Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Mike

Members
  • Posts

    6,834
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Mike

  1. Adam and Eve had just lost spirit, and things changed to make them feel bad. God had done a lot of previous teaching and He made their biology able to recognize them not obeying. After them, their children had to be TAUGHT slowly and gradually and naturally. THAT is how the law's essence was written into their hearts. It happened in the months and years after birth, from normal life experiences. Our DNA ensures that if a child is grown in a civil environment then that child automatically gets these things installed. It is conceivable that there are some children raised in super crazy circumstances and nourishment where this fails, but normally it works, even with unbelievers. Even with cats and dogs, on a much smaller scale.
  2. No this is very new in the sense that it is the first theory of a deterministic free will. All other compatibilist approaches, that I am aware of, try to go around or nullify determinism. I think I am the first one to try and make friends with determinism, and I got that idea from Dennett. He never followed through on it though. If you can find another deterministic theory of free will, one that respects and uses determinism, I would drop everything to contact the author and learn it.
  3. Bravo johniam! This is a bump,because this thread is so closely aligned with the free will versus determinism thread.
  4. All the many factors you mentioned are included in my #2's "...synapse set just prior to the decision" All those things can pack a powerful punch in forcing behavior.
  5. aps I am repeating here but this is important. What you wrote is almost true. Here is it's correction: ...the ability to decide is what "the free will debate" is all about. The debate is about whether a particular decision was made freely or not. Is a decision made free of all influences, completely on one's own volition? Or is that decision made by force of the synapse set just prior to the decision? The synapse set is ALL the lifetime of learning and experiences prior to the decision.
  6. LoL It is sometimes cartoon-like funny to me to have posts to seriously respond to, that first require that I pull all the bones of insult out, before consuming. It reminds me of combing lice out of children 's hair. LoL
  7. Well the rainy season is here, so I am home early. Now I have another long post from you. When it rains it pours. I'll get to both soon I think. No I was never a professional teacher. I was being groomed to be a Physics professor, but my science nerd emotional system couldn't handle college social life. This was before I got into the Word. I did well working in the campus atom smasher and taking Physics classes, but I was an emotional wreck. High IQ for Physics; extremely low IQ for life. It wasn't immediate, but in category after category God's Word via PFAL have helped me climb out of that hole. But it was too slow and too late for me to become a professional teacher. That's the part I got over, because it was replaced by oodles of better things.
  8. I think you are trying to apply my theory without knowing it well. I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the spit seconds before confessing Jesus, it would be spread out in the days, months, and even years PRIOR to finally confessing. The freedom of will of that natural man would be in the many times of hearing something, how he allowed information about Jesus to settle in his heart. We were taught that Paul probably heard the Word many times while persecuting Christians, and he certainly heard Stephen. Those things were all in his synapse set when he started out on the Road to Damascus.
  9. Yes, I was asking for clarification, or for a link that would clarify. No, I am not a con artist. As far as "taking over" why not think of it as stirring it up, giving it extra life? I stop in to read in the months and years I am not posting, and I see how dead it can get here, at least in About the Way. I don't check the other forums, but then again, you wouldn't say I am taking over there, would you? If I was on nearly every thread, THAT would be taking over. But I am only on a tiny minority of the threads here. When I post here it is because I think I have something important. It stirs things up, especially when there's nothing else to talk about happening. I really am posting good things, but you and others have a TOTAL BIAS against it. That total bias started 2 months before my first post here, in two separate threads about me. Someday, if you ever shake that bias, you may want to thank me for bringing in so much truth.
  10. The way I learned to dance was from Physics. I tinkered with toys, like slinkies, that could dance for 40 years, with an understanding of the physics and math. From decades of window cleaning I learned how to maximize my body for speed, accuracy, and endurance. When I hit the dance floor 10 years ago I was ready due to this background preparation. Dance is 3 things: (1) having more fun than fear, (2) doing anything IN TIME SYNC with the music, and (3) not falling. The tighter the synchronizing of body parts with music, the more fun it is. There is a brain theory on why this synchronizing feels like fun. That is free-form solo dance. It totally does not matter where you place your feet. It is all in the WHEN you step or do some other action. The faster the tempo, the more fun it is. Partner dancing is totally different and I have almost zero experience with it.
  11. NO. You are not familiar enough with the TIMING aspects of my theory. I see the freedom of will happening in the heart a little BEFORE the decision to say Jesus is Lord happens. It really is a timing thing. It takes practice to wrench out of the old free will definition where it happens at the same time as the performance, and my new idea of the freedom part happening BEFORE the final decision. The timing is a subtle thing to get right, but it really is at the heart of my theory. That is why the motorcycle analogy is used so early in Chapter 2. People USUALLY think of free will as happening on the fly. I see it in the preparation for the fly.
  12. I'll need to see if you are interpreting and applying that consensus to this free will theory. I suspect that the early infancy exhibitions of morality are primitive and not functioning yet. They may be able to detect the pieces that later hammer out a morality, but I doublt if any of it is in a functioning state until later years. If you happen to run into a good example of that consensus I will include it in my reading.
  13. Hmmm! You got me thinking. If you mean frustrated professional teacher... maybe yes, but I got over it decades ago. If you mean teacher in the generic sense, then no, I am not frustrated. I am delighted at all the many opportunities I have to teach the odd things that have somehow landed in my lap. I started off tutoring arithmetic to a neighbor when I was 12, and then mechanical drawing when I was 16. The variety is dizzying to me as I think back. I get to teach the Bible to scientists in private once in a while. I get to teach Deadheads about the early history of the Grateful Dead and Ken Kesey, because from 1987 to 1998 I studied the hippies' history in an attempt to understand why TWI was so good with the hippies, and so bad without them. I was mostly wrong in my theory then about the hippies having the magic element that made TWI sing. It just seemed that every strain of the hippie influence in TWI was removed slowly and totally gone by the time of the 1986 meltdown. My theory was wrong, but I ended up being an amateur 60s historian for the younger Deadheads who totally missed that era. When I was in the Open Mic circuit, it wasn't just stand-up comedy that I did. I also taught Relativity for Poets, and some cool brain science, and hippie history. I am just starting to teach dance to men who can't do it. I first taught a young lady who couldn't do it. What blocks people in dance is mostly hangups and fears, VERY SIMILAR to the fears that hang people up in T.I.P. and can be soothed in Excellors' Sessions. I am a challenged generic teacher, yes. That happens a lot, but I like that. Which reminds me, I want to thank you for focusing on the details of my theory now. I welcome the challenges. I was all set to start answering your long post very early this morning, but got continually distracted by the flurry of others posting. I will get back to it later. I have to go to work for a few hours, and then later I have a fellowship for a couple hours early evening, so it may be LATE TONIGHT that I get to your long post. Ditto for all the other posts that I haven't responded to this morning. I'll get there. This is helping me with my book polishing and some needed additions. It helps me see where I failed to communicate what I wanted to say.
  14. You would love to read Patricia Churchland's "Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain." for this topic. She won a McArthur Award for that book, and Scientific American described it as iconic or something grand like that. https://archive.org/details/neurophilosophyt0000chur https://books.google.com/books/about/Neurophilosophy.html?id=hAeFMFW3rDUC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurophilosophy A big part of her arguments is that Neuroscience is slowly becoming the judge as to which philosophical conjectures about the brain and mind over the centuries and millennia were Biologically correct and which ones are incorrect.
  15. I think that new born infants do not have that sense. It is gradually taught to them. They may have a rudimentary sense of it in early ages, but most people feel that it takes 5, 6, or 7 years of teaching to be formed.
  16. There are TWO possible ways decisions can be made: 1 - freely, with no cause whatsoever, by free will. 2- forced, according to the synapse set just prior to the decision. So when you see a decision is made from outer behavior, you have no idea if that was a forced, robotic decision or a free will decision.
  17. Conscience is a word that comes out of the situation described and the mechanics of whatever is going on in the brain for handling that situation. But that word does not give us insight into those mechanics. The internal workings of the brain (when we discover them) will tell us more about those mechanics, whether they are free or determined. I am betting that they are NOT free and totally determined. The freedom I see comes in if the NEXT attempt to perform according to conscience is successful. It is freedom to act according to pre-trained conscience, and NOT acting on a bad habit that it contrary. It is freedom from the bad habit.
  18. Sort of. It doesn't know for sure what you had in mind. But you know what you had in mind. I thought if I asked you I'd get the BEST source, while if I do it alone I may miss that.
  19. I think what it proves is that we can make decisions. Whether those decisions are free or determined by previous synapse settings is what the free will debate is all about.
  20. I think that even with obeying conscience, it is a forced thing. The phrase comes to mind "My conscience would not let me do it." In my theory I give up on finding the freedom at this stage. It's all chemistry and deterministic, until someone tries to fight it, which comes a little later. The freedom part is subtle.
  21. I think you meant conscience. I never mention that particular word, but the IDEA of it constantly comes up in the mental exercises I outline. I talk often about COMPARING a performance to a pre-installed standard or creed. When the comparison is bad then there is a feeling of angst or pain and a desire to correct it. We were taught that conscience was merely the sum total of what we were taught was right and I followed that notion throughout. Conscience is in the described processes in my book, but I did not ever use that word. I'm thinking I should use it. Thanks for the tip.
  22. The definition you gave was for PHILOSOPHY. There was an unfortunate jam up of terminologies here. determinism noun de·ter·min·ism | \ di-ˈtər-mə-ˌni-zəm , dē- \ Definition of determinism 1 philosophy a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws b : a belief in predestination 2 : the quality or state of being determined */*/*/*/*/*/*/* The kind of determinism I am using is more definition definition #2, which is not very full in this dictionary. Determinism was defined in Physics one way, and in Philosophy the same term is used, but applied it differently. The Philosophy definition of determinism involved HUMANS, while the Physics definition involves inanimate objects. The Physics determinism is the only one I write about. The Physics determinism is also used by Chemists and Biologists and Neuroscience of the brain. It was the Physics determinism that was in the first definition you gave yesterday, but it was an extreme and dubious application of it The Chapter 5 I posted yesterday is all on Physics determinism. I will have to add more text that differentiates between philosophical determinism and physics determinism. */*/*/*/*/* Meanwhile here is a quick course in Physics determinism. The long course is in Chapter 5. You've heard of the Laws of Physics. Determinism can be thought of as the agency that ENFORCES the Laws of Physics. What we see in science are the patterns or the Laws that govern the universe, and we use the word determinism to superficially express how the Laws work. Scientists say that the outcome of an experiment was determined by the Laws of Physics, and they also say Determinism made sure the Laws of Physics were obeyed. Physics Determinism is intimately bound up in the idea that the Universe of inanimate objects follows patterns or Laws. When it gets applied (by old fashioned Philosophy) to the human mind then it becomes tainted by the non-scientific methods of Philosophy and determinism gets spun into the definition that Merriam-Webster supplied above. Notice that in the definition 1a there is a mixture of physics and philosophy determinisms. I'll bold font the physics one: a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws I think the reason they slightly mixed that up is because that's how it goes down in society, which is what dictionaries track. Physics determinism is far less known by the types of people who make dictionaries, compared to philosophic determinism. People of all walks of life will sit down and philosophize for a short time on free will and about human wills being "determined, but they may have zero understanding of Physics determinism." Figuring out the tug of war between free will and determinism involves Physics determinism only. There is another mistake in that Merriam-Webster definition 1a: a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws That last line should read "... are causally determined by preceding events AND natural laws" so this definition is pretty bad. It is always BOTH the preceding events and the laws that determine an event. Another mistake is there are no natural laws involved in "social or psychological phenomena" that we know of. We know of laws in Physics and Chemistry but not in other areas. This definition was written by a non-scientist, that is for sure.
  23. I am asking what you mean by your statement: "Here’s the thing - there’s stuff in your thesis that are antithetical to PFAL / wierwille’s or Christian systematic theology" And I offered a possible reason why you said that. No big mystery? Why? Are you still asleep?
×
×
  • Create New...