zinnic....@gmail.com (Zinnic) On Jul 23, 4:09 am, jak1...@webtv.net
> Naive is as naive does! Probably naive
> of me to ask you to explain (not prove)
> why "the religions do a better job....
> " than science in explaining the "HEAVY
> STUFF". It does seem a little odd in that
> you agree that religions are "any old
> crap". I am interested in what it is that
> motivates you to prefer one sort of crap
> over another in your 'decision' making!
> Zinnic
For deep insight into the workings of Jack's mind please visit:
> zinnic....@gmail.com (Zinnic)
> On Jul 23, 4:09 am, jak1...@webtv.net
> > Naive is as naive does! Probably naive
> > of me to ask you to explain (not prove)
> > why "the religions do a better job....
> > " than science in explaining the "HEAVY
> > STUFF". It does seem a little odd in that
> > you agree that religions are "any old
> > crap". I am interested in what it is that
> > motivates you to prefer one sort of crap
> > over another in your 'decision' making!
> > Zinnic
> For deep insight into the workings of Jack's mind please visit:
> I go there every day, and I find it to be most entertaining... I'm sure
> you will also...
> That web site was created for people just like you and Casey.... HAVE
> FUN !
Tried it, didn't like it.
Declaritive statements brook no discussion and engender one of only
two responses. Yep! or Nope!
Most aphorisms are meaningless or trivial. Here is another one to
'live by'- in the absence of plurality, singularity self-references
until One morphs into Nothing. :)
Zinnic wrote:
> Tried it, didn't like it. > Declaritive statements brook no
> discussion and engender one of only
> two responses. Yep! or Nope!
There is a method to my madness; the posts made on that site are not
designed to generate discussions... As a rule I don't ask questions, and
the threads that do have questions in the heading, have the answers
given within the post... For the most part things are already discussed
enough, from my point of view...
The entries are works of art, you know, like a fine painting, a
beautiful sculpture, or a fine piece of music... How much discussion can
you have with a great painting, or a fine piece of music; you can talk
about the painting with a friend, but you would be missing the point, so
to speak, in that you would not be enjoying the painting...
No my site is a great site, a site where anyone can come, sit for a
while, enjoy themselves, soak up some wisdom, and then go out and make
the world a better place...
They can always come this group and have an *endless* discussion on why
the sky is blue, or why the color red appears to be red...
I already know the score; most people won't get it; but there is a
percentage who will get, and some will absolutely love it;
THAT'S WHO I POST FOR; AND BTW: I LOVE MY OWN SITE...
Discussion subject changed to "Free Will vs Free Won't - Motor activity in the brain precedes our awareness of the intention to move, so how is it that we perceive control?" by Birric Forcella
Subject: Re: Free Will vs Free Won't - Motor activity in the brain precedes our awareness of the intention to move, so how is it that we perceive control?
> Benjamin Libet showed experimentally that unconscious decisions-making
> in the brain precedes the conscious "free will" experience by a
> measurable time. Apparently, he was so shocked by his own finding and
> its implications for free will that he himself developed the "free
> won't" concept, an idea that has ever since confused the issue like a
> red herring.
> If there were such a thing as free will, operated by some ghost in the
> machine, then one should expect that the brain signals come AFTER the
> conscious decision.
> Clearly, we don't have free will. What we need to realize is that
> this is a very good and very desirable fact.
> Free will advocates often argue that if everything is merely natural
> processes, then we cannot make any coherent (value) judgments,
> decisions, or statements, since, after all, it's all merely atoms and
> physical laws talking through us.
> My point is this: Within our brain there is a level which makes the
> decisions for us. Modern brain scans show clearly that decisions are
> made deep in the brain well before we are aware of them. This level in
> the brain makes the decision for the self in the way that the outcome,
> the decision, is the most desirable for the self. The brain produces
> exactly the outcome that the self wants. After all, that is what the
> brain is all about, isn't it?
> Now here comes the kicker. In this way the brain creates the SAME
> outcome that would pertain if the person had free will, because even
> with free will you cannot do anything else but what you want. This
> means, that you cannot any more make the claim that one cannot
> coherently defend a value (or free-choice) position without free
> will. Since my choice and judgment is exactly the same as it would be
> WITH free will, any free will advocate who finds my reasons
> insufficient can make the justification FOR ME. However, Free Will,
> if it is truly free, has ultimately no justification whatever. I
> really prefer my brain acting on my behalf.
> What about "free won'ts"? Well, it's an incoherent concept, based on
> misunderstandings. When the first decision of our brain enters our
> consciousness, it becomes subject to all kinds of reasonings and
> secondary inputs. We may even do some research before we let our
> decision loose into the wild. However, all subsequent decisions, even
> those that veto the original one, are formed by the same process which
> produced the original one. That means, again, our brain acts before
> we are conscious of it.
> That is exactly what the brain does - prioritize competing wants and
> inputs - and it will choose in a way similar to vector addition, if
> possible - a bit of this and a bit of that - but in other cases it
> will have to choose something that is just more pleasurable / less
> painful - but those decisions, again, are NOT conscious, but made,
> within your brain, BEFORE you are aware of them. So all the later
> modifying decisions are made in exactly the same way as the earlier
> decision. This answers the objection that the "original" decision may
> be made unconsciously, but that later decisions (vetos) are then
> "free." It cannot be like that and it is NOT
> It would appear that there are good evolutionary reasons why the brain
> creates the appearance of free will. Indeed, since the brain IS YOU,
> it is you who produces the final decision/thought - albeit in a
> natural deterministic fashion.
> If you think the brain does not make the decisions, all you do is push
> the problem one level on. Who operates the brain? Is there a
> "Captain" to your soul? And how does this Captain make his
> decisions? Randomly? Clearly not, since character and such are
> persistent and stable things. So how does your "higher operator" make
> his decisions? Who or what is the "Captain of the Captain?"
> I think we can simplify the naturalist position and leave the world
> at large out. For our mind only one thing matters, and that is crucial
> for the free will debate. A determined process has one outcome and
> one outcome only. Given the state of the world, the prior states in
> the brain (or anywhere) completely determine the outcome of the
> process by natural laws. That is the naturalist position. All others
> positions would require some supernatural force. This natural
> position also includes Quantum physics. Though I doubt quantum
> effects play a role in our decisions, if they do, all of them are
> purely natural occurrences.
> Brain states are energy states of neurons and other structures. If
> you think that you could have acted/thought otherwise, then you would
> have to account for the energy that would change your brain state.
> Clearly, it could not come from within this universe, because the iron-
> clad laws of THIS universe have ordained the act/thought that actually
> did occur.
> If you argue that you could have freely chosen otherwise from what you
> actually have chosen, then you are committed to the claim that you
> could have either violated the laws of nature. It is a
> supernaturalist claim.
> There is a misuse of the word choice that occurs quite commonly. As
> in sentences like: "Water chooses the lowest level." In this use of
> the word "choice" there may be a range of theoretical outcomes, but it
> is understood that only one of them is possible. That is exactly the
> meaning of the word "caused." Basically everything that is caused
> has a range of theoretical outcomes, but only one is possible
> according the the state of the world that pertains. A computer which
> "chooses" one out of thousands or millions of entries in a database
> clearly does not choose at all. The word "choose" is simply used
> differently in this context. However, if something chooses "freely"
> then there was a range of outcomes and NO way exists to explain that
> choice through natural processes, not even in theory by taking
> recourse to incalculable complexities.
> It turns out that free will is also incompatible with the idea of an
> omniscient and omnipotent god, for if a decision is to be truly free,
> then even god cannot know where it came from. That is the case even
> if you assume that god exists outside of space and time.
> Well, we do what we WANT - and what we WANT is completely determined,
> by circumstances, by natural laws, and by natural laws working in our
> brains - hopefully our brains work right and look out for our best
> interests - so our brains do make us WANT what we naturally SHOULD
> WANT !
> You don't need to explain what consciousness is in order to see that
> it works according to natural laws. It is clear that the preferences
> generated in our brains operate all our choices. It is a natural
> function.
Really, Jack McKinney and others arguing in the same vein:
Your argument for the ghost in the machine is nothing but the same old
same old argument for a god in the gap, only you aren't calling it a
sky pixie, you are calling it consciousness. Just as the sky pixie,
your ghost in the machine has run out of fuel long ago.
The idea of free will can be proven false in a single, simple
paragraph:
Intentions are represented, in the brain, as an energetic state of
(many) neurons. That is even the case if you assume a "ghost" in the
machine. If you had free will, then this state could change
accordingly. Where would the energy for that change come from? It
can't come from inside our universe, since that energy state is
represented by the actions/thoughts that do occur. You would have to
assume that a supernatural agency/force is at work, an agency which
works contrary to the iron laws of physics in each and every one of
trillions of the freely willed actions/thoughts that people have
presumably undertaken in history. That is one of the most outlandish
claims EVER.
Supernatural forces have NO explanations within this universe. No
natural explanation, conjecture, or speculation can be made about
them. Anything and evrything and infinitely more could be brought as
an explanation - all could be claimed with equal grounds, and none
could be proven. Since it's supernatural, after all, it has
fundamentally NO explanation and no proof. Otherwise it would be
natural - duh.
Jack, when you said earlier
"""Without consciousness there is no illusion of cause and effect
relationships, there is no brain sensory input, there is NO BRAIN, and
in fact without consciousness ...THERE IS NO UNIVERSE... """
You are dead wrong. Without EXPLANATIONS there is no universe. It is
the very structure of the OUTSIDE universe that allows us to explain
it. The universe is not mysterious to us exactly because it has no
mystery - only explanations we haven't figured out yet. There is
nothing surprising in the fact that a non-mysterious universe would
evolve brains that can understand it.
[However, I understand your position very well, I cut my teeth on the
Idealism of Hegel, and I'm still (somewhat) influenced by it.]
My post earlier in this thread was not so much meant to disprove free
will (and free won't) as to show that having NO free will is actually
a good thing and quite desirable.
We can't will our wants. And if we could, then what would will our
will to will our wants? It leads to an infinite regress. If you ask
"Who is the captain of the soul?," then you must ask "who is the
captain of the captain's soul?" and so on and so on.
Our wants are clearly mediated by pleasure/displeasure which are
simple and explicable functions arising naturally in the brain.
Animals have them, and possibly even plants on some level when they
move toward light / away from darkness. There is nothing mysterious
in our having wants and feelings.
Sometimes free-will advocates will tell you that without free will
you can't make a coherent claim, since it's merely natural laws and
matter talking out of you. That is absolutely false. As I showed
earlier, the outcome of the determined action/thought is exactly the
same as it would be if it were freely willed. So the arguments that
arise are exactly the same and they have the same validity, so do the
associated emotions. The illusion of free will is one of the
associated pleasurable emotions.
Your case might be (somewhat) stronger if you asked where emotions and
subjectivity come from. We don't know (yet). Science is happy to
tell you that it hasn't figured everything out. We're working on it.
No dogmas make us stop looking - only supernatural sky fairies and
ghosts do that. You, Jack, are a good example for that.
> Really, Jack McKinney and others
> arguing in the same vein: > Your argument for the ghost in the
> machine is nothing but the same old
> same old argument for a god in the gap,
> only you aren't calling it a sky pixie, you
> are calling it consciousness. Just as the
> sky pixie, your ghost in the machine has
> run out of fuel long ago.
</SNIP>
I know nothing about the ghost in the machine; in fact I know nothing
about the machine; I do know a little about living, breathing human
beings who are governed by free will...
My beliefs are based on my own intuitive feelings, what I believe to be
the best science available, and on the insights of the best *mystics* of
our time... OH THOSE WONDERFUL MYSTICS...
My beliefs are what they are, and I don't offer any proof or
justifications for my beliefs... IT IS WHAT IT IS !
Your *beliefs* are your *beliefs* and I *strongly* believe them to be
less valid than mine...In fact, I think they are DEAD WRONG...
Again, consciousness is the ground of all being; it is that which
creates everything else; it is the source of both the ghost and the
machine, yet it is not the result of any operations performed by the
machine...
You materialists need to get with it, and step into the 21st century...
HINT: your task is hopeless, you will not win this argument... The truth
is on my side, for I have a mystical feeling in my bones...
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 11:14am (CDT-2) From: jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au
(casey) wrote:
On Jul 25, 3:44 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote: [...]
>> My beliefs are based on my own
>> intuitive feelings, > Which is why they are wrong.
> Science goes beyond intuition.
As usual, you've gotten things ass backwards... It is the intuition that
goes beyond known science, and not the other way around... the same goes
for the imagination, not to mention, the insight of mystics...
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful
servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has
forgotten the gift.... Albert Einstein
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.... Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein ... Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
knowledge is limited to all we now know and ...
Never let knowledge (or desire for knowledge) stifle your imagination,
and in turn inhibit your creativity ... Albert Einstein
> >> My beliefs are based on my own
> >> intuitive feelings,
> > Which is why they are wrong.
> > Science goes beyond intuition.
> As usual, you've gotten things ass backwards... It is the intuition that
> goes beyond known science, and not the other way around... the same goes
> for the imagination, not to mention, the insight of mystics...
> The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful
> servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has
> forgotten the gift.... Albert Einstein
> Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
> is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.... Albert Einstein
> Albert Einstein ... Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
> knowledge is limited to all we now know and ...
> Never let knowledge (or desire for knowledge) stifle your imagination,
> and in turn inhibit your creativity ... Albert Einstein
> >> My beliefs are based on my own
> >> intuitive feelings,
> > Which is why they are wrong.
> > Science goes beyond intuition.
> As usual, you've gotten things ass backwards... It is the intuition that
> goes beyond known science, and not the other way around... the same goes
> for the imagination, not to mention, the insight of mystics...
The "insights" of mystics haven't produced any new
understanding of what we are.
Many of the discoveries of science about the world
we inhabit and are part of are non-intuitive.
> The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful
> servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has
> forgotten the gift.... Albert Einstein
An intuitive mind that is subject to the rigours of scientific
confirmation is indeed a wonderful gift for without it there
would be no science.
> Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
> is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.... Albert Einstein
Advice you should take?
> Albert Einstein ... Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
> knowledge is limited to all we now know and ...
All new things must come from the imagination and free
invention, even scientifically questionable notions.
However they can only be *accepted* into the body of
scientific knowledge if they pass critical scrutiny,
which includes the checking of suitable test implications
by careful observation or experiment.
source:
(Scientific Inquiry: Invention and Test- Philosophy of
Natural Science, Carl G. Hempel)
So do your beliefs fulfill the requirements that
Albert Einstein's beliefs fulfilled?
> Never let knowledge (or desire for knowledge) stifle your imagination,
> and in turn inhibit your creativity ... Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein may have waxed lyrical at times but his
achievement was grounded in science and his theories
are far removed from the intuition about the world most
people have, that is why they are so hard to understand.
I don't disagree with Albert's views only your notion
of how they apply to your methods of understanding
the world we live in and are part of.
OK Casey here's the deal; you keep preaching your 350 year old, obsolete
Newtonian based science, and I'll keep informing the world about 21st
century cutting edge scientific & metaphysical thought...
IS THAT A DEAL ?
Can you hold up your end of this deal? I have confidence in you...
You've shown a lot of promise...(ha, ha)
Newtonian based science is very handy when it comes to building bridges,
but once you get past that, WATCH OUT...
>>> My beliefs are based on my own
>>> intuitive feelings,
>> Which is why they are wrong.
>> Science goes beyond intuition.
> As usual, you've gotten things ass backwards... It is the intuition that
> goes beyond known science, and not the other way around... the same goes
> for the imagination, not to mention, the insight of mystics...
It actually goes both ways so it's a feedback loop. For any one
indvidual at any one time one or the other could go farther.
The discovery step of the scieintific method is offering a mathematical
model to explain an intuitive perception or order in randomness. The
totality of science is beyond the intuition of many. Learning a field
of science until the student has an intuitive grasp makes further
discoveries the more likely. And so on back and forth in the feedback
loop.
> >>> My beliefs are based on my own
> >>> intuitive feelings,
> >> Which is why they are wrong.
> >> Science goes beyond intuition.
> > As usual, you've gotten things ass backwards... It is the intuition that
> > goes beyond known science, and not the other way around... the same goes
> > for the imagination, not to mention, the insight of mystics...
> It actually goes both ways so it's a feedback loop. For any one
> indvidual at any one time one or the other could go farther.
> The discovery step of the scieintific method is offering a mathematical
> model to explain an intuitive perception or order in randomness. The
> totality of science is beyond the intuition of many. Learning a field
> of science until the student has an intuitive grasp makes further
> discoveries the more likely. And so on back and forth in the feedback
> loop.
When I wrote science goes beyond intuition I meant it doesn't stop
there
it goes on to test the intuitive ideas. The results of these tests or
experiments can result in new intuitive ideas to test. So I would
agree it is a loop. A loop that ever expands in complexity well beyond
the simple minded intuition of common religious concepts.
>>> My beliefs are based on my own
>>> intuitive feelings,
>> Which is why they are wrong.
>> Science goes beyond intuition.
> As usual, you've gotten things ass backwards... It is the intuition that
> goes beyond known science, and not the other way around... the same goes
> for the imagination, not to mention, the insight of mystics...
Get rid of the mysticism, and this intuition butterfly your net is swooshing and scurrying after could lead you to getting your foot caught in a Zen gopher hole someday.
DAVID DARLING . . . "Zen is not a philosophy or even, to the Western mind, a form of mysticism. As we normally understand it, mysticism starts with a separation of subject and object and has as its goal the unification or reconciliation of this antithesis. But Zen does not teach absorption, identification, or union of any kind because all of these labels are derived ultimately from a dualistic conception of life. If a label is needed that best approximates to the spirit of Zen then 'dynamic intuition' is perhaps as close as we can come.
"There is a saying in Zen: 'The instant you speak about a thing you miss the mark.' So, presumably, this saying has also missed the mark - and this one, too. Our endless analysis can lead us into all sorts of difficulties. But how can we break free of it? Living in a world of words and concepts and inherited beliefs, says Zen, we have lost the power to grasp reality directly. Our minds are permeated with notions of cause and effect, subject and object, being and nonbeing, life and death. Inevitably this leads to conflict and a feeling of personal detachment and alienation from the world. Zen's whole emphasis is on the experience of reality as it is, rather than the solution of problems that, in the end, arise merely from our mistaken beliefs.
"Because it eschews the use of the intellect, Zen can appear nihilistic (which it is not) and elusive (which it is). Certainly, it would be hard to conceive of a system that stood in greater contrast with the logical, symbol-based formulations of contemporary science. More than any other product of the Oriental mind, Zen is convinced that no language or symbolic mapping of the world can come close to expressing the ultimate truth. As one of its famous exponents, Master Tokusan said: 'All our understanding of the abstractions of philosophy is like a single hair in the vastness of space.'"
>> The discovery step of the scieintific method is offering a mathematical
>> model to explain an intuitive perception or order in randomness. The
>> totality of science is beyond the intuition of many. Learning a field
>> of science until the student has an intuitive grasp makes further
>> discoveries the more likely. And so on back and forth in the feedback
>> loop.
> When I wrote science goes beyond intuition I meant it doesn't stop
> there
> it goes on to test the intuitive ideas. The results of these tests or
> experiments can result in new intuitive ideas to test. So I would
> agree it is a loop. A loop that ever expands in complexity
One of the most wonderful events in science is when someone discovers a
simplification. Many can proceed from the simple to the complex. Puzzle solving and gap filling. The great geniuses can progress from the
complex to the simple. Discoveries that make the history books.
> well beyond the simple minded intuition of common religious concepts.
There is far more to intuition than religious concepts. Part of why
young scientists and engineers study their fields until they have an
intuitive feel for the concepts and mechanisms.
There is also more to religion than its interaction with science and
only two religions bother to have a conflict with science. Why they do
that is beyond me as a member of one of the ones that does not.
> >> The discovery step of the scieintific method is offering a mathematical
> >> model to explain an intuitive perception or order in randomness. The
> >> totality of science is beyond the intuition of many. Learning a field
> >> of science until the student has an intuitive grasp makes further
> >> discoveries the more likely. And so on back and forth in the feedback
> >> loop.
> > When I wrote science goes beyond intuition I meant it doesn't stop
> > there
> > it goes on to test the intuitive ideas. The results of these tests or
> > experiments can result in new intuitive ideas to test. So I would
> > agree it is a loop. A loop that ever expands in complexity
> One of the most wonderful events in science is when someone discovers a
> simplification. Many can proceed from the simple to the complex.
> Puzzle solving and gap filling. The great geniuses can progress from the
> complex to the simple. Discoveries that make the history books.
> > well beyond the simple minded intuition of common religious concepts.
> There is far more to intuition than religious concepts. Part of why
> young scientists and engineers study their fields until they have an
> intuitive feel for the concepts and mechanisms.
> There is also more to religion than its interaction with science and
> only two religions bother to have a conflict with science. Why they do
> that is beyond me as a member of one of the ones that does not.
There are probably political and cultural reasons for the
difference between the Jewish God based religions and the
more exotic types of religions.
"Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms
of the not worth knowing." - Mencken
This is really another topic, the psychology of religion.
What do people get out of believing things that are
clearly not true. It is easy to see where these religious
concepts come from and it isn't from a different world.
They are just magical versions of the physical world we
all live in and not at all very imaginative compared with
the amazing world as disclosed by scientific investigation.
> "Theology is the effort to explain the
> unknowable in terms of the not worth
> knowing." - Mencken > This is really another topic, the
> psychology of religion. > What do people get out of believing
> things that are clearly not true.
What is clearly not true? You can't use the teachings of one religion,
say christianity, as a basis to rule out the validity of all teachings
of any other religion... You are making stupid generalizations...
> It is easy to see where these religious
> concepts come from and it isn't from a
> different world. They are just magical
> versions of the physical world we all live
> in and not at all very imaginative
> compared with the amazing world as
> disclosed by scientific investigation.
Why all the labelling; and are you saying that any concept that is not
based on *proven* science, is a religious concept, and therefore not
worthy of consideration by the rational mechanism?
If I tell you I feel great today, are you telling me that, that
observation about myself, is not valid, because its not based on proven
science, and that feeling is probably just the result of preferences,
over which I have no control?
> > "Theology is the effort to explain the
> > unknowable in terms of the not worth
> > knowing." - Mencken
> > This is really another topic, the
> > psychology of religion.
> > What do people get out of believing
> > things that are clearly not true.
> What is clearly not true? You can't use the teachings of one religion,
> say Christianity, as a basis to rule out the validity of all teachings
> of any other religion... You are making stupid generalizations...
I am not using the teachings of one religion to rule out other
religions.
They are all made up beliefs without any scientific evidence.
> > It is easy to see where these religious
> > concepts come from and it isn't from a
> > different world. They are just magical
> > versions of the physical world we all live
> > in and not at all very imaginative
> > compared with the amazing world as
> > disclosed by scientific investigation.
> Why all the labeling; and are you saying that any concept that is not
> based on *proven* science, is a religious concept, and therefore not
> worthy of consideration by the rational mechanism?
They have been considered by rational thinkers and found wanting.
> If I tell you I feel great today, are you telling me that, that
> observation about myself, is not valid, because its not based on proven
> science, and that feeling is probably just the result of preferences,
> over which I have no control?
> You need to lighten up a bit, and get real...
Getting real is something I did a long time ago when I realized
that religious beliefs were wishful thinking or a means by which
one group could control another group.
It is hard to "lighten up a bit" when I see all the damage that
is done to people's lives by those imposing their fantasy world
on the rest of the population. Although you might be a good
person who wouldn't kill people who don't agree with you, or try
and force them to obey your religious beliefs, it doesn't change
the fact that *you give credit to their reasoning process* as
a legitimate means to reach their conclusions.
When good people remain silent bad things happen. I see irrational
reasoning and the legitimization of that kind of reasoning to
result in bad things happening so I speak up.
> > >> My beliefs are based on my own
> > >> intuitive feelings,
> > > Which is why they are wrong.
> > > Science goes beyond intuition.
> > As usual, you've gotten things ass backwards... It is the intuition that
> > goes beyond known science, and not the other way around... the same goes
> > for the imagination, not to mention, the insight of mystics...
> The "insights" of mystics haven't produced any new
> understanding of what we are.
> Many of the discoveries of science about the world
> we inhabit and are part of are non-intuitive.
> > The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful
> > servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has
> > forgotten the gift.... Albert Einstein
> An intuitive mind that is subject to the rigours of scientific
> confirmation is indeed a wonderful gift for without it there
> would be no science.
> > Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
> > is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.... Albert Einstein
> Advice you should take?
> > Albert Einstein ... Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
> > knowledge is limited to all we now know and ...
> All new things must come from the imagination and free
> invention, even scientifically questionable notions.
> However they can only be *accepted* into the body of
> scientific knowledge if they pass critical scrutiny,
> which includes the checking of suitable test implications
> by careful observation or experiment.
> source:
> (Scientific Inquiry: Invention and Test- Philosophy of
> Natural Science, Carl G. Hempel)
> So do your beliefs fulfill the requirements that
> Albert Einstein's beliefs fulfilled?
> > Never let knowledge (or desire for knowledge) stifle your imagination,
> > and in turn inhibit your creativity ... Albert Einstein
> Albert Einstein may have waxed lyrical at times but his
> achievement was grounded in science and his theories
> are far removed from the intuition about the world most
> people have, that is why they are so hard to understand.
> I don't disagree with Albert's views only your notion
> of how they apply to your methods of understanding
> the world we live in and are part of.
Suppose this "gap" is really just one portion of a cycle of ghost. The
processing cycle or cognitive cycle can be controlled at the beginning
or near the end of the cycle. Most experiences probably require more
than one cognitive cycle so some neural and representational influence
extends across many processing cycles. In this way we can have the
ghost production machinery, a ghost that is stretched across time and
cannot just be at any one time.
We propose that human cognition consists of cascading cycles of
recurring brain events. Each cognitive cycle senses the current
situation, interprets it with reference to ongoing goals, and then
selects an internal or external action in response. While most aspects
of the cognitive cycle are unconscious, each cycle also yields a
momentary “ignition” of conscious broadcasting. Neuroscientists have
independently proposed ideas similar to the cognitive cycle, the
fundamental hypothesis of the LIDA model of cognition. High-level
cognition, such as deliberation, planning, etc., is typically enabled
by multiple cognitive cycles. In this paper we describe a timing model
LIDA's cognitive cycle. Based on empirical and simulation data we
propose that an initial phase of perception (stimulus recognition)
occurs 80–100 ms from stimulus onset under optimal conditions. It is
followed by a conscious episode (broadcast) 200–280 ms after stimulus
onset, and an action selection phase 60–110 ms from the start of the
conscious phase. One cognitive cycle would therefore take 260–390 ms.
The LIDA timing model is consistent with brain evidence indicating a
fundamental role for a theta-gamma wave, spreading forward from
sensory cortices to rostral corticothalamic regions. This
posteriofrontal theta-gamma wave may be experienced as a conscious
perceptual event starting at 200–280 ms post stimulus. The action
selection component of the cycle is proposed to involve frontal,
striatal and cerebellar regions. Thus the cycle is inherently
recurrent, as the anatomy of the thalamocortical system suggests. The
LIDA model fits a large body of cognitive and neuroscientific
evidence. Finally, we describe two LIDA-based software agents: the
LIDA Reaction Time agent that simulates human performance in a simple
reaction time task, and the LIDA Allport agent which models phenomenal
simultaneity within timeframes comparable to human subjects. While
there are many models of reaction time performance, these results fall
naturally out of a biologically and computationally plausible
cognitive architecture.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 4:47pm (CDT-2) From: jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au
(casey) wrote: > I am not using the teachings of one
> religion to rule out other religions.
> They are all made up beliefs without any
> scientific evidence.
For the record, Casey says that all religious/spiritual beliefs are not
valid because they are not based on of the *beliefs* of scientific
materialists, who believe that only that which can be scientifically
measured and verified is real...
> They have been considered by rational
> thinkers and found wanting.
Again, Casey is saying that religious/spiritual beliefs are wanting,
because they are not based on scientific materialism... Circular logic
is a wonderful thing...
> Getting real is something I did a long
> time ago when I realized that religious
> beliefs were wishful thinking or a means
> by which one group could control
> another group.
So my spiritually derived belief in the existence of a free will for all
men, is really a ploy to gain control over the souls of materialists;
and your non-spiritual belief in the non-existence of a free will, is a
concept that will set them free? ....RIGHT ? And why are you worried
about being controlled anyway, since according to your beliefs the
behavior of the religious is being controlled by the random firings of
neurons in the brain, which are not under one's control... So does
evolution want the religious in control ?
> It is hard to "lighten up a bit" when I see
> all the damage that is done to people's
> lives by those imposing their fantasy
> world on the rest of the population.
What about the untold damage done to people's lives by the *devastating*
belief of scientific materialists, that says that people have no control
over their own lives ???
The main focus of my spiritually derived beliefs is to warn people of
the devastating damage that can be done to one's life, by the deadly
belief in a victim filled, meaningless universe... That is to say that
if we don't have control over our own lives, then that automatically
makes us all victims of some sort, which is EXACTLY what you are arguing
for...
You will not win this argument; THE TRUTH IS ON MY SIDE, AND SO ARE THE
MYSTICS....
>> I am not using the teachings of one
>> religion to rule out other religions.
>> They are all made up beliefs without any
>> scientific evidence.
> For the record, Casey says that all religious/spiritual beliefs are not
> valid because they are not based on of the *beliefs* of scientific
> materialists, who believe that only that which can be scientifically
> measured and verified is real...
>> They have been considered by rational
>> thinkers and found wanting.
> Again, Casey is saying that religious/spiritual beliefs are wanting,
> because they are not based on scientific materialism... Circular logic
> is a wonderful thing...
>> Getting real is something I did a long
>> time ago when I realized that religious
>> beliefs were wishful thinking or a means
>> by which one group could control
>> another group.
> So my spiritually derived belief in the existence of a free will for all
> men, is really a ploy to gain control over the souls of materialists;
> and your non-spiritual belief in the non-existence of a free will, is a
> concept that will set them free? ....RIGHT ? And why are you worried
> about being controlled anyway, since according to your beliefs the
> behavior of the religious is being controlled by the random firings of
> neurons in the brain, which are not under one's control... So does
> evolution want the religious in control ?
>> It is hard to "lighten up a bit" when I see
>> all the damage that is done to people's
>> lives by those imposing their fantasy
>> world on the rest of the population.
> What about the untold damage done to people's lives by the *devastating*
> belief of scientific materialists, that says that people have no control
> over their own lives ???
> The main focus of my spiritually derived beliefs is to warn people of
> the devastating damage that can be done to one's life, by the deadly
> belief in a victim filled, meaningless universe... That is to say that
> if we don't have control over our own lives, then that automatically
> makes us all victims of some sort, which is EXACTLY what you are arguing
> for...
> You will not win this argument; THE TRUTH IS ON MY SIDE, AND SO ARE THE
> MYSTICS....
The victory of blind faith over reason! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
> > >> My beliefs are based on my own
> > >> intuitive feelings,
> > > Which is why they are wrong.
> > > Science goes beyond intuition.
> > As usual, you've gotten things ass backwards... It is the intuition that
> > goes beyond known science, and not the other way around... the same goes
> > for the imagination, not to mention, the insight of mystics...
> > The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful
> > servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has
> > forgotten the gift.... Albert Einstein
> > Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
> > is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.... Albert Einstein
> > Albert Einstein ... Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
> > knowledge is limited to all we now know and ...
> > Never let knowledge (or desire for knowledge) stifle your imagination,
> > and in turn inhibit your creativity ... Albert Einstein
