Mike
-
Posts
6,834 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by Mike
-
The brain is essentially a believing machine. It believes any story you feed it. This works for feeding it bad stuff, and it works for feeding it good stuff.
-
The brain is essentially a believing machine. It believes any story you feed it. This works for feeding it bad stuff, and it works for feeding it good stuff.
-
Come back to PFAL and find out the many other things you forgot.
-
ANOTHER thing you forgot.
-
This should be a key marker to you how much you have swerved away from what we were taught. Here is a good example of things taught in the class that were forgotten or that were never fully absorbed. The things to learn in the HOW of S.I.T. are: (1) the eleven benefits for doing it, and (2) that the Father seeks those to do it, and (3) freedom from the fear of getting it wrong, and (4) knowing which parts that are God's responsibility (giving the utterance), versus our responsibility (mechanics of speech). Those are ALL teachable and learnable. The class taught us those things, and Jesus taught his apostles the same things in the months before Pentecost.
-
Four crucified. So you know it, how does that change your life? It was attention getting for me, … once. It showed a disconnect between tradition and what is written, FOR A SUPER SIMPLE CASE. It got me prepared for many more traditions that needed challenging, because of what was written. Nice to see the puzzle fit, going from contradictory Bible to consistent Bible. */*/*/*/*/* The two Greek words for receive. How does that change your life? Again, once it helped to learn SIT. After I marked all them in my Cambridge wide-margin it was an interesting thing to see when I’d read the scriptures. There were more marked verses in my Bible this way, than there were verses in the class that taught it. So, that marking still helps me to this day. */*/*/*/*/* Knowing what the Aramaic word for "cloak" means. That changes lives, how? Having “book carrier” at that key spot in 2 Timothy gives the entire epistle a sense of solidity and completion. Everything builds in that ababababa structure to that point for an emergency scripture focused meeting with key authors of the NT, including Timothy who is mention as a helper in the writing of both Thessalonian epistles. Having “cloak” at that key spot in 2 Timothy is a sudden distraction to that build-up of context, and it deflates the drama of what they were going to do at that critical LAST meeting for Paul, before his execution. */*/*/*/*/* And now updating the definition of "free will." The details of Free Will and exactly how it works (if it is there at all) are a mystery in (1) science, in (2) religion, in (3) judicial systems, in (4) hospitals and clinics, in (5) addiction treatment programs, and in (6) everyday life. Free Will is important in all those areas, yet after thousands of years of discussion it is still way up in the air and not settled at all. WHY? */*/*/*/*/* It all boils down to intellectual pursues giving glory to the pursuer by their attempts to look important. I think you start out with the VERY STRONG bias that I have ignoble interests and intents and goals, and that bias taints how much and how well you read what I post. */*/*/*/*/* If PLAF was so important, why didn't Saint Vic research principles for believing and how to operate it? Considering the bible says we live by believing, I would think that would be an important thing to know. He did teach a lot of those principles. Now I get to research it in the scriptures and learn it. The brain is essentially a believing machine. It believes any story you feed purely into it persistently. Rom 10:17 Believing comes by hearing, so make that hearing the Word of God.
-
No, in brain science and free will, it's the ideas that are important. If I could think them, then others can think them. In fact, I have seen several authors thinking fairly close to my ideas, so I contacted one or two already, and plan more. It's the ideas that are important. If I have a chance at speeding things up, that would be fun. It is still fun to just be in the race to figure this out. As for PFAL, lots of people are thinking those important thoughts.
-
Most of the authoritative ones in the hard core sciences are thinking we have no free will these days. They want to abandon the idea altogether. But no one has sure fire definite things to say on free will. Everyone is theorizing. It is the frontier of science. There's room for amateurs like me. I actually have the ear of two professors in the field, and know how to get more when my chapters are written better.
-
OK, I can take that in. Thanks. A short list at the beginning I can handle, or maybe a pause for each word when things come up to demand it. This REALLY is the reason I posted it all here. I wanted different points of view. I am saving all this and I will whittle through it for re-write notes. Thank you also for being able to compartmentalize your disdain for VPW and PFAL. You can see that I compartmentalized my admiration for same in my chapters. It is an important skill to develop. All those years I was at UCSD I was constantly telling myself to keep quiet unless a glowing door of invitation creaks wide open... which did happen a few times.
-
Actually, I know a lot about ontology and all that, but AT THIS STAGE of idea formation that is not necessary... at least to me. And way too much work. If I wanted to publish it somewhere professionally, then definitely, yes, a full ontology is called for, especially for an interdisciplinary item like this. I thought my full Chapter One on some of the spectrum of definitions out there was enough, and the need for a more rigorous, testable definition. My whole book is on a new definition for freedoms in general. I expand on this in my chapter 6, not yet posted. I'm wondering if I should bother. I am at the stage where I send my writing to authors of articles that touch on some of the same issues I deal with. I am also networking through old contacts from my UCSD connection. Many young Deadheads have gone into neuro studies of some sort, and some to grad school. They can bring my idea to their professors as it matures. Even professors show up on the Deadhead dancefloors at times, just none in neuroscience yet.
-
I was being theatrical; hyperbole.
-
That is not correct on 2 counts 1 The classical definition of free will (LibFW) is so bad, that most hard core microbiologists will say these days that free will is an illusion, and we don't have any of that classical stuff. 2 - You can't make the same claim about the definition of salvation, without backing it up with the authority of God's Word. Since Neuroscience is a developing science, and MOST of the brain/mind is still unknown, there is no real authority (yet) in this matter of the definition of free will. As I said in #1, the free will definition is in the process of being abandoned by Neuroscience, and my chapters are a plea to them to MODIFY the definition, instead of abandoning it.
-
No, it's a distractionary idol. It distracts you [rhetorical you] from enjoying the Word; instead you enjoy ramping up the details and magnitude of your hate. Sheesh! It is even distracting a 99% science discussion right here in this thread. My minFW chapters posted here have hardly any reminders of the Bible or VPW. ...maybe zero? Oh, maybe a hint here or there... ...that few would detect...
-
Usually an idol is something someone loves. I see an idol here that people love to hate; an anti-idol. Same thing as a regular idol, but a different flavor of worship.
-
Actually, it is obvious that your anti-idol is choking your IQ off. Nearly everything I say is interrupted by the zeal to keep the anti-idol adequately hated and reviled. If I make any sense whatsoever, the anti-idol starts screaming "Hate me! Hate me more!" and my point gets lost while homage is paid and the promise to hate more is made.
-
Only one major change of definitions is in my book, that of the freedom in free will. It is a broken definition. I just got finished saying this to OldSkool. The BIG definition, that of "free will." I spent most of Chapter 1 discussing. Most of my intended audience is already familiar with most definitions, and not that many are needed to introduce this new idea for what freedom means. The classical definition for free will was horribly constructed long before modern science was invented, and it was defined to be the opposite of what science would allow. It is an unworkable definition, so I am looking for the right repair job. What I am doing is "de-mystifying" free will. The classical definition has been quite mystical and anti-science, and is in the process if being very deliberately abandoned by Neuroscience. I object to that abandonment, and offer instead a major repair job on the seriously broken definition of free will we all inherited from the ancients. So, not only is Chapter one focused on the problems in the old definition, but the whole book is an attempt to clarify this new definition of weakened and delayed free will.
-
The BIG definition, that of "free will." I spent most of Chapter 1 discussing. Most of my intended audience is already familiar with most definitions, and not that many are needed to introduce this new idea for what freedom means. The classical definition for free will was horribly constructed long before modern science was invented, and it was defined to be the opposite of what science would allow. It is an unworkable definition, so I am looking for the right repair job. What I am doing is "de-mystifying" free will. The classical definition has been quite mystical and anti-science, and is in the process if being very deliberately abandoned by Neuroscience. I object to that anandonment, and offer instead a major repair job on the seriously broken definition of free will we all inherited from the ancients. So, not only is Chapter one focused on the problems in the old definition, but the whole book is an attempt to clarify this new definition of weakened and delayed free will.
-
I agree that God gave us minFW, and for that reason we can have both freedom, and when that freedom results in a decision, it can be delivered to the muscles and everything is acted out robotically in obedience to our will. We have both abilities, and both are good. We have minFW and we can execute it. I do not believe we have LibFW, or Libertarian Free Will. There is a huge difference between Libertarian Free Will (LibFW) and Biological Free Will (BioFW). My theory is that Minimalistic Free Will (minFW) is roughly equivalent to BioFW. If you are not practiced at juggling all three of these free will varieties (LibFW, BioFW, minFW) then you have not begun to understand my 5 chapters.
-
I plan to do that as I re-write sections of my chapters. I appreciate your efforts to critique my theory. It is a lot to read. It is VERY new and revolutionary thinking I am doing here, so I'm sure it takes a lot of thought to try and follow it. There were a couple of years where what I was building was so off the beaten path that I would occasionally FORGET it, or the key details to it, and I would have to read what I had already written on it again to review. It is THAT strange an idea, that I have had trouble with it myself. Now, after 9 years of discussing it, I think I got it. So far no one has picked up on a key feature: that minFW is merely learning. Did you understand that part in chapter 2? When people read and understood my theory in other forums years ago, they would be able to see that it was just learning and want to shoot down my theory on that point. I strongly suspect all of you are not reading and digesting every word, but just skim reading and keying comments off other comments mostly, or common sense juggling of free will ideas. My theory is VERY far from common sense.
-
Can you pinpoint in a small post a point I did not listen to well enough?
-
"Influences have nothing to do with your ability to choose, which is free will." No. There are two different kinds of decisions we can make. When I decide to sign a contract I use my free will. When I sign the contract, I use my cerebellum, and it is a robotic reflex. If we had to use our free will all the time I think we'd run out of gas fast. Robotic actions with no free will are often fine. I have a whole chapter on this. */*/*/*/*/* "You can always choose to go counter to [strong, evil] influences." YES. But the only way that can happen is if you harbor good counter-influences in your synapse set. We call a harboring of good counter-influences "character." Character gets built via many, many small free-will decisions (operating minFW) over a long time. It requires teaching of some sort, often teaching by example.
-
Ok, I can go with that wording. I believe natural men HAVE a type of free will, but I don't believe that free will has all the attributes of the classical definition of free will. It is weaker and it operates differently than expected.
-
Out of one side of your mouth you say what we were taught is incorrect. Then out of the other side you say that VPW stole good material from good people. That is quite a cognitive dissonance you feed there.
-
OR another possiblity. It could be that I am right and that you just don't understand the theory yet. Have you read all of the 5 chapters I posted? I have evidence you did not understand vast sections of it. If you started all over and just read the chapters, you may have a different take on it.
-
His free will was spread out in the days and months before he set out on the Road to Damascus. It can be seen in what he allowed to lodge in his mind. He must have been thinking about what Stephen said, and he also heard witnessing from the people he persecuted. All those influences were accumulating prior to his final decision to believe and act on the Word.
