Most of my 5 posted chapters came from Facebook boilerplate. I get to generate more here.
Twinky invited me to her evidence thread, and when this one runs its course (which I thought it had a few times) then I want to expand my “evidence” horizons.
I’ve been eyeing the evidence topic for many years, and have a large “Evidence Archive”folder to review and post.I’ve never read the contents of that folder, until just this morning when I reorganized it and got rid of duplicate files.
You do know that people have more than 5 senses. A neuroscientist such as yourself should know that.
The “five senses”has become an idiom, and no one in Neuroscience blinks when that phrase is used.
Any other senses are NOT well known or understood by the non-technical crowd.
I noticed you did not offer any new senses for consideration. I am all ears.
A grad student friend of mine at UCSD was studying electric fish, that have a sense for electric charge buildup, or something like that.We got into wondering if we may have the same sense, but don’t get to use it often enough to know it’s there.
Five senses works for me and all those to whom I am writing.
I think a major problem in the whole free will vs. determinism debate is the failure to understand that we're dealing with nominalizations.
Nominalizations are verbs that are disguised as nouns.
Saint Vic addressed this in the class when he talked on not being able to warm love in a test tube and having a test tube of hot love.
Love doesn't exist, but being loving does.
Terry Pratchett mentions this in one of novels when he suggests: "Grind the universe to a fine powder, then sift it through the finest screen, and show me one molecule of duty, one atom of mercy."
Duty doesn't exist but being dutiful does
Mercy doesn't exist, but being merciful does.
Put simply, you're thinking you're dealing with things, determinism and free will, when you're actually dealing with processes.
There is no determinism, only a regulation process.
There is no free will, only a process of choice.
There are no subdivisions of choice any more than there are subdivisions of gravity or electricity.
Choice is choice and free will is free will, just as soup is soup and apple butter is apple butter.
This is true.These items of free will and determinism are not simple objects at all.
But in a sense, processes do exist and are real also.Life is a process.
You don’t see any life in an atom; just a neat little machine.
All of Chemistry is making even more nifty machines with collections of atoms.Nano-mechanics is now happening where machines start to imitate one cell organisms.All of Biology is wet machinery, that can do some fantastic processes the little atoms cannot do.
Science and biology and medicine have progressed much in our time, and more and more processes of the human body are being understood.Broken people are being fixed in lots of ways.I think science can still find more useful information on the human decision making process IF it is natural.
If free will is spiritual, then I am wasting my time with minFW.
But if it is natural, some if it should be discoverable.
I am merely guessing here as to how that discovery process can benefit from a theoretical deterministic free will mechanism.But that is what I have come up with: a deterministic free will mechanism.
All the other ideas of free will that I have seen, going back many centuries, avoid the idea of mechanism and biology.
Free will has been treated as a semi-miraculous spiritual entity for 1000 years, and it was secularized several hundred years ago by Philosophers to be less religious, but is still anti-science.
I am trying to say that free will is natural biology, and that is the bottom line here for my ideas.
*/*/*/*
I haven’t gotten to my response to your response to my response…
Like I said it is complicated, but I think there are a few points in there that bear mentioning. … sooner or later.
Please tell OldSkool that I am on it, and it is the weekend, and school is out.
No. Not desperate, and not trying to have ulterior motives.
Just interested.
I was interested in free will versus determinism approximately 4 years before taking the PFAL class.
Besides, there IS NO substantial theology we were given by VPW on free will, just those 3 bare tips I got from him that have helped guide me in my research.
If ever I was desperate, it was when I started realizing that Roger Penrose, Quantum, and Godel would not be helping me in my studies on free will.I had been counting on all 3, but they all fizzled out around 2002.For several years I didn’t know WHAT I believed about free will.
But then an astounding idea came that rescued me.
I have never mentioned this here, because it is so strange.But it was the solution to the mirror riddle that inspired minFW about 9 years ago.Oddly, Daniel Dennett tried his hand at the mirror riddle some 35 years ago, so I sent him my solution.
He and Douglas Hofstadter (the Godel man)collaborated on a book called “The Mind’s Eye” long ago, and they included a little bit on the mirror riddle. When I sent my mirror solution to Hofstadter he wrote back and told me it was the same solution he came up when he was a teenager.His father won a Nobel Prize in Physics, so I was not too embarrassed.
No, not desperate.
Yes, very fascinated.
*/*/*/*/*
And ANOTHER THING you all get wrong about me, my position, my morality, and my writing (and BTW there are a lot of things you get wrong!), is my motivation(s) for posting.
I do want people to come back to written PFAL to get blessed, but I’ve said that a thousand ways, already. I am not so focused on preaching PFAL as much lately, ESPECIALLY on this Free Will thread.
On this thread, and the NT Canon thread, I am exercising my writing skills and my explanatory skills. I am learning to communicate this topic of free will to a different crowd, and that brings me a lot of benefits.
With the canon thread, it was pretty much only Walter, Bernita, and Bo Reheard that I ever discussed that topic with, and that was 45 years ago, so my canon writing got a revival and great benefits in that thread.
I did this same thing 15 years ago with two threads on the mirror riddle, which had NOTHING to do with PFAL. Then I figured we all needed some comedy relief from the “mike wars” and I think it worked…. a little.
One very specific benefit I get from discussing these “unfinished” topics of mine here is boilerplate.Most of my 5 posted chapters came from Facebook boilerplate. I get to generate more here.
Twinky invited me to her evidence thread, and when this one runs its course (which I thought it had a few times) then I want to expand my “evidence” horizons.
I’ve been eyeing the evidence topic for many years, and have a large “Evidence Archive”folder to review and post.I’ve never read the contents of that folder, until just this morning when I reorganized it and got rid of duplicate files.
So, you can relax your PFAL phobia a little.
In these threads I am more expanding my horizons.
27 minutes ago, Mike said:
The “five senses”has become an idiom, and no one in Neuroscience blinks when that phrase is used.
Any other senses are NOT well known or understood by the non-technical crowd.
I noticed you did not offer any new senses for consideration. I am all ears.
A grad student friend of mine at UCSD was studying electric fish, that have a sense for electric charge buildup, or something like that.We got into wondering if we may have the same sense, but don’t get to use it often enough to know it’s there.
Five senses works for me and all those to whom I am writing.
5 minutes ago, Mike said:
This is true.These items of free will and determinism are not simple objects at all.
But in a sense, processes do exist and are real also.Life is a process.
You don’t see any life in an atom; just a neat little machine.
All of Chemistry is making even more nifty machines with collections of atoms.Nano-mechanics is now happening where machines start to imitate one cell organisms.All of Biology is wet machinery, that can do some fantastic processes the little atoms cannot do.
Science and biology and medicine have progressed much in our time, and more and more processes of the human body are being understood.Broken people are being fixed in lots of ways.I think science can still find more useful information on the human decision making process IF it is natural.
If free will is spiritual, then I am wasting my time with minFW.
But if it is natural, some if it should be discoverable.
I am merely guessing here as to how that discovery process can benefit from a theoretical deterministic free will mechanism.But that is what I have come up with: a deterministic free will mechanism.
All the other ideas of free will that I have seen, going back many centuries, avoid the idea of mechanism and biology.
Free will has been treated as a semi-miraculous spiritual entity for 1000 years, and it was secularized several hundred years ago by Philosophers to be less religious, but is still anti-science.
I am trying to say that free will is natural biology, and that is the bottom line here for my ideas.
*/*/*/*
I haven’t gotten to my response to your response to my response…
Like I said it is complicated, but I think there are a few points in there that bear mentioning. … sooner or later.
Please tell OldSkook that I am on it, and it is the weekend, and school is out.
Signs Someone Is Trolling
It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.
Off-topic remarks: Completely going off-topic from the subject at hand. This is done to annoy and disrupt other posters.
Refusal to acknowledge evidence: Even when presented with hard, cold facts, they ignore this and pretend like they never saw it.
Dismissive, condescending tone: An early indicator of a troll was that they would ask an angry responder, “Why you mad, bro?” This is a method done to provoke someone even more, as a way of dismissing their argument altogether.
Use of unrelated images or memes: They reply to others with memes, images, and gifs. This is especially true if done in response to a very long text post.
Seeming obliviousness: They seem oblivious that most people are in disagreement with them. Also, trolls rarely get mad or provoked.
The list above is by no means definitive. There are a lot of other ways to identify that someone is trolling. Generally, if someone seems disingenuous, uninterested in a real discussion, and provocative on purpose, they’re likely an internet troll.
This is true.These items of free will and determinism are not simple objects at all.
But in a sense, processes do exist and are real also.
Never said they didn't exist and weren't real.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Life is a process.
A tautology.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
You don’t see any life in an atom; just a neat little machine.
And your point is?
1 hour ago, Mike said:
All of Chemistry is making even more nifty machines with collections of atoms.Nano-mechanics is now happening where machines start to imitate one cell organisms.All of Biology is wet machinery, that can do some fantastic processes the little atoms cannot do.
Yawn! Waitress can I get a table closer to the point?
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Science and biology and medicine have progressed much in our time, and more and more processes of the human body are being understood.Broken people are being fixed in lots of ways.
Welcome to Mike's tautology festival.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I think science can still find more useful information on the human decision making process IF it is natural.
Get to the point, Charles Dickens. You're not being paid by the word.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
If free will is spiritual, then I am wasting my time with minFW.
So far, with this post, the only time you're wasting is the reader's.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
But if it is natural, some if it should be discoverable.
And once it's discovered then what?
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I am merely guessing here as to how that discovery process can benefit from a theoretical deterministic free will mechanism.But that is what I have come up with: a deterministic free will mechanism.
Cue the drum roll. And that deterministic free will mechanism is...
1 hour ago, Mike said:
All the other ideas of free will that I have seen, going back many centuries, avoid the idea of mechanism and biology.
You apparently haven't seen all of them.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Free will has been treated as a semi-miraculous spiritual entity for 1000 years, and it was secularized several hundred years ago by Philosophers to be less religious, but is still anti-science.
I am trying to say that free will is natural biology, and that is the bottom line here for my ideas.
You might say this post is like life: it has a beginning, an end, and a lot of padding in between.
BTW, you prefaced this with OldSkool's scolding me for not responding to your set of questions. I did respond to them the night before,
Really, you gonna pat yourself on the back for one of the few times you actually answer a set of questions and not avoid or bury the questions? I also apologized for not noticing that you did answer. I agree though, I should be encouraging good behavor when it happens. Good job!
You might say this post is like life: it has a beginning, an end, and a lot of padding in between.
It's called softballs, not padding. I was making it comfortable to deal with the hidden crescendo: that free will is either natural or super-natural. Have you decided which you believe it is. I am putting my money on natural. Place your bet.
Do you even realize that you contradict yourself in the same post?
No contradiction when you realize I am talking about two different focus targets, at two different focus intensities. Take a closer look at the context.
The “five senses”has become an idiom, and no one in Neuroscience blinks when that phrase is used.
Any other senses are NOT well known or understood by the non-technical crowd.
I noticed you did not offer any new senses for consideration. I am all ears.
A grad student friend of mine at UCSD was studying electric fish, that have a sense for electric charge buildup, or something like that.We got into wondering if we may have the same sense, but don’t get to use it often enough to know it’s there.
Five senses works for me and all those to whom I am writing.
Ya, ok Mr. Wizard. You just showed everyone that you know jack-freaking-diddly about the neuroscience crowd you falsely claim to represent.
Quote
Neuroscientists are well aware that we are a bundle of senses.As this video by Aeon explains, many would argue that we have anywhere between 22 and 33 different senses.
No contradiction when you realize I am talking about two different focus targets, at two different focus intensities. Take a closer look at the context.
Right...I keep forgetting it's my fault you can't clearly communicate and contracict yourself in the same set of paragraphs and then roll through with a dump truck load of bullshonta to rationalize it all way.
I never said I represent them; only that I learned from them, and had opportunity to make small contributions.
You should focus on the IDEAS I am talking about. You'd have a better time that way, than playing Sherlock Holmes and focused on my life. It's ideas that matter here, not me.
I never said I represent them; only that I learned from them, and had opportunity to make small contributions.
You should focus on the IDEAS I am talking about. You'd have a better time that way, than playing Sherlock Holmes and focused on my life. It's ideas that matter here, not me.
Signs Someone Is Trolling
It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.
Off-topic remarks: Completely going off-topic from the subject at hand. This is done to annoy and disrupt other posters.
Refusal to acknowledge evidence: Even when presented with hard, cold facts, they ignore this and pretend like they never saw it.
Dismissive, condescending tone: An early indicator of a troll was that they would ask an angry responder, “Why you mad, bro?” This is a method done to provoke someone even more, as a way of dismissing their argument altogether.
Use of unrelated images or memes: They reply to others with memes, images, and gifs. This is especially true if done in response to a very long text post.
Seeming obliviousness: They seem oblivious that most people are in disagreement with them. Also, trolls rarely get mad or provoked.
The list above is by no means definitive. There are a lot of other ways to identify that someone is trolling. Generally, if someone seems disingenuous, uninterested in a real discussion, and provocative on purpose, they’re likely an internet troll.
Any other senses are NOT well known or understood by the non-technical crowd.
I noticed you did not offer any new senses for consideration. I am all ears.
I just offered up 22 to 33 with a video. Hey gene-yuse - Im part of the "non-technical crowd" and know and understand what you say Im not supposed to know and understand.
I remember having a big argument with my 9th Grade General Science teacher. This was 1964. He said we had an 6th sense: the sense of wetness.
I challenged him on that, saying that our sense of wetness is not a direct sense but a deduced sensation.
Many argue that Aristotle had it pretty close in the sense that the sense of touch can have several components: temperature, and friction, from which we can deduce wetness.
The "sense" of body position can be argued as a component of touch.
I like the video you supplied, but it is Philosophy, and I doubt if much can be accomplished by us getting commonly familiar with all the senses and all the components and all the deduced sensations.
We hardly do anything logical connected with taste, smell, or touch. Logic seems to be relegated to sight and sound. From that perspective we only have 2 senses.
I used to often try to clean windows past Sunset, in the dark. My inspiration was Tommy, the Pinball Wizard who was deaf, dumb, and blind. He used his sense of smell to play pinball. My glass cleaning in the dark went by sound and touch, from many years of experience.
I like the video you supplied, but it is Philosophy
Neuroscientists are well aware that we are a bundle of senses.As this video by Aeon explains, many would argue that we have anywhere between 22 and 33 different senses.
Signs Someone Is Trolling
It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.
Off-topic remarks: Completely going off-topic from the subject at hand. This is done to annoy and disrupt other posters.
Refusal to acknowledge evidence: Even when presented with hard, cold facts, they ignore this and pretend like they never saw it.
Dismissive, condescending tone: An early indicator of a troll was that they would ask an angry responder, “Why you mad, bro?” This is a method done to provoke someone even more, as a way of dismissing their argument altogether.
Use of unrelated images or memes: They reply to others with memes, images, and gifs. This is especially true if done in response to a very long text post.
Seeming obliviousness: They seem oblivious that most people are in disagreement with them. Also, trolls rarely get mad or provoked.
The list above is by no means definitive. There are a lot of other ways to identify that someone is trolling. Generally, if someone seems disingenuous, uninterested in a real discussion, and provocative on purpose, they’re likely an internet troll.
Neuroscientists are well aware that we are a bundle of senses.As this video by Aeon explains, many would argue that we have anywhere between 22 and 33 different senses.
When we speak, the idiom of "the five senses" has a figurative meaning, and I think you are getting lost in the minutia of the technicalities. I will not stop using the idiom. It works for everyone but you and a few others who simply want to pick at me and de-rail the topic.
I'll bet you can't remember what the context was in which I used the idiom and you wanted to bust me for not knowing enough. Can you remember without looking it up? I doubt it because YOU are the troll here and you were only looking for a way to derail.
When we speak, the idiom of "the five senses" has a figurative meaning, and I think you are getting lost in the minutia of the technicalities. I will not stop using the idiom. It works for everyone but you and a few others who simply want to pick at me and de-rail the topic.
I'll bet you can't remember what the context was in which I used the idiom and you wanted to bust me for not knowing enough. Can you remember without looking it up? I doubt it because YOU are the troll here and you were only looking for a way to derail.
I like the idiom. I will be using it again.
Signs Someone Is Trolling
It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.
Off-topic remarks: Completely going off-topic from the subject at hand. This is done to annoy and disrupt other posters.
Refusal to acknowledge evidence: Even when presented with hard, cold facts, they ignore this and pretend like they never saw it.
Dismissive, condescending tone: An early indicator of a troll was that they would ask an angry responder, “Why you mad, bro?” This is a method done to provoke someone even more, as a way of dismissing their argument altogether.
Use of unrelated images or memes: They reply to others with memes, images, and gifs. This is especially true if done in response to a very long text post.
Seeming obliviousness: They seem oblivious that most people are in disagreement with them. Also, trolls rarely get mad or provoked.
The list above is by no means definitive. There are a lot of other ways to identify that someone is trolling. Generally, if someone seems disingenuous, uninterested in a real discussion, and provocative on purpose, they’re likely an internet troll.
When we speak, the idiom of "the five senses" has a figurative meaning, and I think you are getting lost in the minutia of the technicalities. I will not stop using the idiom. It works for everyone but you and a few others who simply want to pick at me and de-rail the topic.
I'll bet you can't remember what the context was in which I used the idiom and you wanted to bust me for not knowing enough. Can you remember without looking it up? I doubt it because YOU are the troll here and you were only looking for a way to derail.
Bull! You're trying to obscure the fact you have no idea what you're talking about. One of the tell tail signs is when people start telling you what you already know.
53 minutes ago, Mike said:
I was making it comfortable to deal with the hidden crescendo: that free will is either natural or super-natural. Have you decided which you believe it is. I am putting my money on natural. Place your bet.
And why would I feel uncomfortable with that tautology? So why would I need you to make it comfortable for me if I feel no discomfort?
Bull! You're trying to obscure the fact you have no idea what you're talking about. One of the tell tail signs is when people start telling you what you already know.
And why would I feel uncomfortable with that tautology? So why would I need you to make it comfortable for me if I feel no discomfort?
Does that mean you are unable to place your bet?
You do not want to take a stand on free will being natural or supernatural?
How about a temporary stand, or a preference?
I took the stand that free will was supernatural for many years, but eventually the evidence caused me to change about 9 years ago, and now I believe it is natural.
Does that mean you are unable to place your bet?
You do not want to take a stand on free will being natural or supernatural?
How about a temporary stand, or a preference?
I took the stand that free will was supernatural for many years, but eventually the evidence caused me to change about 9 years ago, and now I believe it is natural.
Mike - you are a fake intellectual and its glaringly obvious.
Signs Someone Is Trolling
It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.
Off-topic remarks: Completely going off-topic from the subject at hand. This is done to annoy and disrupt other posters.
Refusal to acknowledge evidence: Even when presented with hard, cold facts, they ignore this and pretend like they never saw it.
Dismissive, condescending tone: An early indicator of a troll was that they would ask an angry responder, “Why you mad, bro?” This is a method done to provoke someone even more, as a way of dismissing their argument altogether.
Use of unrelated images or memes: They reply to others with memes, images, and gifs. This is especially true if done in response to a very long text post.
Seeming obliviousness: They seem oblivious that most people are in disagreement with them. Also, trolls rarely get mad or provoked.
The list above is by no means definitive. There are a lot of other ways to identify that someone is trolling. Generally, if someone seems disingenuous, uninterested in a real discussion, and provocative on purpose, they’re likely an internet troll.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
Mike
No. Not desperate, and not trying to have ulterior motives.
Just interested.
I was interested in free will versus determinism approximately 4 years before taking the PFAL class.
Besides, there IS NO substantial theology we were given by VPW on free will, just those 3 bare tips I got from him that have helped guide me in my research.
If ever I was desperate, it was when I started realizing that Roger Penrose, Quantum, and Godel would not be helping me in my studies on free will. I had been counting on all 3, but they all fizzled out around 2002. For several years I didn’t know WHAT I believed about free will.
But then an astounding idea came that rescued me.
I have never mentioned this here, because it is so strange. But it was the solution to the mirror riddle that inspired minFW about 9 years ago. Oddly, Daniel Dennett tried his hand at the mirror riddle some 35 years ago, so I sent him my solution.
He and Douglas Hofstadter (the Godel man) collaborated on a book called “The Mind’s Eye” long ago, and they included a little bit on the mirror riddle. When I sent my mirror solution to Hofstadter he wrote back and told me it was the same solution he came up when he was a teenager. His father won a Nobel Prize in Physics, so I was not too embarrassed.
No, not desperate.
Yes, very fascinated.
*/*/*/*/*
And ANOTHER THING you all get wrong about me, my position, my morality, and my writing (and BTW there are a lot of things you get wrong!), is my motivation(s) for posting.
I do want people to come back to written PFAL to get blessed, but I’ve said that a thousand ways, already. I am not so focused on preaching PFAL as much lately, ESPECIALLY on this Free Will thread.
On this thread, and the NT Canon thread, I am exercising my writing skills and my explanatory skills. I am learning to communicate this topic of free will to a different crowd, and that brings me a lot of benefits.
With the canon thread, it was pretty much only Walter, Bernita, and Bo Reheard that I ever discussed that topic with, and that was 45 years ago, so my canon writing got a revival and great benefits in that thread.
I did this same thing 15 years ago with two threads on the mirror riddle, which had NOTHING to do with PFAL. Then I figured we all needed some comedy relief from the “mike wars” and I think it worked…. a little.
One very specific benefit I get from discussing these “unfinished” topics of mine here is boilerplate. Most of my 5 posted chapters came from Facebook boilerplate. I get to generate more here.
Twinky invited me to her evidence thread, and when this one runs its course (which I thought it had a few times) then I want to expand my “evidence” horizons.
I’ve been eyeing the evidence topic for many years, and have a large “Evidence Archive” folder to review and post. I’ve never read the contents of that folder, until just this morning when I reorganized it and got rid of duplicate files.
So, you can relax your PFAL phobia a little.
In these threads I am more expanding my horizons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The “five senses” has become an idiom, and no one in Neuroscience blinks when that phrase is used.
Any other senses are NOT well known or understood by the non-technical crowd.
I noticed you did not offer any new senses for consideration. I am all ears.
A grad student friend of mine at UCSD was studying electric fish, that have a sense for electric charge buildup, or something like that. We got into wondering if we may have the same sense, but don’t get to use it often enough to know it’s there.
Five senses works for me and all those to whom I am writing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This is true. These items of free will and determinism are not simple objects at all.
But in a sense, processes do exist and are real also. Life is a process.
You don’t see any life in an atom; just a neat little machine.
All of Chemistry is making even more nifty machines with collections of atoms. Nano-mechanics is now happening where machines start to imitate one cell organisms. All of Biology is wet machinery, that can do some fantastic processes the little atoms cannot do.
Science and biology and medicine have progressed much in our time, and more and more processes of the human body are being understood. Broken people are being fixed in lots of ways. I think science can still find more useful information on the human decision making process IF it is natural.
If free will is spiritual, then I am wasting my time with minFW.
But if it is natural, some if it should be discoverable.
I am merely guessing here as to how that discovery process can benefit from a theoretical deterministic free will mechanism. But that is what I have come up with: a deterministic free will mechanism.
All the other ideas of free will that I have seen, going back many centuries, avoid the idea of mechanism and biology.
Free will has been treated as a semi-miraculous spiritual entity for 1000 years, and it was secularized several hundred years ago by Philosophers to be less religious, but is still anti-science.
I am trying to say that free will is natural biology, and that is the bottom line here for my ideas.
*/*/*/*
I haven’t gotten to my response to your response to my response…
Edited by MikeLike I said it is complicated, but I think there are a few points in there that bear mentioning. … sooner or later.
Please tell OldSkool that I am on it, and it is the weekend, and school is out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Signs Someone Is Trolling
It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.
The list above is by no means definitive. There are a lot of other ways to identify that someone is trolling. Generally, if someone seems disingenuous, uninterested in a real discussion, and provocative on purpose, they’re likely an internet troll.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Troll-shonta malakas many satay
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Never said they didn't exist and weren't real.
A tautology.
And your point is?
Yawn! Waitress can I get a table closer to the point?
Welcome to Mike's tautology festival.
Get to the point, Charles Dickens. You're not being paid by the word.
So far, with this post, the only time you're wasting is the reader's.
And once it's discovered then what?
Cue the drum roll. And that deterministic free will mechanism is...
You apparently haven't seen all of them.
You might say this post is like life: it has a beginning, an end, and a lot of padding in between.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Really, you gonna pat yourself on the back for one of the few times you actually answer a set of questions and not avoid or bury the questions? I also apologized for not noticing that you did answer. I agree though, I should be encouraging good behavor when it happens. Good job!
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Do you even realize that you contradict yourself in the same post?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It's called softballs, not padding. I was making it comfortable to deal with the hidden crescendo: that free will is either natural or super-natural. Have you decided which you believe it is. I am putting my money on natural. Place your bet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No contradiction when you realize I am talking about two different focus targets, at two different focus intensities. Take a closer look at the context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Ya, ok Mr. Wizard. You just showed everyone that you know jack-freaking-diddly about the neuroscience crowd you falsely claim to represent.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/humans-have-more-than-5-senses/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Right...I keep forgetting it's my fault you can't clearly communicate and contracict yourself in the same set of paragraphs and then roll through with a dump truck load of bullshonta to rationalize it all way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I never said I represent them; only that I learned from them, and had opportunity to make small contributions.
You should focus on the IDEAS I am talking about. You'd have a better time that way, than playing Sherlock Holmes and focused on my life. It's ideas that matter here, not me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Signs Someone Is Trolling
It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.
The list above is by no means definitive. There are a lot of other ways to identify that someone is trolling. Generally, if someone seems disingenuous, uninterested in a real discussion, and provocative on purpose, they’re likely an internet troll.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No - you never expressely stated you represent them you just represented them without expressly saying so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I just offered up 22 to 33 with a video. Hey gene-yuse - Im part of the "non-technical crowd" and know and understand what you say Im not supposed to know and understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I remember having a big argument with my 9th Grade General Science teacher. This was 1964. He said we had an 6th sense: the sense of wetness.
I challenged him on that, saying that our sense of wetness is not a direct sense but a deduced sensation.
Many argue that Aristotle had it pretty close in the sense that the sense of touch can have several components: temperature, and friction, from which we can deduce wetness.
The "sense" of body position can be argued as a component of touch.
I like the video you supplied, but it is Philosophy, and I doubt if much can be accomplished by us getting commonly familiar with all the senses and all the components and all the deduced sensations.
We hardly do anything logical connected with taste, smell, or touch. Logic seems to be relegated to sight and sound. From that perspective we only have 2 senses.
I used to often try to clean windows past Sunset, in the dark. My inspiration was Tommy, the Pinball Wizard who was deaf, dumb, and blind. He used his sense of smell to play pinball. My glass cleaning in the dark went by sound and touch, from many years of experience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Neuroscientists are well aware that we are a bundle of senses. As this video by Aeon explains, many would argue that we have anywhere between 22 and 33 different senses.
Signs Someone Is Trolling
It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.
The list above is by no means definitive. There are a lot of other ways to identify that someone is trolling. Generally, if someone seems disingenuous, uninterested in a real discussion, and provocative on purpose, they’re likely an internet troll.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
When we speak, the idiom of "the five senses" has a figurative meaning, and I think you are getting lost in the minutia of the technicalities. I will not stop using the idiom. It works for everyone but you and a few others who simply want to pick at me and de-rail the topic.
Edited by MikeI'll bet you can't remember what the context was in which I used the idiom and you wanted to bust me for not knowing enough. Can you remember without looking it up? I doubt it because YOU are the troll here and you were only looking for a way to derail.
I like the idiom. I will be using it again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Signs Someone Is Trolling
It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.
The list above is by no means definitive. There are a lot of other ways to identify that someone is trolling. Generally, if someone seems disingenuous, uninterested in a real discussion, and provocative on purpose, they’re likely an internet troll.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Bull! You're trying to obscure the fact you have no idea what you're talking about. One of the tell tail signs is when people start telling you what you already know.
And why would I feel uncomfortable with that tautology? So why would I need you to make it comfortable for me if I feel no discomfort?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Does that mean you are unable to place your bet?
You do not want to take a stand on free will being natural or supernatural?
How about a temporary stand, or a preference?
I took the stand that free will was supernatural for many years, but eventually the evidence caused me to change about 9 years ago, and now I believe it is natural.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Mike - you are a fake intellectual and its glaringly obvious.
Signs Someone Is Trolling
It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.
The list above is by no means definitive. There are a lot of other ways to identify that someone is trolling. Generally, if someone seems disingenuous, uninterested in a real discussion, and provocative on purpose, they’re likely an internet troll.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.