Yeah...there is a key marker....I have REPUDIATED a very high percentage of wierwilles bullshonta...did you notice this is an anti-way international site? Or did you think you were on a class break doing blab school?
Again, an affirmative indicator of Mike's INTENT to hijack this entire website for his own narcissistic purposes.
Well maybe thousands if you add them up all around the world.
My math shows about 8000 spread across all (without exception or distinction) fifty states.
It's a rough mathematical sketch. One, not me, might call it a beta model. The formulation is based on the six (6) adherents (two of them Corps from the late '70s) in my metro area of 250,000, assuming the U.S. population is 332,000,000.
My math shows about 8000 spread across all (without exception or distinction) fifty states.
It's a rough mathematical sketch. One, not me, might call it a beta model. The formulation is based on the six (6) adherents (two of them Corps from the late '70s) in my metro area of 250,000, assuming the U.S. population is 332,000,000.
Impressive...the force is strong with this one....copycatism is the highest form of bullshonta...lmao....seriously...GREAT POST ...malaka see tay
Thebrainis 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.
Ah yes professor Mike has summed up his wisdom for us with some mental constructions of years of brainwashing with this gem.
From the Bible? No
From science? Pseudoscience
From The Secret? Same pseudoscience law of attraction. But no.
From Buddhism? Well the idea of getting past the surface senses and thoughts down to the believing center of the mind is very similar to the 5 dusts, 6 roots to get past to get to a center to imprint believing on. Funny. But VP would never pass basic 5 Buddhist precepts of abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and intoxication. So no definitely not Buddhist lol.
Pay attention guys apparently you can feed ur brain stuff. Ground breaking.
Physics in the early 1800s seemed to deny free will, as it had been defined for centuries prior. But Neuroscience then was non-existent. Only Philosophy had ever talked about free will till then. Some philosophers gave up on free will and some tried to rescue it. This went on for 200 years, and then came along Neuroscience, where more hard scientists started thinking about the science of the brain. Still, Neuroscience has a long way to go in getting any real handle on how decisions are made in the brain, but at least it is getting lots of thought by hard core scientists.
Like the philosophers, some have abandoned free will, and some have stood up for it.
So far it looks like the old classical definition for free will be destroyed by Neuroscience as it develops.Unless a new angle on free will is developed, or a new WORKABLE definition is given, I feel scientists will more and more come out with announcements that they no longer hole any free will beliefs.
While there are many reasons to believe that a person’s will is not completely free of influence, there is not a scientific consensus against free will.
Some use the term “free will” in a looser sense to reflect that conscious decisions play a role in the outcomes of a person’s life—even if those are shaped by innate dispositions or randomness. (Critics of the concept of free will might simply call this kind of decision-making “will,” or volition.) Even when unconscious processes help determine a person’s conscious behavior, some argue, such processes can still be thought of as part of an individual’s will. …
Right.Most see that free will is not complete freedom, but don’t know what to do about it.A smaller number are actively pursuing ways to preserve some sort of free will, and another smaller (but growing) number feel that free will needs to be completely jettisoned from thought.
Is belief in free will necessary for moral behavior?
That is being hotly debated by scientists and philosophers and political activists.Many are outraged that justice systems are not keeping up with advances in science and are fundamentally unfair.Both sides have strong arguments.My bet is that God did give us humans, even natural man, the ability (or freedom) to both learn and make better decisions.In my theory, minFW is really just complicated learning.
One idea proposed in philosophy is that systems of morality would collapse without a common belief that each person is responsible for his actions—and thus deserves reward or punishment for them. In this view, there is value in maintaining belief in free will, even if free will is in fact an illusion. Others argue that morality can exist in the absence of free-will belief, or that belief in free will actually promotes harmful outcomes such as intolerance and revenge-seeking. Some psychology research has been cited as suggesting that disbelief in free will increases dishonest behavior, but subsequent experiments have called this finding into question…
Right.
Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.[1][2] Add to the end of this “, and un-forced.”
Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, culpability, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not are some of the longest running debates of philosophy and religion. Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes.
The whole issue of credit and blame comes up in free will debates, especially when political activists are participating.
Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices undetermined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with a libertarian model of free will.[3] Ancient Greek philosophy identified this issue,[4] which remains a major focus of philosophical debate. The view that conceives free will as incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism (the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible) and hard determinism (the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible). Incompatibilism also encompasses hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but also indeterminism to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case may be regarding determinism.
The big tug of war here is between determinism and the OLD DEFINITION of free will.Determinism is winning in the minds of scientists.
M: Physics in the early 1800s seemed to deny free will, as it had been defined for centuries prior. But Neuroscience then was non-existent. Only Philosophy had ever talked about free will till then. Some philosophers gave up on free will and some tried to rescue it. This went on for 200 years, and then came along Neuroscience, where more hard scientists started thinking about the science of the brain. Still, Neuroscience has a long way to go in getting any real handle on how decisions are made in the brain, but at least it is getting lots of thought by hard core scientists.
T: And besides your myopic musings - how decisions are made has been the subject of religions, philosophers, historians, political scientists, economists, statisticians, behavioral psychologists, anthropologists, military strategists, linguistic experts, managers, marketing strategists, etc.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: Like the philosophers, some have abandoned free will, and some have stood up for it.
T: who cares?
~ ~ ~ ~
M: So far it looks like the old classical definition for free will be destroyed by Neuroscience as it develops.Unless a new angle on free will is developed, or a new WORKABLE definition is given, I feel scientists will more and more come out with announcements that they no longer hole any free will beliefs.
T: who says – besides you? YOUR goofy definitions given do NOT appear to be workable.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: Most see that free will is not complete freedom, but don’t know what to do about it.A smaller number are actively pursuing ways to preserve some sort of free will, and another smaller (but growing) number feel that free will needs to be completely jettisoned from thought.
T: you talk in such a vague manner…you’re NOT saying anything but fluff
~ ~ ~ ~
M: That is being hotly debated by scientists and philosophers and political activists.Many are outraged that justice systems are not keeping up with advances in science and are fundamentally unfair.Both sides have strong arguments.My bet is that God did give us humans, even natural man, the ability (or freedom) to both learn and make better decisions.In my theory, minFW is really just complicated learning.
T: YOURtheory presented here is an overcomplicated convoluted mess.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: The whole issue of credit and blame comes up in free will debates, especially when political activists are participating.
T: responsibility in any context is important
~ ~ ~ ~
M: The big tug of war here is between determinism and the OLD DEFINITION of free will.Determinism is winning in the minds of scientists.
Ah yes professor Mike has summed up his wisdom for us with some mental constructions of years of brainwashing with this gem.
From the Bible? No
Actually, I was leaning on Romans chapter 10 for this believing machine terminology.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
This is what I was thinking (from the "PFAL sucks" thread) of and why you'd like Sam Harris:
Right. Undecided. That day I leaned toward determinism. Today I lean toward compatibility. I haven't taken a position. I don't think it's a trivial issue. I don't know. The not knowing doesn't bother me.
I've been familiar with Dan Dennett and Sam Harris since before you learned to spell Dan and Sam.
Actually, I was leaning on Romans chapter 10 for this believing machine terminology.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
And yet, in the scripture there seems to easily be evident that “machine” is something you inserted in there. It’s not in the text literally or conceptually.
What do you understand the word faith to mean that you highlighted there?
The human body is like a most intricate machine. That is the whole attitude of modern medicine.
I understand that word to be pistis.
And yet the human body is not used by God as a model to teach faith as a believing machine. The human body is used by God to teach the unity in the church through His Son modeled as the body of Christ.
Something that PFAL has missed for more years than you have washed your brain with it.
Jesus told the apostles to breathe in, the text says breathe on. There's nothing about the holy spirit giving you the words or you move your lips and vocal cord.
There's also a passage in Act that describes the sound as a great rushing wind which Saint Vic interpreted as the apostles breathing.
Thebrainis 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.
And naturally you feed your brain good stuff about us at GSC, right?
That's why your always accusing us of being hostile toward you.
Jesus told the apostles to breathe in, the text says breathe on. There's nothing about the holy spirit giving you the words or you move your lips and vocal cord.
There's also a passage in Act that describes the sound as a great rushing wind which Saint Vic interpreted as the apostles breathing.
My math shows about 8000 spread across all (without exception or distinction) fifty states.
It's a rough mathematical sketch. One, not me, might call it a beta model. The formulation is based on the six (6) adherents (two of them Corps from the late '70s) in my metro area of 250,000, assuming the U.S. population is 332,000,000.
Those way ambassadors gotta step it up.
They are a few million behind the JWs Watchtower copy distribution.
You fed your mind other things as well that competed with the PFAL story.
As did every other person who sat through the class, including yourself.
Your statement, "Thebrainis essentially a believing machine. It believes any story you feed it.", is utter nonsense and defies rational thought. Do you ever get dizzy from trying to spin this garbage?
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
Rocky
Again, an affirmative indicator of Mike's INTENT to hijack this entire website for his own narcissistic purposes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Further indication of Mike's INTENTION to commandeer GSC for his own purposes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I don't commandeer anything.
I am just one voice here, and I get buried in other posts within minutes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Here's: passive....aggressive will return shortly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
My math shows about 8000 spread across all (without exception or distinction) fifty states.
It's a rough mathematical sketch. One, not me, might call it a beta model. The formulation is based on the six (6) adherents (two of them Corps from the late '70s) in my metro area of 250,000, assuming the U.S. population is 332,000,000.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Impressive...the force is strong with this one....copycatism is the highest form of bullshonta...lmao....seriously...GREAT POST ...malaka see tay
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Mogadishu!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Ah yes professor Mike has summed up his wisdom for us with some mental constructions of years of brainwashing with this gem.
From the Bible? No
From science? Pseudoscience
From The Secret? Same pseudoscience law of attraction. But no.
From Buddhism? Well the idea of getting past the surface senses and thoughts down to the believing center of the mind is very similar to the 5 dusts, 6 roots to get past to get to a center to imprint believing on. Funny. But VP would never pass basic 5 Buddhist precepts of abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and intoxication. So no definitely not Buddhist lol.
Pay attention guys apparently you can feed ur brain stuff. Ground breaking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
M: Physics in the early 1800s seemed to deny free will, as it had been defined for centuries prior. But Neuroscience then was non-existent. Only Philosophy had ever talked about free will till then. Some philosophers gave up on free will and some tried to rescue it. This went on for 200 years, and then came along Neuroscience, where more hard scientists started thinking about the science of the brain. Still, Neuroscience has a long way to go in getting any real handle on how decisions are made in the brain, but at least it is getting lots of thought by hard core scientists.
T: And besides your myopic musings - how decisions are made has been the subject of religions, philosophers, historians, political scientists, economists, statisticians, behavioral psychologists, anthropologists, military strategists, linguistic experts, managers, marketing strategists, etc.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: Like the philosophers, some have abandoned free will, and some have stood up for it.
T: who cares?
~ ~ ~ ~
M: So far it looks like the old classical definition for free will be destroyed by Neuroscience as it develops. Unless a new angle on free will is developed, or a new WORKABLE definition is given, I feel scientists will more and more come out with announcements that they no longer hole any free will beliefs.
T: who says – besides you? YOUR goofy definitions given do NOT appear to be workable.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: Most see that free will is not complete freedom, but don’t know what to do about it. A smaller number are actively pursuing ways to preserve some sort of free will, and another smaller (but growing) number feel that free will needs to be completely jettisoned from thought.
T: you talk in such a vague manner…you’re NOT saying anything but fluff
~ ~ ~ ~
M: That is being hotly debated by scientists and philosophers and political activists. Many are outraged that justice systems are not keeping up with advances in science and are fundamentally unfair. Both sides have strong arguments. My bet is that God did give us humans, even natural man, the ability (or freedom) to both learn and make better decisions. In my theory, minFW is really just complicated learning.
T: YOUR theory presented here is an overcomplicated convoluted mess.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: The whole issue of credit and blame comes up in free will debates, especially when political activists are participating.
T: responsibility in any context is important
~ ~ ~ ~
M: The big tug of war here is between determinism and the OLD DEFINITION of free will. Determinism is winning in the minds of scientists.
T: where’s the data to support your statement?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Actually, I was leaning on Romans chapter 10 for this believing machine terminology.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Right. Undecided. That day I leaned toward determinism. Today I lean toward compatibility. I haven't taken a position. I don't think it's a trivial issue. I don't know. The not knowing doesn't bother me.
I've been familiar with Dan Dennett and Sam Harris since before you learned to spell Dan and Sam.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And yet, in the scripture there seems to easily be evident that “machine” is something you inserted in there. It’s not in the text literally or conceptually.
What do you understand the word faith to mean that you highlighted there?
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Don't I recall something from the class? Add a word, change a word, turn the whole thing around?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Can no one point me to the verses in the Bible (any version, any translation) where Jesus is teaching how (H-O-W) to speak in tongues?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The human body is like a most intricate machine. That is the whole attitude of modern medicine.
I understand that word to be pistis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And yet the human body is not used by God as a model to teach faith as a believing machine. The human body is used by God to teach the unity in the church through His Son modeled as the body of Christ.
Something that PFAL has missed for more years than you have washed your brain with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Jesus told the apostles to breathe in, the text says breathe on. There's nothing about the holy spirit giving you the words or you move your lips and vocal cord.
There's also a passage in Act that describes the sound as a great rushing wind which Saint Vic interpreted as the apostles breathing.
@Nathan_Jr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And naturally you feed your brain good stuff about us at GSC, right?
That's why your always accusing us of being hostile toward you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thanks, Socrates.
Gosh, this doesn't sound like anyone teaching how (H-O-W). But, Hey! Anyone can make it MEAN anything they want. Glove fitting.
This is in Acts, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
That would be a negative ghost rider because he never himself did it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Uh-oh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Those way ambassadors gotta step it up.
They are a few million behind the JWs Watchtower copy distribution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
As did every other person who sat through the class, including yourself.
Your statement, "The brain is essentially a believing machine. It believes any story you feed it.", is utter nonsense and defies rational thought. Do you ever get dizzy from trying to spin this garbage?
Edited by waysiderspelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So a believing machine eh?
cranks out whatever you put in.
the Cherokee call that the two wolves story
https://www.claritychi.com/the-cherokee-two-wolves-story-and-the-power-of-mindset/amp/
same metaphysics different story.
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.