At best you won't decode him. You'll offer an opinion on what you think he's saying. Remember all those term papers and dissertations on what the white whale in Moby Dick means?
And, in all probability, he probably writes that way because he's trying to give himself wiggle room if somebody challenges him.
People also often write word salad style so people will read into the text what they want to read into the text.
Writers with nothing to hide, hide nothing. They write clearly and to the point.
Oh, and also, experience teaches me, writers trying to snow you try to add in extraneous details that have nothing to do with the point, this makes there work far longer than it should be. As a general rule: the more padding, the longer the post; the longer the post and the further off point, the greater the snow job. There are exceptions.
In my opinion, that's one of the best and most concise statements on classic bull-Shonta I've ever read.
At best you won't decode him. You'll offer an opinion on what you think he's saying. Remember all those term papers and dissertations on what the white whale in Moby Dick means?
And, in all probability, he probably writes that way because he's trying to give himself wiggle room if somebody challenges him.
People also often write word salad style so people will read into the text what they want to read into the text.
Writers with nothing to hide, hide nothing. They write clearly and to the point.
Oh, and also, experience teaches me, writers trying to snow you try to add in extraneous details that have nothing to do with the point, this makes there work far longer than it should be. As a general rule: the more padding, the longer the post; the longer the post and the further off point, the greater the snow job. There are exceptions.
The following nonsense was inspired by a real post (see above)
The Enigma Machine is a cipher device developed and used in the early- to mid-20th century to protect commercial, diplomatic, and military communication. It was employed extensively by Nazi Germany during World War II, in all branches of the German military. The Enigma machine was considered so secure that it was used to encipher the most top-secret messages
Now there’sthe word-salad-shooter - Professional edition - so you can publish the bull-Shonta anywhere for free!
Call now to avoid the Ho Ho Relo rush, operators who are operated by all 9 decibel spirits are standing by
These are awesome, logical, straight forward, on-topic questions that will never be honestly answered by mike (which obviously you know - Im just auditioning for Cpt Obvious). I boldfaced the reasons why where I quoted you below to continue my obviousness.
I know OS that they're obvious statements.
But then, if you were like me, when you were little you always checked under your bed for monsters. You obviously knew that you just looking at the monster wouldn't stop it from hurting you. Your real motivation was you wanted it to know you knew it was there.
These are awesome, logical, straight forward, on-topic questions that will never be honestly answered by mike (which obviously you know - Im just auditioning for Cpt Obvious). I boldfaced the reasons why where I quoted you below to continue my obviousness.
I know OS that they're obvious statements.
But then, if you were like me, when you were little you always checked under your bed for monsters. You obviously knew that you just looking at the monster wouldn't stop it from hurting you. Your real motivation was you wanted it to know you knew it was there.
These are awesome, logical, straight forward, on-topic questions that will never be honestly answered by mike (which obviously you know - Im just auditioning for Cpt Obvious). I boldfaced the reasons why where I quoted you below to continue my obviousness.
I know OS that they're obvious statements.
But then, if you were like me, when you were little you always checked under your bed for monsters. You obviously knew that you just looking at the monster wouldn't stop it from hurting you. Your real motivation was you wanted it to know you knew it was there.
These are awesome, logical, straight forward, on-topic questions that will never be honestly answered by mike (which obviously you know - Im just auditioning for Cpt Obvious). I boldfaced the reasons why where I quoted you below to continue my obviousness.
I know OS that they're obvious statements.
But then, if you were like me, when you were little you always checked under your bed for monsters. You obviously knew that you just looking at the monster wouldn't stop it from hurting you. Your real motivation was you wanted it to know you knew it was there.
These are awesome, logical, straight forward, on-topic questions that will never be honestly answered by mike (which obviously you know - Im just auditioning for Cpt Obvious). I boldfaced the reasons why where I quoted you below to continue my obviousness.
I know OS that they're obvious statements.
But then, if you were like me, when you were little you always checked under your bed for monsters. You obviously knew that you just looking at the monster wouldn't stop it from hurting you. Your real motivation was you wanted it to know you knew it was there.
But then, if you were like me, when you were little you always checked under your bed for monsters. You obviously knew that you just looking at the monster wouldn't stop it from hurting you. Your real motivation was you wanted it to know you knew it was there.
I totally get it...Im still checking under there at times to this day...
My apologies, my intent was lost in cyberspace. You questions are awesome, not obvious. I was referring to myself stating the painfully obvious that mike would never shoot a straight answer...he will most likely try and bury them in bullshonta.
My apologies, my intent was lost in cyberspace. You questions are awesome, not obvious. I was referring to myself stating the painfully obvious that mike would never shoot a straight answer...he will most likely try and bury them in bullshonta.
Sorry the editor part of the software didn't take me to the next page, like it usually does and I thought it didn't render.
All I can do is request the mod on duty delete the duplicates.
if cyberspace hands you a lemon you can always make orange juice
you could go back into each duplicate - delete everything and in its place put a snazzy one-liner
or do a series of interconnected one-liners - the final one being the punchline - something I learned from a class ...it's called So_crates buildup
~ ~ ~ ~
what works for me is AFTER I submitted my post - I click on the refresh button (I'm using Microsoft Edge browser - refresh button is on the top left of the toolbar) - if I don't my post will show up in the middle of older posts.
No offense Mike, but I like to “read it in the original”. I can follow along with Dennett just fine…Your stuff is a mess!
I find that difficult to believe, but if true, I’d be VERY happy to have a summary from you how his ideas work in that book.
I mentioned in my Dennett chapter that I have NEVER found anyone who could explain “Elbow Room” to me.It is a well known enigma in the academic world, due to Dennett’s great clarity and popularity for other topics.
Can you give me pages where Dennett says if he believes in determinism or not?Can you give me the pages where Dennett says if he believes in Libertarian Free Will or not?Ican find those answers in his videos, but can’t in his books, though “Freedom Evolves” is a lot more clear on the determinism issue.
Can I ask you other questions about “Elbow Room” ?
*/*/*/*
Dennett needs to be decoded, IMO, because for decades NO ONE I know has been able to explain in any detail (to me) how his theory on free will works. Just the opposite has often occurred: many good thinkers have told me they are baffled by his free will theories.
My history with Dennett’s FW theory goes way back to the mid-1990s when I attempted to read his first edition (1984) of “Elbow Room.” Looking back on that, I see my path with his FW theory over the decades as confused and strewn with misunderstandings and miscommunications.…mostly my fault
Nonetheless, Dennett has also guided and helped me along that path as I produced my theory on FW. I did glean many items from his writings, but have not yet fully seen the “big picture” of what he has in print. It is only in recent years that I have found in Dennett’s videos a much clearer presentation on some of the ideas, compared to his books.
*/*/*
I saw Dennett speak at UCSD around 1995 when he was a guest speaker at the Philosophy Department. He had a bestselling book out at the time, “Consciousness Explained” and everyone had been avidly reading it.
The topic of free will did not come up much in that book, but he was so good in explaining things that I wanted to see him and find out more. I wondered if he had worked on free will much.The grad students in attendance that I asked this question of said, “Yeah, he has a book called ‘Elbow Room,’ but nobody understands it.”
I got a copy right away. I probably did a much better job of not understanding Elbow Room (ER) than those grad students. …LoL… I did get one thing, though, that totally stuck with me. It’s the subtitle of the book, and some of the references DD made to it in the bewildering text within:
“The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting”
It had not occurred to me then, that there were alternate varieties of free will out there to compare. Slowly, after that, over the decades I have come to realize that most ideas on free will are tainted by old religion, and then glamorized with modern secular and metaphysical terms, only to be something far removed from actual real life.
So, I first started my attempt to “crack the Dennett code” in the mid-1990s, with minimal success. But quickly, I also did savor the wonderful notion that we should pursue the types of free will in our theorizing that are “worth wanting.”
*/*/*/*/*
If you decide to look at Elbow Room again, you may find these workarounds to his dense text style helpful.This is just an outline and each item is expanded in my chapter 4.
Item #1-Pro Determinism, Anti LibFW
Item #2- New Edition to “Elbow Room”
Item #3- Timing is Everything
Item #4- Videos Help
Item #5- Third Party Help
Item #6-Dennett Teases
Item #7-Robotic Performance Denial
Item #8- Label Confusion
Item #9- Dennett’s Bait and Switch
Item #10 - Dennett-Harris Debate
*/*/*/*
If you want to check my text here is where that chapter are in this thread:
Your tome brings about a few interesting question:
If the determinism of the universe stated man did not receive spirit (at least for a time) what changed that allowed Jesus Christ to get spirit?
If Jesus Christ was a natural man, and as you've stated previously, Natural man is like a beast, the how did he get the free will to do what he had to do to get spirit? If Christ got spirit through water baptism, why don't we?
If God can only communicate with what he is, spirit, how did He impregnate Mary?
Angels communicated with Joseph telling him not to worry about Mary, does this mean angels are more powerful than God, as they didn't need the spirit-spirit connection?
If the determinism of the universe stated man did not receive spirit (at least for a time) what changed that allowed Jesus Christ to get spirit?
The determinism of the universe never stated that, that I know of. Determinism is a 5-senses thing, as is science.They are “ignorant” of all things spiritual. Spirit never comes up in scientific discussions about determinism.
I believe Jesus got spirit the same way any other humans got spirit upon them, prior to Pentecost: he prepared his mind for it and was willing to do the work.
In the OT it says that if God had His way, all of Israel could have spirit and be able to prophesy. He was willing and able, and Jesus was ready to receive it.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
If Jesus Christ was a natural man, and as you've stated previously, Natural man is like a beast, the how did he get the free will to do what he had to do to get spirit? If Christ got spirit through water baptism, why don't we?
Jesus was a man of body and soul prior to his baptism like natural man, but he was NOT of the lineage of Adam, and not owned by the adversary like all other body and soul humans.So, I hesitate to call him a natural man, in that sense.
Either way, he had a human body and that includes all the DNA that grows a brain with decision abilities, and learning abilities, and eventually with some form of Biological free will, which I think may be minFW.This is a natural process.It works in spite of natural men being Biblical brute beasts.
Animals have soul, and they can make decisions, and they can learn. These abilities are severely muted in animals compared to humans, so if animals could have any minFW, it would be VERY, VERY minimal.
I don’t know of Jesus getting spirit from water baptism, but it does happen around that same time… just after I think. I think he got it by believing and wanting it.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
If God can only communicate with what he is, spirit, how did He impregnate Mary?
I am proposing a major SUPPLEMENT for the class, to better explain this idea that God cannot communicate with man any other way than by spirit.I think nearly everyone gets this wrong, so it should be amended in the way the class is run.
I would add this to the class coordinator’s syllabus to be read to students or handed out in printed form.
God cannot REALLY communicate with man without spirit.
God wants deep, detailed, involved discussion with His kids, and that can only be done via spirit.It is much like how “No man can REALLY say that Jesus is Lord, but by holy spirit.”
Any natural man can say “Jesus is Lord” but that is a crude mouthing of it only, with no depth and heart behind it. To REALLY say Jesus is Lord mean to do it spiritually, like the Father seeks, via S.I.T.
Similarly, God can do all sorts of phenomena to get some small point across.
He used phenomena that the children of Israel without spirit could see, but with Moses, who had spirit the communication was rich and detailed, and a two-way conversation at times.With most phenomena that is able to get the attention of a natural man, it also freaks them out, which cuts down on the quality of communication.
But with Mary, I think she had spirit.Mary’s family had intense believers in it, with angelic visitations, a miraculous pregnancy, and John the Baptist having spirit in the womb.It looks to me that both cousin Elizabeth and Mary prophesied.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Angels communicated with Joseph telling him not to worry about Mary, does this mean angels are more powerful than God, as they didn't need the spirit-spirit connection?
God often used angels to do His bidding in the OT and a little in the NT.
This needed spirit-spirit connection is for RICH communication I explained above.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
At best you won't decode him [Dennett]. You'll offer an opinion on what you think he's saying. Remember all those term papers and dissertations on what the white whale in Moby Dick means? … And, in all probability, he probably writes that way because he's trying to give himself wiggle room if somebody challenges him. … People also often write word salad style so people will read into the text what they want to read into the text. …Writers with nothing to hide, hide nothing. They write clearly and to the point. …Top of Form
I mentioned that I am not sure at all what he saying, just guessing in places, and getting some of those guesses confirmed by his videos.
As far as Dennett giving himself some wiggle room, there may be something to that.There are two angles to this.
The first angle comes from the history of the book.
Dennett teases by not revealing his hand very clearly until late in Elbow RoomR. (This seems less the case in Freedom Evolves.)
After seeing his strategy and his admissions, another piece fell into place from a clue in the Preface to Elbow Room. The chapters of that book originally were individual lectures held at Oxford University, famously called the John Locke Lectures.
As a guest speaker he surely wanted his audience to attend every lecture. Planning his lectures must have included a strong element of wanting to keep the audience coming back after the first lecture. The best way to do that is to not tell the whole story that first night, but dangle some bait, a teaser to keep interest at its highest.
So, the early chapters are very far from explanations of DD’s theory, and instead he spends a lot of time on every other thinker’s approach to free will. He seems to be trying to cover the whole subject, including its historic dead ends.
On a completely different perspective about Dennett’s brand of FW, is my guess that he may actually offer no model of how his brand of FW (DenFW) works. Instead of proposing a model that incorporates his brand of DenFW, Dennett seems to merely be discussing the POSSIBILITY of such a model existing.
The key to remember with this item is that a reader can’t expect Dennett to QUICKLY lay out a blueprint for making his version of FW happen. On that point I tried my best to differ from him, and bring as early as possible the strange timing aspects of minFW.
The OTHER ANGLE to Dennett’s holding his cards close to the vest is computer phobia.I dared to come out in my Chapter 3 that I am proposing that in sense we are just robots, VERY sophisticated ones.I am able to talk this way in this Century because of the great advances and great expectations in A.I. compared to when Dennett was preparing his lectures in early 1980s.Computer phobia, fired by the 1968 movie “2001 A Space Odyssey,” was a big deal in our culture.I feel Dennett may have held back to avoid freaking people out.
YOU believe wierwille’s claim that God would teach him “The Word” like it hasn’t been known since the 1st century
YOU believe it’s okay for wierwille to have unabashedly plagiarized the work of others
YOU believe wierwille was a good person for teaching the PFAL class – even though it was plagiarized material
YOU believe it was okay for wierwille to sexually assault women just because he’s wierwille and gets a free pass.
And yet as impossible as it might sound - me owning a book by Daniel Dennett and being able to follow along with him - you find thathard to believe? Well, that’s just great Mike – I can see you’re a person who has intellectual standards that must be met.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
but if true, I’d be VERY happy to have a summary from you how his ideas work in that book.
Well… don’t hold your breath
I’m sure YOU would be VERY happy to get someone to respond to you acting like a troll
But I realized on the NT canon thread- Here it’s pointless to try and communicate with you ON ANYTHING
Rather than summarize anything, I will just copy and paste someone's earlier post that encapsulated what a troll does:
Signs Someone Is Trolling
It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.
Off-topic remarks: Completely going off-topic from the subject at hand. This is done to annoy and disrupt other posters.
Refusal to acknowledge evidence: Even when presented with hard, cold facts, they ignore this and pretend like they never saw it.
Dismissive, condescending tone: An early indicator of a troll was that they would ask an angry responder, “Why you mad, bro?” This is a method done to provoke someone even more, as a way of dismissing their argument altogether.
Use of unrelated images or memes: They reply to others with memes, images, and gifs. This is especially true if done in response to a very long text post.
Seeming obliviousness: They seem oblivious that most people are in disagreement with them. Also, trolls rarely get mad or provoked.
The list above is by no means definitive. There are a lot of other ways to identify that someone is trolling. Generally, if someone seems disingenuous, uninterested in a real discussion, and provocative on purpose, they’re likely an internet troll.
Edited by T-Bone Signs someone is acting like an editor
I find that difficult to believe, but if true, I’d be VERY happy to have a summary from you how his ideas work in that book.
I mentioned in my Dennett chapter that I have NEVER found anyone who could explain “Elbow Room” to me.It is a well known enigma in the academic world, due to Dennett’s great clarity and popularity for other topics.
Can you give me pages where Dennett says if he believes in determinism or not?Can you give me the pages where Dennett says if he believes in Libertarian Free Will or not?Ican find those answers in his videos, but can’t in his books, though “Freedom Evolves” is a lot more clear on the determinism issue.
Can I ask you other questions about “Elbow Room” ?
*/*/*/*
Dennett needs to be decoded, IMO, because for decades NO ONE I know has been able to explain in any detail (to me) how his theory on free will works. Just the opposite has often occurred: many good thinkers have told me they are baffled by his free will theories.
My history with Dennett’s FW theory goes way back to the mid-1990s when I attempted to read his first edition (1984) of “Elbow Room.” Looking back on that, I see my path with his FW theory over the decades as confused and strewn with misunderstandings and miscommunications.…mostly my fault
Nonetheless, Dennett has also guided and helped me along that path as I produced my theory on FW. I did glean many items from his writings, but have not yet fully seen the “big picture” of what he has in print. It is only in recent years that I have found in Dennett’s videos a much clearer presentation on some of the ideas, compared to his books.
*/*/*
I saw Dennett speak at UCSD around 1995 when he was a guest speaker at the Philosophy Department. He had a bestselling book out at the time, “Consciousness Explained” and everyone had been avidly reading it.
The topic of free will did not come up much in that book, but he was so good in explaining things that I wanted to see him and find out more. I wondered if he had worked on free will much.The grad students in attendance that I asked this question of said, “Yeah, he has a book called ‘Elbow Room,’ but nobody understands it.”
I got a copy right away. I probably did a much better job of not understanding Elbow Room (ER) than those grad students. …LoL… I did get one thing, though, that totally stuck with me. It’s the subtitle of the book, and some of the references DD made to it in the bewildering text within:
“The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting”
It had not occurred to me then, that there were alternate varieties of free will out there to compare. Slowly, after that, over the decades I have come to realize that most ideas on free will are tainted by old religion, and then glamorized with modern secular and metaphysical terms, only to be something far removed from actual real life.
So, I first started my attempt to “crack the Dennett code” in the mid-1990s, with minimal success. But quickly, I also did savor the wonderful notion that we should pursue the types of free will in our theorizing that are “worth wanting.”
*/*/*/*/*
If you decide to look at Elbow Room again, you may find these workarounds to his dense text style helpful.This is just an outline and each item is expanded in my chapter 4.
Item #1-Pro Determinism, Anti LibFW
Item #2- New Edition to “Elbow Room”
Item #3- Timing is Everything
Item #4- Videos Help
Item #5- Third Party Help
Item #6-Dennett Teases
Item #7-Robotic Performance Denial
Item #8- Label Confusion
Item #9- Dennett’s Bait and Switch
Item #10 - Dennett-Harris Debate
*/*/*/*
If you want to check my text here is where that chapter are in this thread:
Locations of minFW at GreaseSpot
Chap 1 - The Needpage 1at ~ 40% mark
Chap 2 - The Theorypage 220%
Chap 3 - Minimal Robot Selves page 275%
Chap 4 - Origins of minFW (Dennett)page 420%
Chap 5 - Determinismpage 525%
You can huff and puff and blow all the snow you want to up your own 7th planet – your mishmash means nothing to me because you subscribe to the idiotic belief that the Bible interprets itself
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
T-Bone
Geez how many times do I have to tell you people - PFAL grads sit in the back - new students sit in the front!
Now I don't care if you fall asleep for the dull stuff - but you better laugh at his jokes!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
In my opinion, that's one of the best and most concise statements on classic bull-Shonta I've ever read.
Great post, So_crates!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I'm sorry..I'm gonna do 100 hail-shontas right away...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The following nonsense was inspired by a real post (see above)
The Enigma Machine is a cipher device developed and used in the early- to mid-20th century to protect commercial, diplomatic, and military communication. It was employed extensively by Nazi Germany during World War II, in all branches of the German military. The Enigma machine was considered so secure that it was used to encipher the most top-secret messages
Now there’s the word-salad-shooter - Professional edition - so you can publish the bull-Shonta anywhere for free!
Call now to avoid the Ho Ho Relo rush, operators who are operated by all 9 decibel spirits are standing by
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I know OS that they're obvious statements.
But then, if you were like me, when you were little you always checked under your bed for monsters. You obviously knew that you just looking at the monster wouldn't stop it from hurting you. Your real motivation was you wanted it to know you knew it was there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I know OS that they're obvious statements.
But then, if you were like me, when you were little you always checked under your bed for monsters. You obviously knew that you just looking at the monster wouldn't stop it from hurting you. Your real motivation was you wanted it to know you knew it was there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I know OS that they're obvious statements.
But then, if you were like me, when you were little you always checked under your bed for monsters. You obviously knew that you just looking at the monster wouldn't stop it from hurting you. Your real motivation was you wanted it to know you knew it was there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
When all else fails....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I know OS that they're obvious statements.
But then, if you were like me, when you were little you always checked under your bed for monsters. You obviously knew that you just looking at the monster wouldn't stop it from hurting you. Your real motivation was you wanted it to know you knew it was there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I know OS that they're obvious statements.
But then, if you were like me, when you were little you always checked under your bed for monsters. You obviously knew that you just looking at the monster wouldn't stop it from hurting you. Your real motivation was you wanted it to know you knew it was there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I totally get it...Im still checking under there at times to this day...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
My apologies, my intent was lost in cyberspace. You questions are awesome, not obvious. I was referring to myself stating the painfully obvious that mike would never shoot a straight answer...he will most likely try and bury them in bullshonta.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Sorry the editor part of the software didn't take me to the next page, like it usually does and I thought it didn't render.
All I can do is request the mod on duty delete the duplicates.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’d go with the lord-it-over-us-prayer if you know what’s good for yah!
Our father-in-the-turd
Hollow is your game
Thy PFAL run
I’ll be glad when it’s done
the apocalypse will be finished
Give us this day all our money back,
and forget all that mark and avoid business,
that wasn’t your administration,
and lead us not into more indoctrination,
you’re being held in abeyance,
For thine is the kingdom and technically all the flunkies in the kingdom belong to the king
Until marked and avoided or tricked-out-of-the-turd – whatever comes first – Amen!
Wouldn’t you like to go to Twig with me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Thank you. I apologize for misunderstanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
if cyberspace hands you a lemon you can always make orange juice
you could go back into each duplicate - delete everything and in its place put a snazzy one-liner
or do a series of interconnected one-liners - the final one being the punchline - something I learned from a class ...it's called So_crates buildup
~ ~ ~ ~
what works for me is AFTER I submitted my post - I click on the refresh button (I'm using Microsoft Edge browser - refresh button is on the top left of the toolbar) - if I don't my post will show up in the middle of older posts.
Edited by T-Bonetech tip
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I'm on it!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
That would pure awesomeness!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I find that difficult to believe, but if true, I’d be VERY happy to have a summary from you how his ideas work in that book.
I mentioned in my Dennett chapter that I have NEVER found anyone who could explain “Elbow Room” to me. It is a well known enigma in the academic world, due to Dennett’s great clarity and popularity for other topics.
Can you give me pages where Dennett says if he believes in determinism or not? Can you give me the pages where Dennett says if he believes in Libertarian Free Will or not? I can find those answers in his videos, but can’t in his books, though “Freedom Evolves” is a lot more clear on the determinism issue.
Can I ask you other questions about “Elbow Room” ?
*/*/*/*
Dennett needs to be decoded, IMO, because for decades NO ONE I know has been able to explain in any detail (to me) how his theory on free will works. Just the opposite has often occurred: many good thinkers have told me they are baffled by his free will theories.
My history with Dennett’s FW theory goes way back to the mid-1990s when I attempted to read his first edition (1984) of “Elbow Room.” Looking back on that, I see my path with his FW theory over the decades as confused and strewn with misunderstandings and miscommunications. …mostly my fault
Nonetheless, Dennett has also guided and helped me along that path as I produced my theory on FW. I did glean many items from his writings, but have not yet fully seen the “big picture” of what he has in print. It is only in recent years that I have found in Dennett’s videos a much clearer presentation on some of the ideas, compared to his books.
*/*/*
I saw Dennett speak at UCSD around 1995 when he was a guest speaker at the Philosophy Department. He had a bestselling book out at the time, “Consciousness Explained” and everyone had been avidly reading it.
The topic of free will did not come up much in that book, but he was so good in explaining things that I wanted to see him and find out more. I wondered if he had worked on free will much. The grad students in attendance that I asked this question of said, “Yeah, he has a book called ‘Elbow Room,’ but nobody understands it.”
I got a copy right away. I probably did a much better job of not understanding Elbow Room (ER) than those grad students. …LoL… I did get one thing, though, that totally stuck with me. It’s the subtitle of the book, and some of the references DD made to it in the bewildering text within:
“The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting”
It had not occurred to me then, that there were alternate varieties of free will out there to compare. Slowly, after that, over the decades I have come to realize that most ideas on free will are tainted by old religion, and then glamorized with modern secular and metaphysical terms, only to be something far removed from actual real life.
So, I first started my attempt to “crack the Dennett code” in the mid-1990s, with minimal success. But quickly, I also did savor the wonderful notion that we should pursue the types of free will in our theorizing that are “worth wanting.”
*/*/*/*/*
If you decide to look at Elbow Room again, you may find these workarounds to his dense text style helpful. This is just an outline and each item is expanded in my chapter 4.
Item #1 - Pro Determinism, Anti LibFW
Item #2 - New Edition to “Elbow Room”
Item #3 - Timing is Everything
Item #4 - Videos Help
Item #5 - Third Party Help
Item #6 - Dennett Teases
Item #7 - Robotic Performance Denial
Item #8 - Label Confusion
Item #9 - Dennett’s Bait and Switch
Item #10 - Dennett-Harris Debate
*/*/*/*
If you want to check my text here is where that chapter are in this thread:
Locations of minFW at GreaseSpot
Chap 1 - The Need page 1 at ~ 40% mark
Chap 2 - The Theory page 2 20%
Chap 3 - Minimal Robot Selves page 2 75%
Chap 4 - Origins of minFW (Dennett) page 4 20%
Chap 5 - Determinism page 5 25%
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Uh oh T-Bone...Mike's challenging you to a book report...watch out
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
If the determinism of the universe stated man did not receive spirit (at least for a time) what changed that allowed Jesus Christ to get spirit?
The determinism of the universe never stated that, that I know of. Determinism is a 5-senses thing, as is science. They are “ignorant” of all things spiritual. Spirit never comes up in scientific discussions about determinism.
I believe Jesus got spirit the same way any other humans got spirit upon them, prior to Pentecost: he prepared his mind for it and was willing to do the work.
In the OT it says that if God had His way, all of Israel could have spirit and be able to prophesy. He was willing and able, and Jesus was ready to receive it.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
If Jesus Christ was a natural man, and as you've stated previously, Natural man is like a beast, the how did he get the free will to do what he had to do to get spirit? If Christ got spirit through water baptism, why don't we?
Jesus was a man of body and soul prior to his baptism like natural man, but he was NOT of the lineage of Adam, and not owned by the adversary like all other body and soul humans. So, I hesitate to call him a natural man, in that sense.
Either way, he had a human body and that includes all the DNA that grows a brain with decision abilities, and learning abilities, and eventually with some form of Biological free will, which I think may be minFW. This is a natural process. It works in spite of natural men being Biblical brute beasts.
Animals have soul, and they can make decisions, and they can learn. These abilities are severely muted in animals compared to humans, so if animals could have any minFW, it would be VERY, VERY minimal.
I don’t know of Jesus getting spirit from water baptism, but it does happen around that same time… just after I think. I think he got it by believing and wanting it.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
If God can only communicate with what he is, spirit, how did He impregnate Mary?
I am proposing a major SUPPLEMENT for the class, to better explain this idea that God cannot communicate with man any other way than by spirit. I think nearly everyone gets this wrong, so it should be amended in the way the class is run.
I would add this to the class coordinator’s syllabus to be read to students or handed out in printed form.
God cannot REALLY communicate with man without spirit.
God wants deep, detailed, involved discussion with His kids, and that can only be done via spirit. It is much like how “No man can REALLY say that Jesus is Lord, but by holy spirit.”
Any natural man can say “Jesus is Lord” but that is a crude mouthing of it only, with no depth and heart behind it. To REALLY say Jesus is Lord mean to do it spiritually, like the Father seeks, via S.I.T.
Similarly, God can do all sorts of phenomena to get some small point across.
He used phenomena that the children of Israel without spirit could see, but with Moses, who had spirit the communication was rich and detailed, and a two-way conversation at times. With most phenomena that is able to get the attention of a natural man, it also freaks them out, which cuts down on the quality of communication.
But with Mary, I think she had spirit. Mary’s family had intense believers in it, with angelic visitations, a miraculous pregnancy, and John the Baptist having spirit in the womb. It looks to me that both cousin Elizabeth and Mary prophesied.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Angels communicated with Joseph telling him not to worry about Mary, does this mean angels are more powerful than God, as they didn't need the spirit-spirit connection?
God often used angels to do His bidding in the OT and a little in the NT.
This needed spirit-spirit connection is for RICH communication I explained above.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
At best you won't decode him [Dennett]. You'll offer an opinion on what you think he's saying. Remember all those term papers and dissertations on what the white whale in Moby Dick means? … And, in all probability, he probably writes that way because he's trying to give himself wiggle room if somebody challenges him. … People also often write word salad style so people will read into the text what they want to read into the text. … Writers with nothing to hide, hide nothing. They write clearly and to the point. …
I mentioned that I am not sure at all what he saying, just guessing in places, and getting some of those guesses confirmed by his videos.
As far as Dennett giving himself some wiggle room, there may be something to that. There are two angles to this.
The first angle comes from the history of the book.
Dennett teases by not revealing his hand very clearly until late in Elbow RoomR. (This seems less the case in Freedom Evolves.)
After seeing his strategy and his admissions, another piece fell into place from a clue in the Preface to Elbow Room. The chapters of that book originally were individual lectures held at Oxford University, famously called the John Locke Lectures.
As a guest speaker he surely wanted his audience to attend every lecture. Planning his lectures must have included a strong element of wanting to keep the audience coming back after the first lecture. The best way to do that is to not tell the whole story that first night, but dangle some bait, a teaser to keep interest at its highest.
So, the early chapters are very far from explanations of DD’s theory, and instead he spends a lot of time on every other thinker’s approach to free will. He seems to be trying to cover the whole subject, including its historic dead ends.
On a completely different perspective about Dennett’s brand of FW, is my guess that he may actually offer no model of how his brand of FW (DenFW) works. Instead of proposing a model that incorporates his brand of DenFW, Dennett seems to merely be discussing the POSSIBILITY of such a model existing.
The key to remember with this item is that a reader can’t expect Dennett to QUICKLY lay out a blueprint for making his version of FW happen. On that point I tried my best to differ from him, and bring as early as possible the strange timing aspects of minFW.
The OTHER ANGLE to Dennett’s holding his cards close to the vest is computer phobia. I dared to come out in my Chapter 3 that I am proposing that in sense we are just robots, VERY sophisticated ones. I am able to talk this way in this Century because of the great advances and great expectations in A.I. compared to when Dennett was preparing his lectures in early 1980s. Computer phobia, fired by the 1968 movie “2001 A Space Odyssey,” was a big deal in our culture. I feel Dennett may have held back to avoid freaking people out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I hesitate to ask the obvious question here. IF animals can make decisions...
Speculations, at best?
I think? Don't you mean that you speculate?
"Really?" WTF?
Dude, you conflate a LOT. You don't seem to have language/vocabulary to REALLY communicate with humans.
It's all hogwash, if we were to take your words at face value.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That’s odd – YOU believe PFAL is God-breathed
YOU believe wierwille’s claim that God would teach him “The Word” like it hasn’t been known since the 1st century
YOU believe it’s okay for wierwille to have unabashedly plagiarized the work of others
YOU believe wierwille was a good person for teaching the PFAL class – even though it was plagiarized material
YOU believe it was okay for wierwille to sexually assault women just because he’s wierwille and gets a free pass.
And yet as impossible as it might sound - me owning a book by Daniel Dennett and being able to follow along with him - you find that hard to believe? Well, that’s just great Mike – I can see you’re a person who has intellectual standards that must be met.
Well… don’t hold your breath
I’m sure YOU would be VERY happy to get someone to respond to you acting like a troll
But I realized on the NT canon thread - Here it’s pointless to try and communicate with you ON ANYTHING
Rather than summarize anything, I will just copy and paste someone's earlier post that encapsulated what a troll does:
Signs Someone Is Trolling
It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.
The list above is by no means definitive. There are a lot of other ways to identify that someone is trolling. Generally, if someone seems disingenuous, uninterested in a real discussion, and provocative on purpose, they’re likely an internet troll.
Edited by T-BoneSigns someone is acting like an editor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You can huff and puff and blow all the snow you want to up your own 7th planet – your mishmash means nothing to me because you subscribe to the idiotic belief that the Bible interprets itself
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.