The question of Determinism vs. Free Will is a philosophical one. It can only ever be a philosophical question. The consideration of and accounting for the physical, chemical and biological principles of cause and effect are not precluded. Neuroscience is part of the discussion. The laws of nature and how they relate cannot be separated from the issue, even if it’s a wholly philosophical one.
You would love to read Patricia Churchland's "Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain." for this topic.
She won a McArthur Award for that book, and Scientific American described it as iconic or something grand like that.
A big part of her arguments is that Neuroscience is slowly becoming the judge as to which philosophical conjectures about the brain and mind over the centuries and millennia were Biologically correct and which ones are incorrect.
In order for your conscience to bother you, you first have to be given the option of following it or not. Some will follow it, others will ignore it. Free Will in action.
1 hour ago, So_crates said:
And the ability to decide is what free will is all about.
You decide whether you believe Jesus is lord and God raised him from the dead. Did you do that by a previous synapse setting?
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Conscience is a word that comes out of the situation described and the mechanics of whatever is going on in the brain for handling that situation.
But that word does not give us insight into those mechanics.
The internal workings of the brain (when we discover them) will tell us more about those mechanics, whether they are free or determined.
I am betting that they are NOT free and totally determined. The freedom I see comes in if the NEXT attempt to perform according to conscience is successful. It is freedom to act according to pre-trained conscience, and NOT acting on a bad habit that it contrary. It is freedom from the bad habit.
1 hour ago, waysider said:
It's not a complicated statement. Humans are born with a natural sense of morality. This is 101 level knowledge. Feel free to explore a bit on your own.
55 minutes ago, So_crates said:
So, as a natural man, you confessed Jesus is lord and believed God raised him from the dead and you feel that act was totally determined and following a previous synapse setting?
I started a thread in 2006 that gets into the conscience – ever since I left TWI, I felt wierwille ideology did a tremendous disservice to TWI-followers by encouraging a “renewed mind recklessness” whatever the hell that was supposed to mean and in wierwille’s minimizing of sin, sinful behavior and generally ignoring gut feelings when you sensed something was wrong…there’s some interesting books I noted on that thread – folks might enjoy checking out - anyway here’s the thread:
Sort of. It doesn't know for sure what you had in mind.
But you know what you had in mind.
I thought if I asked you I'd get the BEST source, while if I do it alone I may miss that.
are you suffering from "learned helplessness" or laziness?
Conscience is in the described processes in my book, but I did not ever use that word.
Mike, like I said maybe back off trying to redefine stuff – especially when your descriptions do not accurately represent what you’re taking about. It makes it look like you’re trying to come up with something new and different to camouflage that it was someone else’s idea…hmmmmm where have I seen that before?
If you mean frustrated professional teacher... maybe yes, but I got over it decades ago.
If you mean teacher in the generic sense, then no, I am not frustrated.
I am delighted at all the many opportunities I have to teach the odd things that have somehow landed in my lap. I started off tutoring arithmetic to a neighbor when I was 12, and then mechanical drawing when I was 16. The variety is dizzying to me as I think back.
I get to teach the Bible to scientists in private once in a while. I get to teach Deadheads about the early history of the Grateful Dead and Ken Kesey, because from 1987 to 1998 I studied the hippies' history in an attempt to understand why TWI was so good with the hippies, and so bad without them. I was mostly wrong in my theory then about the hippies having the magic element that made TWI sing. It just seemed that every strain of the hippie influence in TWI was removed slowly and totally gone by the time of the 1986 meltdown. My theory was wrong, but I ended up being an amateur 60s historian for the younger Deadheads who totally missed that era. When I was in the Open Mic circuit, it wasn't just stand-up comedy that I did. I also taught Relativity for Poets, and some cool brain science, and hippie history. I am just starting to teach dance to men who can't do it. I first taught a young lady who couldn't do it. What blocks people in dance is mostly hangups and fears, VERY SIMILAR to the fears that hang people up in T.I.P. and can be soothed in Excellors' Sessions.
I am a challenged generic teacher, yes. That happens a lot, but I like that.
Which reminds me, I want to thank you for focusing on the details of my theory now. I welcome the challenges.
I was all set to start answering your long post very early this morning, but got continually distracted by the flurry of others posting. I will get back to it later.
I have to go to work for a few hours, and then later I have a fellowship for a couple hours early evening, so it may be LATE TONIGHT that I get to your long post.
Ditto for all the other posts that I haven't responded to this morning. I'll get there.
This is helping me with my book polishing and some needed additions.
It helps me see where I failed to communicate what I wanted to say.
Feel free to believe whatever you choose, despite contradicting overwhelming scientific consensus.
I'll need to see if you are interpreting and applying that consensus to this free will theory.
I suspect that the early infancy exhibitions of morality are primitive and not functioning yet. They may be able to detect the pieces that later hammer out a morality, but I doublt if any of it is in a functioning state until later years.
If you happen to run into a good example of that consensus I will include it in my reading.
God doesn't use force, therefore getting born again was a decision made freely.
NO. You are not familiar enough with the TIMING aspects of my theory.
I see the freedom of will happening in the heart a little BEFORE the decision to say Jesus is Lord happens.
It really is a timing thing.
It takes practice to wrench out of the old free will definition where it happens at the same time as the performance, and my new idea of the freedom part happening BEFORE the final decision.
The timing is a subtle thing to get right, but it really is at the heart of my theory. That is why the motorcycle analogy is used so early in Chapter 2.
People USUALLY think of free will as happening on the fly.
I see it in the preparation for the fly.
I never mention that particular word, but the IDEA of it constantly comes up in the mental exercises I outline. I talk often about COMPARING a performance to a pre-installed standard or creed. When the comparison is bad then there is a feeling of angst or pain and a desire to correct it.
We were taught that conscience was merely the sum total of what we were taughtwas right and I followed that notion throughout.
Conscience is in the described processes in my book, but I did not ever use that word.
I'm thinking I should use it. Thanks for the tip.
Mike: We were taught that conscience was merely the sum total of what we were taught was right and I followed that notion throughout.
Well guess what, Mike – we were taught wrong – by an unabashed plagiarist, who also happened to be a pathological liar, a money grubbing weasel, incompetent teacher/pastor/CEO, chain-smoking, Drambuie guzzling sexual predator…yeah let’s have someone who behaved like he had a seared conscience teach us about conscience. And while we’re at it let’s have Jeffrey Dahmer teach us about philanthropy.
Besides your “thesis” going against the sciences – I had said your “thesis” also goes against what the Bible teaches...everyone has a conscience – and that there seems to be "stuff in there" even from the beginning of humankind that God will use as a basis to judge through Jesus Christ:
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Romans 2
Humankind had a conscience even before the fall – why else would they have felt shame and want to hide from God in Genesis 3?there was no one before them to teach them what’s right or wrong! You have to ask yourself – why did they feel bad?
maybe take a break from reinventing the wheel and refer to a thread that got into the conscience...maybe give it a look:
I am just starting to teach dance to men who can't do it. I first taught a young lady who couldn't do it. What blocks people in dance is mostly hangups and fears,
Mike, I don't want to lead you on - so I'm telling you upfront right now I can't dance
Mike, I don't want to lead you on - so I'm telling you upfront right now I can't dance
The way I learned to dance was from Physics. I tinkered with toys, like slinkies, that could dance for 40 years, with an understanding of the physics and math. From decades of window cleaning I learned how to maximize my body for speed, accuracy, and endurance. When I hit the dance floor 10 years ago I was ready due to this background preparation.
Dance is 3 things:
(1) having more fun than fear,
(2) doing anything IN TIME SYNC with the music, and
(3) not falling.
The tighter the synchronizing of body parts with music, the more fun it is. There is a brain theory on why this synchronizing feels like fun.
That is free-form solo dance. It totally does not matter where you place your feet. It is all in the WHEN you step or do some other action. The faster the tempo, the more fun it is.
Partner dancing is totally different and I have almost zero experience with it.
Do I have the illusion of free will to avoid another train wreck of a thread, or am I on a deterministic path that will lead me to sit under a waterfall of bullshonta on my path to further enlightenment?
Sort of. It doesn't know for sure what you had in mind.
But you know what you had in mind.
I thought if I asked you I'd get the BEST source, while if I do it alone I may miss that.
IOW, this time you're NOT saying somebody did something wrong, you're actually asking for clarification?
You're, IMO, a total con artist who has taken over the entire website here.
If you mean frustrated professional teacher... maybe yes, but I got over it decades ago.
If you mean teacher in the generic sense, then no, I am not frustrated.
I am delighted at all the many opportunities I have to teach the odd things that have somehow landed in my lap. I started off tutoring arithmetic to a neighbor when I was 12, and then mechanical drawing when I was 16. The variety is dizzying to me as I think back.
So, you were a professional teacher - fascinating – I’m curious as to what your frustration was over.
And I’m surprised at the way you disparage academia.
In my opinion respect and becoming a teacher are similar in that it’s something you earn. Usually when I check out some expert in a particular field – I look at their credentials among other things – because it tells me they’ve had a certain level of training and were disciplined enough to earn a degree. And legitimate credentials mean that a certain level of achievement was met – depending on the credentials it shows the person demonstrated they could hold to specific standards agreed upon by peers / educators in that field.
Mike, I don’t mean to give you a hard time on this – and I realize the academia and credential references is a sore spot with you – and I mean you no disrespect other than I don’t think you’ve earned the right to talk about something if you disregard standards of practice – which are models of established training/preparation that are commonly accepted as correct.
Folks here have been patient enough to point out a number of holes and contradictions in your “thesis” – and you often tend to respond like we’re nincompoops who don’t understand a simple concept like determinism and free will – but what I think is the real problem, is that your description of words and concepts are often according to “standards” that no one has agreed upon BUT YOU.
Something I really appreciate are all the discussions I've had with atheists, agnostics, and folks of other faiths - it helped me get out of the fundamentalist mindset of TWI.
Rather than a rush to produce a finished product/theory here - i.e., your thesis – maybe you should think about having discussions on one item at a time to brainstorm and eliminate errors.
I asked you earlier if you were a frustrated teacher. What I’ve realized long after my 12 frustrating years in TWI of trying to mimic wierwille, is that I’m NOT a Bible teacher – or a teacher of any particular subject – unless you want to count developing cognitive skills.
And it’s NOT that I teach that – I like to inspire others to develop THEIROWNcognitive skills. In the secular world I’ve had a number of jobs where I trained technicians to be installers and service personnel. I started teaching industry standards for various security/access control/audio/video/telephone/DVR/signaling systems. I get into why standards are important for continuity of service and ease of troubleshooting. The fun part is when I got to field-training for installs and repairs. Each job site is different. That’s when theory meets practice and rubber meets the road. That’s when critical and creative thinking skills start to develop – cuz one is in the real world with real obstacles, unforeseen issues, forgetting a formula, breaking a tool, underestimating job parts, inclement weather, kid is sick at home, dealing with an angry customer, and etc.
On other threads like Why PFAL sucks, The Absent Christ?,The NT canon I disagree with you - not because it’s you Mike – but because the idea or method you put forth is faulty…and I don’t think we’re playing politics here where we make concessions and deals so others might accept our ideas – at least that’s not what I’m doing – I’m focused on the idea itself – to whittle it down to essentials – and we figure out if it’s true/viable or not – I think most folks who are patient and can go the distance will be able to figure that out for themselves.
Maybe it’s too little too late – but I hope my input here helps to make up for the 12 years of me pushing a frustrating system of thought known as PFAL. A lot of my beliefs are in a state of flux – so my intent is mostly just to push us all to do our best thinking – no matter the individual belief systems.
NO. You are not familiar enough with the TIMING aspects of my theory.
I see the freedom of will happening in the heart a little BEFORE the decision to say Jesus is Lord happens.
IOW, this time you're NOT saying somebody did something wrong, you're actually asking for clarification?
You're, IMO, a total con artist who has taken over the entire website here.
Yes, I was asking for clarification, or for a link that would clarify.
No, I am not a con artist.
As far as "taking over" why not think of it as stirring it up, giving it extra life? I stop in to read in the months and years I am not posting, and I see how dead it can get here, at least in About the Way. I don't check the other forums, but then again, you wouldn't say I am taking over there, would you?
If I was on nearly every thread, THAT would be taking over. But I am only on a tiny minority of the threads here.
When I post here it is because I think I have something important. It stirs things up, especially when there's nothing else to talk about happening.
I really am posting good things, but you and others have a TOTAL BIAS against it. That total bias started 2 months before my first post here, in two separate threads about me. Someday, if you ever shake that bias, you may want to thank me for bringing in so much truth.
NO. You are not familiar enough with the TIMING aspects of my theory.
I see the freedom of will happening in the heart a little BEFORE the decision to say Jesus is Lord happens.
It really is a timing thing.
It takes practice to wrench out of the old free will definition where it happens at the same time as the performance, and my new idea of the freedom part happening BEFORE the final decision.
The timing is a subtle thing to get right, but it really is at the heart of my theory. That is why the motorcycle analogy is used so early in Chapter 2.
People USUALLY think of free will as happening on the fly.
I see it in the preparation for the fly.
YES!
According to you, a natural man is subject to totally determined acts and previous synapse setting for his entire life. Then, a split second before he confesses Jesus as lord he suddenly develops free will.
Have you ever heard of Occum's razor?
It appears to me that you're trying to shoehorn the facts into your pet theory rather than letting the fact speak for themselves.
You remind me of the little kid that had a charm to keep the lions out of Florida. "But there are no lions in Florida," he was told. His response, "See how good it works."
According to you, a natural man is subject to totally determined acts and previous synapse setting for his entire life. Then, a split second before he confesses Jesus as lord he suddenly develops free will.
Have you ever heard of Occum's razor?
It appears to me that you're trying to shoehorn the facts into your pet theory rather than letting the fact speak for themselves.
You remind me of the little kid that had a charm to keep the lions out of Florida. "But there are no lions in Florida," he was told. His response, "See how good it works."
I think you are trying to apply my theory without knowing it well. I could be wrong.
It wouldn't be the spit seconds before confessing Jesus, it would be spread out in the days, months, and even years PRIOR to finally confessing.
The freedom of will of that natural man would be in the many times of hearing something, how he allowed information about Jesus to settle in his heart.
We were taught that Paul probably heard the Word many times while persecuting Christians, and he certainly heard Stephen. Those things were all in his synapse set when he started out on the Road to Damascus.
I think you are trying to apply my theory without knowing it well. I could be wrong.
It wouldn't be the spit seconds before confessing Jesus, it would be spread out in the days, months, and even years PRIOR to finally confessing.
The freedom of will of that natural man would be in the many times of hearing something, how he allowed information about Jesus to settle in his heart.
We were taught that Paul probably heard the Word many times while persecuting Christians, and he certainly heard Stephen. Those things were all in his synapse set when he started out on the Road to Damascus
Oh I understand, you're trying to dump a ton of manure on this, hoping something beautiful will grow.
As with your point with Paul and Damascus. Could he have refused God then, too? Then he had a choice, free will.
So, you were a professional teacher - fascinating – I’m curious as to what your frustration was over.
Well the rainy season is here, so I am home early. Now I have another long post from you. When it rains it pours. I'll get to both soon I think.
No I was never a professional teacher. I was being groomed to be a Physics professor, but my science nerd emotional system couldn't handle college social life. This was before I got into the Word.
I did well working in the campus atom smasher and taking Physics classes, but I was an emotional wreck. High IQ for Physics; extremely low IQ for life.
It wasn't immediate, but in category after category God's Word via PFAL have helped me climb out of that hole. But it was too slow and too late for me to become a professional teacher. That's the part I got over, because it was replaced by oodles of better things.
Oh I understand, you're trying to dump a ton of manure on this, hoping something beautiful will grow.
LoL
It is sometimes cartoon-like funny to me to have posts to seriously respond to, that first require that I pull all the bones of insult out, before consuming.
It reminds me of combing lice out of children 's hair. LoL
LoL
It is sometimes cartoon-like funny to me to have posts to seriously respond to, that first require that I pull all the bones of insult out, before consuming.
It reminds me of combing lice out of children 's hair. LoL
No insult just statement of fact. When somebody twists themselves into a pretzel trying to hold on to something that's obviously false, according to science, according to the bible, and according to common sense, they're either trying to bull you, or are unaware of what they're talking about.
According to you, a natural man is subject to totally determined acts and previous synapse setting for his entire life. Then, a split second before he confesses Jesus as lord he suddenly develops free will.
Have you ever heard of Occum's razor?
It appears to me that you're trying to shoehorn the facts into your pet theory rather than letting the fact speak for themselves.
You remind me of the little kid that had a charm to keep the lions out of Florida. "But there are no lions in Florida," he was told. His response, "See how good it works."
24 minutes ago, Mike said:
I think you are trying to apply my theory without knowing it well. I could be wrong.
It wouldn't be the spit seconds before confessing Jesus, it would be spread out in the days, months, and even years PRIOR to finally confessing.
The freedom of will of that natural man would be in the many times of hearing something, how he allowed information about Jesus to settle in his heart.
We were taught that Paul probably heard the Word many times while persecuting Christians, and he certainly heard Stephen. Those things were all in his synapse set when he started out on the Road to Damascus.
I’ve noticed a go-to reference you use quite often – “we were taught”
I wouldn’t advise falling back on a shyster of a teacher
We really don’t know what went on in Paul’s mind
So_crates is right – it also looks to me like your attempting to force a tenuous theory onto the given facts – and it won’t fit!
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
You would love to read Patricia Churchland's "Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain." for this topic.
She won a McArthur Award for that book, and Scientific American described it as iconic or something grand like that.
https://archive.org/details/neurophilosophyt0000chur
https://books.google.com/books/about/Neurophilosophy.html?id=hAeFMFW3rDUC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurophilosophy
A big part of her arguments is that Neuroscience is slowly becoming the judge as to which philosophical conjectures about the brain and mind over the centuries and millennia were Biologically correct and which ones are incorrect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I started a thread in 2006 that gets into the conscience – ever since I left TWI, I felt wierwille ideology did a tremendous disservice to TWI-followers by encouraging a “renewed mind recklessness” whatever the hell that was supposed to mean and in wierwille’s minimizing of sin, sinful behavior and generally ignoring gut feelings when you sensed something was wrong…there’s some interesting books I noted on that thread – folks might enjoy checking out - anyway here’s the thread:
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/11011-twis-sedative-to-the-conscience/
TWI’s sedative to the conscience August 6th 2006 11:14 AM
Another interesting book that gets into the twofold aspect of our nature / nuture:
https://www.amazon.com/The-Blank-Slate-Steven-Pinker-audiobook/dp/B002ZJ1V8E/
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker
Edited by T-Bonetypos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
are you suffering from "learned helplessness" or laziness?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike, like I said maybe back off trying to redefine stuff – especially when your descriptions do not accurately represent what you’re taking about. It makes it look like you’re trying to come up with something new and different to camouflage that it was someone else’s idea…hmmmmm where have I seen that before?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hmmm!
You got me thinking.
If you mean frustrated professional teacher... maybe yes, but I got over it decades ago.
If you mean teacher in the generic sense, then no, I am not frustrated.
I am delighted at all the many opportunities I have to teach the odd things that have somehow landed in my lap. I started off tutoring arithmetic to a neighbor when I was 12, and then mechanical drawing when I was 16. The variety is dizzying to me as I think back.
I get to teach the Bible to scientists in private once in a while. I get to teach Deadheads about the early history of the Grateful Dead and Ken Kesey, because from 1987 to 1998 I studied the hippies' history in an attempt to understand why TWI was so good with the hippies, and so bad without them. I was mostly wrong in my theory then about the hippies having the magic element that made TWI sing. It just seemed that every strain of the hippie influence in TWI was removed slowly and totally gone by the time of the 1986 meltdown. My theory was wrong, but I ended up being an amateur 60s historian for the younger Deadheads who totally missed that era. When I was in the Open Mic circuit, it wasn't just stand-up comedy that I did. I also taught Relativity for Poets, and some cool brain science, and hippie history. I am just starting to teach dance to men who can't do it. I first taught a young lady who couldn't do it. What blocks people in dance is mostly hangups and fears, VERY SIMILAR to the fears that hang people up in T.I.P. and can be soothed in Excellors' Sessions.
I am a challenged generic teacher, yes. That happens a lot, but I like that.
Which reminds me, I want to thank you for focusing on the details of my theory now. I welcome the challenges.
I was all set to start answering your long post very early this morning, but got continually distracted by the flurry of others posting. I will get back to it later.
I have to go to work for a few hours, and then later I have a fellowship for a couple hours early evening, so it may be LATE TONIGHT that I get to your long post.
Ditto for all the other posts that I haven't responded to this morning. I'll get there.
This is helping me with my book polishing and some needed additions.
It helps me see where I failed to communicate what I wanted to say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'll need to see if you are interpreting and applying that consensus to this free will theory.
I suspect that the early infancy exhibitions of morality are primitive and not functioning yet. They may be able to detect the pieces that later hammer out a morality, but I doublt if any of it is in a functioning state until later years.
If you happen to run into a good example of that consensus I will include it in my reading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I believe in free will because I have no choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
NO. You are not familiar enough with the TIMING aspects of my theory.
I see the freedom of will happening in the heart a little BEFORE the decision to say Jesus is Lord happens.
It really is a timing thing.
It takes practice to wrench out of the old free will definition where it happens at the same time as the performance, and my new idea of the freedom part happening BEFORE the final decision.
The timing is a subtle thing to get right, but it really is at the heart of my theory. That is why the motorcycle analogy is used so early in Chapter 2.
People USUALLY think of free will as happening on the fly.
I see it in the preparation for the fly.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike: We were taught that conscience was merely the sum total of what we were taught was right and I followed that notion throughout.
Well guess what, Mike – we were taught wrong – by an unabashed plagiarist, who also happened to be a pathological liar, a money grubbing weasel, incompetent teacher/pastor/CEO, chain-smoking, Drambuie guzzling sexual predator…yeah let’s have someone who behaved like he had a seared conscience teach us about conscience. And while we’re at it let’s have Jeffrey Dahmer teach us about philanthropy.
Besides your “thesis” going against the sciences – I had said your “thesis” also goes against what the Bible teaches...everyone has a conscience – and that there seems to be "stuff in there"
even from the beginning of humankind that God will use as a basis to judge through Jesus Christ:
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Romans 2
Humankind had a conscience even before the fall – why else would they have felt shame and want to hide from God in Genesis 3 ? there was no one before them to teach them what’s right or wrong! You have to ask yourself – why did they feel bad?
maybe take a break from reinventing the wheel and refer to a thread that got into the conscience...maybe give it a look:
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/11011-twis-sedative-to-the-conscience/
TWI’s sedative to the conscience
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike, I don't want to lead you on - so I'm telling you upfront right now I can't dance
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The way I learned to dance was from Physics. I tinkered with toys, like slinkies, that could dance for 40 years, with an understanding of the physics and math. From decades of window cleaning I learned how to maximize my body for speed, accuracy, and endurance. When I hit the dance floor 10 years ago I was ready due to this background preparation.
Dance is 3 things:
(1) having more fun than fear,
(2) doing anything IN TIME SYNC with the music, and
(3) not falling.
The tighter the synchronizing of body parts with music, the more fun it is. There is a brain theory on why this synchronizing feels like fun.
That is free-form solo dance. It totally does not matter where you place your feet. It is all in the WHEN you step or do some other action. The faster the tempo, the more fun it is.
Partner dancing is totally different and I have almost zero experience with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Well, that makes two of us – zero experiencing with partner dancing - - but there have been some rough experiences in partner discussions
maybe we're mismatched... "every time we start talking one of us falls asleep"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Do I have the illusion of free will to avoid another train wreck of a thread, or am I on a deterministic path that will lead me to sit under a waterfall of bullshonta on my path to further enlightenment?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
IOW, this time you're NOT saying somebody did something wrong, you're actually asking for clarification?
You're, IMO, a total con artist who has taken over the entire website here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
So, you were a professional teacher - fascinating – I’m curious as to what your frustration was over.
And I’m surprised at the way you disparage academia.
In my opinion respect and becoming a teacher are similar in that it’s something you earn. Usually when I check out some expert in a particular field – I look at their credentials among other things – because it tells me they’ve had a certain level of training and were disciplined enough to earn a degree. And legitimate credentials mean that a certain level of achievement was met – depending on the credentials it shows the person demonstrated they could hold to specific standards agreed upon by peers / educators in that field.
Mike, I don’t mean to give you a hard time on this – and I realize the academia and credential references is a sore spot with you – and I mean you no disrespect other than I don’t think you’ve earned the right to talk about something if you disregard standards of practice – which are models of established training/preparation that are commonly accepted as correct.
Folks here have been patient enough to point out a number of holes and contradictions in your “thesis” – and you often tend to respond like we’re nincompoops who don’t understand a simple concept like determinism and free will – but what I think is the real problem, is that your description of words and concepts are often according to “standards” that no one has agreed upon BUT YOU.
Something I really appreciate are all the discussions I've had with atheists, agnostics, and folks of other faiths - it helped me get out of the fundamentalist mindset of TWI.
Rather than a rush to produce a finished product/theory here - i.e., your thesis – maybe you should think about having discussions on one item at a time to brainstorm and eliminate errors.
I asked you earlier if you were a frustrated teacher. What I’ve realized long after my 12 frustrating years in TWI of trying to mimic wierwille, is that I’m NOT a Bible teacher – or a teacher of any particular subject – unless you want to count developing cognitive skills.
And it’s NOT that I teach that – I like to inspire others to develop THEIR OWN cognitive skills. In the secular world I’ve had a number of jobs where I trained technicians to be installers and service personnel. I started teaching industry standards for various security/access control/audio/video/telephone/DVR/signaling systems. I get into why standards are important for continuity of service and ease of troubleshooting. The fun part is when I got to field-training for installs and repairs. Each job site is different. That’s when theory meets practice and rubber meets the road. That’s when critical and creative thinking skills start to develop – cuz one is in the real world with real obstacles, unforeseen issues, forgetting a formula, breaking a tool, underestimating job parts, inclement weather, kid is sick at home, dealing with an angry customer, and etc.
On other threads like Why PFAL sucks, The Absent Christ?, The NT canon I disagree with you - not because it’s you Mike – but because the idea or method you put forth is faulty…and I don’t think we’re playing politics here where we make concessions and deals so others might accept our ideas – at least that’s not what I’m doing – I’m focused on the idea itself – to whittle it down to essentials – and we figure out if it’s true/viable or not – I think most folks who are patient and can go the distance will be able to figure that out for themselves.
Maybe it’s too little too late – but I hope my input here helps to make up for the 12 years of me pushing a frustrating system of thought known as PFAL. A lot of my beliefs are in a state of flux – so my intent is mostly just to push us all to do our best thinking – no matter the individual belief systems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Totally ridiculous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, I was asking for clarification, or for a link that would clarify.
No, I am not a con artist.
As far as "taking over" why not think of it as stirring it up, giving it extra life? I stop in to read in the months and years I am not posting, and I see how dead it can get here, at least in About the Way. I don't check the other forums, but then again, you wouldn't say I am taking over there, would you?
If I was on nearly every thread, THAT would be taking over. But I am only on a tiny minority of the threads here.
When I post here it is because I think I have something important. It stirs things up, especially when there's nothing else to talk about happening.
I really am posting good things, but you and others have a TOTAL BIAS against it. That total bias started 2 months before my first post here, in two separate threads about me. Someday, if you ever shake that bias, you may want to thank me for bringing in so much truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
YES!
According to you, a natural man is subject to totally determined acts and previous synapse setting for his entire life. Then, a split second before he confesses Jesus as lord he suddenly develops free will.
Have you ever heard of Occum's razor?
It appears to me that you're trying to shoehorn the facts into your pet theory rather than letting the fact speak for themselves.
You remind me of the little kid that had a charm to keep the lions out of Florida. "But there are no lions in Florida," he was told. His response, "See how good it works."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think you are trying to apply my theory without knowing it well. I could be wrong.
It wouldn't be the spit seconds before confessing Jesus, it would be spread out in the days, months, and even years PRIOR to finally confessing.
The freedom of will of that natural man would be in the many times of hearing something, how he allowed information about Jesus to settle in his heart.
We were taught that Paul probably heard the Word many times while persecuting Christians, and he certainly heard Stephen. Those things were all in his synapse set when he started out on the Road to Damascus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Oh I understand, you're trying to dump a ton of manure on this, hoping something beautiful will grow.
As with your point with Paul and Damascus. Could he have refused God then, too? Then he had a choice, free will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well the rainy season is here, so I am home early. Now I have another long post from you. When it rains it pours. I'll get to both soon I think.
No I was never a professional teacher. I was being groomed to be a Physics professor, but my science nerd emotional system couldn't handle college social life. This was before I got into the Word.
I did well working in the campus atom smasher and taking Physics classes, but I was an emotional wreck. High IQ for Physics; extremely low IQ for life.
It wasn't immediate, but in category after category God's Word via PFAL have helped me climb out of that hole. But it was too slow and too late for me to become a professional teacher. That's the part I got over, because it was replaced by oodles of better things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
LoL
It is sometimes cartoon-like funny to me to have posts to seriously respond to, that first require that I pull all the bones of insult out, before consuming.
It reminds me of combing lice out of children 's hair. LoL
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
No insult just statement of fact. When somebody twists themselves into a pretzel trying to hold on to something that's obviously false, according to science, according to the bible, and according to common sense, they're either trying to bull you, or are unaware of what they're talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’ve noticed a go-to reference you use quite often – “we were taught”
I wouldn’t advise falling back on a shyster of a teacher
We really don’t know what went on in Paul’s mind
So_crates is right – it also looks to me like your attempting to force a tenuous theory onto the given facts – and it won’t fit!
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.