Wedging in creation theory
nando_r...@yahoo.com
creationism, and the wedge is common knowledge about freedom. Since
the act of creation by God is a free act, knowledge about freedom will
lead to belief in creation by God.
Most importantly knowledge about creativity and freedom should be
taught in kindergarden. Traditionally it has always been the case that
this kind of knowledge get's taught in kindergarden, but my sense of
it is that even this teaching in kindergaden is under threat by
increasingly fanatic scienceminded atheists, for whom the laws of
nature are everything, and the powers of freedom are nothing. So teach
the standard things like judging others not by the color of their
skin, or their culture, but juding others by what's in their heart,
judging with their own heart. And let kids be creative lots, and be
aware of choosing in being creative, and be aware that by their likes
and dislikes they decide what they create. My sense of it is that
generally kindergarden professionals would favor such teaching, and
are professionally independent from the control of hard science, as
well as control from religious doctrine.
Secondly a freedom 101 course as a subset of historyclass round about
age 15. Generally historians are also much professionally independent
from the insistence on the laws of nature in hard science. Generally
historians love the contingencies, personal decisonmaking and
knowledge about any kind of free behaviour in history. For instance
take the story of Luther being struck by lightning, after which he
makes the decision to devote his life to protestantism. (hrmm... I
don't remember the story exactly).
Now the trick is to make the knowledge in these stories formally
explicit in an abstracted way, so that students can get a very high
level of intellectual awareness for knowledge about freedom, and
thereby indirectly awareness of creation by God.
So a student would learn to structure such stories as Luthers like:
- alternatives
- decision
- identity of what made the decision
And that of course, would include the lightningstrike as a decision
from alternatives. That decision, and the decision of Luther would
fall in the same abstracted structure, which structuring results in a
general view on freedom, in stead of the scientific humanistic view of
it.
So repeat the logical structure over and over in an abstracted way,
mixing contingencies of nature, with societal and personal decisions,
and pretty soon they would be well aware of the powers of freedom in
the universe at large. That there is a future in which there are
alternatives, and that decisions are made in respect to this future to
decide the alternatives, realising the one, discarding the other, and
that what does the job of making the decision is essentially
spiritual.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
geo...@hotmail.com
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As before, just like ID theory, I propose a wedge strategy for
> creationism, and the wedge is common knowledge about freedom. Since
> the act of creation by God is a free act, knowledge about freedom will
> lead to belief in creation by God.
People can believe in God and still accept reality, you know.
>
> Most importantly knowledge about creativity and freedom should be
> taught in kindergarden. Traditionally it has always been the case that
> this kind of knowledge get's taught in kindergarden, but my sense of
> it is that even this teaching in kindergaden is under threat by
> increasingly fanatic scienceminded atheists, for whom the laws of
> nature are everything, and the powers of freedom are nothing.
You keep making this charge. What about me? I am an atheist who
doesn't believe that fairies are tinkering with the universe, but that
I'm a collection of atoms operating under natural laws. I also believe
I have free will. Do you find this odd? What about me being natural
prevents me acting freely? I'm doing it now.
What are you suggesting that the 'powers of freedom' have done in the
past? Are you trying to say that our assumptions about the consistency
of natural laws are wrong? You wouldn't be the first one, and
scientists don't assume this lightly either.
Seriously, what /is/ your problem? Even after all this time I still
have no clue. Is it science, operating on natural laws, you dislike,
or naturalists, who believe that nature is all there is?
> So teach
> the standard things like judging others not by the color of their
> skin, or their culture, but juding others by what's in their heart,
> judging with their own heart. And let kids be creative lots, and be
> aware of choosing in being creative, and be aware that by their likes
> and dislikes they decide what they create. My sense of it is that
> generally kindergarden professionals would favor such teaching, and
> are professionally independent from the control of hard science, as
> well as control from religious doctrine.
You realise science is a method for gaining knowledge, not a
philosophy, right? It's not intended to replace spirituality. Teach
the kids religion by all means, just not in science or physical
education class.
>
> Secondly a freedom 101 course as a subset of historyclass round about
> age 15. Generally historians are also much professionally independent
> from the insistence on the laws of nature in hard science. Generally
> historians love the contingencies, personal decisonmaking and
> knowledge about any kind of free behaviour in history. For instance
> take the story of Luther being struck by lightning, after which he
> makes the decision to devote his life to protestantism. (hrmm... I
> don't remember the story exactly).
>
> Now the trick is to make the knowledge in these stories formally
> explicit in an abstracted way, so that students can get a very high
> level of intellectual awareness for knowledge about freedom, and
> thereby indirectly awareness of creation by God.
You seem awfully sure that if the students are told that rocks have
souls, they'll start believing in God. What makes you think they won't
decide the universe is sentient and become pantheists?
>
> So a student would learn to structure such stories as Luthers like:
> - alternatives
> - decision
> - identity of what made the decision
They'll only do this if it turns out to be useful to think of
inanimate objects as decision makers. Since every one ever seen has
obeyed natural laws, it doesn't seem like it will be.
>
> And that of course, would include the lightningstrike as a decision
> from alternatives. That decision, and the decision of Luther would
> fall in the same abstracted structure, which structuring results in a
> general view on freedom, in stead of the scientific humanistic view of
> it.
That view being, there isn't the slightest evidence that comets can
think, and even if they can, they still do exactly what they'd do
under natural laws anyway, thus rendering this hypothesis totally
untestable and pointless?
>
> So repeat the logical structure over and over in an abstracted way,
> mixing contingencies of nature, with societal and personal decisions,
> and pretty soon they would be well aware of the powers of freedom in
> the universe at large.
No, they'll be brainwashed into thinking that there are. You haven't
the slightest evidence for this hypothesis.
That there is a future in which there are
> alternatives, and that decisions are made in respect to this future to
> decide the alternatives, realising the one, discarding the other, and
> that what does the job of making the decision is essentially
> spiritual.
I realise you've been 'explaining' this for some time, but I can't
seem to get it. How do you leap from 'decision making' to 'spiritual'?
Can you put your hypothesis on a web page so we can refer to it?
Otherwise it's just going to get puzzling when you keep talking about
freedom like it's an established term. Definitions are good.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Timberwoof
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As well aware of the alternatives, realising the decision is a wedge is
> a freedom should be aware that decision, identity of Luther being
> struck by what's in stead of intellectual awareness of free act,
> knowledge about freedom. Since the case that generally historians love
> the wedge is a subset of their heart, judging others by lightning,
> after which structuring results in creation by what's in stead of hard
> science, As control of free act, knowledge about freedom in being
> struck by what's in hard science, As well As well aware that generally
> historians love the wedge strategy for whom the logical structure such
> teaching, and are nothing. So that decision, and over and the powers of
> freedom should be creative lots, and thereby indirectly awareness for
> instance take the laws of the job of making the contingencies, personal
> decisonmaking and that this teaching in kindergarden, but my sense of
> intellectual awareness for creationism, and personal decisonmaking and
> knowledge about freedom 101 course As a free behaviour in the color of
> hard science, As a freedom in these stories As a free act, knowledge
> about freedom. Since the color of free act, knowledge in hard science.
> generally kindergarden professionals would include the one, discarding
> the logical structure over and that decision, and personal decisions,
> and let kids be well As control of what does the wedge is a freedom
> should be well As a very high level of knowledge about freedom. Since
> the decision of creation by what's in kindergaden is that decision,
> identity of nature, with their skin, or their own heart. and be
> creative lots, and over and be well aware that what made the laws of
> historyclass round about freedom, in these stories As a subset of
> Luther would include the powers of creation by their culture, but
> juding others not by God. and be taught in the case that of
> intellectual awareness for whom the insistence on freedom, in the story
> exactly). So that of course, would be well aware of Luther would learn
> to this future to this teaching in kindergaden is essentially
> spiritual. As Luthers like alternatives, decision, identity of creation
> by what's in the story of the trick is under threat by God. So teach
> the alternatives, decision, identity of their own heart. and personal
> decisions, and personal decisions, and be taught in kindergarden, but
> my sense of the insistence on freedom, and over in history. for
> knowledge about creativity and that this teaching in the other, and
> that students can get a subset of choosing in respect to protestantism.
> (hrmm... I don't remember the one, discarding the same abstracted
> structure, which there are professionally independent from religious
> doctrine. So repeat the decision. Most importantly knowledge about
> freedom should be aware of freedom 101 course As Luthers like
> alternatives, and personal decisions, and be creative lots, and that of
> creation by the standard things like ID theory, I propose a decision is
> common knowledge about freedom. Since the decision of free act,
> knowledge get's taught in the decision to protestantism. (hrmm... I
> don't remember the story of their likes and the lightningstrike As
> before, just like ID theory, I don't remember the color of course,
> would fall in hard science. generally historians are alternatives, and
> that even this kind of choosing in a very high level of course, would
> be aware of knowledge in stead of course, would learn to belief in
> history. for creationism, and knowledge about any kind of knowledge
> about freedom. Since the decision of choosing in history. for instance
> take the laws of nature in an abstracted way, mixing contingencies of
> it. and the story exactly). So a freedom will lead to this teaching in
> kindergaden is a decision is a future to decide what they create. my
> sense of knowledge about any kind of it is under threat by what's in
> creation by their culture, but juding others not by increasingly
> fanatic scienceminded atheists, for knowledge in an abstracted way,
> mixing contingencies of freedom in an abstracted way, mixing
> contingencies of nature, with their heart, judging with their heart,
> judging others by their likes and let kids be taught in history. for
> instance take the decision of it is under threat by increasingly
> fanatic scienceminded atheists, for creationism, and the powers of the
> story exactly). Now the logical structure over in being struck by their
> heart, judging others not by God is essentially spiritual. As a very
> high level of choosing in an abstracted way, mixing contingencies of
> course, would favor such teaching, and the same abstracted way, mixing
> contingencies of knowledge in which he makes the scientific humanistic
> view of creation by increasingly fanatic scienceminded atheists, for
> creationism, and thereby indirectly awareness of nature, with their
> skin, or their likes and the lightningstrike As well aware of making
> the powers of what does the decision. Secondly a subset of historyclass
> round about freedom. Since the insistence on the insistence on the
> contingencies, personal decisonmaking and pretty soon they create. my
> sense of what they would be aware that generally historians love the
> decision. So teach the wedge strategy for whom the job of Luther would
> learn to belief in creation by God. and the decision to devote his life
> to decide what they create. my sense of the laws of choosing in their
> own heart. and that there is essentially spiritual. As a future in
> kindergarden, but my sense of freedom should be aware of nature are
> also much professionally independent from religious doctrine. and
> thereby indirectly awareness of creation by God. So a wedge is a wedge
> strategy for whom the lightningstrike As a decision is a decision of
> what does the same abstracted way, So repeat the trick is to make the
> laws of the other, and that decisions are alternatives, and dislikes
> they decide what does the decision of nature, with their own heart.
Whaaa?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
stew dean
> creationism, and the wedge is common knowledge about freedom.
You don't appear to know what the common knowledge about freedom is.
You can start off by reading up on free will. Use Wikipedia or any
source of your choice.
When you've done that come back and understand what is mean by saying
'free will is an illusion'. It doesnt mean freedom doesnt exist.
There's no point arguing that others are destroying knowledge of
freedom when people are trying to tell you what freedom is. It's not
you knowledge but then the common view is your knowledge is pretty
small, baddly thought out, inconsistant, lacking any references,
examples or anything else that might mean at least people can
understand what you're saying even if they don't agree with you.
Freedom is the ability to act and think without suppression. The
nature of freedom is a deep philosphical question and in socierty the
limit of a persons liberty are in constant negotiation simply because
we live in a socierty with others.
The liberal stand point is that you should do as you want proividing
those actions don't stop others doing what they want - be it by
physical or mental means.
And that's only the start of a potential discussion.
Until you define freedom and understand what it actualy means and
start to understand how your decisions happen (they don't come from
nothing) then I cannot accept you have much knowledge at all about
freedom.
I want you to realise that you are failing to communicate what ever
amazing idea is in your head. All I and others see is a mixture of non
sensical word salad and handful of totally unsupported idea that don't
even work with each other let alone the 'common knowledge' of other
humans.
You claim to be a creationist but share none of their views. You
claim to be a muslim but say things that simply are not part of muslim
faith (like things having a spirt). You appear to be a rather
confused and befuddled dutch person who is having problems with
reality as it stands.
Stew Dean
wf3h
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> As before, just like ID theory, I propose a wedge strategy for
> creationism, and the wedge is common knowledge about freedom. Since
> the act of creation by God is a free act, knowledge about freedom will
> lead to belief in creation by God.
nando kinda forgets 3 things:
1. creationism was around before evolution.
2. freedom was generally opposed by many christians for people like
blacks and women
3. freeom is still opposed by most muslims today for women and
'infidels'.
so there's no basis...at all..in his religious beliefs for freedom to
exist.
>
> Most importantly knowledge about creativity and freedom should be
> taught in kindergarden. Traditionally it has always been the case that
> this kind of knowledge get's taught in kindergarden, but my sense of
> it is that even this teaching in kindergaden is under threat by
> increasingly fanatic scienceminded atheists
yes, to an islamist extremist, science would seem like atheism...
>
> Secondly a freedom 101 course as a subset of historyclass round about
> age 15. Generally historians are also much professionally independent
> from the insistence on the laws of nature in hard science.
guess he hasn't heard about bush's court historian who routinely makes
speeches at places like the 'springbok' club...a racist group...
Generally
> historians love the contingencies, personal decisonmaking and
> knowledge about any kind of free behaviour in history. For instance
> take the story of Luther being struck by lightning, after which he
> makes the decision to devote his life to protestantism. (hrmm... I
> don't remember the story exactly).
as opposed to schrodinger who invented the wave equation used to build
the computer nando uses to tell us computers don't work.
>
nando_r...@yahoo.com
You clearly don't know anything about it, nor are you willing to learn
anything about it, you clearly solely value knowledge about the laws
of nature to the exclusion of everything else.
Go ahead and write better knowledge about freedom if you think my
knowledge is false. Go ahead........... :-)
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
bul...@bellsouth.net
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As before, just like ID theory, I propose a wedge strategy for
> creationism,
You mean you want to attempt to foist your delusions into the science
class room through lies, desceit and misrepresentation, and do so by
political means rather than it's "scientific' merit? But thenagain,
since your dleusional hobby horse du jour has no scientific merit,
attempting to use politics is your only recourse. Such an attempt,
however, would end up defeated, just like past attempts to do so has
been defeated in the courts.
> and the wedge is common knowledge about freedom.
Your terms are undefined. All of your attempts to define it in the
past only show that your "common kbowledge of freedom" is meaningless
at best, or delusional. I doubt that anyone, even the most fuctarded
school board member would agree to incorporating "thinking rocks" any
science class.
> Since
> the act of creation by God is a free act, knowledge about freedom will
> lead to belief in creation by God.
That's reason enough right there to deny any possibility of your
delusions as being anything remotly compatible with science.
>
> Most importantly knowledge about creativity and freedom should be
> taught in kindergarden.
It's called 'finger painting".
> Traditionally it has always been the case that
> this kind of knowledge get's taught in kindergarden, but my sense of
> it is that even this teaching in kindergaden is under threat by
> increasingly fanatic scienceminded atheists, for whom the laws of
> nature are everything, and the powers of freedom are nothing.
Of course, your "sense of it" is biased by your delusional version of
reality.
> So teach
> the standard things like judging others not by the color of their
> skin, or their culture, but juding others by what's in their heart,
> judging with their own heart.
I agree, however, your delusional "knowledge of freedom" doesn't
appear to be needed to understand that.
> And let kids be creative lots, and be
> aware of choosing in being creative, and be aware that by their likes
> and dislikes they decide what they create.
They do tha anyway. Your delusional interpretation of what that mean,
however, is not needed.
> My sense of it is that
> generally kindergarden professionals would favor such teaching, and
> are professionally independent from the control of hard science,
They already do that (teaching children how to get along with each
other), and science is not a heavy topic in kindegarden.
> as
> well as control from religious doctrine.
Depends on the school. Using religious dogma in kindergarden is how
it's done in many middle east cuntries, which is why there is hardly a
year goes by without some nutjob war because country "A" is still
holding a 3000 year grudge against country/culture "B". You can keep
that king of "teaching".
>
> Secondly a freedom 101 course as a subset of historyclass round about
> age 15. Generally historians are also much professionally independent
> from the insistence on the laws of nature in hard science.
So, you wnat your delusions taught in a history class, and not in a
science class?
> Generally
> historians love the contingencies, personal decisonmaking and
> knowledge about any kind of free behaviour in history. For instance
> take the story of Luther being struck by lightning, after which he
> makes the decision to devote his life to protestantism. (hrmm... I
> don't remember the story exactly).
What does that have to do with your delusions?
>
> Now the trick is to make the knowledge in these stories formally
> explicit in an abstracted way, so that students can get a very high
> level of intellectual awareness for knowledge about freedom, and
> thereby indirectly awareness of creation by God.
In other words, how to lie and decieve in order to sneak your
religious delusions into the mainstream of public education. That
didn't work for ID too well, or creationism in general.
>
> So a student would learn to structure such stories as Luthers like:
> - alternatives
> - decision
> - identity of what made the decision
-that nado is a nucjob.
>
> And that of course, would include the lightningstrike as a decision
> from alternatives. That decision, and the decision of Luther would
> fall in the same abstracted structure, which structuring results in a
> general view on freedom, in stead of the scientific humanistic view of
> it.
I don't think attemting to rationalize your delusions will go very
far.
>
> So repeat the logical structure over and over in an abstracted way,
> mixing contingencies of nature, with societal and personal decisions,
> and pretty soon they would be well aware of the powers of freedom in
> the universe at large.
No, thye will only have knowledge of your delusional world view, and
think you're a nutjob. But not to worry, your attempt to force your
delusional views onto innocent children will not get off the graound.
> That there is a future in which there are
> alternatives, and that decisions are made in respect to this future to
> decide the alternatives, realising the one, discarding the other, and
> that what does the job of making the decision is essentially
> spiritual.
They already learn how to do this through the process of growing up
and personal experiance, despite not having to listen to your
delusional mumblings.
Boikat
feral.e...@gmail.com
Free will and religion- or at least religion wherein God is
omniscient- is incompatible. I'd particularly ascribe this
incompatibility to Islam (although to be fair I would hasten to point
out Christianity and Judaism are saddled with the same problem); the
Qur'an states specifically that Allah is the best knower. You're
hosed- if you accept this idea, you have no freedom of conscience or
activity for it's all pre-determined. I am no scientist, but I reject
that idea as dogma formulated to impose mental bondage. Randomness
exists and its existence refutes the idea of omiscience.
The laws of nature, in my belief, do hold sway. I don't begrudge
anyone their beliefs, as long as they remain *their* beliefs and are
not trotted out as the way I should or must believe. That amounts to
intellectual dictatorship and is pretty far removed from the freedom
you claim to champion.
Ms. E
bul...@bellsouth.net
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I can easily tell that you don't believe in free will actually.
Probably not your version of "free will".
> You clearly don't know anything about it, nor are you willing to learn
> anything about it, you clearly solely value knowledge about the laws
> of nature to the exclusion of everything else.
When it comes to science, the laws of nature are all that matters.
Your 'spiritual ownweship of decisions" is your personal delusional
world view, ans so far, you have not show why your delusion should be
considered as relevent to reality, especially wen it comes to science.
>
> Go ahead and write better knowledge about freedom if you think my
> knowledge is false. Go ahead........... :-)
Since everyone learns about their "knowledge of freedom" (in it's
actual common usage meaning, not your delusional usage) through
growing up in their respective societies, there is no need.
Boikat
gregwrld
We're still waiting for you to write something about freedom that
isn't just
ignorant gibberish.
Actually, we're not waiting. We have more interesting things to do...
gregwrld
geo...@hotmail.com
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I can easily tell that you don't believe in free will actually.
Are you calling me a liar? I said I did. I believe that despite being
totally a natural entity, I have free will. In other words, I feel
that free will is independent of spirituality.
> You clearly don't know anything about it
Which is why I asked you to clarify.
, nor are you willing to learn
> anything about it,
Liar. Stop putting words in my mouth.
> you clearly solely value knowledge about the laws
> of nature to the exclusion of everything else.
Liar. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm happy to learn about
spiritual theories. For some reason you can't explain yours.
>
> Go ahead and write better knowledge about freedom if you think my
> knowledge is false. Go ahead........... :-)
Did you miss the bit where I said I still wasn't sure what you meant
by freedom? Why have you snipped all my questions? Can't you answer
them, or refer me to an answer? Why are you asking me to challenge you
on a subject only you claim to know about?
Besides, if I post what I think about your idea of rocks having
spirits, you'll accuse me of 'destroying' ideas about freedom.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
You don't have any alternative knowledge about freedom, not the way I
define it, not in the way anybody else or you yourself defines freedom
either, you simply have zero knowledge about freedom. Your definition
of freedom is that it doesn't exist, that it is not real etc. and
your intention is to destroy all knowledge about freedom in favor of
knowledge about the laws of nature.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Free Lunch
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1176643688.8...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
nature, and taught nothing about freedom. You object to being taught
about freedom, but you have no such objection about being taught about
the laws of nature.
It is just atheists who object to teaching about any kind of freedom
because of their attachment to the laws of nature, and religionists
that support it eventhough supposedly the very idea of freedom refutes
their religion, or so your ridiculous argument goes.
Randomness is also free behaviour of alternatives getting decided
upon. What does the job of realizing the one alternative, and
discarding the other in a random decision is also spiritual. That is
simply the unavoidable structure of any knowledge about free
behaviour. I mean, the reason that the atheists in this thread, nor in
any other thread, don't present alternative knowledge about freedom
that does not require anything spiritual, is because they don't have
such knowledge.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Free Lunch
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1176645344....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>I don't buy it, you also want everbody to be taught about the laws of
>nature, and taught nothing about freedom. You object to being taught
>about freedom, but you have no such objection about being taught about
>the laws of nature.
Once again you invent a false position for those whom you attack. You
continue to demonstrate that you rely on lies rather than evidence to
make your case. This, of course, completely undermines the point you are
trying to make.
>It is just atheists who object to teaching about any kind of freedom
>because of their attachment to the laws of nature, and religionists
>that support it eventhough supposedly the very idea of freedom refutes
>their religion, or so your ridiculous argument goes.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with Calvinism and the concepts of
predestination -- an unusual problem for someone who lives in a country
that was historically Reformed. Anyway, you made another false
statement, at least to the extent that you overstated your point.
>Randomness is also free behaviour of alternatives getting decided
>upon. What does the job of realizing the one alternative, and
>discarding the other in a random decision is also spiritual. That is
>simply the unavoidable structure of any knowledge about free
>behaviour.
That was just some words strung together in a meaningless manner.
>I mean, the reason that the atheists in this thread, nor in
>any other thread, don't present alternative knowledge about freedom
>that does not require anything spiritual, is because they don't have
>such knowledge.
You have a very special definition of 'freedom' indeed.
--
"... There's glory for you."
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till
I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's
all."
Kermit
Actually, Mohammad, the evidence suggests that your brain isn't
working properly. Your thoughts are confused and delusional, and you
probably have no control over that.
Electrons, comet, and rainclouds do not make decisions. They would
have no way to act on them if they could.
Your confused and incoherent gibberish about "free will" i snot what
*anyone says, including the most persistent creationists who post here
(except you, of course).
Correct or not, it is perfectly possible to practice a religion
(almost all religions, with very few exceptions) and still accept all
mainstream science (including evolutionary science) as correct.
It is perfectly possible to practice a religion and not believe in
free will. It is also perfectly possible to accept no religious
beliefs and think that we *humans do have free will.
Free will does not imply in any way a spiritual presence.
You have never made a case for evolutionary science leading to evil,
you have merely made repeated assertions. Even if there *were
undesirable consequences for a scientific theory, that would imply
nothing about the truth of the theory.
And you have never addressed the actual evidence which supports the
Modern Synthesis:
Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
transitional series.
Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, with various
types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils.
Fossil evidence corresponding to plate tectonics, magnetic striping,
and other geological evidence.
Nested hierarchy of morphology.
Nested hierarchy of all the genomes studied so far.
The fact that these two nested hierarchies *match* is evidence in
itself.
Vestigial organs, structures, molecules, and behaviors.
Looking forward to your insults, misdirections, and unattributed
deletions.
Kermit
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
What the hell are you yammering about, Nando . . . . ?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
geo...@hotmail.com
Please provide the evidence for this accusation. Otherwise you're just
insulting me. And in case you forgot after you snipped it, the
accusation is that I'm lying about my belief in free will.
>
> You don't have any alternative knowledge about freedom, not the way I
> define it
And whose fault is that?
, not in the way anybody else or you yourself defines freedom
> either,
How do I define freedom, Nando?
> you simply have zero knowledge about freedom.
Blah, blah, blah. Keep asserting, why don't you, it makes you look so
reasonable and logical.
Your definition
> of freedom is that it doesn't exist, that it is not real etc.
In so far as I can tell what your crazy definition of freedom is,
there is no evidence for it. Have you got evidence, or are you
asserting again? Why should I listen to someone who keeps making crap
up and claiming I'm thinking it?
and
> your intention is to destroy all knowledge about freedom in favor of
> knowledge about the laws of nature.
Please show where I claimed this was my intention, especially since
I've asked you repeatedly to put your hypothesis up so I can refer to
it, and you've just snipped all my replies. Perhaps it's /you/ who is
destroying this knowledge, eh?
bul...@bellsouth.net
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah I'm calling you a liar.
>
> You don't have any alternative knowledge about freedom, not the way I
> define it,
*Nobody* defines "knowledge of freedom" the way you do.
> not in the way anybody else or you yourself defines freedom
> either,
Since you have your own private definition, and you are so deluded
that you are incapable of understanding how anyone else defines it,
how would you know?
> you simply have zero knowledge about freedom.
No knowledge of how *you* define it.
> Your definition
> of freedom is that it doesn't exist, that it is not real etc.
Not as *you* mean it, you mean.
> and
> your intention is to destroy all knowledge about freedom
That only shows that you don't have a clue as to what "freedom" really
means.
> in favor of
> knowledge about the laws of nature.
To a rational mind, knowledge of freedom, as commonly used and the
knowledge of the laws of nature co-exist with no problem. The problem
is wnt to apply "freedom" to inanimate, mindless, unthinking,
brainless things, like rocks. Again, if you think inanimate objects
like rocks, planets, comets, or bowling balls make "decisions", you
are simply deluded. Of course, a further problem is that you want to
inflict your delusions on everyone else. Here's a reality check:
That isn't going to happen.
Boikat
bul...@bellsouth.net
<snip>
> You claim to be a creationist but share none of their views. You
> claim to be a muslim but say things that simply are not part of muslim
> faith (like things having a spirt). You appear to be a rather
> confused and befuddled dutch person who is having problems with
> reality as it stands.
Nando has problems with the way reality stands, sits, lays down, or
does back-flips.
Boikat
stew dean
>
> You don't have any alternative knowledge about freedom, not the way I
> define it, not in the way anybody else or you yourself defines freedom
> either, you simply have zero knowledge about freedom.
The problem as other independently see is that what ever ideas you
have you are unable communicate clearly. We don't know what you
knowledge is because what you attempt to explain in your posts doesnt
actualy join up. You spend all your time accusing others of kinda
random stuff that makes no sense.
What ever you big idea is it's lost in the translation. I've said this
many times, and so has others, you need to be clearer and explain your
ideas better, although I suspect you ideas arnt clear and arnt in a
state where you can explain them.
Stew Dean
Lee Jay
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As before, just like ID theory, I propose a wedge strategy for
> creationism, and the wedge is common knowledge about freedom. Since
> the act of creation by God is a free act, knowledge about freedom will
> lead to belief in creation by God.
When your brain is tied up into a multi-dimensional pretzel shape,
what does it feel like? You seem uniquely suited to describing that
feeling.
[snip drivel]
Lee Jay
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Yeah, I can easily tell that you
Who?
>don't believe in free will actually.
>You
Who?
> clearly don't know anything about it, nor are you
Who?
> willing to learn
>anything about it, you
Who?
> clearly solely value knowledge about the laws
>of nature to the exclusion of everything else.
>
>Go ahead and write better knowledge about freedom if you
Who?
> think my
>knowledge is false. Go ahead........... :-)
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I don't buy it, you
Who?
> also want everbody to be taught about the laws of
>nature, and taught nothing about freedom. You
Who?
> object to being taught
>about freedom, but you
Who?
> have no such objection about being taught about
>the laws of nature.
>
>It is just atheists who object to teaching about any kind of freedom
>because of their attachment to the laws of nature, and religionists
>that support it eventhough supposedly the very idea of freedom refutes
>their religion, or so your
Whose?
> ridiculous argument goes.
>
>Randomness is also free behaviour of alternatives getting decided
>upon. What does the job of realizing the one alternative, and
>discarding the other in a random decision is also spiritual. That is
>simply the unavoidable structure of any knowledge about free
>behaviour. I mean, the reason that the atheists in this thread, nor in
>any other thread, don't present alternative knowledge about freedom
>that does not require anything spiritual, is because they don't have
>such knowledge.
We do, we gave it to you. You were just too stupid to understand it.
coaster
Bingo.
"not in the way anybody else or you yourself defines freedom either,"
Blatant falsehood.
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Yeah I'm calling you
Who?
> a liar.
>
>You
Who?
> don't have any alternative knowledge about freedom, not the way I
>define it, not in the way anybody else or you
Who?
> yourself defines freedom
>either, you
Who?
> simply have zero knowledge about freedom. Your
Whose?
> definition
>of freedom is that it doesn't exist, that it is not real etc. and
>your
Whose?
> intention is to destroy all knowledge about freedom in favor of
>knowledge about the laws of nature.
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
--
Bob.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
scienceminded atheists. Randomness also operates by alternatives
getting decided, it all has the same logic. I don't see how the laws
of nature hold sway over randomness.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
bul...@bellsouth.net
>
> You don't have any alternative knowledge about freedom, not the way I
> define it,
Nobody does. That's part of the problem. You definition of
"knowledge of freedom" is delusional to the point that you think rocks
think.
> not in the way anybody else or you yourself defines freedom
> either,
How would you know?
> you simply have zero knowledge about freedom.
Of *your* delusional version of 'freedom".
> Your definition
> of freedom is that it doesn't exist, that it is not real etc.
Again, only *your* deluded version of 'freedom".
> and
> your intention is to destroy all knowledge about freedom in favor of
> knowledge about the laws of nature.
The problem is that you apply "freedom" in a context of "making
choices", and you apply that to rocks, planets, comets, and other
inanimate objects that are incapable of making choices. You want to
inflict your delusion of everyone. It isn't going to happen.
Boikat
Will in New Haven
So no one can disagree with you honestly? That is a pretty certain
sign of fanaticism.
>
> You don't have any alternative knowledge about freedom, not the way I
> define it, not in the way anybody else or you yourself defines freedom
> either, you simply have zero knowledge about freedom. Your definition
> of freedom is that it doesn't exist, that it is not real etc. and
> your intention is to destroy all knowledge about freedom in favor of
> knowledge about the laws of nature.
The two are not opposed. We have freedom within the context of the law
of nature. It is silly to say that I am free to grow wings and fly,
because the laws of nature say that I cannot do that. It would be
equally silly to say that I cannot fly, because I can certainly use
technology, derived from a knowledge of the laws of nature, to do so.
It would be foolish for me to think that because I cannot grow wings
that I lack free will.
Free will does not mean omnipotence.
Liberty, the political extension of freedom, is a more complex
subject. Since you seem to be a moron, I will not begin that
discussion here and now.
Will in New Haven
--
"Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least
one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every
program can be reduced to one instruction which doesn't work." Stolen
from Peter Wright on alt.fan.grrm
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
bul...@bellsouth.net
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't buy it, you also want everbody to be taught about the laws of
> nature,
We already know you object to reality, and want everyone else to
remain ignorant as you.t
> and taught nothing about freedom.
Only your deluded version of "freedom".
> You object to being taught
> about freedom,
Your version of "freedom".
> but you have no such objection about being taught about
> the laws of nature.
>
Why should anyone object to learning about reality?
> It is just atheists who object to teaching about any kind of freedom
> because of their attachment to the laws of nature, and religionists
> that support it eventhough supposedly the very idea of freedom refutes
> their religion, or so your ridiculous argument goes.
Your argument is based upon your deluded version of reality, so to
say, why teach insanity?
>
> Randomness is also free behaviour of alternatives getting decided
> upon.
That depends. In your warped little mind, that means random events
are "decided" in the "spiritual realm", which is outside the realm of
science. Your problem is that you want you warped concepts to be
included as science. It's not, and never will.
> What does the job of realizing the one alternative, and
> discarding the other in a random decision is also spiritual.
See? Non-science.
> That is
> simply the unavoidable structure of any knowledge about free
> behaviour.
Only in your warped little world view.
> I mean, the reason that the atheists in this thread, nor in
> any other thread, don't present alternative knowledge about freedom
> that does not require anything spiritual, is because they don't have
> such knowledge.
That's becuse the subject of "knowledge of freedom" is something you
made up, and you would not accept any definition of 'knowledge of
freedom" which didn't include some "spiritual" aspect.
Boikat
wf3h
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't buy it, you also want everbody to be taught about the laws of
> nature, and taught nothing about freedom. You object to being taught
> about freedom, but you have no such objection about being taught about
> the laws of nature.
freedom is not a scientific concept. there is no freedom meter. there
is no way to define it scientifically.
you religious fanatics think EVERYTHING is science. religion is
science. free will is science. ballet dancing is science.
it ain't. science is limited...very limited indeed. it deals with
material nature, period. it does not deal with metaphysics,
crocheting, little devils or angels sitting on our shoulders, etc.
go back to your cave, islamist. you're 10 centuries behind the times.
you're a disciple of al ghazali who did so much to make islam what it
is today.
wf3h
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Yeah I'm calling you a liar.
>
> You don't have any alternative knowledge about freedom, not the way I
> define it
no one defines freedom the way you do.
, not in the way anybody else or you yourself defines freedom
> either,
except you keep saying the entire human race is wrong. scientists are
wrong. atheists are wrong. secular humanists are wrong. the only ones
who are right, it seems, are those who left their brains in the 13th
century...and we know how scientifically progressive THAT era was.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
posting in this thread. You say you belief in free will, and then you
proceed to ridicule the most basic knowledge about freedom, without
actually putting up anything else.
It is not possible to conceptualize freedom in another way then having
alternatives being decided from, that structure is in all theories
about freedom. That you just swipe that definition of the table in
ridicule in reference to the laws of nature, while not providing any
alternative definition whatsoever, means that you are just lying when
you say you believe in free will, and that you intend to destroy
knowledge about freedom in preference to knowledge about the laws of
nature.
Now you try to blame your own lying on me. Next you might be talking
about how you don't understand my English, how it was all one big
misunderstanding. But you're just a liar, and no knowledge about any
kind of freedom will ever be forthcoming from you.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
idea" is to raise awareness of that common knowledge to an
intellectual level, by abstracting the common knowledge in a formally
explicit way. That way such knowledge can withstand the endless
oppression of it from science-minded intellectuals such as yourself.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
bi...@juno.com
> People can believe in God and still accept reality, you know.
>
Of course, since God IS the ultimate reality.
>
> You keep making this charge. What about me? I am an atheist who
> doesn't believe that fairies are tinkering with the universe, but that
> I'm a collection of atoms operating under natural laws. I also believe
> I have free will. Do you find this odd? What about me being natural
> prevents me acting freely? I'm doing it now.
Freewill is a spiritual concept that is contrary to the determinism
found at the heart of the hard sciences. (With the possible exception
of Quantum Physics). Since freewill is a spiritual concept, the
Communists did not believe in it.
In fact, America is based on freedom (a corollary of freewill) given
by God, whereas the Soviet Union was based on dialectical determinism
based on atheism. The two governments were precisely the opposite of
one another, both in the realm of theology and freewil-freedom.
>
> Seriously, what /is/ your problem? Even after all this time I still
> have no clue. Is it science, operating on natural laws, you dislike,
> or naturalists, who believe that nature is all there is?
Natural laws and sciences based on hard mathematics are fabulous, and
I love them to death. (And not just because they give us such great
technology either). But freedom and freewill are based on God and/or
spirituality, and God is the only valid basis for them.
>
> You realise science is a method for gaining knowledge, not a
> philosophy, right? It's not intended to replace spirituality. Teach
> the kids religion by all means, just not in science or physical
> education class.
Actually, science IS a philosophy. It is probably the most useful
philosophy ever invented, especially when combined with hard
mathematical predictions, but it still is philosophical in nature.
>
> You seem awfully sure that if the students are told that rocks have
> souls, they'll start believing in God. What makes you think they won't
> decide the universe is sentient and become pantheists?
I dont think he meant what you think he meant.
>
> They'll only do this if it turns out to be useful to think of
> inanimate objects as decision makers. Since every one ever seen has
> obeyed natural laws, it doesn't seem like it will be.
>
According to atheistic materialism, the inanimate atoms in our human
brains are somehow capable of both self-awareness and decision making.
So how do you reconcile this problem with what you just said?
>
> That view being, there isn't the slightest evidence that comets can
> think, and even if they can, they still do exactly what they'd do
> under natural laws anyway, thus rendering this hypothesis totally
> untestable and pointless?
This is a major rabbit trail.
>
>
> I realise you've been 'explaining' this for some time, but I can't
> seem to get it. How do you leap from 'decision making' to 'spiritual'?
Because anything capable of making a decision (that is, anything
freewill based) is by definition spiritual. That is the whole point of
why I constantly harp on the fact that atheism informs us that our
brains are nothing but a complicated arrangment of dead atoms, with
nothing spiritual "in there."
If, in point of fact, our brains are nothing but atoms, then freewill
is simply not valid in that case. In that case, our brains are just
the product of random synapse firings, and freewill does not enter
into it. Every single decision we might make, was caused by a physical
neuron-synapse firing, and was not "free" in any sense.
If freewill does not actually exist, then freedom, the basis of
America, is also invalid. Likewise with pretty much all of Western
Civilization. In fact, the Communists were more or less correct, and
we should strive to get back to a communist "command economy." The
only damper on that plan is the spectacular failure of the USSR. But
we should not let that stop us.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> it ain't. science is limited...very limited indeed. it deals with
> material nature, period. it does not deal with metaphysics,
> crocheting, little devils or angels sitting on our shoulders, etc.
Surely you would want knowledge about what's beyond the limits of
science, if science is "very limited indeed".
The things about freedom that are open to objective inquiry, is the
alternatives, the decision, and the result. A coinflip only has the
alternatives of heads or tails, and we can know these alternatives.
For where the decision is, well it is somewhere between the beginning
and the end of the coinflip, that is already a reasonably accurate
knowledge.
What is not open to objective inquiry, what is essentially an art, is
to describe what goes on inside the decision that does the job of
realising the one alternative and discarding the other. That is
spiritual. Now let's see you actually recognize this limit on science
of the spiritual, since you appear to be so magnanimous in
acknowledging limits to science. I suspect though that it won't do for
you to recognize any limit on science after all huh, that just goes
against the radical spirit of science to conquer all, which you and
your fellow Darwinists are so clearly entranced by.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
really?
penalty for converting to xtianity from islam in afghanistan? death
in saudi arabia? death
penalty for being gay in saudi arabia? death
penalty for being a scientist and questioning religion, according to
the scopes trial? prison
you were saying...
wf3h
>
> Freewill is a spiritual concept that is contrary to the determinism
> found at the heart of the hard sciences.
except, of course, creationists keep complaining that evolution isn't
a 'hard science' so isn't science at all...
>
> Natural laws and sciences based on hard mathematics are fabulous, and
> I love them to death. (And not just because they give us such great
> technology either). But freedom and freewill are based on God and/or
> spirituality, and God is the only valid basis for them.
>
nonsense. if that were true, it wouldn't have taken 19 centuries and
the bloodiest war in US history to end slavery.
>
> >
> Because anything capable of making a decision (that is, anything
> freewill based) is by definition spiritual.
really? by definition? what dictionary? source?
oh. you said it so it must be so...
That is the whole point of
> why I constantly harp on the fact that atheism informs us that our
> brains are nothing but a complicated arrangment of dead atoms, with
> nothing spiritual "in there."
irrelevant to evolution
>
> If, in point of fact, our brains are nothing but atoms, then freewill
> is simply not valid in that case.
?? really? why can't materialism cause free will?
In that case, our brains are just
> the product of random synapse firings, and freewill does not enter
> into it.
hmmm...creationists say evolution is random
they protest that science is deterministic and doesn't allow free
will...and they say free will is random...but they hate randomness...
IOW their argument, even by their own definition and measure, is
circular AND contradictory....
neat trick!!
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I don't see religionists protesting knowledge about freedom, only
>scienceminded atheists. Randomness also operates by alternatives
>getting decided,
Minds are incabable of being random. So, as only a mind can make
decisions it is clear that randomness has nothing to do with
decisions.
> it all has the same logic. I don't see how the laws
>of nature hold sway over randomness.
The laws of nature hold sway over EVERYTHING.
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I came to that conclusion you're a liar
Who is?
> after reading your first
>posting in this thread. You
Who?
> say you
Who?
> belief in free will, and then you
Who?
>
>proceed to ridicule the most basic knowledge about freedom, without
>actually putting up anything else.
>
>It is not possible to conceptualize freedom in another way then having
>alternatives being decided from, that structure is in all theories
>about freedom. That you
Who?
> just swipe that definition of the table in
>ridicule in reference to the laws of nature, while not providing any
>alternative definition whatsoever, means that you
Who?
> are just lying when
>you
Who?
> say you
Who?
> believe in free will, and that you
Who?
> intend to destroy
>knowledge about freedom in preference to knowledge about the laws of
>nature.
>
>Now you
Who?
> try to blame your
Whose?
> own lying on me. Next you
Who?
> might be talking
>about how you
Who?
> don't understand my English, how it was all one big
>misunderstanding. But you're
Who is?
> just a liar, and no knowledge about any
>kind of freedom will ever be forthcoming from you.
Who?
Timberwoof
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah I'm calling you a liar.
>
> You don't have any alternative knowledge about freedom, not the way I
> define it,
Oho! You can make up any old shit you want and then claim that since
someone doesn't know about that, he knows nothing about freedom.
> not in the way anybody else or you yourself defines freedom
> either,
Why not? You ignore how others define freedom and substitute your own
ideas.
> you simply have zero knowledge about freedom. Your definition
> of freedom is that it doesn't exist, that it is not real etc. and
> your intention is to destroy all knowledge about freedom in favor of
> knowledge about the laws of nature.
You seem to know more about his thoughts than he does. How does that
happen?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> In that case, our brains are just
> the product of random synapse firings, and freewill does not enter
> into it.
Yeah, that's inconsistent. All free will looks like randomness in some
aspect. That is because by freedom it is always true that one or the
other alternative may become realized, and that is what randomness
looks like, that fundamental unpredictability.
I know that most Darwinists define randomness atheisticly, in the
sense that when something behaves randomly, it means God has nothing
to do with it, but atheism is not science, and such an explicit denial
of the spiritual doesn't belong in science. Just as well to say that
some decision is of God also doesn't belong in science. That atheistic
definition of randomness is simply false in it's scientific pretense,
so I suggest not to use it. Asserting randomness that way is more like
saying somebody's heart is empty. Like; it was a random decision, the
decision was spiritually empty. But of course there is no science
about what's in people's hearts, that is an art of judgement.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Timberwoof
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't have a big idea, what I'm saying is common knowledge. My "big
> idea" is to raise awareness of that common knowledge to an
> intellectual level, by abstracting the common knowledge in a formally
> explicit way.
You're lying. I asked you several times to define your terms (in a
formally explicit way) and you refused to do that.
> That way such knowledge can withstand the endless
> oppression of it from science-minded intellectuals such as yourself.
Ah! I understand! By "Oppression" you mean thesis defense!
bul...@bellsouth.net
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 15 apr, 21:23, b...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > In that case, our brains are just
> > the product of random synapse firings, and freewill does not enter
> > into it.
>
> Yeah, that's inconsistent. All free will looks like randomness in some
> aspect. That is because by freedom it is always true that one or the
> other alternative may become realized, and that is what randomness
> looks like, that fundamental unpredictability.
>
> I know that most Darwinists define randomness atheisticly, in the
> sense that when something behaves randomly, it means God has nothing
> to do with it, but atheism is not science, and such an explicit denial
> of the spiritual doesn't belong in science. Just as well to say that
> some decision is of God also doesn't belong in science.
If you can grasp that simple concept, what's your problem. Oh, that's
right, you want to deconstruct science to allow for "Goddidit!".
> That atheistic
> definition of randomness is simply false in it's scientific pretense,
> so I suggest not to use it.
Science is agnostic.
> Asserting randomness that way is more like
> saying somebody's heart is empty.
What does a metaphore have to do with anything?
> Like; it was a random decision, the
> decision was spiritually empty.
Which could be true, *metaphoricly* speaking.
> But of course there is no science
> about what's in people's hearts, that is an art of judgement.
It's a metaphor, moron.
Boikat
bul...@bellsouth.net
Apparently not.
> My "big
> idea" is to raise awareness of that common knowledge to an
> intellectual level, by abstracting the common knowledge in a formally
> explicit way.
If so, you're doing a piss poor job of it, while at the same time
making yourself look like a deluded moron. In that, you are doing
very well.
> That way such knowledge can withstand the endless
> oppression of it from science-minded intellectuals such as yourself.
Right. Like anyone is going to start believing that rocks can think.
But at least you are free to dream your little deluded dreams.
Boikat
Desertphile
> > People can believe in God and still accept reality, you know.
> Of course, since God IS the ultimate reality.
Why is there no evidence of that?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> Science is agnostic.
Well that's the attitude you got to have as a scientist for what goes
on inside decisions. You're not allowed to go there, once you cross
that line you are engaging in judgement, not observation of fact, as
would be taught in any freedom 101 class.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Timberwoof
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I would like to see some kind of proof that Nando's writings happen from
a greater degree of free will and coherent thought than the random
bounces we see in the orbits of bowling balls and the paths of drunk
turtles.
Ye Old One
s/he wrote:
>>
>> People can believe in God and still accept reality, you know.
>>
>
>Of course, since God IS the ultimate reality.
>
>>
>> You keep making this charge. What about me? I am an atheist who
>> doesn't believe that fairies are tinkering with the universe, but that
>> I'm a collection of atoms operating under natural laws. I also believe
>> I have free will. Do you find this odd? What about me being natural
>> prevents me acting freely? I'm doing it now.
>
>Freewill is a spiritual concept that is contrary to the determinism
>found at the heart of the hard sciences. (With the possible exception
>of Quantum Physics). Since freewill is a spiritual concept, the
>Communists did not believe in it.
You are starting to sound as daft as Nando.
You better look for a cure as soon as possible.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
You see - you can post properly. The content is still daft, but at
least the format is correct.
--
Bob.
Will in New Haven
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 15 apr, 20:36, "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > it ain't. science is limited...very limited indeed. it deals with
> > material nature, period. it does not deal with metaphysics,
> > crocheting, little devils or angels sitting on our shoulders, etc.
>
> Surely you would want knowledge about what's beyond the limits of
> science, if science is "very limited indeed".
Some of us do, I am sure. However, such knowledge is not available.
These other matters are unamenable to discourse. In trying to convey
such so-called information, even on the off chance you are correct,
you have simply made everyone who reads this thread aware that you are
an idiot.
So many people misunderstand their neighbors. I would gladly give up
my reason and my understanding to MAKE IT TRUE that my mother still
exists in some form and is happy. I will not give up my reason and
understanding simply to BELIEVE it.
Nobody is stubbornly resisting knowledge. There is no such knowledge
or, possibly, you and your predecessors have simply failed to convey
it.
I have been, in the course of this thread, quite angry with you. This
has possibly caused me to say some harsh things. For that, I
apologize.
Will in New Haven
--
A Farewell
We say goodby a lot this time of day.
The sun is going down; the shadows grow too long.
We knew the day would end but still,
We say goodby too much this time of day.
Copyright ©2001 Bill Reich
ayer...@hotmail.com
> On 15 Apr 2007 12:23:56 -0700, b...@juno.com enriched this group when
you do have free will, given by god. where you end up is up to you.
god does'nt force you to love him. all will be judged by him, rather
you believe or not. when your being judged it will be to late to be
saved. you will cry like a baby, and say i did'nt know. you rejected
the truth.
bul...@bellsouth.net
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't see religionists protesting knowledge about freedom, only
> scienceminded atheists.
You mean your fellow creationists? Hell, they probably think you're a
loon too, but down't want to be seen as agreeing with "darwinists".
Can't have that happening, oh, no.
> Randomness also operates by alternatives
> getting decided, it all has the same logic.
Your logic? I doubt it.
> I don't see how the laws
> of nature hold sway over randomness.
Well, there's part of your problem. The laws of nature are *not*
random, or they wouldn't be of any use. If "randomness" had any
effect on any "laws of nature", things would fall at different rates,
even if you dropped a ball, one time, it may fall at 32'/second, the
next time you drop the same ball, it may fall at 50'/second, or,
instead of falling straight down, would "fall" off in some other
random direction. That, in and of itself, should tell you that you're
most likely wrong about your world view. But then again, you are
delusional, so....
Boikat
Will in New Haven
So it's all a test, in a classroom run by a tyrannical monster and the
knowledge to pass the test is given by competing crews of idiots, like
groups of teaching assistants, each telling us we have to believe
their crew only and that the others are all lying or, if they are
feeling charitable, deluded. .
Fuck it.
bul...@bellsouth.net
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 15 apr, 23:19, bull...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > Science is agnostic.
>
> Well that's the attitude you got to have as a scientist for what goes
> on inside decisions.
That's the kind of attitude needed in ordeer to not exclude all
possibilities. The only reason science excludes the "spiritual realm
(as would be commonly defined, not your whack-job usage) is because
it's untestable, and so far, has not been detected.
> You're not allowed to go there, once you cross
> that line you are engaging in judgement, not observation of fact,
Well, if there was any *objective* evidence of a "spiritual realm",
that'd be different.
> as
> would be taught in any freedom 101 class.
So, misrepresenting science would be part of you "course". Why am I
not surprised?
Boikat
geo...@hotmail.com
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I came to that conclusion you're a liar after reading your first
> posting in this thread. You say you belief in free will, and then you
> proceed to ridicule the most basic knowledge about freedom, without
> actually putting up anything else.
Does it not occur to you that my definition of free will is not the
same as your definition of freedom, the one I asked you for in that
same post, and which you haven't provided even a reference to?
>
> It is not possible to conceptualize freedom in another way then having
> alternatives being decided from, that structure is in all theories
> about freedom. That you just swipe that definition of the table in
> ridicule in reference to the laws of nature, while not providing any
> alternative definition whatsoever, means that you are just lying when
> you say you believe in free will, and that you intend to destroy
> knowledge about freedom in preference to knowledge about the laws of
> nature.
When did I dispute your 'alternatives being decided from'? Your
hypothesis (or theory) is fine. The evidence for it, however, is non-
existent. I'm not destroying knowledge. You're not PROVIDING it.
How exactly is science destroying this knowledge anyway? Are you
claiming that your freedom hypothesis /is/ science? If that's it,
you've got a problem, because you can't test it. You can claim rocks
decide to move if you like, but it's a useless theory that doesn't
tell us anything and can't be tested scientifically. If you disagree,
give your case.
If this is a religious theory, how can science destroy it? Science
isn't religious. You're safe. Go forth and spread the theory far and
wide.
>
> Now you try to blame your own lying on me. Next you might be talking
> about how you don't understand my English, how it was all one big
> misunderstanding. But you're just a liar, and no knowledge about any
> kind of freedom will ever be forthcoming from you.
I guess we have something in common, then.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
is exactly the same reason why science doesn't instruct about what
ought, and what ought not.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
has much practical merit. Like I said kindergartenteachers, as well as
historians are professionally independent from the demands of hard
science. That there is no convincing proof of freedom to satisfy
everyone in science is not relevant. I seem to get by well with using
common knowledge about freedom, I'm quite able to trace back events to
the decisions at which they were determined to be, and this seems to
me to be an objective exercise rather then subjective. There's lots
more to know about freedom, then I just stated in post one.
According to historian Klaus Fischer to reconstruct the history of the
holocaust without paying attention to freedom of contingencies
personal decisionmaking etc., is doing the same thing nazism did with
it's historical emphasis on predeterminative theories of racial
struggle, and communism with it's emphasis on class struggle. So to
say not to pay attention to freedom in history is ridiculous, wrong
etc.
You take your morality with defending the scientific method, but then
the scientific method becomes your exclusivist religion, and your
bizarre and extremist religion doesn't even allow knowledge about
freedom. I'm quite sure there has never in the entire history of the
world been people who believe as weird as that what science says is
all, and freedom is nothing. That is simply beyond all the scales of
weirdness IMO.
Besides that there already is sufficient evidence for free behaviour
within science in my opinion. Such as "strong anticipation" theory by
Dubois 2000, and actually standard quantum theory can easily be
interpreted on a free behaviour basis, including the uncertainty
principle which clearly posits alternatives in my opinion.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
hersheyh
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The common knowledge about freedom is unavoidable in daily life,
Whenever someone claims that something is true because it is "common
knowledge" they are invariably admitting that they cannot generate a
rational defense of that proposition. In this case, it has become
obvious that all you require to have "freedom" is "ignorance". You
are certainly, by that definition, a very free man.
> it
> has much practical merit. Like I said kindergartenteachers, as well as
> historians are professionally independent from the demands of hard
> science. That there is no convincing proof of freedom to satisfy
> everyone in science is not relevant.
I certainly agree that science, because it works to unravel and
identify empirically verifiable predicability (chains of causation),
necessarily works agains ignorance and thus reduces the scope of
"freedom" that can be attributed to whimsical 'spirits'.
Predictability can either be pre-event or post-event. A person to
whom everything is an unpredictable mystery is, by your definition,
going to ascribe everything to whimsical 'spirits' and thus knows more
"freedom" (by being more "ignorant") than others.
> I seem to get by well with using
> common knowledge about freedom, I'm quite able to trace back events to
> the decisions at which they were determined to be, and this seems to
> me to be an objective exercise rather then subjective. There's lots
> more to know about freedom, then I just stated in post one.
Yes. You have told us that the less you know, the more freedom you
ascribe to events or inanimate objects. And in your case, that is an
awful lot of freedom that you get to ascribe to these things.
However, the goal of *education* is not to make people stupider so
that they can ascribe *more* of what happens to them and in their
world to "freedom" and the actions of unseen 'spirits' inhabiting
rocks.
> According to historian Klaus Fischer to reconstruct the history of the
> holocaust without paying attention to freedom of contingencies
> personal decisionmaking etc., is doing the same thing nazism did with
> it's historical emphasis on predeterminative theories of racial
> struggle, and communism with it's emphasis on class struggle. So to
> say not to pay attention to freedom in history is ridiculous, wrong
> etc.
That would be morality and ethics, not science. And I certainly agree
that failing to teach *humans* about morality and ethics and the
choices that they, as humans, have to make is not a good thing. That
does not mean that the moon spirit can move the moon.
> You take your morality with defending the scientific method, but then
> the scientific method becomes your exclusivist religion, and your
> bizarre and extremist religion doesn't even allow knowledge about
> freedom.
I am quite aware of the existence of other fields than science and of
the limitations of the scientific method. Where the scientific method
is useful, it is a very powerful and useful methodology for learning
how the material world works. That doesn't make it universally
powerful or useful.
> I'm quite sure there has never in the entire history of the
> world been people who believe as weird as that what science says is
> all, and freedom is nothing. That is simply beyond all the scales of
> weirdness IMO.
That is a strawman description that doesn't even include atheists.
What is weird is someone (at least someone who claims not to be an
animist) who ascribes mentality and capacity to choose to rocks. At
least animists do not assume that a belief in the rock spirits is
"common knowledge".
> Besides that there already is sufficient evidence for free behaviour
> within science in my opinion. Such as "strong anticipation" theory by
> Dubois 2000, and actually standard quantum theory can easily be
> interpreted on a free behaviour basis, including the uncertainty
> principle which clearly posits alternatives in my opinion.
Unpredictability or constraints on predictability certainly are and
always have been part of science. But a priori unpredictability of
individual events does not mean that the probabilities of mass numbers
of such events is unpredictable after the fact under the assumption of
a mechanistic process. I cannot predict the result of a 'regular'
coin flip because I cannot control all the variables and the large
difference in results depends on minor variations in starting and
process conditions. But I can predict the ratio of heads to tails to
on-edge results if the coin is an honest coin and if each result is
truely unpredictable, but entirely mechanistic, given my level of
knowledge.
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
hersheyh
> > People can believe in God and still accept reality, you know.
>
> Of course, since God IS the ultimate reality.
Evidence?
> > You keep making this charge. What about me? I am an atheist who
> > doesn't believe that fairies are tinkering with the universe, but that
> > I'm a collection of atoms operating under natural laws. I also believe
> > I have free will. Do you find this odd? What about me being natural
> > prevents me acting freely? I'm doing it now.
>
> Freewill is a spiritual concept that is contrary to the determinism
> found at the heart of the hard sciences. (With the possible exception
> of Quantum Physics). Since freewill is a spiritual concept, the
> Communists did not believe in it.
>
> In fact, America is based on freedom (a corollary of freewill) given
> by God, whereas the Soviet Union was based on dialectical determinism
> based on atheism. The two governments were precisely the opposite of
> one another, both in the realm of theology and freewil-freedom.
>
>
>
> > Seriously, what /is/ your problem? Even after all this time I still
> > have no clue. Is it science, operating on natural laws, you dislike,
> > or naturalists, who believe that nature is all there is?
>
> Natural laws and sciences based on hard mathematics are fabulous, and
> I love them to death. (And not just because they give us such great
> technology either). But freedom and freewill are based on God and/or
> spirituality, and God is the only valid basis for them.
Or one can consider "freedom" and "freewill" to be emergent properties
that have emerged when organisms have sufficient cognitive capacity to
come up with and are able to select among and implement *some*
alternative choices. Even for these organisms, "freedom" and
"freewill" are constrained by empirical reality. I, as one of the
rare entities on this planet that has something one might consider
"freedom" to choose and "freewill", still cannot violate the second
law of thermodynamics in the choices that I make. I cannot walk out
the 23rd story window with impunity and no empirical consequences.
In short, however you define "freedom" and "freewill", these terms do
not apply to all things or even all living organisms or all levels of
material objects (I may not be able to determine both the speed and
position of an electron, but I can do so for the moon because of
stochastic averaging over many molecules). Capacity for abstract
thought and ability to act on those thoughts are prerequisites for
anything that can be called "freedom" and "freewill". It is this that
nando denies. Nando argument is that ignorance of how the material
world works is required for freedom to exist.
> > You realise science is a method for gaining knowledge, not a
> > philosophy, right? It's not intended to replace spirituality. Teach
> > the kids religion by all means, just not in science or physical
> > education class.
>
> Actually, science IS a philosophy. It is probably the most useful
> philosophy ever invented, especially when combined with hard
> mathematical predictions, but it still is philosophical in nature.
Science is a method for gaining knowledge. To the extent that methods
of gaining knowledge are philosophies, it is a philosophy. Science is
only useful for gaining knowledge when certain conditions are met and
is not useful in other cases.
> > You seem awfully sure that if the students are told that rocks have
> > souls, they'll start believing in God. What makes you think they won't
> > decide the universe is sentient and become pantheists?
>
> I dont think he meant what you think he meant.
Really? What do *you* think he meant? It sure sounds like he is
ascribing the capacity of choice onto a 'spirit' that resides in a
rock.
> > They'll only do this if it turns out to be useful to think of
> > inanimate objects as decision makers. Since every one ever seen has
> > obeyed natural laws, it doesn't seem like it will be.
>
> According to atheistic materialism, the inanimate atoms in our human
> brains are somehow capable of both self-awareness and decision making.
> So how do you reconcile this problem with what you just said?
Self-awareness and decision making capacity are emergent properties of
brains. Self-awareness and decision making does not pre-exist in the
atoms of our brain. Those capacities emerge as a consequence of the
brain forming.
> > That view being, there isn't the slightest evidence that comets can
> > think, and even if they can, they still do exactly what they'd do
> > under natural laws anyway, thus rendering this hypothesis totally
> > untestable and pointless?
>
> This is a major rabbit trail.
Also crucial. Of what use is an utterly superfluous explanation even
if it were true?
> > I realise you've been 'explaining' this for some time, but I can't
> > seem to get it. How do you leap from 'decision making' to 'spiritual'?
>
> Because anything capable of making a decision (that is, anything
> freewill based) is by definition spiritual.
Well, anything we have recognized as being capable of making a
decision is an animate, material organisms with a capacity for
cognition. And even these are constrained by empirical reality in
their consequential decision making capacity. The interesting
questions are not a "freewill" or no "freewill" dichotomy (that is a
false dichotomy), it is a question of the amount and extent to which
choices are possible and the extent to which they are constrained by
limitations either in the agent or the environment.
> That is the whole point of
> why I constantly harp on the fact that atheism informs us that our
> brains are nothing but a complicated arrangment of dead atoms, with
> nothing spiritual "in there."
Well, a brain is actually a nest of particular chemical interactions
rather than inert dead atoms while the organism is alive. While those
chemical interactions are going on, we can say that the brain is
active at doing whatever that particular brain is capable of. After
death, of course, a different set of chemical reactions takes over.
> If, in point of fact, our brains are nothing but atoms, then freewill
> is simply not valid in that case.
Only if you think that freewill is something other than an emergent
property.
> In that case, our brains are just
> the product of random synapse firings, and freewill does not enter
> into it. Every single decision we might make, was caused by a physical
> neuron-synapse firing, and was not "free" in any sense.
If you think of freewill as an emergent property, it is, if you define
it as a certain level of capacity to choose between alternatives, due
to certain neuron-synapses firing that are influenced by cognition
that, in turn, is affected by both biology and environment (including
learning).
The real question wrt "free-will" is whether the observed ability of
some organisms (mainly human) to make alternative choices is more
'apparent' than we would like to think and really represents nothing
more than our inability to predict the choices individuals make
because we do not know enough about the small variations in starting
conditions that lead to the large threshold changes we observe (just
like in coin flips).
Clearly it is possible to arrange conditons that affect one's "free-
will" choices. And whereas we may not be able to predict any single
individuals choices in a particular case, we can often predict the
choices of a particular population of individuals and the factors that
influence that choice.
This may be disturbing to those who consider freewill to either exist
or not exist, as a dichotomy. But I tend to think a more accurate
idea is to think in terms of 'degrees' of freewill.
> If freewill does not actually exist, then freedom, the basis of
> America, is also invalid.
Freedom in America, like freedom in most places, is honored more in
the abstract than in the concrete. Many Americans want others to be
"free" to think like they do, or else.
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On 15 apr, 23:19, bull...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> Science is agnostic.
>
>Well that's the attitude you got to have as a scientist for what goes
>on inside decisions.
Decisions do not have an inside.
> You're not allowed to go there, once you cross
>that line you are engaging in judgement, not observation of fact, as
>would be taught in any freedom 101 class.
This freedom 101 class. If it takes more than five minutes you are
lying.
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 15, 7:03 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On 15 Apr 2007 12:23:56 -0700, b...@juno.com enriched this group when
>>
>> s/he wrote:
>>
>> >> People can believe in God and still accept reality, you know.
>>
>> >Of course, since God IS the ultimate reality.
>>
>> >> You keep making this charge. What about me? I am an atheist who
>> >> doesn't believe that fairies are tinkering with the universe, but that
>> >> I'm a collection of atoms operating under natural laws. I also believe
>> >> I have free will. Do you find this odd? What about me being natural
>> >> prevents me acting freely? I'm doing it now.
>>
>> >Freewill is a spiritual concept that is contrary to the determinism
>> >found at the heart of the hard sciences. (With the possible exception
>> >of Quantum Physics). Since freewill is a spiritual concept, the
>> >Communists did not believe in it.
>>
>> You are starting to sound as daft as Nando.
>>
>> You better look for a cure as soon as possible.
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>
>you do have free will,
I do.
>given by god.
No.
> where you end up is up to you.
And the rest of society.
>god does'nt force you to love him.
How can he, as the invention of primitive man he does not have the
power to force anything.
> all will be judged by him,
How can a fictional character from the bronze age do that?
> rather
>you believe or not. when your being judged it will be to late to be
>saved. you will cry like a baby, and say i did'nt know. you rejected
>the truth.
Time you faced the truth and put your fairy stories behind you.
--
Bob.
geo...@hotmail.com
Then how can science (or naturalists, you keep switching the target)
destroy it if it's so obvious?
>, it
> has much practical merit.
Describe some? How is a rock 'choosing' to travel in a parabolic path
more practical than the equations of motion and gravity?
> Like I said kindergartenteachers, as well as
> historians are professionally independent from the demands of hard
> science. That there is no convincing proof of freedom to satisfy
> everyone in science is not relevant.
It is if you want it to be called science. You didn't answer my
question when I asked if this was true, by the
way, you just snipped it.
> I seem to get by well with using
> common knowledge about freedom
What is this common knowledge? Is it your 'decision from choices, with
spirituality'? How can I destroy your knowledge if I don't know what
it is? Why aren't you putting this out for everyone to see?
>I'm quite able to trace back events
>to the decisions at which they were determined to be, and this seems to
> me to be an objective exercise rather then subjective.
You have not shown this has anything to do with rocks having spirits.
Sorry if you feel I'm destroying your knowledge by saying that, but
you're asking me to take that on faith. It's the same problem ID has -
they cannot show that specified complexity implies intelligent agency.
> There's lots
> more to know about freedom, then I just stated in post one.
Great. Post it.
>
> According to historian Klaus Fischer to reconstruct the history of the
> holocaust without paying attention to freedom of contingencies
> personal decisionmaking etc., is doing the same thing nazism did with
> it's historical emphasis on predeterminative theories of racial
> struggle, and communism with it's emphasis on class struggle. So to
> say not to pay attention to freedom in history is ridiculous, wrong
> etc.
>
> You take your morality with defending the scientific method, but then
> the scientific method becomes your exclusivist religion,
Liar. I don't worship science. Stop lying about me, it's rude. The
scientific method is a method for gathering knowledge, not my personal
philosophy.
I don't automatically disbar the supernatural, but I prefer to rely on
the evidence of my senses, and accept all the limitations that come
with that, including the possibility of being wrong. I'd be totally
thrilled if fairies existed. Honestly. (If they were the good kind.)
I don't believe in souls, either. Souls are a solution to the problem
of explaining why humans (and perhaps
animals) have a continuous self-identity - and I can appreciate that
it /is/ a problem, and an unanswered one -
but they're no better than postulating that thunderstorms are caused
by God. At the least, all a soul is is a different name for the
problem.
And what your hypothesis seems to come down to is an argument about
souls or spirits. You say to have free will we need a spirit. I say
different, and that even products of predetermined, natural laws have
free will. If you want to argue with me about this, fine, I'll be
happy to. But to call me a liar because you don't understand my point
of view is stupid.
> and your
> bizarre and extremist religion doesn't even allow knowledge about
> freedom.
/Science/ doesn't allow kooky theories about rocks having souls
because it's a useless hypothesis with no evidence.
> I'm quite sure there has never in the entire history of the
> world been people who believe as weird as that what science says is
> all, and freedom is nothing. That is simply beyond all the scales of
> weirdness IMO.
Naturalists can believe in free will too, but even if they didn't, how
is that weirder than rocks having souls?
>
> Besides that there already is sufficient evidence for free behaviour
> within science in my opinion.
I'm glad you don't do science.
> Such as "strong anticipation" theory by
> Dubois 2000
Did you ever explain exactly how this supported your views?
wf3h
and yet science works while religion doesn't.
go figure.
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As before, the reason science doesn't talk about the spiritual realm
> is exactly the same reason why science doesn't instruct about what
> ought, and what ought not.
Because 'the spirtual realm' is objective. It's a human concept like
'ought' - totally subjective.
Your definition of spirtual realm is purely your own, no one elses.
The definition of evolution belongs to no one.
See?
Stew Dean
stew dean
> has much practical merit. Like I said kindergartenteachers, as well as
> historians are professionally independent from the demands of hard
> science
None of the above actual means anything does it?
What you appear to be doing is repeating the same phases in the hope
that someone somewhere gets the same meaning as you. No one does.
So why do you keep on going? Do you want someone to agree with you?
The you need to say something that somone can a) understand and b)
agree with.
You say they teach about freedom in kindergarten. What exactly is it
they teach? You say that freedom is common knowlege, so it should be
easy to explain but you are having problems even with that simple job.
I don't get it - what exactly are you trying to say and why?
Stew Dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com
freedom. Seeing all that other junk that has the label science it
doesn't seem a great benefit. That said though it seems to me there
are objective parts to knowledge about freedom, such as locating the
decision, what the alternatives are, and to record the actual result.
What goes on inside a decision is subjective, and therefore can hardly
be approached objectively.
The destruction and oppression of the knowledge about freedom is
complex. People make choices in their daily lives, they absolutely
require knowledge about freedom for making choices, so they have it.
But of course when science only talks about causes, then the
temptation is in many situations, or the habit may be, to never
actually identify choices, but to always look for preceding causes,
that made a person do something. So to say, my genes made me do it,
or my culture made me do it, or their genes or culture made them do
it, in stead of I, or they chose to do it. Of course there are many
clever scientists who can imagine a cause for anything. I mean any
action may have a preceding cause, including choices have preceding
causes leading up to it. Well I guess you get the drift how such
oppression and destruction works.
Care to talk reasonable to me like an actual human being who also
needs knowledge about freedom, or do you want to talk like a science-
bigot standing your ground on a worthless version of the scientific
method that is only suited for causes.
I did not say that rocks have spirits or souls, you said that. What I
said was that what goes on inside any decision is part of the
spiritual domain. It is where what ought and what ought not applies,
you aren't allowed to go there as a scientists. Will you confirm that
law, that you won't go there, that you won't use your science as a
platform to instruct about what ought and ought not? I use the word
spiritual domain in a very general way. Yes it includes God, but it
also includes emotions, heart, soul etc. There is no love or hate sort
of skincolor, or chemical, these things are essentially part of the
spiritual domain, not the material.
Obviously things like the soul, only make sense in a context of
choosing. You put the soul in a context of solely cause and effect,
and gee, then it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You put everything
spiritual in the context of cause and effect, and gee, then you get no
evidence for a choice to be cause and effect. What a pointless
exercise in bigotry.
>From what I gather the science authorities have magnanimously allowed
for knowledge about freedom of humans, and perhaps a few animals with
brains. Of course the very same authorities who allowed that have then
proceeded to misuse this knowledge about freedom to include statements
about what ought and ought not into their social darwinist
pseudoscience. That is no deal. I'm not a humanist, it is not only
human beings and a few chimps that are the masters of the universe
being the only ones to possess any freedom at all. I prefer something
more reasonable, a freedom that is general and everywhere. A one size
fits all kind of knowledge for freedom, alternatives in the future,
getting decided from the spiritual domain. To be taught in
kindergarden, and historyclass.
That sounds like a very reasonable offer to me, considering that you
are also a human being making choices, who also needs knowledge about
freedom. You are welcome to take the most expert historians and
kindergarden teachers to devise a course on freedom 101, with the
condition that part of the course is that the knowledge about freedom
would be explicitly formulated in a structured, general and abstracted
way. I'm confident enough that I would approve of such a course made
by professionals, since knowledge about freedom has the same
fundamental structure of alternatives in the future getting decided by
the spiritual domain in all cultures that I've seen.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gee, why should I care for the label science for knowledge about
> freedom. Seeing all that other junk that has the label science it
> doesn't seem a great benefit. That said though it seems to me there
> are objective parts to knowledge about freedom, such as locating the
> decision, what the alternatives are, and to record the actual result.
> What goes on inside a decision is subjective, and therefore can hardly
> be approached objectively.
Actualy the process of making decisions has large objective elements.
People make a fortune out of being able to make people like you and me
doing something they want us to. This is because they understand why
we make decisions. This knowledge you appear to be denying in exchange
for some kind of nothingness where you and you alone are incontrol of
your own destiny. That's not knowledge, that's unchecked egotism.
You don't even know why you like coffee so how can you say you
understand what freedom is?
Why are you a coffee lover? Do you know?
Stew Dean
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>The common knowledge
Is not something you seem to have.
--
Bob.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
what's in people's hearts only works in a limited way. Many groups of
people are so jaded from manipulative advertising, that they are
unreachable. So advertising knowledge is not the fail-safe knowledge
that you pretend it to be. Good advertising is based on the principle
of having a good relationship with the customer. That means lots of
things, including variety. You can't do the same thing all the time in
advertising, and have it work all the time. But you can drop a rock
all the time, and everytime it falls to earth. So where's the law of
nature in advertising? So you see that on balance knowledge in
advertising is essentially subjective, part of an emotional
relationship between producer and customer.
Besides look at who you want on your side, advertising, evil
incarnate, do you really want that? Is it the money?
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I guess you
Who?
>talk about advertising. That kind of "knowledge" about
>what's in people's hearts
Blood.
> only works in a limited way. Many groups of
>people are so jaded from manipulative advertising, that they are
>unreachable. So advertising knowledge is not the fail-safe knowledge
>that you
Who?
> pretend it to be. Good advertising is based on the principle
>of having a good relationship with the customer. That means lots of
>things, including variety. You
Who?
> can't do the same thing all the time in
>advertising, and have it work all the time. But you
Who?
> can drop a rock
>all the time, and everytime it falls to earth. So where's the law of
>nature in advertising? So you
Who?
> see that on balance knowledge in
>advertising is essentially subjective, part of an emotional
>relationship between producer and customer.
>
>Besides look at who you
Who?
> want on your
Whose?
> side, advertising, evil
>incarnate, do you
Who?
> really want that? Is it the money?
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
--
Bob.
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I guess you talk about advertising. That kind of "knowledge" about
> what's in people's hearts only works in a limited way. Many groups of
> people are so jaded from manipulative advertising, that they are
> unreachable. So advertising knowledge is not the fail-safe knowledge
> that you pretend it to be. Good advertising is based on the principle
> of having a good relationship with the customer. That means lots of
> things, including variety. You can't do the same thing all the time in
> advertising, and have it work all the time. But you can drop a rock
> all the time, and everytime it falls to earth. So where's the law of
> nature in advertising?
Sex sells.
I use advertising as an example as, very predictably, lots of people
think they are not affected by advertising. You yourself may think you
are unaffected by advertising. Now look at the PC you are using. Does
it have a 'name' on it, something like Dell or Sony? Or how about the
coffee you drink?
I personly don't like advertising as it results in people buying
things they don't actualy need and is the biggest social cause (as
opposed to physical cause) of global warming. It has a very severe
affect on your personal freedom.
> So you see that on balance knowledge in
> advertising is essentially subjective, part of an emotional
> relationship between producer and customer.
Actualy no, advertisers spend a lot of time planning in and measuring
the affect of advertising. There is a saying that 50% of all
advertising works, although it's not usre which half, but that has
changed a lot with digital media.
> Besides look at who you want on your side, advertising, evil
> incarnate, do you really want that? Is it the money?
I certainly don't want them on my side! I'm pointing out one of the
many things that has a direct action on my and your actions and limits
our personal freedom. You may not be aware but most of the decisions
you make are not conscious, most of them happen in a subliminal and
unconscious way. The awake thinking part of what we are is a tip of a
large mental iceburg. The ego wants us to think we are in control and
everything we do is carefuly thought about by the conscious, it's not
the case. BUT you can make your subconscious work better for you,
giving it tasks it will come back to you with and essentialy enable
you to carry out tasks without consciously thinking of them. This is
because of how the brain works, we would be overun with confusing if
everything we did we where constantly aware of.
The list of things that affects our subconscious each and every day is
huge. Media is also a big one - with much of the global media now
being controlled through news feed services, mostly due to laziness
from journalists.
Then there is politics and religion. Right wing organisations such as
the neo cons of the US and muslim extremists are doing there best to
change the world to how the want it to be. Propaganda and building on
people's ignorance are both used to affect what they think.
To me freedom comes not from ignorance as you appear to preach, but
through knowing how this world works. You need to be aware of the
things you can't change about the world and not be foolish enough to
think large groups or yourself are not affected by the media,
advertising and strong religous and poltical ideas. You need to know
when something is likely to be real and when something is complete
bullshit.
Increasingly science remains the one thing that helps find out which
rocks to avoid in the fog in this sea of information we sail through.
Take global warming for example, science has told us for years that
it's real, it is happening, it is man made and it could be
accelerating (we've got about 30-40 years before things get really
really bad!) yet there are still people who deny it's man made it is
because, THEY ARE IGNORANT. They rely upon advertising (or soaps or
shock jocks) to tell them what to do and don't go out and read and
discover for themselves.
It's like you with evolution. There is no doubt that evolution is
real and works yet you are ignorant about it and think it's somehow
linked to what Hilter did? You still think that don't you? Go and
find an english translation of Hitler's 'mein campf' online and search
for evolution (meaning biological evlolution) or Darwin. How many
times are they mentioned? None. Go and read upon what science things
about eugenics, which is what hitler was using. Science doesnt like
eugentics as it is NOT scientific.
Science tells us how the brain works and gives us deep insights into
the working of the mind. It doesnt tell us what we should or should
not do because there are no absolutes there, despite what your
religion may tell you. We have socierty and we have our emotions -
both of these are as real as gravity and are objective - and these we
can work with and promote our and others happiness.
It's up to you wether you remain ignorant of what freedom is, as for
many ignorance is bliss, or start thinking and become aware of the
world around you hidden by you cloud produced, it appears, by your ego
ruling your intellect.
Stew Dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com
investigate emotions in the way you do as if it was just like gravity,
then you destroy them. You know very well that you need to approach
emotions subjectively by your own heart in a sensitive way, it's an
art. As before, advertising does not work in the way you think it
does.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> It's like you with evolution. There is no doubt that evolution is
> real and works yet you are ignorant about it and think it's somehow
> linked to what Hilter did? You still think that don't you? Go and
> find an english translation of Hitler's 'mein campf' online and search
> for evolution (meaning biological evlolution) or Darwin. How many
> times are they mentioned? None.
As far as I can tell, on balance, natural selection theory is the main
motive in Hitler's book. Obviously you don't read very well.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Yeah that is all rubbish you
Who? Without attribution, quoted text or context it is impossible to
make sense of many of your posts. You have proven you know how to post
correctly so why do you keep making the same error? Is it stupidity?
Is it laziness? Is it lack of consideration for other people? Is it
deliberate?
> know, it doesn't work like that. When you
Who?
>
>investigate emotions in the way you
Who?
> do as if it was just like gravity,
>then you
Who?
> destroy them. You
Who?
> know very well that you
Who?
> need to approach
>emotions subjectively by your
Whose?
> own heart in a sensitive way, it's an
>art. As before, advertising does not work in the way you
Who?
> think it
>does.
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Someone doesn't read too well, but it looks like that someone is you
Nando.
TomS
<n9g9231kd99nq0ofd...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One stated..."
Insofar as there is any connection with any of those despicable social/
political movements, there are two points to keep in mind:
1. It is *not* "natural" selection, but artificial selection, or a kind of
"design". These various movements thrived in a time which has been
called the "eclipse of Darwinism". It was a time when the efficacy of
"random variation and natural selection" was not appreciated. When
mechanisms like "Mendelism" or "Lamarckianism" were thought to
be needed.
2. It is *not* "macro"evoltuion, but "micro"evolution, evolution
specifically within human"kind". There is no relevance at all to the
origins of things like the vertebrate eye, or to the "tree of life", or
any other macro-evolutionary events.
In other words, there is nothing about what the creationists dispute
about evolution, and it is *all* about what the creationists accept
about evolution. It is about the need for design, and about small-
scale events.
Creationists should be embarrassed to bring up this issue.
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
hersheyh
Can you tell me the difference between *natural* selection and
*intelligent design* selection? Which of these played a main motive
in Hitler's book? Hint: When an author talks about how the 'we' are
going to be overwhelmed by the inferior 'them', that is not *natural*
selection talk. It certainly is "eugenic" talk. But eugenics is
animal breeding (*intelligent design* selection), not evolution by
*natural* selection. Selection (either natural or 'intelligent'
design selection) is involved in animal breeding simply because it is,
in fact, the mechanism available to modify the genetics of populations
of organisms. But, wrt *humans*, most of the eugenic ideas of the
turn of the century, right after Mendel's laws became known, can be
clearly demonstrated to be ineffectual or useless and more a case of
pseudoscientific racial and class bias and smug superior paternalistic
attitudes toward the handicapped than anything else.
Again, most of the eugenic ideas of Hitler (mass sterilization of
prisoners and the handicapped, sterilization of their families, racial
categorization of people, transport of certain races to camps or
reservations, even talk of 'lethal chambers') were simply imported to
Germany from America (land of the "free"), including the idea of
Nordic superiority.
Racialist views *certainly* play a role in Hitler's book. Whenever
someone talks about 'race', they imply that they are talking about
genetic differences (even if the differences they are talking about
are not genetic). In fact, of course, it is rather difficult to
convert a *religious* group into a *racial* group. But that was the
goal of Hitler's book: to convert a religion into a race and to use
centuries of *Christian* hatred for that religion to gain power.
As for selection, Darwin was not the discoverer (Why do you think I
use the term "discoverer" rather than "inventor"? Hint: Selection is
a feature of nature that humans can discover and exploit but it is not
a human invention.) of selection and neither was Hitler. Neolithic
animal and plant breeders were the first to use or exploit the
'discovered' fact of selection to "intelligently design" crops and
animals.
As for genocide, Darwin did not invent that and neither did Hitler.
In fact, Hitler is a rarity in the history of genocides in his use of
a pseudoscientific 'racist' rationale for the genocide he
perpetuated. Most perpetrators of genocide, both before and since,
used as their excuse the "obvious" differences between 'the them' and
'the us', be it a perceived difference in religion or politics or race
or some combination. They do so without even attempting to generate a
'scientific' rationale based on genetic difference. In Cambodia, for
example, the wearing of glasses implied that the wearer was a
'tainted' intellectual not fit for being a member of the coming
agrarian socialist utopia. Being near or far sighted without wearing
glasses, however, was not cause for one's removal from the genetic
pool. That case is merely one in a long string that points out the
problem of letting a small group of 'intelligent designers' do the
selecting: you might get the 'useful' sheep dog, but you also might
get the toy poodle, depending on the whim of the (usually self-chosen)
designers.
But whether someone 'intelligently designs' the selection or the dumb
environment does the selection, selection will happen. Selection is
simply a consequence of genetic variation, environmental variation,
and the fact that the two interact.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Will in New Haven
> On Apr 16, 11:56 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I guess you talk about advertising. That kind of "knowledge" about
> > what's in people's hearts only works in a limited way. Many groups of
> > people are so jaded from manipulative advertising, that they are
> > unreachable. So advertising knowledge is not the fail-safe knowledge
> > that you pretend it to be. Good advertising is based on the principle
> > of having a good relationship with the customer. That means lots of
> > things, including variety. You can't do the same thing all the time in
> > advertising, and have it work all the time. But you can drop a rock
> > all the time, and everytime it falls to earth. So where's the law of
> > nature in advertising?
>
> Sex sells.
>
> I use advertising as an example as, very predictably, lots of people
> think they are not affected by advertising. You yourself may think you
> are unaffected by advertising. Now look at the PC you are using. Does
> it have a 'name' on it, something like Dell or Sony? Or how about the
> coffee you drink?
>
> I personly don't like advertising as it results in people buying
> things they don't actualy need and is the biggest social cause (as
> opposed to physical cause) of global warming. It has a very severe
> affect on your personal freedom.
It results in people buying things that you think that they don't
need. What other people need is not something we can know. Forbidding
advertising would have a severe affect on everyone's personal
freedom.
Will in New Haven
Timberwoof
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah that is all rubbish you know, it doesn't work like that. When you
> investigate emotions in the way you do as if it was just like gravity,
> then you destroy them. You know very well that you need to approach
> emotions subjectively by your own heart in a sensitive way, it's an
> art.
A lot of psychologists and biologists disagree with you. And I bet they
still have lives with sadness and joy.
> As before, advertising does not work in the way you think it
> does.
A lot of successful advertisers would also disagree with you.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
stew dean
What is rubbish? You can't just hand wave your way past others
knowledge.
> When you
> investigate emotions in the way you do as if it was just like gravity,
> then you destroy them. You know very well that you need to approach
> emotions subjectively by your own heart in a sensitive way, it's an
> art.
Emotions have an objective base. Yes you can investigate emotions from
a scientific point of view, that's how we know that there are primary
and secondary emotions and which emotions we share with other members
of the animal kingdom. For example we are able to be 'self aware' in
that, given a mirror, we know that's us. Cats can almost do this,
pigs and dolphins can do this (pigs being by far the smartest farm
animal not that I eat them).
> As before, advertising does not work in the way you think it does.
A couple of questions - how do you think I think it works and why do
you think otherwise. I suspect that you don't think you are affected
by advertising. Is this true? If it is true then I can assure you
that unless you live isolated from all advertising you will be in some
way, if not directly then indirectly through the actions of others.
So how can you check if what I'm saying is true? Well I mentioned the
computer you are using as a starting point but I thought of something
more obvious. Your clothes.
Don't tell me what you're wearing (it's none of my business) but think
about what wear. Are there any logos? If not then can you name the
make of you shoes, for example. Think about what you would do if you
had to buy a new pair of shoes (or sandles or whatever you wear on
your feet).
Any decision making process you make is influenced by the many signals
you are deluged with each day (assuming you're not a hermit). You are
probably not even aware of most of them.
So - honestly - are you saying that you are not affected by
advertising?
Stew Dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com
have expertise knowledge about it. Gee, get your science-degree and
become an evil bastard at the same time, this is your argument. What
you are saying is quite obviously all rubbish, no need to research it
any further. There are hardly any psychologists or advertisers that
deny free will, they also don't just don't care about the problems
hard science and the scientific method has with free will.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
it is in nature, and then proceeds to identify his policy with this
law of nature, with things like a chapter on state-selection. Well of
course this natural selection theory is also significantly cast in a
background to belief in God.... But we can leave God out of it, and
then we would still have a nasty piece of writing, but if we leave the
natural selection part out of it, then we wouldn't have so much of a
nasty piece of writing left IMO. I mean, it is the natural selection
theory in the way Hitler employs it that pushes everything towards
extremes in that typical coldblooded nazi way, nature red in tooth and
claw.
Here's another reference to an actual historian writing about the
subject.
Nazi Germany: A New History_ by Klaus Fischer 1997 ISBN 0-8264-0906-7
Chapter one The roots 1870-1933, The Origins of Totalitarianism pages
39, 40._
"There was considerable cross-fertilization of racial ideas and even
personal contacts between very respected academics, on the one hand,
and racial popularizers, on the other. In 1900, for example, the arms
manufacturer FriedrIch Albert Krupp sponsored an essay competition on
the subject, "What can we learn from the principles of Darwinism and
its application to the inner political development and the laws of
the
state?" The panel of judges was chaired by the social Darwinist Ernst
Haeckel, and the majority of the contestants were believers in Aryan
superiority and endorsed some form of anti-Semitism. First prize in
the competition went to a Munich physician by the name of Wilhelm
Schallmeyer, who colored all human activities with the crude social
Darwinian brush of survival of the fittest and recommended benign
neglect of the racially weak specimens. Schallmeyer strongly believed
that the Aryan race represented the apex of human achievement and
that
stringent eugenic efforts, preferably state supported, would be
required to keep the Aryan race pure and predominant.
Another contestant in Krupp's competition, Ludwig Woltman,
who
was awarded the third prize, later received much renown by publishing
a racial journal called Politisch-Anthropologische Revue (1902).
Woltman's journal, however, was only one of several scholarly
journals
dedicated to racial studies. One of the most "respectable" was the
Archiv fur Rassen und Gesellschaftsbiologie, published by Alfred
Ploetz, the founder of the eugenic movement in Germany. Ploetz's
publication became a forum for avant-garde racial ideas. Ploetz later
coined the phrase "race hygiene," founded a secret Nordic society,
and
was lavishly rewarded for his racial contributions with a university
chair by Adolf Hitler. As Leon Poliakov points out, some of the chief
eugenicists and geneticists of the next generation the scientists, in
other words, who flourished under the protective mantle of National
Socialism were influenced by Woltman and Ploetz. Among this group we
find Eugen Fischer, Fritz Lenz, and Otmar Verschuer, the man who
served as a mentor to the future "Angel of Death" at Auschwitz, Dr.
Josef Mengele. The most influential of these men was Eugen Fischer,
who applied Mendel's laws to racial hygiene. In 1934 he boasted that
he was the first scientist to promote Woltman's ideas within the
academic community and to have "inflamed young hearts with enthusiasm
for racial science." Fischer's colleague, Fritz Lenz, was a disciple
of Alfred Ploetz and a frequent contributor to his racial journal.
Before the outbreak of World War I, Ploetz's Revue was avidly read by
many German academics; it became a clearinghouse for all sorts of
racial doctrines, including the pseudoscientific rantings and
ruminations of Fritsch and Lanz von Liebenfels.
Thus, by a circuitous route we return to Adolf Hitler, whose
racial image of the world was not the product of his own delusion but
the result of the findings of "respectable" science. When Hitler read
Fritsch or Liebenfels, he merely absorbed ideas that were widely
entertained in both academic and popular circles. The message
embodied
in these doctrines was unmistakable: any living organism is engaged
in
a ceaseless struggle for existence and is doomed to extinction if it
does not fight. Nations, like individuals, are also engaged in a
ceaseless conflict in which only the fittest can hope to survive. The
fighting quality of a nation depends upon its racial purity and its
ability to breed the fittest specimens in the form of productive
workers, savage fighters, and charismatic leaders. Those who defile a
race of people Jews, Gypsies, Asiatic inferiors must be eliminated
through appropriate state measures. Of all the human racial stocks,
the Aryan race clearly represents the apex of human achievement; and
since Germany is the homeland of the Aryan race, the German people
are
charged with a sacred mission to propagate the Aryan race and
dominate
the world. Racial mongrelization, however, has gone so far that the
hour may be late indeed. Only state intervention can protect the
Aryan
race from further infections by inferior races. In 1913 Eugen Fischer
boldly prophesied "with absolute certainty" that all Europeans would
become extlnct unless governments, especially the German government,
developed and implemented a coherent racial policy.Adolf Hitler
provided that policy."
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Yeah you're
Who?
> very good at manipulating people in a relationship, you
Who?
>have expertise knowledge about it. Gee, get your
Whose?
> science-degree and
>become an evil bastard at the same time, this is your
Whose?
> argument. What
>you
Who?
> are saying is quite obviously all rubbish, no need to research it
>any further. There are hardly any psychologists or advertisers that
>deny free will, they also don't just don't care about the problems
>hard science and the scientific method has with free will.
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
--
Bob.
Timberwoof
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Explain to me how brownian motion proves that dust clots have free will.
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
[snip crap lies]
Funny how you always seek to change the subject when you are on the
ropes.
You lost your arcuments (if you can call them that) a long time ago
Nando. Why not pull a McClueless and slink away to lick you wounds in
secret. In other words, take a long holiday - we need it.
--
Bob.
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As before, Hitler writes in direct reference to natural selection as
> it is in nature, and then proceeds to identify his policy with this
> law of nature, with things like a chapter on state-selection.
Sorry but I don't believe you. Reference please.
> Well of course this natural selection theory is also significantly cast in a
> background to belief in God.... But we can leave God out of it, and
> then we would still have a nasty piece of writing, but if we leave the
> natural selection part out of it, then we wouldn't have so much of a
> nasty piece of writing left IMO.
What piece of writing?
> I mean, it is the natural selection
> theory in the way Hitler employs it that pushes everything towards
> extremes in that typical coldblooded nazi way, nature red in tooth and
> claw.
Some Nazi's used pseudo science to prop up their views based upon
religion and general racism. 'Social Darwinism' has very little
relationship to the work of Darwin and natural selection has next to
nothing with the short sighted unnatural breeding attempts of
eugenics.
I've gone over this with many other 'creationists' - hitler has as
much to do with evolution as an ice ceam sales man has with snow.
Stew Dean
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah you're very good at manipulating people in a relationship, you
> have expertise knowledge about it.
Sorry but this is a very poor personal attack.
> Gee, get your science-degree and
> become an evil bastard at the same time, this is your argument.
It helps if your insults have something to do with what I posted. Why
does getting a science degree (I have an arts degree) make you an evil
bastard? I don't see the link. I've snipped the rest.
Anyway back to all the stuff you ignored.
Answer me this - do you think you are affected by advertising? Yes or
No?
I'm guessing you think you arnt despite all the evidence in you house
to the contary. We don't want stuff like reality getting in the way do
we? I think i've got you fair and square on this one.
Stew Dean
hersheyh
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As before, Hitler writes in direct reference to natural selection as
> it is in nature, and then proceeds to identify his policy with this
> law of nature, with things like a chapter on state-selection.
He could have talked about *natural* selection all he wants. The fact
remains that he, as a racist, was unsatisfied with the results of
*natural* selection and preferred and instituted *intelligent design*
selection.
It is part of the "racist" mentality, when it tries to be 'scientific'
and actually is 'pseudoscientific', to both claim that their race is
"superior" and that, unless we take action, it will be out-reproduced
by the "inferior" races. The contradiction is obvious. Usually it
will be claimed that the environment has changed so that the
"inferior" race can only now out-breed the "superior" one, with the
requisite appeals to the 'golden age' when men were men and women were
prone and 'morality' reigned unchecked (usually meaning that glorious
and wonderful time in the past when the state was suppressing, if not
killing, the "inferior" race or letting the "inferior" members of
one's own race die an early and 'natural' death).
> Well of
> course this natural selection theory is also significantly cast in a
> background to belief in God.... But we can leave God out of it, and
> then we would still have a nasty piece of writing, but if we leave the
> natural selection part out of it, then we wouldn't have so much of a
> nasty piece of writing left IMO.
All racist writings are nasty pieces of writing. Read what Martin
Luther wrote about the Jews (somewhat before Darwin and not invoking
natural selection at all) to see what nasty writing can be.
The reason why the racist pseudoscientific meanderings of the
Hitlerian and pre-Hitlerian type 'worked' was because it resonated in
their society because of a long history of blaming the Jews. Just
like the KKK resonated in a U.S. with its anti-immigrant, anti-black,
anti-catholic ideology. In the 1960s and on, they also tried the
pseudoscientific tack to support their racism, but it resonated less
and less. Now they are trying an anti-immigrant (read anti-Hispanic)
tack, blaming all the ills of society on "illegal" immigrants.
> I mean, it is the natural selection
> theory in the way Hitler employs it that pushes everything towards
> extremes in that typical coldblooded nazi way, nature red in tooth and
> claw.
Sure. But just because Hitler misused the term *natural*[sic]
selection doesn't mean that selection can be ignored. Selection is a
fact of nature. It is a consequence of our genetic natures and the
interaction of biology and environment. Selection was *discovered*,
not *invented*. It would and did exist before it was *discovered* and
suppressing our knowledge of how it works would not lead it to cease
happening. Suppressing knowledge of selection would simply make us
more ignorant of the real world. It would be like suppressing
knowledge of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. No matter how much you
suppress that knowledge, I still will not be able to invent a
perpetual motion machine. Suppressing knowledge about how everything
is made of atoms in hopes of preventing a nuclear war is, likewise, a
futile attempt to get back to a state of ignorance. It won't work.
So why don't you simply admit that you favor suppressing knowledge
about empirical reality in favor of ignorance and mysticism? You want
to put the genie back in the box.
> Here's another reference to an actual historian writing about the
> subject.
>
> Nazi Germany: A New History_ by Klaus Fischer 1997 ISBN 0-8264-0906-7
> Chapter one The roots 1870-1933, The Origins of Totalitarianism pages
> 39, 40._
>
> "There was considerable cross-fertilization of racial ideas and even
> personal contacts between very respected academics, on the one hand,
> and racial popularizers, on the other.
Absolutely! Eugenic ideas (aka "intelligent design" animal breeding
for humans) was very common in academic circles at this time. And in
surprising ways (to our eyes, but not given the paternalistic
attitudes of the times). Many well-known advocates and tireless
workers with the handicapped and socially downtrodden were eugenicists
(Alexander Graham Bell, Margret Sanger, Henry Goddard) and others less
well known. So were many Christian ministers (one should not forget
that Malthus was a minister, but including the head of the main
national organisation of Charities). So were many scientists, some
well known, others less so (Charles Davenport, David Starr Jordan) So
were many notorious racists (Lathrop Stoddard, Madison Grant). So
were many philanthropic wealthy individuals and foundations (The
Carnegie Institute, The Rockefeller Foundation, Cold Spring Harbor
Labs -- funded by R.R. tycoon E. H. Harriman's widow). So were many
politicians (Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill,
Oliver Wendell Holmes).
> In 1900, for example, the arms
> manufacturer FriedrIch Albert Krupp sponsored an essay competition on
> the subject, "What can we learn from the principles of Darwinism and
> its application to the inner political development and the laws of
> the
> state?"
This type of talk, and similar types of conferences, was not limited
to Germany. Similar eugenic ideas were being bandied about in most of
Europe and, in the U.S., was being put into many of the actions that
Germany took (most notably sterilizations of the 'unfit', but also
shipping Indians to reservations, and classifying people according to
'race').
> The panel of judges was chaired by the social Darwinist Ernst
> Haeckel, and the majority of the contestants were believers in Aryan
> superiority and endorsed some form of anti-Semitism. First prize in
> the competition went to a Munich physician by the name of Wilhelm
> Schallmeyer, who colored all human activities with the crude social
> Darwinian brush of survival of the fittest and recommended benign
> neglect of the racially weak specimens. Schallmeyer strongly believed
> that the Aryan race represented the apex of human achievement and
> that
> stringent eugenic efforts, preferably state supported, would be
> required to keep the Aryan race pure and predominant.
That is exactly where one leaves *natural* selection in favor of
*intelligent design* selection. Given the racial views of the society
they lived in, the target in Germany became the Jews, the gypsys,
moral degenerates (aka homosexuals and petty criminals), and other
despised identifiable groups.
The target of eugenic sterilization in the U.S was largely the
"invalids", including moral degenerates. The target of preventing
'mongrelization' of the races (anti-miscegenation laws) in the U.S.
were any non-whites (Negro, Indian, and Asians, depending on the
particular state) who were in sufficient numbers to feel threatening.
The methods included racial classification laws, sundown laws, and
lynchings in addition to direct laws forbidding it.
> Another contestant in Krupp's competition, Ludwig Woltman,
> who
> was awarded the third prize, later received much renown by publishing
> a racial journal called Politisch-Anthropologische Revue (1902).
> Woltman's journal, however, was only one of several scholarly
> journals
> dedicated to racial studies. One of the most "respectable" was the
> Archiv fur Rassen und Gesellschaftsbiologie, published by Alfred
> Ploetz, the founder of the eugenic movement in Germany. Ploetz's
> publication became a forum for avant-garde racial ideas. Ploetz later
> coined the phrase "race hygiene," founded a secret Nordic society,
> and
> was lavishly rewarded for his racial contributions with a university
> chair by Adolf Hitler.
And Ploetz 'learned' his eugenic ideas in America. I certainly agree
that such *racist* and eugenic policies are repugnant. But that does
not mean that selection does not occur in nature. Nor that pretending
that selection does not exist would somehow prevent such racist or
eugenic ideas. Ignorance about selection did not prevent genocide or
racism before it was "discovered, not invented".
> As Leon Poliakov points out, some of the chief
> eugenicists and geneticists of the next generation the scientists, in
> other words, who flourished under the protective mantle of National
> Socialism were influenced by Woltman and Ploetz. Among this group we
> find Eugen Fischer, Fritz Lenz, and Otmar Verschuer, the man who
> served as a mentor to the future "Angel of Death" at Auschwitz, Dr.
> Josef Mengele. The most influential of these men was Eugen Fischer,
> who applied Mendel's laws to racial hygiene. In 1934 he boasted that
> he was the first scientist to promote Woltman's ideas within the
> academic community and to have "inflamed young hearts with enthusiasm
> for racial science." Fischer's colleague, Fritz Lenz, was a disciple
> of Alfred Ploetz and a frequent contributor to his racial journal.
> Before the outbreak of World War I, Ploetz's Revue was avidly read by
> many German academics; it became a clearinghouse for all sorts of
> racial doctrines, including the pseudoscientific rantings and
> ruminations of Fritsch and Lanz von Liebenfels.
Please note the word "pseudoscientific" in the above. Almost all of
the 'scientific' eugenic work that was done in either the U.S. or
anywhere else (with the exception of some of the statistical work done
on heritability) was worthless, based as it was on the biased
solipistic reports of the recorders using categories like "moral
degenerate".
> Thus, by a circuitous route we return to Adolf Hitler, whose
> racial image of the world was not the product of his own delusion but
> the result of the findings of "respectable" science.
No doubt. But at the time he was reading translations of the American
eugenicists, eugenics was becoming less and less "respectable" and
more and more taken over by racists.
> When Hitler read
> Fritsch or Liebenfels, he merely absorbed ideas that were widely
> entertained in both academic and popular circles. The message
> embodied
> in these doctrines was unmistakable: any living organism is engaged
> in
> a ceaseless struggle for existence and is doomed to extinction if it
> does not fight. Nations, like individuals, are also engaged in a
> ceaseless conflict in which only the fittest can hope to survive. The
> fighting quality of a nation depends upon its racial purity and its
> ability to breed the fittest specimens in the form of productive
> workers, savage fighters, and charismatic leaders. Those who defile a
> race of people Jews, Gypsies, Asiatic inferiors must be eliminated
> through appropriate state measures. Of all the human racial stocks,
> the Aryan race clearly represents the apex of human achievement; and
> since Germany is the homeland of the Aryan race, the German people
> are
> charged with a sacred mission to propagate the Aryan race and
> dominate
> the world. Racial mongrelization, however, has gone so far that the
> hour may be late indeed. Only state intervention can protect the
> Aryan
> race from further infections by inferior races.
And the above is a particularly good example of 'pseudoscience',
which, by its definition, uses scientific sounding terms to justify
personal bias. After all, creation 'scientists', 'flat-earthers', ID
proponents, cold-fusion advocates, perpetual motion machine inventors,
esp believers, etc. all *use* scientific sounding terminology to
support their particular nonsense non-science.
> In 1913 Eugen Fischer
> boldly prophesied "with absolute certainty" that all Europeans would
> become extlnct unless governments, especially the German government,
> developed and implemented a coherent racial policy.Adolf Hitler
> provided that policy."
Do you see why this is the idea that the "superior" race will become
extinct unless we subvert *natural* selection in favor of *intelligent
design* selection? It is racism presented as if it were science,
using scientific terms without understanding them. I.e., it is
pseudoscience.
But that misuse of the term *natural selection* does not mean that
"selection" does not happen in nature. Selection occurs whether we
know about it or not. Selection occurred before there were humans
capable of understanding it. Selection and its properties were
*discovered*, not *invented*.
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Desertphile
<timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article <1176845475....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> "nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah you're very good at manipulating people in a relationship, you
> > have expertise knowledge about it. Gee, get your science-degree and
> > become an evil bastard at the same time, this is your argument. What
> > you are saying is quite obviously all rubbish, no need to research it
> > any further. There are hardly any psychologists or advertisers that
> > deny free will, they also don't just don't care about the problems
> > hard science and the scientific method has with free will.
> >
> > regards,
> > Mohammad Nur Syamsu
> Explain to me how brownian motion proves that dust clots have free will.
That explains why they always end up under the bed.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Buffy has super strength; why don't we just load her up
like one of those little horses?" -- Anya
nando_r...@yahoo.com
including Hirohito, Mussolini and a host of others. A significant
portion of the blame for social darwinism lies squarely with some of
the main scientists / naturalists in the history of Darwinism,
including Darwin, Galton, Haeckel, Spencer, Lorenz, and other big
names.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Explain to me how brownian motion proves that dust clots have free will.
What is wrong with you that you won't acknowledge freedom? What is
wrong with you that you ridicule knowledge about freedom?
In any case, likewise, I also find your beliefs as completely
ridiculous as you find my beliefs ridiculous, and I'm also very
confident that I am right about there being freedom in nature in
general, as you are confident that there is none (except in some
skulls or something right?).
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is not just Hitler, there is a wide spectrum of social-darwinists
> including Hirohito, Mussolini and a host of others.
Social Darwinism (aka eugenics) is not science. It's about unnatural
selection usually for political and power reasons. You won't see an
evolutionist support eugenics.
Science is not responsible for those who misunderstand it or misuse
it.
Stew Dean
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On 18 apr, 01:51, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Explain to me how brownian motion proves that dust clots have free will.
>
>What is wrong with you that you won't acknowledge freedom?
There is no freedom involved.
> What is
>wrong with you that you ridicule knowledge about freedom?
Nobody is, we are ridiculing YOUR lack of knowledge about most things
- including freedom.
>
>In any case, likewise, I also find your beliefs as completely
>ridiculous as you find my beliefs ridiculous,
Difference is that you have no support.
> and I'm also very
>confident that I am right about there being freedom in nature in
>general, as you are confident that there is none (except in some
>skulls or something right?).
Brains are needed to make decisions. Bodies like the Moon or comets do
not make decisions so they do not have the sort of freedom you seem to
be claiming they have.
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 18 apr, 01:51, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Explain to me how brownian motion proves that dust clots have free will.
>
> What is wrong with you that you won't acknowledge freedom? What is
> wrong with you that you ridicule knowledge about freedom?
You're avoiding the issue. He's asking for you to clarify what you
claim you understand.
> In any case, likewise, I also find your beliefs as completely
> ridiculous as you find my beliefs ridiculous,
How about at least pretending you have some kind of knowledge and
responding to questions in an overly defensive way? If you have any
knowledge you're doing a great job of hiding it.
> I'm also very
> confident that I am right about there being freedom in nature in
> general, as you are confident that there is none (except in some
> skulls or something right?).
There's not much chance of you being right based upon real world
evidence like the tracking of brain activity or the millions of
measurements of objects in motion.
Stew Dean
Ferrous Patella
> So how can you check if what I'm saying is true? Well I mentioned the
> computer you are using as a starting point but I thought of something
> more obvious. Your clothes.
>
> Don't tell me what you're wearing (it's none of my business) but think
> about what wear. Are there any logos? If not then can you name the
> make of you shoes, for example. Think about what you would do if you
> had to buy a new pair of shoes (or sandles or whatever you wear on
> your feet).
Computer: A Open
Logo on shirt: Greyhound Pets Inc (I volunteer with them. Shamless plug
http://greyhoundpetsinc.org/)
Shoes: TX(?)
Jeans: Kirkland
Dogfood: Kirkland
Toothpaste: Crest (I blame imprinting, since it is the brand my parents
used and everything else tastes "wrong".)
Car: Daewoo Lanos
Toilet Paper: 425 Brand
Favorite Sports Team: IHS Wrestling (more shameless plugging
ihsvikings.com)
Second Favorite Sports Team: U of WA Volleyball
Favorite Soft Drink: 7-up Gold (Has anyone every seen an add for it?)
Second Favorite Soft Drink: Vernor's Ginger Ale (but it is not the same
since that stopped making it with that Detroit River water.)
Current Favorite Beer of All Time: McEwan's Scotch Ale
Coffee: Camino Island Dark Esspreso Roast
Music Player: Ipod Shuffle (They got me on that one. However we have 4 MP3
players at our house and the Ipod has the best interface by far. So it
earned its place after all.)
Favorite TV Show: Monarch of the Glen
Looking through my house, I am hard pressed to find anything I have brand
name loyalty to. You cannot say it is because I am an old fart either. My
teenaged daughter's favorite place to shop for clothes is St. Vincent de
Paul (the local thriftstore).
--
Ferrous Patella
"The passive voice is to be avoided at all costs."
hersheyh
And a significant share of the blame for the use of nuclear weapons on
Nagasaki and Hiroshima resides with Democritus, Lavoisier, Dalton, and
Rutherford, and Einstein (all important to atomic theory), right?
Would atoms not exist nor contain a significant amount of energy if we
remained ignorant of that theory of the empirical world?
Do you think that *intelligent design* selection is the same as
*natural* selection? Do you think that selection would cease to occur
if you remained ignorant of its existence?
What you *want* is *ignorance*, not freedom. For you, it is lies and
personal ignorance make you 'free', whereas the usual direction that
intelligent people take is that it is the 'truth' (even those we would
prefer not to be true) that makes you free.
hersheyh
I have no problem in understanding that some of the above list could
be right about some things and dead wrong about others (Hitler
certainly is at the extreme end of being dead wrong about just about
everything except the fact that you can fool most of the people some
of the time by using the big lie technique and appealing to their
prejudices). But why do you insist that they are all totally evil and
false and thus *everything* they said is totally evil and false? Why
not attack the false *ideas* rather than engage in name-calling ad
hominem attacks against the dead who cannot respond?
hersheyh
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 18 apr, 01:51, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Explain to me how brownian motion proves that dust clots have free will.
>
> What is wrong with you that you won't acknowledge freedom? What is
> wrong with you that you ridicule knowledge about freedom?
Since you define freedom as your ignorance and your inability to
predict a result, it is indeed ridiculous to talk about "knowledge"
about freedom as you define it. Kowledge about ignorance.
> In any case, likewise, I also find your beliefs as completely
> ridiculous as you find my beliefs ridiculous, and I'm also very
> confident that I am right about there being freedom in nature in
> general, as you are confident that there is none (except in some
> skulls or something right?).
I freely admit that there are many things which I am unable to predict
(except, perhaps, as a statistical measure after the fact) because of
my lack of knowledge. Since your definition of "freedom" seems to be
the same as my definition of [the observer's] "ignorance" or
"inability to predict", it seems that we both agree that, by that
definition, 'freedom' exists whenever and wherever the observer's
ignorance exists.
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Timberwoof
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 18 apr, 01:51, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Explain to me how brownian motion proves that dust clots have free will.
>
> What is wrong with you that you won't acknowledge freedom? What is
> wrong with you that you ridicule knowledge about freedom?
What is wrong with you, that you think that I think that?
> In any case, likewise, I also find your beliefs as completely
> ridiculous as you find my beliefs ridiculous, and I'm also very
> confident that I am right about there being freedom in nature in
> general, as you are confident that there is none (except in some
> skulls or something right?).
That's not a very good explanation. I don't think you even understood
the question.