Working on a new theme song for this thread...ok...here goes...
Wasting away again in bullshonta-ville wondering why Mike thinks it's our fault...(c'mon..sing along)...that we don't understand what he means...but I know...it's his own dang fault...
Man he really wants people to read what he self published here on GSC...lmao.
I've been dealing with determinism since 1966.
What I really want, in directing people to my chapter 5 on determinism, is that you folks get up to speed a little bit. I get the feeling this is your first discussion on determinism.
I don't get the last half of your last line. Is there a typo?
There's no typo. The point is you can make predictions in the physical world because physical laws are pretty reliable, but the human element is much more random due to people's freedom of will.
Even in the physical world, however, unpredictability enters by way of quantum mechanics.
What I really want, in directing people to my chapter 5 on determinism, is that you folks get up to speed a little bit. I get the feeling this is your first discussion on determinism.
Ohhh..master Jedi Mike...we will never arrive at your level....it's determined
If you had read my chapters with any thoroughness and understanding you would have realized that maxFW was invented 1000 years ago (probably by Thomas Aquinas).
Today this maxFW it is called classical free will, Libertarian Free Will, and Contra-Causal Free Will.
When you study the details of this common, everyday maxFW you will see that it is magical, mystical, and pretty much in line with what the devil promised Eve would get from apple nutrition.
Sweet. This means I’m teaching freedom like it hasn’t been known since the 12th century.
Thx Mike I was totally unaware of how generationally inspiring I am in my magical mystery tour of the Bible outside fundamentalism.
But oh yes Eve and that apple. What is that again? I forget who teaches what theory.
There's no typo. The point is you can make predictions in the physical world because physical laws are pretty reliable, but the human element is much more random due to people's freedom of will.
Even in the physical world, however, unpredictability enters by way of quantum mechanics.
Mostly all of quantum's unpredictability is for micro particles like electrons and protons. It evaporates when you get to larger systems, like atoms heavier than Hydrogen and Helium. The quantum lack of predictability smooths out in the world of stable atoms and chemistry which is where we live. We don't see ANY of that unpredictability; it's gone at our level.
Lack of predictability in humans is not necessarily due to free will.
There are FAR more variables to keep track of with humans, compared to simple atoms and molecules. This impedes predictability. There are many variables with humans we cannot measure, and many that we haven't even conceived of yet. Predicting human behavior, even for those humans without free will, is impossible.
Besides, I think most of the time will operate as very sophisticated robots. This is what sports is all about. Most of the time we don't need to make a free will decision. We rarely sign contracts that require lots of thinking. Most of our good behavior now is due to us learning, via free will, good habit patterns in the past. When we see a bad habit, that is the time we should be thinking of free will to change that bad habit.
What I really want, in directing people to my chapter 5 on determinism, is that you folks get up to speed a little bit. I get the feeling this is your first discussion on determinism.
You’ve been coming here for 20 years - It’s the same old Bull-Shonta just a different year
Mostly all of quantum's unpredictability is for micro particles like electrons and protons. It evaporates when you get to larger systems, like atoms heavier than Hydrogen and Helium. The quantum lack of predictability smooths out in the world of stable atoms and chemistry which is where we live. We don't see ANY of that unpredictability; it's gone at our level.
As I pointed out earlier, that unpredictability doesn't evaporate, as you claim, it gets absorbed into other unpredictable things, which, on our level become a relitively large unpredictable thing.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Lack of predictability in humans is not necessarily due to free will.
There are FAR more variables to keep track of with humans, compared to simple atoms and molecules. This impedes predictability. There are many variables with humans we cannot measure, and many that we haven't even conceived of yet. Predicting human behavior, even for those humans without free will, is impossible.
Actually, unpredictability in human, doesgo back to free will, as free will is their ability to choose. They can choose contrary to what's predicted, hence free will leads to unpredictability.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Besides, I think most of the time will operate as very sophisticated robots. This is what sports is all about. Most of the time we don't need to make a free will decision. We rarely sign contracts that require lots of thinking. Most of our good behavior now is due to us learning, via free will, good habit patterns in the past. When we see a bad habit, that is the time we should be thinking of free will to change that bad habit.
Just because we don't use free will all the time doesn't mean it isn't an option.
People are more than sophisticated robots. Remember the ghost in the machine.
What I really want, in directing people to my chapter 5 on determinism, is that you folks get up to speed a little bit. I get the feeling this is your first discussion on determinism.
My FIRST real discussion of determinism was in 1995. I was 19 in college. It was a philosophy class. We read St. Anselm, et al.
The class was not pedantic. It was exploratory. Challenging. Real discussions. It required rigorous examination of linguistic implications. Defining terms and assumptions. Questions and answers and questions. Honest, critical examinations. It was mind-expanding.
My FIRST real discussion of determinism was in 1995. I was 19 in college. It was a philosophy class. We read St. Anselm, et al.
The class was not pedantic. It was exploratory. Challenging. Real discussions. It required rigorous examination of linguistic implications. Defining terms and assumptions. Questions and answers and questions. Honest, critical examinations. It was mind-expanding.
Philosophy has a different kind of determinism. It is complicated, because it is focused on humans. I think this kind of determinism goes back to the ancient Greeks and Romans.
The kind of determinism that comes up in Neuroscience, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics is only 400 years old max, and it is VERY simple because it starts with INANIMATE objects, like billiard balls and atoms.
Here is a most simple example of this more simple kind of physics determinism, in all its glory and simplicity:
A train leaves NYC traveling at a constant 60 miles per hour. Assuming no interruptions and interventions, how far away is the train from NYC 2 hours later?
The train’s constant speed DETERMINES what the train’s location will be at that later time.
speed = distance/time
distance = speed x time
distance = 60 x 2 = 120 miles
When you see the "=" sign in those equations it can read this way:
The distance is determined by the train's speed multiplied by the time span.
It’s really that simple.
I always am referring to this second, simple, physics kind of determinism when discussing minFW, because I see free will as a natural function of the brain, just like other natural functions of the human body. Neuroscience leans on this same kind of determinism that I lean on.
People are more than sophisticated robots. Remember the ghost in the machine.
That is at the heart of my switch 9 years ago: the ghost in the machine.
I took the tip from VPW that natural man had free will to get born again and applied it to this free will theory of mine. That means I am looking at SOUL as existing in the natural realm, not in the spiritual realm.
I think people with spirit are much more than sophisticated robots.
But a soul is not immortal, and man has no preeminence above the beasts, which have soul also.
Soul houses the mind, but without spirit, that is just a natural man mind, it is a subject of the adversary's, which is not all that special....compared to a body,soul, spirit being's mind.
Fighting off bigotry, remember that a body and soul man may get born again tomorrow, and that Jesus died for all body and soul people.
I love soul, but I see it as a natural thing, not a supernaturally un-explainable thing. Natural things seem to yield to some sort of understanding by science, and I think the brain and decisions will be shown to be wonderfully complicated mechanisms someday. Lots of the mechanisms of the body are astoundingly complex and beautiful. Soul is probably the most beautiful.
Natural as it is, soul can love with phileo and want to do better.
When a natural man has spiritual hunger, moving with free will and seeking God is sure to connect. How could God miss someone seeking Him?
Philosophy has a different kind of determinism. It is complicated, because it is focused on humans. I think this kind of determinism goes back to the ancient Greeks and Romans.
The kind of determinism that comes up in Neuroscience, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics is only 400 years old max, and it is VERY simple because it starts with INANIMATE objects, like billiard balls and atoms.
Here is a most simple example of this more simple kind of physics determinism, in all its glory and simplicity:
First logical error.
A specific cannot become a universal
Just as we don't expect the rules of quantum mechanics to apply to our level of reality,you can't apply inanimate rules to ANIMATE creatures.
Oxygen and hydrogen have no choice in becoming water.
However a man can choose whether to use his car to take children to Sunday school or be a wheel man in a bank robbery.
The rules are different.
51 minutes ago, Mike said:
A train leaves NYC traveling at a constant 60 miles per hour. Assuming no interruptions and interventions, how far away is the train from NYC 2 hours later?
The train’s constant speed DETERMINES what the train’s location will be at that later time.
speed = distance/time
distance = speed x time
distance = 60 x 2 = 120 miles
When you see the "=" sign in those equations it can read this way:
The distance is determined by the train's speed multiplied by the time span.
It’s really that simple.
Again, you trying to shoehorn in something that has nothing to do with what you're trying to prove.
51 minutes ago, Mike said:
I always am referring to this second, simple, physics kind of determinism when discussing minFW, because I see free will as a natural function of the brain, just like other natural functions of the human body. Neuroscience leans on this same kind of determinism that I lean on.
I took the tip from VPW that natural man had free will to get born again and applied it to this free will theory of mine. That means I am looking at SOUL as existing in the natural realm, not in the spiritual realm.
Which is where you get that awful attitude that "natural man" is some type of inferioir product. Hey....wtf is the spiritual realm? Where is it? How can you quantify it? What is soul and don't give me nephesh chai or breath life....Ive heard all the definitions before. But how can you quantify either one? Point is, for the scientific REALM you can't. So you are completely wasting your own time and the time of anyone else reading this bullshonta.
You seem to be under the allusion that the devil (not Satan) is like Dracula with crucifixes, and stays far away from Bible scholars. Just the opposite it true. He whispers into those open ears all the time. That is where he hobbles good Christians from finding the power in Christ that resides within. He blew it, not knowing the Mystery, so now he has all these believers with Christ-in and the potential to beat him at every turn like Jesus did. So what does he do? He steers the churches to become prisons.
Did you know that the devil can whisper in YOUR ear, and make it sound like a good idea of your own, or a revelation from the True God?
We were taught that, and taught that often. I wonder if you remember.
There is one collateral where VPW teaches that TEN TIMES on just a few pages.
The above post and most of the posts below are Mike's statements on the NT canon thread. This is to show the incoherence of Mike's belief system.
For example, in the above post Mike suggested that it's possible the devil can whisper in your ear,and he also mentions revelation from the true God.
How does that square with determinism?
~ ~ ~ ~
The same with this next post of Mike's: what he says goes counter to determinism which is that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.
On 10/12/2022 at 12:08 AM, Mike said:
I haven't changed my message.
But I have heeded my own message and have had a MUCH better time with just the reading materials, unsupervised. The over-supervision of the ministry started, to the best of my observation ability at the time, right after Craig started in 1982, and then went into overdrive as VPW was fading. What I saw was an enormous competition among volunteer Corps people for salaried positions. This led to more rules and supervision. This all melted down in 1986 with Geer, and within months the ministry divided into 3 main groups of Corps, still looking for that salary.
I was pulling back from all this, and felt free to experiment, which I did unsupervised for 10 years. That was 1998 and I returned to read the collaterals for 20 years. Now I am applying what I learned to Bible versions, and local fellowshipping with other casual proPFAL people. It is starting to resemble what I saw in the unsupervised fellowships of the Groovey Rye Christians, which I was a part of.
Now I see another wave of people coming back to PFAL to work with it without all the baggage of 37 years ago. It's a different world than the one you probably had a right to resent. A LOT of things went wrong. Some of us are devoted to fixing the problems, and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
~ ~ ~ ~
Determinism is nullified in the following post of Mike's - because if God can direct by revelation or intervene then the result cannot be attributed to determinism
On 10/12/2022 at 9:03 AM, Mike said:
I would generally agree with that.
But I never heard of TWI concerns about the number of OT books.
Because of (1) the invariant order of the Church Epistles, and (2) Peter referring to ALL of Paul's Epistles, and (3) from the scripture party that Paul set up at the end of 2 Timothy, it is obvious that those Epistles were gathered together under Paul's supervision at a very early date.... like AD 67 ?
I am confident that the general pattern for the Biblical writers was each writer who received revelation to write for God, also had the revelation as to whom the writing should be delivered. Decent and in order, in other words. This is the main part of my canon theory.
I saw this pattern elsewhere in my KJV search long ago.
~ ~ ~ ~
It's the same idea in Mike's next post that contradicts his hypothesis on determinism; if God is able to work with individuals - then there are TWO variables that DO NOT FIT with his hypothesis on this thread - that being:
1. God - NOT fate, NOT determinism
2. man having free will - to respond to God - - or choosing NOT to respond to God:
On 10/12/2022 at 12:04 PM, Mike said:
Yes, but it is righteous and loving condescending.
God condescends to us this way, and I am trying to imitate Him, and just help with love and finding a way for them to see that original class, if they want to.
I am not belittling the PEOPLE who took those inferior classes, but just noting that they did not get anything like what we older grads received, where God worked to make the 1968 film class to happen. I am sure that God was able to work with individuals at times in TWI during the crap years, but the corporation as a whole was out to lunch and GENERALLY did a terrible job at educating new grads. God's grace, mercy, and power were mitigating this where and when possible, I am sure.
The people who had and inferior class, and in a terrible atmosphere should be thought of as having missed what good we saw in the 1970s.
I'm not thinking I am superior; just that my exposure to the class was superior.
This does not grant me extra privilege to lord it over them, but it does give me a greater responsibility to try and help them. I try to remember they have not had the advantage I had, and I want to help fix that handicap. I think it is fixable.
~ ~ ~ ~
In Mike's post here, he skirts around the issue of being condescending by saying it's too complicated to explain why he's being that way. It seems to me he's spun himself such a web of lies and nonsense that even he can't untangle it.
Mike seems to operate this way most of the time; he comes on Grease Spot preaching we should return to PFAL, we forgot all the good things, we missed the good stuff, blah blah blah. When anyone pins him down on being specific - like WHAT good things - he avoids direct converstaion
On 10/14/2022 at 8:13 PM, Mike said:
No, there are actually several reasons that I am so condescending.
But I am trying to NOT sound like the negative kind of condescending.
I admit I may have had that negative tone in my previous response, so please let me try again.
Those several reasons are too complicated to discus now, but for THIS situation of my trying to be beneficially condescending, please let me try.
I didn’t mean that I saw people who didn’t ever see the 1968 film class as inferiors to me.It may have sounded that way.
What I meant was that they should be given a pass (by me) on certain things, BECAUSE they didn’t have nearly the same HI QUALITY “ministry experience” that I had.
I feel it a duty, that since I was blessed so big, I have a big responsibility to PASS IT ON.
The Craig Clone Class (I forget the name) was conceived under extremely trying circumstances for TWI, trying for both for most people in, and almost all people out. That chaos started in 1986, and went up and down in all sorts of ways. Then in 1995 the film class was withdrawn, and the new class was substituted.
I see the 1942 promise as a completed project, where God did the teaching over 42.5 years to VPW and VPW taught us. The finished form of this intervention by God was the film class and the collateral readings that came with the class.These were the targets, and the end of his life and last recorded teaching, that he pointed to and said TWICE that we should master them.
Ok, those are the originals of my only rule for faith and practice… roughly speaking. They are my Postulates.
Now, a practice we enjoyed in TWI is that we were strongly encouraged to re-teach the same class materials to others by OURSELVES in our twigs. This is what I was taught in twig leaders meetings.
I’ll call these encouraged re-teachings we did Secondary Pfal Teachings, or SPTs for short.
These SPT attempts were usually pretty good and right on with the class and collaterals. It was estimated in twig leaders meetings that it would take about 2 years to teach the whole class in a home fellowship live. In those days we met 2 and 3 times per week.
Before the film class was made, VPW had Mal George and others SPT teaching the PFAL class themselves in locations far from HQ.
In San Diego, before the meltdown, the Corps put together a whole PFAL class that was team taught.
All these SPT re-teachings of the class were done a very supportive atmosphere of cooperation and love.LOTS of volunteers worked these things many hours per week per year.You didn’t have to be Corps to chip in and help in all sorts of ways.
Ok, back to my story.
In 1986 that very supportive atmosphere of cooperation and love ENDED for many people and many places.
Yet, I have to give Craig credit for keeping the original class running as far as he did. I’m sure that was tough. But he ran out of gas sometime before 1995.
Ok, the originals then in mothballs. A class that Craig put together UNDER DURESS replaced what God had put together with VPW.This was NOT in the category of the cheerfully produced SPTs, put together in previous decades.
So, let’s get this straight.
In 1995, the 1968 class inspired by God’s direct intervention
is replaced by a secondary re-teaching produced under duress.
The teacher of the class after 1995 was handicapped, and he didn’t have a promise like the one that came in 1942 that VPW had. This class did not fill the bill, so they de-Craig-ed it by replacing his video with a team of teachers… I think.I got lots of this data from a very noisy signal.
From better data, I heard that this second replacement for the film class was better.
I sat in on Session One for the newest replacement for foundational class, PFAL-T, several weeks ago, and it looked pretty good. I’m still sold on the originals, but the 2 hours I saw kept my attention, and seemed to have the detail well covered.
I was just SO lucky to have had a rich exposure to the originals.
From my close examination and experience with PFAL’68 I am convinced its production was supervised by God. This means I see it as a UNIQUE source of benefits for me and others.
I was very lucky to have had much of my exposure to the originals unsupervised, and the supervision I did get was very wise and helpful. It was wonderful and positive all the way up to early 1984ish times, and then things got wobbley. Not long after that, the frequent running of classes totally ended.
The good I saw when the originals were in dense circulation was SO GOOD, that I feel for those who missed it. I feel they were unlucky where I was lucky.
Fortunately for me also, there were lots of my friends who were able to dodge the bullets and experience and remember the good that worked well. The wave of PFAL’68 grads coming back to PFAL is growing and maturing.
I will be searching for better ways to offer the great good I enjoy, without sounding negatively condescending.
~ ~ ~ ~
Now mind you, most of these posts were on the NT canon thread - all the Grease Spotters posting dealt with facts, historical evidence, ancient manuscripts, even documents written by early church leaders concerning the NT docs - all Grease Spotters EXCEPT for Mike.
He posits his own "bottoms-up approach" and childish literary structures that observe nothing more than a break in verses - i.e., abababababab
I'm pointing this out because - whether intentional or not, it appears Mike is incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction on something as tangible as ancient manuscripts that are still in existence/historical evidence - and the fiction of his own imagination that seems to defy the accessible evidence...so why should I think he has a bead on intangibles like determinism and free will?
On 10/29/2022 at 1:03 PM, Mike said:
No, there were at least 4 posts I made lately about the Top-Down approach having it's strengths and some weakness also. Maybe more than 4.
My materials in 1972 for researching the Top-Down approach were scarce, with no Internet. Libraries had a lot of the latest hip theology laced into it, which was Thomas Altizer's famous "God is Dead" theology.
When I read about the Top-Down approach back then it was appalling to me how the writers were trying to make the Bible look bad and uninspired by one Author.
So I ignored that approach, and tried the Bottom-Up approach. I was surprised at how many verses I could find. I worked them for ten years, up to 1982, and I closed my paper folder on that research. Then came this thread, and I re-opened my old paper folder and my memories.
~ ~ ~ ~
In the following post Mike talks about God's justice seeming to be in the future. The idea behind determinism is that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice. determinism noun The property of having behavior determined only by initial state and input...therefore there is no God - no sovereignty of a God who is all-powerful and all-knowing!
On 10/29/2022 at 1:47 PM, Mike said:
Most of God's justice seems to be in the future.
First Corinthians 3 talks about Christians who have not built within themselves a home for God to hang out in will suffer loss when Christ returns.
I am confident that the Just God will perfectly "even the score" for us all.
We will all get what we earned in rewards, and we will suffer loss of rewards for where and when we blew it.
To my best understanding, the rewards have to do with the ability to function. They have to do with being allowed to do work for God in the future. Makes sense, that those who love to work for and with God now will be allowed to do it more in the future.
~ ~ ~ ~
My comments end with this last post of Mike's on this thread - as a follow-up to what I said to Mike earlier - besides his "postulates" lacking internal coherency - they also contradict what he has said on other threads where he has referenced PFAL, wierwille, or the Bible to claim that God is in charge - NOT fatalism
2 hours ago, Mike said:
Philosophy has a different kind of determinism. It is complicated, because it is focused on humans. I think this kind of determinism goes back to the ancient Greeks and Romans.
The kind of determinism that comes up in Neuroscience, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics is only 400 years old max, and it is VERY simple because it starts with INANIMATE objects, like billiard balls and atoms.
Here is a most simple example of this more simple kind of physics determinism, in all its glory and simplicity:
A train leaves NYC traveling at a constant 60 miles per hour. Assuming no interruptions and interventions, how far away is the train from NYC 2 hours later?
The train’s constant speed DETERMINES what the train’s location will be at that later time.
speed = distance/time
distance = speed x time
distance = 60 x 2 = 120 miles
When you see the "=" sign in those equations it can read this way:
The distance is determined by the train's speed multiplied by the time span.
It’s really that simple.
I always am referring to this second, simple, physics kind of determinism when discussing minFW, because I see free will as a natural function of the brain, just like other natural functions of the human body. Neuroscience leans on this same kind of determinism that I lean on.
My conclusion: Mike usually does not know what he's talking about - but he'll talk about it anyway.
When I think about - I wonder what motivates him to come here and preach about returning to PFAL or believing his nonsense about determinism. He's like a salesman who has no idea how the product or service that he's promoting works!
What motivates him? He certainly isn't getting a commission on sales - he hasn't made any sales to speak of!
Just as we don't expect the rules of quantum mechanics to apply to our level of reality,you can't apply inanimate rules to ANIMATE creatures.
That is what the debate is all about.
Science sez that you CAN apply the rules learned with inanimate objects to animate creatures.
Francis Crick's last book is titled "The Astonishing Hypothesis," and that hypothesis is that the inanimate rules DO APPLY to the brain and all that goes in in it. He was the main ring leader of the group I hung out with at UCSD. They all agree on this.
Hard-core science is looking at this brain situation as being natural, and that it is a very complicated mechanism, and that it is EVEN somewhat explainable.
Hard core science is very well lined up with the Bible and PFAL in looking at the human brain/mind as being natural and not supernatural, as being mortal, and as having no preeminence above the beasts.
Another line-up is both see man's opinion of the glory of his own consciousness as a giant confabulation. This is still developing in Neuroscience, but confabulation is a central player without doubt.
The Astonishing Hypothesis posits that "a person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them." Crick claims that scientific study of the brain during the 20th century led to acceptance of consciousness, free will, and the human soul as subjects for scientific investigation.
Did you know that the devil can whisper in YOUR ear, and make it sound like a good idea of your own, or a revelation from the True God?
We were taught that, and taught that often. I wonder if you remember.
There is one collateral where VPW teaches that TEN TIMES on just a few pages.
Ok....so....where do I begin with this contradictory bullshonta....
According to VPW and TWI: God who is spirit, can only communicate with what he is - spirit, so he gave holy spirit to people so he could talk to their spirit which in turn would teach their mind (still don't understand how my spirit can do what God Almight cannot ((communicate with flesh and blood)) but I digress). The devil according to TWI cannot communicate with holy spirit because it's a private line right to God Almighty....riddle me this neuro-science boy....how in the heck can the devil who is spirit whisper in anyone's ear --- I mean if God Almighty cannot communicate with anything but spirit then how come the devil gets direct flesh and blood ear access? How does that even happen...satan more able than God?...cause that's EXACTLY what you are saying when you follow your own way brained theology.
So if God granted satan ear whispering powers then out of justice and fairness why wouldn't God grant himself the same powers so he can whisper in the other ear? You coming up with this bullshonta from looney tunes?
yeah... I know this is from the NT Canon thread....this thread is so off topic anyway it shouldnt matter if Im quoting The Peanuts.
I stopped reading when I realized you had no idea how to actually write a formal discussion paper, but yet you expect people to understand what in the actual eff you are talking about.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
OldSkool
Man he really wants people to read what he self published here on GSC...lmao.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I don't get the last half of your last line. Is there a typo?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Working on a new theme song for this thread...ok...here goes...
Wasting away again in bullshonta-ville wondering why Mike thinks it's our fault...(c'mon..sing along)...that we don't understand what he means...but I know...it's his own dang fault...
By Jimmy Bullshonta...Bullshontaville.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I've been dealing with determinism since 1966.
What I really want, in directing people to my chapter 5 on determinism, is that you folks get up to speed a little bit. I get the feeling this is your first discussion on determinism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
There's no typo. The point is you can make predictions in the physical world because physical laws are pretty reliable, but the human element is much more random due to people's freedom of will.
Even in the physical world, however, unpredictability enters by way of quantum mechanics.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Ohhh..master Jedi Mike...we will never arrive at your level....it's determined
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
U really should get the feeling that I'm done taking u seriously. Troll away...it's all entertainment now....bullshonta malakas la seetay
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Sweet. This means I’m teaching freedom like it hasn’t been known since the 12th century.
Thx Mike I was totally unaware of how generationally inspiring I am in my magical mystery tour of the Bible outside fundamentalism.
But oh yes Eve and that apple. What is that again? I forget who teaches what theory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
What's that, useless knowledge? I mean Mikes giving us plenty of that so...works for me.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
h
Mostly all of quantum's unpredictability is for micro particles like electrons and protons. It evaporates when you get to larger systems, like atoms heavier than Hydrogen and Helium. The quantum lack of predictability smooths out in the world of stable atoms and chemistry which is where we live. We don't see ANY of that unpredictability; it's gone at our level.
Lack of predictability in humans is not necessarily due to free will.
There are FAR more variables to keep track of with humans, compared to simple atoms and molecules. This impedes predictability. There are many variables with humans we cannot measure, and many that we haven't even conceived of yet. Predicting human behavior, even for those humans without free will, is impossible.
Besides, I think most of the time will operate as very sophisticated robots. This is what sports is all about. Most of the time we don't need to make a free will decision. We rarely sign contracts that require lots of thinking. Most of our good behavior now is due to us learning, via free will, good habit patterns in the past. When we see a bad habit, that is the time we should be thinking of free will to change that bad habit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You’ve been coming here for 20 years - It’s the same old Bull-Shonta just a different year
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
As I pointed out earlier, that unpredictability doesn't evaporate, as you claim, it gets absorbed into other unpredictable things, which, on our level become a relitively large unpredictable thing.
Actually, unpredictability in human, doesgo back to free will, as free will is their ability to choose. They can choose contrary to what's predicted, hence free will leads to unpredictability.
Just because we don't use free will all the time doesn't mean it isn't an option.
People are more than sophisticated robots. Remember the ghost in the machine.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
My FIRST real discussion of determinism was in 1995. I was 19 in college. It was a philosophy class. We read St. Anselm, et al.
The class was not pedantic. It was exploratory. Challenging. Real discussions. It required rigorous examination of linguistic implications. Defining terms and assumptions. Questions and answers and questions. Honest, critical examinations. It was mind-expanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Philosophy has a different kind of determinism. It is complicated, because it is focused on humans. I think this kind of determinism goes back to the ancient Greeks and Romans.
The kind of determinism that comes up in Neuroscience, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics is only 400 years old max, and it is VERY simple because it starts with INANIMATE objects, like billiard balls and atoms.
Here is a most simple example of this more simple kind of physics determinism, in all its glory and simplicity:
A train leaves NYC traveling at a constant 60 miles per hour. Assuming no interruptions and interventions, how far away is the train from NYC 2 hours later?
The train’s constant speed DETERMINES what the train’s location will be at that later time.
speed = distance/time
distance = speed x time
distance = 60 x 2 = 120 miles
When you see the "=" sign in those equations it can read this way:
The distance is determined by the train's speed multiplied by the time span.
It’s really that simple.
I always am referring to this second, simple, physics kind of determinism when discussing minFW, because I see free will as a natural function of the brain, just like other natural functions of the human body. Neuroscience leans on this same kind of determinism that I lean on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That is at the heart of my switch 9 years ago: the ghost in the machine.
I took the tip from VPW that natural man had free will to get born again and applied it to this free will theory of mine. That means I am looking at SOUL as existing in the natural realm, not in the spiritual realm.
I think people with spirit are much more than sophisticated robots.
But a soul is not immortal, and man has no preeminence above the beasts, which have soul also.
Soul houses the mind, but without spirit, that is just a natural man mind, it is a subject of the adversary's, which is not all that special....compared to a body,soul, spirit being's mind.
Fighting off bigotry, remember that a body and soul man may get born again tomorrow, and that Jesus died for all body and soul people.
I love soul, but I see it as a natural thing, not a supernaturally un-explainable thing. Natural things seem to yield to some sort of understanding by science, and I think the brain and decisions will be shown to be wonderfully complicated mechanisms someday. Lots of the mechanisms of the body are astoundingly complex and beautiful. Soul is probably the most beautiful.
Natural as it is, soul can love with phileo and want to do better.
When a natural man has spiritual hunger, moving with free will and seeking God is sure to connect. How could God miss someone seeking Him?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
First logical error.
A specific cannot become a universal
Just as we don't expect the rules of quantum mechanics to apply to our level of reality,you can't apply inanimate rules to ANIMATE creatures.
Oxygen and hydrogen have no choice in becoming water.
However a man can choose whether to use his car to take children to Sunday school or be a wheel man in a bank robbery.
The rules are different.
Again, you trying to shoehorn in something that has nothing to do with what you're trying to prove.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Which is where you get that awful attitude that "natural man" is some type of inferioir product. Hey....wtf is the spiritual realm? Where is it? How can you quantify it? What is soul and don't give me nephesh chai or breath life....Ive heard all the definitions before. But how can you quantify either one? Point is, for the scientific REALM you can't. So you are completely wasting your own time and the time of anyone else reading this bullshonta.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The above post and most of the posts below are Mike's statements on the NT canon thread. This is to show the incoherence of Mike's belief system.
For example, in the above post Mike suggested that it's possible the devil can whisper in your ear,and he also mentions revelation from the true God.
How does that square with determinism?
~ ~ ~ ~
The same with this next post of Mike's: what he says goes counter to determinism which is that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.
~ ~ ~ ~
Determinism is nullified in the following post of Mike's - because if God can direct by revelation or intervene then the result cannot be attributed to determinism
~ ~ ~ ~
It's the same idea in Mike's next post that contradicts his hypothesis on determinism; if God is able to work with individuals - then there are TWO variables that DO NOT FIT with his hypothesis on this thread - that being:
1. God - NOT fate, NOT determinism
2. man having free will - to respond to God - - or choosing NOT to respond to God:
~ ~ ~ ~
In Mike's post here, he skirts around the issue of being condescending by saying it's too complicated to explain why he's being that way. It seems to me he's spun himself such a web of lies and nonsense that even he can't untangle it.
Mike seems to operate this way most of the time; he comes on Grease Spot preaching we should return to PFAL, we forgot all the good things, we missed the good stuff, blah blah blah. When anyone pins him down on being specific - like WHAT good things - he avoids direct converstaion
~ ~ ~ ~
Now mind you, most of these posts were on the NT canon thread - all the Grease Spotters posting dealt with facts, historical evidence, ancient manuscripts, even documents written by early church leaders concerning the NT docs - all Grease Spotters EXCEPT for Mike.
He posits his own "bottoms-up approach" and childish literary structures that observe nothing more than a break in verses - i.e., abababababab
I'm pointing this out because - whether intentional or not, it appears Mike is incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction on something as tangible as ancient manuscripts that are still in existence/historical evidence - and the fiction of his own imagination that seems to defy the accessible evidence...so why should I think he has a bead on intangibles like determinism and free will?
~ ~ ~ ~
In the following post Mike talks about God's justice seeming to be in the future. The idea behind determinism is that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice. determinism noun The property of having behavior determined only by initial state and input...therefore there is no God - no sovereignty of a God who is all-powerful and all-knowing!
~ ~ ~ ~
My comments end with this last post of Mike's on this thread - as a follow-up to what I said to Mike earlier - besides his "postulates" lacking internal coherency - they also contradict what he has said on other threads where he has referenced PFAL, wierwille, or the Bible to claim that God is in charge - NOT fatalism
My conclusion: Mike usually does not know what he's talking about - but he'll talk about it anyway.
When I think about - I wonder what motivates him to come here and preach about returning to PFAL or believing his nonsense about determinism. He's like a salesman who has no idea how the product or service that he's promoting works!
What motivates him? He certainly isn't getting a commission on sales - he hasn't made any sales to speak of!
I don't know.
Edited by T-Bonerevision of my vision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That is what the debate is all about.
Science sez that you CAN apply the rules learned with inanimate objects to animate creatures.
Francis Crick's last book is titled "The Astonishing Hypothesis," and that hypothesis is that the inanimate rules DO APPLY to the brain and all that goes in in it. He was the main ring leader of the group I hung out with at UCSD. They all agree on this.
Hard-core science is looking at this brain situation as being natural, and that it is a very complicated mechanism, and that it is EVEN somewhat explainable.
Hard core science is very well lined up with the Bible and PFAL in looking at the human brain/mind as being natural and not supernatural, as being mortal, and as having no preeminence above the beasts.
Another line-up is both see man's opinion of the glory of his own consciousness as a giant confabulation. This is still developing in Neuroscience, but confabulation is a central player without doubt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Wiki Synopsis of Francis Crick's last book:
The Astonishing Hypothesis posits that "a person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them." Crick claims that scientific study of the brain during the 20th century led to acceptance of consciousness, free will, and the human soul as subjects for scientific investigation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Astonishing_Hypothesis
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It would help our discussion if you did read it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Ok....so....where do I begin with this contradictory bullshonta....
According to VPW and TWI: God who is spirit, can only communicate with what he is - spirit, so he gave holy spirit to people so he could talk to their spirit which in turn would teach their mind (still don't understand how my spirit can do what God Almight cannot ((communicate with flesh and blood)) but I digress). The devil according to TWI cannot communicate with holy spirit because it's a private line right to God Almighty....riddle me this neuro-science boy....how in the heck can the devil who is spirit whisper in anyone's ear --- I mean if God Almighty cannot communicate with anything but spirit then how come the devil gets direct flesh and blood ear access? How does that even happen...satan more able than God?...cause that's EXACTLY what you are saying when you follow your own way brained theology.
So if God granted satan ear whispering powers then out of justice and fairness why wouldn't God grant himself the same powers so he can whisper in the other ear? You coming up with this bullshonta from looney tunes?
yeah... I know this is from the NT Canon thread....this thread is so off topic anyway it shouldnt matter if Im quoting The Peanuts.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I stopped reading when I realized you had no idea how to actually write a formal discussion paper, but yet you expect people to understand what in the actual eff you are talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.