That most of this will be cut out of my future boilerplate.
Don't think so.
Considering the first post in this branch of discussion was on nominalizations, to which you responded with a long post full of tautologies, which you said was necessary to make people comfortable, I would hazard a guess that your discomfort goes back to dealing with nominalizations.
Considering you bragged about all the time you spent researching the free will vs. determinism debate, could it be that your discomfort comes in realizing this whole debate may be nothing more than a way of talking? A lot of chin music that narrows to nothing more than a dog chasing its tail?
Considering you bragged about all the time you spent researching the free will vs. determinism debate, could it be that your discomfort comes in realizing this whole debate may be nothing more than a way of talking? A lot of chin music that narrows to nothing more than a dog chasing its tail?
Kinda like ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
At best you won't decode him. You'll offer an opinion on what you think he's saying. Remember all those term papers and dissertations on what the white whale in Moby Dick means?
And, in all probability, he probably writes that way because he's trying to give himself wiggle room if somebody challenges him.
People also often write word salad style so people will read into the text what they want to read into the text.
Writers with nothing to hide, hide nothing. They write clearly and to the point.
Oh, and also, experience teaches me, writers trying to snow you try to add in extraneous details that have nothing to do with the point, this makes there work far longer than it should be. As a general rule: the more padding, the longer the post; the longer the post and the further off point, the greater the snow job. There are exceptions.
Maybe he’s placed all his confidence in a secret decoder ring…and with his custom decryption process it’s probably gonna be another crummy commercial for PFAL
King James Bible And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
there has to be someway I can tie Babylon falling with gravity…shoulda went with my first thought Sokovia falls…well not a scripture reference but it is a script reference
King James Bible And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
there has to be someway I can tie Babylon falling with gravity…shoulda went with my first thought Sokovia falls…well not a scripture reference but it is a script reference
You’ve got to give 2 shontas to receive 2 shontas. It’s a law. Kinda like Quaaludes. But not.
See, it’s hard to explain to those with black hearts lacking spirit. Quaaludes are the answer to “how to get it.” Quaaludes work, even if she’s NOT available. Got to MAKE her available; got to MAKE it fit. That’s what you failed to absorb the first time.
You’ve got to give 2 shontas to receive 2 shontas. It’s a law. Kinda like Quaaludes. But not.
See, it’s hard to explain to those with black hearts lacking spirit. Quaaludes are the answer to “how to get it.” Quaaludes work, even if she’s NOT available. Got to MAKE her available; got to MAKE it fit. That’s what you failed to absorb the first time.
Man..I'm trying but I just don't understand. I'm going to look on page 4834 about 32.458% down the page ..I've been using a top down approach while scrolling....sometimes it takes special intellect and a host of psychological issues to understand deep bullshonta ..I'm just not technical and prob too much of a dullard to understand....but as long as my beeeleeeeving stays undisturbed we will just keep it in the lockbox...Mogadishu!
....could it be that your discomfort comes in realizing this whole debate may be nothing more than a way of talking? A lot of chin music that narrows to nothing more than a dog chasing its tail?
The first discomfort that I described occurred over 50 years ago, and after getting into the Word, it subsided and simply became a strong interest.
The second discomfort I described came after 45 years or so invested in finding a way to elude determinism, was lost and I took up the opposite approach. I was on new ground and it felt very odd, like I was going to change my mind and go back to supernatural free will. But the minFW idea caught on fire, and the discomfort ended.
*/*/*/*/*
I think you are totally right about "this whole debate may be nothing more than a way of talking" if you look at the debate with a Philosophical perspective. Philosophy has NEVER seen this debate resolved because it did not have the power to investigate the inner workings of the human brain. All Philosophy had for thousands of years to work on the free will problem was WORDS, and it needed more than that. It needed scientific measurement, numbers, and the scientific method to do that.
Modern Neuroscience is still pretty new, and it has not done this yet, but many now think that the unresolved issues of Philosophy can see some light as the study of the brain matures.
Patricia Churchland pioneered this field, that of "updating" Philosophy with brain data, with her MacArthur Award winning book "Neurophilosophy." It is an excellent read.
*/*/*/*
So, yes, I agree that the free will debate has been words chasing words to no avail, UNTIL the advent of Neuroscience, where the debate may soon be settled.
But, no, this wild goose chase in the Philosophy end of the free will debate has not been a source of discomfort to me. I feel lucky I never got caught up in it.
The first discomfort that I described occurred over 50 years ago, and after getting into the Word, it subsided and simply became a strong interest.
The second discomfort I described came after 45 years or so invested in finding a way to elude determinism, was lost and I took up the opposite approach. I was on new ground and it felt very odd, like I was going to change my mind and go back to supernatural free will. But the minFW idea caught on fire, and the discomfort ended.
And if you've described them recently, why are you wasting bandwidth repeating them
57 minutes ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/*
I think you are totally right about "this whole debate may be nothing more than a way of talking" if you look at the debate with a Philosophical perspective. Philosophy has NEVER seen this debate resolved because it did not have the power to investigate the inner workings of the human brain. All Philosophy had for thousands of years to work on the free will problem was WORDS, and it needed more than that. It needed scientific measurement, numbers, and the scientific method to do that.
And for thousands of years there wasn't scientific method? All you still have is words. I didn't notice any numbers or scientific measurements in your theory. I also haven't heard any numbers orb scientific measurements when you've explained your theory. So all you have is words.
57 minutes ago, Mike said:
Modern Neuroscience is still pretty new, and it has not done this yet, but many now think that the unresolved issues of Philosophy can see some light as the study of the brain matures.
So they have nothing but philosophy and a few half baked theories, also.
57 minutes ago, Mike said:
Patricia Churchland pioneered this field, that of "updating" Philosophy with brain data, with here MacArthur Award winning book "Neurophilosophy." It is an excellent read.
I'll wait for the movie.
You're contradicting yourself again. In the third quote you claim modern neuroscience hasn't done this yet, this referring back to scientific measurements and numbers. Then you say Churchland was updating with brain data.
57 minutes ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*
So, yes, I agree that the free will debate has been words chasing words to no avail, UNTIL the advent of Neuroscience, where the debate may soon be settled.
Yah, and still all you have is words.
57 minutes ago, Mike said:
But, no, this wild goose chase in the Philosophy end of the free will debate has not been a source of discomfort to me. I feel lucky I never got caught up in it.
Maybe now we can get back to the REAL topic. If you can't remember, go back and read the first post of this thread. I call it Chapter 1. Also, pay attention to the tags. The tags are the KEYS.
Dennett needs to be decoded, IMO, because for decades NO ONE I know has been able to explain in any detail (to me) how his theory on free will works. Just the opposite has often occured: many good thinkers have told me they are baffled by his free will theories.
that seems like the same problem you have here when folks try to explain to you the ILLOGIC OF WIERWILLE'S ASSERTION THAT THE BIBLE INTERPRETS ITSELF.
The problem might not be with some lack in others - but with you being unwilling or incapable of listening to logic.
come to think of it - you do the same thing with your incessant promotion of returning to PFAL. You even come up with stuff that's hidden in it - like we need you to decode wierwille...physician heal thyself
This is pretty important. Make sure you have the New Edition of “Elbow Room” from 2015!The first edition of ER from 1984 is almost hopeless, from my dim memories of a few attempted reads in the 1990s.
It was from 1991 to 1998 that I hung out with a several grad students focusing on brain studies, and they all said they could not understand Elbow Room. I tried to read it back then a few times, and would always give up half-way through.
Sam Harris also can’t understand Dennett. Others in the field are baffled at Dennett’s approach to free will, and I suspect POSSIBLY some of them may have been exposed to only the first edition of Elbow Room. I suspect that SO many of Dennett’s colleagues had difficulty with this book, that after 30 years they finally convinced him to revamp it. (my guess)
Making SURE that you have the New Edition (2015) is a primary step to understanding Elbow Room. The New Edition has two prefaces, and the new paperback has an ancient statue with an exposed elbow, the old paperback has a light two-tone gray cover and the image is an abstract background.
It’s really easy to order this book on Amazon and get the WRONG edition, because the used book market is flooded with first editions. The first edition was so notoriously dense and hard to understand, that I suspect many people sold or gave away their copies over the decades.
It looks to me that you have a tendency to overcomplicate things and get hung up on the oddest details. You make such a big deal out of getting the right edition...I doubt if you're qualified to review either. you even admitted you didn't read through the first edition...you cite other people's take on it. this sounds like the way you dragged your feet on reading "Undertow" - if you ever really did read it...you said you couldn't get past the author's questioning of PFAL's the Bible interprets itself.
You make such a fuss about the difference between the two editions of elbow room but never specify what they are. Then you even have good remarks about the Wikipedia article on the 1984 edition. What? you're inconsistent...something seems fishy...I have no problem understanding his Dennett's work...I wonder if you're in way over your head - or you haven't done enough "research" to make this trolling seem legit.
One big reason that there is a such a debate and paradox involving free will and determinism is because determinism is SO ominously powerful in science.
Determinism has nearly all the success of science backing it up. Assuming that determinism is true is a VERY safe assumption.
I'm circling back around to handle this confusion - covered it before - doing it again - I love to rehash
determinism in science is cause and effect...philosophical determinism is categorically different...you confuse the two together...that is showing your stupidity...as shown below:
On 11/6/2022 at 7:17 PM, Mike said:
Classical free will (LibFW) is defined in such complete opposition to determinism, that this form of free will is pretty much ruled out in science circles, these days.
It is safe to say that a huge majority of all working scientists believe in determinism. Whenever you nonchalantly zoom through a green traffic light you, too, are betting your life on the determinism that rules in its electronics. ALL of the surety we enjoy in science is due to determinism. It is THE cornerstone of Modern Science.
Determinism is not really a theory. It’s more of a BENEFIT that often emerges from scientific analysis. Debating against determinism is like tilting at windmills.
how did you perform a scientific analysis of philosophical determinism?
Are you making this stuff up as you go along?
It seems like you are...here's more confusion:
On 11/6/2022 at 7:17 PM, Mike said:
No one wants to bother, because determinism is SO SOLID. It’s a little different in the small world of Quantum, but not that much.
how is philosophical determinism SO SOLID?
what data do you have to prove your "theories" on minFW?
Are you this incoherent, disorganized and unclear when you discuss this stuff with your Facebook friends, grad students and neuroscientist buddies?
There DEFINITELY is determinism in Quantum, but it is modified.
Just a quick overview of what Quantum does: Mostly, it describes, predicts, and explains how atoms work and stick together. That’s the super short story.
The longer story gets very involved; this world of sticky atoms. It involves how each element is stable, and for how long. Another thing quantum works well with are details like how strongly certain atoms stick together, and at what angles.
How can you say "There DEFINITELY is determinism in Quantum, but it is modified" when quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. It is the foundation of all quantum physics including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.
n the bulk of normal science, and neuroscience, it’s mostly Newtonian in flavor. Classical Newtonian Physics works VERY well all the way down to the level of brain cells and further.In the science frontiers, like the mind, they are often pulling out their hair for new ideas, and quantum determinism is popularly regarded as one of the “usual suspects” when all goes wrong.
This theory on minFW, being FULLY deterministic, should bring satisfaction to this vast bulk of scientists, working on far more tame issues. To them, determinism is what makes everything work well. They are tired of hearing from the frontier how determinism flexes this way or that. They are comfortable with garden variety Newtonian determinism.
do you really talk this way with your Facebook friends, grad students and neuroscientist buddies? And do they laugh at your "theories"?
saying minimalistic free will being FULLY deterministic is contradictory! Do you not understand that?
I can't imagine that bringing satisfaction to "this vast bulk of scientists, working on far more tame issues." frustration or maybe annoyance - if you insist on blathering like this
what is "garden variety Newtonian determinism" ?
how is that related to minimalistic free will and philosophical determinism?
what data do you have that shows a correlation with "garden variety Newtonian determinism" , minimalistic free will and philosophical determinism?
How can you say "There DEFINITELY is determinism in Quantum, but it is modified" when quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. It is the foundation of all quantum physics including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.
what data do you have to support your statements?
Physics Nobel Prize winning physicist Roger Penrose wrote 2 large books that I got a lot of this from in the 1990s, and I discussed them often with the UCSD folks. They debunked the neuroscience that Penrose was proposing, and still oppose it. Penrose failed to follow up on this with all the promise he had in the two books.
No one in the world questioned the accuracy of Penrose's Physics and Math in these 2 books. He was recognized as being at Einstein's level even then, 30 years before he won the Nobel Prize, which was just 2 years ago.
I loved them, and was on Penrose's side, even though the UCSD folks opposed him on his neuroscience. But they eventually won me over after about 7 years.
Penrose believes in 2 workarounds to free will: Quantum indeterminacy and Godel Incompleteness. I was in this school of thought from 1967 and was so happy to see Penrose writing on my favorite topics.
But eventually his whole set of brain ideas fizzled for me, and I started over from scratch 9 years ago.
My comments above are repeated in greater detail in my Chapter 5 which is all on determinism.
Four crucified. So you know it, how does that change your life?
It was attention getting for me, … once. It showed a disconnect between tradition and what is written, FOR A SUPER SIMPLE CASE. It got me prepared for many more traditions that needed challenging, because of what was written. Nice to see the puzzle fit, going from contradictory Bible to consistent Bible.
you got suckered in by wierwille's tilting at windmills. he used a false premise "Scripture buildup" to piece together an erroneous interpretation of 4 different gospels
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
So_crates
Don't think so.
Considering the first post in this branch of discussion was on nominalizations, to which you responded with a long post full of tautologies, which you said was necessary to make people comfortable, I would hazard a guess that your discomfort goes back to dealing with nominalizations.
Considering you bragged about all the time you spent researching the free will vs. determinism debate, could it be that your discomfort comes in realizing this whole debate may be nothing more than a way of talking? A lot of chin music that narrows to nothing more than a dog chasing its tail?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Do you have a scripture reference for gravity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
four crucified
t7tmog
thrice
music coordinators
tmog
waterhead babies
christian cult
cults
thought control
manipulation
delusion
dark persuasion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Kinda like ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Maybe he’s placed all his confidence in a secret decoder ring…and with his custom decryption process it’s probably gonna be another crummy commercial for PFAL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
King James Bible
And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
there has to be someway I can tie Babylon falling with gravity…shoulda went with my first thought Sokovia falls…well not a scripture reference but it is a script reference
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Gravity only exists if you beleeeeve it does. Kinda like rape, but different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Bravo!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yes!! Those verses on believing are in 2 Shonta!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
You’ve got to give 2 shontas to receive 2 shontas. It’s a law. Kinda like Quaaludes. But not.
See, it’s hard to explain to those with black hearts lacking spirit. Quaaludes are the answer to “how to get it.” Quaaludes work, even if she’s NOT available. Got to MAKE her available; got to MAKE it fit. That’s what you failed to absorb the first time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Man..I'm trying but I just don't understand. I'm going to look on page 4834 about 32.458% down the page ..I've been using a top down approach while scrolling....sometimes it takes special intellect and a host of psychological issues to understand deep bullshonta ..I'm just not technical and prob too much of a dullard to understand....but as long as my beeeleeeeving stays undisturbed we will just keep it in the lockbox...Mogadishu!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, has this thread gone as far as it can go and still actually say something,
or is it down to ONLY insults and catcalling?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The first discomfort that I described occurred over 50 years ago, and after getting into the Word, it subsided and simply became a strong interest.
The second discomfort I described came after 45 years or so invested in finding a way to elude determinism, was lost and I took up the opposite approach. I was on new ground and it felt very odd, like I was going to change my mind and go back to supernatural free will. But the minFW idea caught on fire, and the discomfort ended.
*/*/*/*/*
I think you are totally right about "this whole debate may be nothing more than a way of talking" if you look at the debate with a Philosophical perspective. Philosophy has NEVER seen this debate resolved because it did not have the power to investigate the inner workings of the human brain. All Philosophy had for thousands of years to work on the free will problem was WORDS, and it needed more than that. It needed scientific measurement, numbers, and the scientific method to do that.
Modern Neuroscience is still pretty new, and it has not done this yet, but many now think that the unresolved issues of Philosophy can see some light as the study of the brain matures.
Patricia Churchland pioneered this field, that of "updating" Philosophy with brain data, with her MacArthur Award winning book "Neurophilosophy." It is an excellent read.
*/*/*/*
So, yes, I agree that the free will debate has been words chasing words to no avail, UNTIL the advent of Neuroscience, where the debate may soon be settled.
But, no, this wild goose chase in the Philosophy end of the free will debate has not been a source of discomfort to me. I feel lucky I never got caught up in it.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thank you WW.
You sensed the situation right.
Outside of trying to answer any free will related posts, I've said about all I wanted to say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And if you've described them recently, why are you wasting bandwidth repeating them
And for thousands of years there wasn't scientific method? All you still have is words. I didn't notice any numbers or scientific measurements in your theory. I also haven't heard any numbers orb scientific measurements when you've explained your theory. So all you have is words.
So they have nothing but philosophy and a few half baked theories, also.
I'll wait for the movie.
You're contradicting yourself again. In the third quote you claim modern neuroscience hasn't done this yet, this referring back to scientific measurements and numbers. Then you say Churchland was updating with brain data.
Yah, and still all you have is words.
Denial is more than a river in Egypt.
Just look at the length of this rambling post.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Isn't that expression simply a way to use words to say NOTHING of substance?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Maybe now we can get back to the REAL topic. If you can't remember, go back and read the first post of this thread. I call it Chapter 1. Also, pay attention to the tags. The tags are the KEYS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
that seems like the same problem you have here when folks try to explain to you the ILLOGIC OF WIERWILLE'S ASSERTION THAT THE BIBLE INTERPRETS ITSELF.
The problem might not be with some lack in others - but with you being unwilling or incapable of listening to logic.
come to think of it - you do the same thing with your incessant promotion of returning to PFAL. You even come up with stuff that's hidden in it - like we need you to decode wierwille...physician heal thyself
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
It looks to me that you have a tendency to overcomplicate things and get hung up on the oddest details. You make such a big deal out of getting the right edition...I doubt if you're qualified to review either. you even admitted you didn't read through the first edition...you cite other people's take on it. this sounds like the way you dragged your feet on reading "Undertow" - if you ever really did read it...you said you couldn't get past the author's questioning of PFAL's the Bible interprets itself.
You make such a fuss about the difference between the two editions of elbow room but never specify what they are. Then you even have good remarks about the Wikipedia article on the 1984 edition. What? you're inconsistent...something seems fishy...I have no problem understanding his Dennett's work...I wonder if you're in way over your head - or you haven't done enough "research" to make this trolling seem legit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I'm circling back around to handle this confusion - covered it before - doing it again - I love to rehash
determinism in science is cause and effect...philosophical determinism is categorically different...you confuse the two together...that is showing your stupidity...as shown below:
how did you perform a scientific analysis of philosophical determinism?
Are you making this stuff up as you go along?
It seems like you are...here's more confusion:
how is philosophical determinism SO SOLID?
what data do you have to prove your "theories" on minFW?
Are you this incoherent, disorganized and unclear when you discuss this stuff with your Facebook friends, grad students and neuroscientist buddies?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
How can you say "There DEFINITELY is determinism in Quantum, but it is modified" when quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. It is the foundation of all quantum physics including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.
what data do you have to support your statements?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
do you really talk this way with your Facebook friends, grad students and neuroscientist buddies? And do they laugh at your "theories"?
saying minimalistic free will being FULLY deterministic is contradictory! Do you not understand that?
I can't imagine that bringing satisfaction to "this vast bulk of scientists, working on far more tame issues." frustration or maybe annoyance - if you insist on blathering like this
what is "garden variety Newtonian determinism" ?
how is that related to minimalistic free will and philosophical determinism?
what data do you have that shows a correlation with "garden variety Newtonian determinism" , minimalistic free will and philosophical determinism?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Physics Nobel Prize winning physicist Roger Penrose wrote 2 large books that I got a lot of this from in the 1990s, and I discussed them often with the UCSD folks. They debunked the neuroscience that Penrose was proposing, and still oppose it. Penrose failed to follow up on this with all the promise he had in the two books.
No one in the world questioned the accuracy of Penrose's Physics and Math in these 2 books. He was recognized as being at Einstein's level even then, 30 years before he won the Nobel Prize, which was just 2 years ago.
I loved them, and was on Penrose's side, even though the UCSD folks opposed him on his neuroscience. But they eventually won me over after about 7 years.
Penrose believes in 2 workarounds to free will: Quantum indeterminacy and Godel Incompleteness. I was in this school of thought from 1967 and was so happy to see Penrose writing on my favorite topics.
But eventually his whole set of brain ideas fizzled for me, and I started over from scratch 9 years ago.
My comments above are repeated in greater detail in my Chapter 5 which is all on determinism.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
you got suckered in by wierwille's tilting at windmills. he used a false premise "Scripture buildup" to piece together an erroneous interpretation of 4 different gospels
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.