In Paradise Lost, the seventeenth-century English poet John Milton felt that the fallen angels had too much time on their hands, so he sought to occupy them with a discussion topic. He chose free will. We all have the impression that we possess free will, although it lacks a clear definition and may be a total illusion. As Isaac Bashevis Singer once put it, “We must believe in free will, we have no choice.” It is the perfect topic for eternal debate.
This debate relates to the emotions, because free will is often conceived as their opposite. Making a free rational choice requires us to deny or suppress our first impulses. In fact, the whole idea goes back to the debate over how much our mind is shaped by our body. Those who believe in free will argue that we can simply set aside the body and its nonvolitional desires and emotions and rise above them; humans—and humans alone—can fully control their choices and their destiny. The opposite is a person without self-control, which philosophers have dubbed a wanton. A wanton follows whichever impulse hits first, whichever urge is most pressing and satisfying, and never looks back. Regret isn’t something you’ll find in a wanton. Young children and all animals are said to fall into this category.
We may capitalize Free Will to convey our reverence for a concept so central to human responsibility, morality, and the law, but if we can’t measure it, how will we ever agree on it? Some say that free will boils down to making choices, but even bacteria make choices, and certainly all animals with brains have to decide between approach and avoidance, which prey to single out from the flock, or whether to travel north or south, and so on. The squirrels in my neighborhood decide whether to cross the road. Sometimes they do so right in front of my car, making me nervous. They run halfway, then quickly return, unable to make up their minds. Pairs of bluebirds in my backyard, getting ready to build their nest, visit every empty nestbox, hopping in and out multiple times, the male alternating with the female. They’d make excellent subjects for a House Hunters episode. After weeks of scouting, the male puts a few branches or grass stems into one of the boxes, then lets the female build the actual nest while he guards the site. The drawn-out decision process has reached its conclusion. Do bluebirds have free will?
Francis Crick, the British co-discoverer of DNA, proposed in his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis that human free will resides in a very specific brain area: the anterior cingulate cortex. But humans are not the only species with this area, and we have good evidence that it also helps rats make decisions. Yet despite the signs that animals make choices every day, we refuse to grant that they have free will. Their choices are constrained by past experiences and inborn preferences, we argue, and animals lack the ability to fully review all the options in front of them.
Never mind that the same argument has been applied to great effect against free will in our own species, which is why some of history’s greatest minds—Plato, Spinoza, Darwin—doubted its existence. Free will just doesn’t fit the prevailing materialist worldview, as noted in 1884 by the prominent German evolutionist Ernst Haeckel:
The will of the animal, as well as that of man, is never free. The widely spread dogma of the freedom of the will is, from a scientific point of view, altogether untenable. Every physiologist who scientifically investigates the activity of the will in man and animals, must of necessity arrive at the conviction that in reality the will is never free, but is always determined by external or internal influences.
Never mind that the same argument has been applied to great effect against free will our own species, which is why some of history’s greatest minds—Plato, Spinoza, Darwin—doubted its existence. Free will just doesn’t fit the prevailing materialist worldview, as noted in 1884 by the prominent German evolutionist Ernst Haeckel:
The will of the animal, as well as that of man, is never free. The widely spread dogma of the freedom of the will is, from a scientific point of view, altogether untenable. Every physiologist who scientifically investigates the activity of the will in man and animals, must of necessity arrive at the conviction that in reality the will is never free, but is always determined by external or internal influences.
If the will is never free, then nobody would be guilty of anything.
The state of mind of someone charged with a crime is always a factor when determining whether they're fit to stand trial and the kind of defense the attorney will decide on for their client. It also comes into play when deliberating a verdict and deciding on a sentence if the person is found guilty.
The degree of external or internal influences are mitigating factors but the fact that a trial and verdict were still necessary proves that at some point, the defendant chose to act on certain negative influences over positive influences and therefore should be held accountable for their choice.
If the will is never free, then nobody would be guilty of anything.
The state of mind of someone charged with a crime is always a factor when determining whether they're fit to stand trial and the kind of defense the attorney will decide on for their client. It also comes into play when deliberating a verdict and deciding on a sentence if the person is found guilty.
The degree of external or internal influences are mitigating factors but the fact that a trial and verdict were still necessary proves that at some point, the defendant chose to act on certain negative influences over positive influences and therefore should be held accountable for their choice.
I totally agree. The quotes Prof de Waal includes are primarily philosophers rather than neuroscientists. The philosophers, I suspect (I'm NOT an academic and didn't take any philosophy classes in college) are considering not what happens between one's ears but a more macro view of how society (environment(s) outside of the mind) do or do not relate to choices any person makes.
Further, the deterministic view -- the range of our available choices in any given situation are essentially nil -- seems bizarre to me too. Yet, when someone says, you're not what you eat, but who you meet, I can see how that might be at least partially true.
January 25, 2016 (Inc. Magazine, this article is an excerpt from Maria Konikova's book, The Confidence Game)
The confidence game starts with basic human psychology.
From the artist's perspective, it's a question of identifying the victim (the put-up): who is he, what does he want, and how can I play on that desire to achieve what I want? It requires the creation of empathy and rapport (the play): an emotional foundation must be laid before any scheme is proposed, any game set in motion. Only then does it move to logic and persuasion (the rope): the scheme (the tale), the evidence and the way it will work to your benefit (the convincer), the show of actual profits. And like a fly caught in a spider's web, the more we struggle, the less able to extricate ourselves we become (the breakdown).
By the time things begin to look dicey, we tend to be so invested, emotionally and often physically, that we do most of the persuasion ourselves. We may even choose to up our involvement ourselves, even as things turn south (the send), so that by the time we're completely fleeced (the touch), we don't quite know what hit us. The con artist may not even need to convince us to stay quiet (the blow-off and fix); we are more likely than not to do so ourselves. We are, after all, the best deceivers of our own minds. At each step of the game, con artists draw from a seemingly endless toolbox of ways to manipulate our belief. And as we become more committed, with every step we give them more psychological material to work with.
If it seems too good to be true, it is--unless it's happening to me. We deserve our good fortune.
Everyone has heard the saying "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is." Or its close relative "There's no such thing as a free lunch." But when it comes to our own selves, we tend to latch on to that "probably." [...]
And yet, when it comes to the con, everyone is a potential victim. Despite our deep certainty in our own immunity--or rather, because of it--we all fall for it.
[Or in the case of The Way International and Victor Wierwille's private interpretation party, WE all FELL for it].
That's the genius of the great confidence artists: they are, [or in the cases of Victor Wierwille and Loy C Martindale, they WERE] truly, artists--able to affect even the most discerning connoisseurs with their persuasive charm. A theoretical-particle physicist or the CEO of a major Hollywood studio is no more exempt than an eighty- year-old Florida retiree who guilelessly signs away his retirement savings for a not-to-miss investment that never materializes. A savvy Wall Street investor is just as likely to fall for a con as a market neophyte, a prosecutor who questions motives for a living as likely to succumb as your gullible next-door neighbor who thinks The Onion prints real news.
****
Cases in point: how many celebrities, with how much money, fell for the sophisticated Ponzi scheme of Bernie Madoff? How many ordinary people spend months or years in Amway or other MLM games before they realize the time and resources they've squandered? How many followers of Victor Wierwille shuffled off to Amway to make money because they were comfortable with the business structure? How many more followers of Wierwille shuffled off to the various splinter cults, are happily still involved there in or after X number of years chalked it all up to experience and moved on?
Now, what were the bullet points of benefits of the PFLAP class listed on the Wierwille-ite green card, again?
What hooked you into taking that initial indoctrination class? Then...
What were they teaching in their Witnessing and Undershepherding class?
January 25, 2016 (Inc. Magazine, this article is an excerpt from Maria Konikova's book, The Confidence Game)
The confidence game starts with basic human psychology.
From the artist's perspective, it's a question of identifying the victim (the put-up): who is he, what does he want, and how can I play on that desire to achieve what I want? It requires the creation of empathy and rapport (the play): an emotional foundation must be laid before any scheme is proposed, any game set in motion. Only then does it move to logic and persuasion (the rope): the scheme (the tale), the evidence and the way it will work to your benefit (the convincer), the show of actual profits. And like a fly caught in a spider's web, the more we struggle, the less able to extricate ourselves we become (the breakdown).
By the time things begin to look dicey, we tend to be so invested, emotionally and often physically, that we do most of the persuasion ourselves. We may even choose to up our involvement ourselves, even as things turn south (the send), so that by the time we're completely fleeced (the touch), we don't quite know what hit us. The con artist may not even need to convince us to stay quiet (the blow-off and fix); we are more likely than not to do so ourselves. We are, after all, the best deceivers of our own minds. At each step of the game, con artists draw from a seemingly endless toolbox of ways to manipulate our belief. And as we become more committed, with every step we give them more psychological material to work with.
If it seems too good to be true, it is--unless it's happening to me. We deserve our good fortune.
Everyone has heard the saying "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is." Or its close relative "There's no such thing as a free lunch." But when it comes to our own selves, we tend to latch on to that "probably." [...]
And yet, when it comes to the con, everyone is a potential victim. Despite our deep certainty in our own immunity--or rather, because of it--we all fall for it.
[Or in the case of The Way International and Victor Wierwille's private interpretation party, WE all FELL for it].
That's the genius of the great confidence artists: they are, [or in the cases of Victor Wierwille and Loy C Martindale, they WERE] truly, artists--able to affect even the most discerning connoisseurs with their persuasive charm. A theoretical-particle physicist or the CEO of a major Hollywood studio is no more exempt than an eighty- year-old Florida retiree who guilelessly signs away his retirement savings for a not-to-miss investment that never materializes. A savvy Wall Street investor is just as likely to fall for a con as a market neophyte, a prosecutor who questions motives for a living as likely to succumb as your gullible next-door neighbor who thinks The Onion prints real news.
****
Cases in point: how many celebrities, with how much money, fell for the sophisticated Ponzi scheme of Bernie Madoff? How many ordinary people spend months or years in Amway or other MLM games before they realize the time and resources they've squandered? How many followers of Victor Wierwille shuffled off to Amway to make money because they were comfortable with the business structure? How many more followers of Wierwille shuffled off to the various splinter cults, are happily still involved there in or after X number of years chalked it all up to experience and moved on?
Now, what were the bullet points of benefits of the PFLAP class listed on the Wierwille-ite green card, again?
What hooked you into taking that initial indoctrination class? Then...
What were they teaching in their Witnessing and Undershepherding class?
The final message, though, is simple. Precisely how something is presented to you matters a great deal. And you can be certain that the confidence man knows exactly how to engineer any game so that the odds are stacked against you. That is the art of the rope. -- page 162, Maria Konnikova. The Confidence Game: Why We Fall for it EVERYTIME.
Taking this insight back to how people on GSC have described the conduct of TWI's foundational class (often) by young people without sophisticated education/training, for those who have gone through such classes, can (for those open to recognizing) have the lightbulb of understanding come on.
You say you had questions about something in the PFLAP class when it didn't sit right when you first heard it? You were told to hold your questions until the end of the last session. Instead of a class coordinator reading the questions and cogently explaining logical, rational answers, what happened?
Rarely, if ever, was anything done except gloss over the elephant in the room (said questions) hoping nobody would notice the silence... or the glossolalia (a cacophony of chaos) with everybody excitedly uttering "words" they didn't understand.
What happened to the cognitive dissonance in your mind? Did you chalk it up to having made a free will decision to decide your questions were no longer relevant?
hat happened to the cognitive dissonance in your mind? Did you chalk it up to having made a free will decision to decide your questions were no longer relevant?
Rocky, I was too busy to read this thread when first posted, but I just started reading it today.
Your opening post is fascinating and loaded with details, so I will have to check out that book.
The points you posted were very much in line with my thinking and my ideas for redefining free will to fit with science.
I admit that the thread on determinism that Nathan started for me was a mass of confusion, but not the ideas I was pumping. I had a brand new idea I was hammering out, and it was even more new to all who read the thread. Then the "vpw vs. gsc" theme clouded it over, even though the ideas themselves were very far from anything we experienced at TWI.
I'd say that from your first post in this thread, Rocky, that you did get the gist of half of what I was talking about: that our free will's details are far from ever being explored carefully.
There are lots of indications that we ALSO have a very mechanical and robotic kind of will that seems to prevail over freedom much of the time. Our free will is limited, and getting to know it's limitations is useful, especially when the notion of free will is constantly coming up.
P.S. I ordered that book, The Loop: How Technology Is Creating a World Without Choices and How to Fight Back, from amazon just now. Thanks for the tip.
Mike, to summarize my perspective on your contributions to GSC,
Regarding YOUR experience(s) and YOUR beliefs, when you make clear that's what you are saying in a comment, I don't see a need to challenge them. I may still disagree with the underlying claim(s) regarding interpretation of anything in TWI.
Regarding your intellectual curiosity about other fields of study and endeavor, I (and WE here at GSC) can learn from you, whether we're ready to accept your ideas or not.
Regarding your communication skills/practices. You and they still need dramatic improvement if you ever intend to promote them here and hope to see any of your ideas accepted.
Regarding your "research" and your "theories" I recommend this video made recently by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. She lists several points that you can (and should) use as guideposts or guiderails to keep yourself on track and promote a more favorable environment here for discussion and acceptance of your ideas.
Thanks Rocky. I am a big fan of Sabine Hossenfelder.
My "theory" is not really science research, but fits more in the category of the Philosophy of Science. I talk about changing the definition of "free will" in a radical way, and I offer a new set of attitudes, even some Biblical ones, on consciousness in general.
One entire chapter of my book is devoted to Philosopher Daniel Dennett two books on free will, as being the inspiration of my ideas.
In that talk, I mention a lot of science, but it's really in the "philosophy of science" end of brain science that my work is situated. I had a longtime close friend, with a PhD in Philosophy and a full professorship, guide me in my ideas and in my presentations over a span of about 8 years. So my free will theory is actually on the fringe of being legitimate research in the philosophy of brain science.
I'm still in touch with a few of those brain scientists I knew back in the 1990s. Both they and I are big fans of Thomas Kuhn, pretty much a founder of the field of Philosophy of Science. I had the privilege of meeting him at Princeton, circa 1969.
I'm still in touch with a few of those brain scientists I knew back in the 1990s.
Thanks.
Are you able to articulate a comparison/contrast of what you understand any of those brain scientists believe and/or promulgate(d) now as opposed to in the 1990s?
Dennett describes himself as "anautodidact—or, more properly, the beneficiary of hundreds of hours of informal tutorials on all the fields that interest me, from some of the world's leading scientists".[21]
I reflect back to previous discussion and reiterate that I am not an academic... and while I'm not even close to being in the same league as Dennett, I can somewhat relate to approaching the condition of being an autodidact.
Are you able to articulate a comparison/contrast of what you understand any of those brain scientists believe and/or promulgate(d) now as opposed to in the 1990s?
No. The field has exploded with activity in all directions since the 1990s, and I haven't even tried to follow them.
I do think they reject the classical definition of free will (as do I), and they pretty much have hunches about some PRACTICAL feeling of free will, but very few zero in on free will. They have thousands of options for specializing in some field less "airy" than free will. The scientists among my old contacts all want numbers; numbers in the laboratory and numbers in the the theories.
I chose to zero in on free will when I saw the 3 hints VPW gave us, plus lots of Biblical cues on the limits of human consciousness, plus lots of hints that Daniel Dennett offered.
My theory doesn't predict numbers, as a scientific theory would.
My theory is for the mental economy of all those interested in understanding the brain. My minimalist approach makes it easier to mentally juggle the concepts of a self and a will.
Dennett describes himself as "anautodidact—or, more properly, the beneficiary of hundreds of hours of informal tutorials on all the fields that interest me, from some of the world's leading scientists".[21]
I reflect back to previous discussion and reiterate that I am not an academic... and while I'm not even close to being in the same league as Dennett, I can somewhat relate to approaching the condition of being an autodidact.
Both Dennett and Patricia Churchland were PhD philosophers of high rank, and they sought tutoring from top scientists. For instance, Patricia Churchland had an office in the Salk Institute very close to Francis Crick's office. He tutored her in Physics.
Dennett and Churchland are unique in their field of Philosophy, in that they insist on augmenting their philosophical approaches to line up with modern laboratory findings on the brain.
Both Dennett and Patricia Churchland were PhD philosophers of high rank, and they sought tutoring from top scientists. For instance, Patricia Churchland had an office in the Salk Institute very close to Francis Crick's office. He tutored her in Physics.
Dennett and Churchland are unique in their field of Philosophy, in that they insist on augmenting their philosophical approaches to line up with modern laboratory findings on the brain.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
79
52
25
35
Popular Days
Aug 10
30
Aug 11
29
Jul 14
23
Jul 23
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 79 posts
Mike 52 posts
waysider 25 posts
Nathan_Jr 35 posts
Popular Days
Aug 10 2023
30 posts
Aug 11 2023
29 posts
Jul 14 2023
23 posts
Jul 23 2023
16 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
When I was in what must have been about the second grade or so, I heard something about how diamonds were made. Of course, the explanation was tailored for the understanding of a wide eyed 7 year old
waysider
I fixed that for you.
Nathan_Jr
Bravo! This reminds me only to believe something until there is no good reason to continue believing. It goes to why I don't believe in belief. Or, spelled with literal accuracy according to usag
Posted Images
Rocky
Why do you NOT do what you think you intend to do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Seriously? That seems to equate to trolling. Not related to a discussion of a genuine issue and concern.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Figured folks would appreciate my humor. Think its time for me to be moving onwards. Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Some food for thought.
In Paradise Lost, the seventeenth-century English poet John Milton felt that the fallen angels had too much time on their hands, so he sought to occupy them with a discussion topic. He chose free will. We all have the impression that we possess free will, although it lacks a clear definition and may be a total illusion. As Isaac Bashevis Singer once put it, “We must believe in free will, we have no choice.” It is the perfect topic for eternal debate.
This debate relates to the emotions, because free will is often conceived as their opposite. Making a free rational choice requires us to deny or suppress our first impulses. In fact, the whole idea goes back to the debate over how much our mind is shaped by our body. Those who believe in free will argue that we can simply set aside the body and its nonvolitional desires and emotions and rise above them; humans—and humans alone—can fully control their choices and their destiny. The opposite is a person without self-control, which philosophers have dubbed a wanton. A wanton follows whichever impulse hits first, whichever urge is most pressing and satisfying, and never looks back. Regret isn’t something you’ll find in a wanton. Young children and all animals are said to fall into this category.
We may capitalize Free Will to convey our reverence for a concept so central to human responsibility, morality, and the law, but if we can’t measure it, how will we ever agree on it? Some say that free will boils down to making choices, but even bacteria make choices, and certainly all animals with brains have to decide between approach and avoidance, which prey to single out from the flock, or whether to travel north or south, and so on. The squirrels in my neighborhood decide whether to cross the road. Sometimes they do so right in front of my car, making me nervous. They run halfway, then quickly return, unable to make up their minds. Pairs of bluebirds in my backyard, getting ready to build their nest, visit every empty nestbox, hopping in and out multiple times, the male alternating with the female. They’d make excellent subjects for a House Hunters episode. After weeks of scouting, the male puts a few branches or grass stems into one of the boxes, then lets the female build the actual nest while he guards the site. The drawn-out decision process has reached its conclusion. Do bluebirds have free will?
Francis Crick, the British co-discoverer of DNA, proposed in his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis that human free will resides in a very specific brain area: the anterior cingulate cortex. But humans are not the only species with this area, and we have good evidence that it also helps rats make decisions. Yet despite the signs that animals make choices every day, we refuse to grant that they have free will. Their choices are constrained by past experiences and inborn preferences, we argue, and animals lack the ability to fully review all the options in front of them.
Never mind that the same argument has been applied to great effect against free will in our own species, which is why some of history’s greatest minds—Plato, Spinoza, Darwin—doubted its existence. Free will just doesn’t fit the prevailing materialist worldview, as noted in 1884 by the prominent German evolutionist Ernst Haeckel:
The will of the animal, as well as that of man, is never free. The widely spread dogma of the freedom of the will is, from a scientific point of view, altogether untenable. Every physiologist who scientifically investigates the activity of the will in man and animals, must of necessity arrive at the conviction that in reality the will is never free, but is always determined by external or internal influences.
De Waal, Frans . Mama's Last Hug: Animal Emotions and What They Tell Us about Ourselves (pgs. 221-223). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
If the will is never free, then nobody would be guilty of anything.
The state of mind of someone charged with a crime is always a factor when determining whether they're fit to stand trial and the kind of defense the attorney will decide on for their client. It also comes into play when deliberating a verdict and deciding on a sentence if the person is found guilty.
The degree of external or internal influences are mitigating factors but the fact that a trial and verdict were still necessary proves that at some point, the defendant chose to act on certain negative influences over positive influences and therefore should be held accountable for their choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I totally agree. The quotes Prof de Waal includes are primarily philosophers rather than neuroscientists. The philosophers, I suspect (I'm NOT an academic
and didn't take any philosophy classes in college) are considering not what happens between one's ears but a more macro view of how society (environment(s) outside of the mind) do or do not relate to choices any person makes.
Further, the deterministic view -- the range of our available choices in any given situation are essentially nil -- seems bizarre to me too. Yet, when someone says, you're not what you eat, but who you meet, I can see how that might be at least partially true.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Con artists use these psychological tactics to manipulate people to believe them every time
No matter how smart you are, anyone can be easily swayed by emotions.
January 25, 2016 (Inc. Magazine, this article is an excerpt from Maria Konikova's book, The Confidence Game)
The confidence game starts with basic human psychology.
From the artist's perspective, it's a question of identifying the victim (the put-up): who is he, what does he want, and how can I play on that desire to achieve what I want? It requires the creation of empathy and rapport (the play): an emotional foundation must be laid before any scheme is proposed, any game set in motion. Only then does it move to logic and persuasion (the rope): the scheme (the tale), the evidence and the way it will work to your benefit (the convincer), the show of actual profits. And like a fly caught in a spider's web, the more we struggle, the less able to extricate ourselves we become (the breakdown).
By the time things begin to look dicey, we tend to be so invested, emotionally and often physically, that we do most of the persuasion ourselves. We may even choose to up our involvement ourselves, even as things turn south (the send), so that by the time we're completely fleeced (the touch), we don't quite know what hit us. The con artist may not even need to convince us to stay quiet (the blow-off and fix); we are more likely than not to do so ourselves. We are, after all, the best deceivers of our own minds. At each step of the game, con artists draw from a seemingly endless toolbox of ways to manipulate our belief. And as we become more committed, with every step we give them more psychological material to work with.
If it seems too good to be true, it is--unless it's happening to me. We deserve our good fortune.
Everyone has heard the saying "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is." Or its close relative "There's no such thing as a free lunch." But when it comes to our own selves, we tend to latch on to that "probably." [...]
And yet, when it comes to the con, everyone is a potential victim. Despite our deep certainty in our own immunity--or rather, because of it--we all fall for it.
[Or in the case of The Way International and Victor Wierwille's private interpretation party, WE all FELL for it].
That's the genius of the great confidence artists: they are, [or in the cases of Victor Wierwille and Loy C Martindale, they WERE] truly, artists--able to affect even the most discerning connoisseurs with their persuasive charm. A theoretical-particle physicist or the CEO of a major Hollywood studio is no more exempt than an eighty- year-old Florida retiree who guilelessly signs away his retirement savings for a not-to-miss investment that never materializes. A savvy Wall Street investor is just as likely to fall for a con as a market neophyte, a prosecutor who questions motives for a living as likely to succumb as your gullible next-door neighbor who thinks The Onion prints real news.
****
Cases in point: how many celebrities, with how much money, fell for the sophisticated Ponzi scheme of Bernie Madoff? How many ordinary people spend months or years in Amway or other MLM games before they realize the time and resources they've squandered? How many followers of Victor Wierwille shuffled off to Amway to make money because they were comfortable with the business structure? How many more followers of Wierwille shuffled off to the various splinter cults, are happily still involved there in or after X number of years chalked it all up to experience and moved on?
Now, what were the bullet points of benefits of the PFLAP class listed on the Wierwille-ite green card, again?
What hooked you into taking that initial indoctrination class? Then...
What were they teaching in their Witnessing and Undershepherding class?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Signed in just to upvote this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Express yourself, good buddy!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Taking this insight back to how people on GSC have described the conduct of TWI's foundational class (often) by young people without sophisticated education/training, for those who have gone through such classes, can (for those open to recognizing) have the lightbulb of understanding come on.
You say you had questions about something in the PFLAP class when it didn't sit right when you first heard it? You were told to hold your questions until the end of the last session. Instead of a class coordinator reading the questions and cogently explaining logical, rational answers, what happened?
Rarely, if ever, was anything done except gloss over the elephant in the room (said questions) hoping nobody would notice the silence... or the glossolalia (a cacophony of chaos) with everybody excitedly uttering "words" they didn't understand.
What happened to the cognitive dissonance in your mind? Did you chalk it up to having made a free will decision to decide your questions were no longer relevant?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs 2%3A1-5&version=NIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mike, to summarize my perspective on your contributions to GSC,
Regarding YOUR experience(s) and YOUR beliefs, when you make clear that's what you are saying in a comment, I don't see a need to challenge them. I may still disagree with the underlying claim(s) regarding interpretation of anything in TWI.
Regarding your intellectual curiosity about other fields of study and endeavor, I (and WE here at GSC) can learn from you, whether we're ready to accept your ideas or not.
Regarding your communication skills/practices. You and they still need dramatic improvement if you ever intend to promote them here and hope to see any of your ideas accepted.
Regarding your "research" and your "theories" I recommend this video made recently by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. She lists several points that you can (and should) use as guideposts or guiderails to keep yourself on track and promote a more favorable environment here for discussion and acceptance of your ideas.
Peace, Dude!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks Rocky. I am a big fan of Sabine Hossenfelder.
My "theory" is not really science research, but fits more in the category of the Philosophy of Science. I talk about changing the definition of "free will" in a radical way, and I offer a new set of attitudes, even some Biblical ones, on consciousness in general.
One entire chapter of my book is devoted to Philosopher Daniel Dennett two books on free will, as being the inspiration of my ideas.
In that talk, I mention a lot of science, but it's really in the "philosophy of science" end of brain science that my work is situated. I had a longtime close friend, with a PhD in Philosophy and a full professorship, guide me in my ideas and in my presentations over a span of about 8 years. So my free will theory is actually on the fringe of being legitimate research in the philosophy of brain science.
I'm still in touch with a few of those brain scientists I knew back in the 1990s. Both they and I are big fans of Thomas Kuhn, pretty much a founder of the field of Philosophy of Science. I had the privilege of meeting him at Princeton, circa 1969.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Thanks.
Are you able to articulate a comparison/contrast of what you understand any of those brain scientists believe and/or promulgate(d) now as opposed to in the 1990s?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Dennett describes himself as "an autodidact—or, more properly, the beneficiary of hundreds of hours of informal tutorials on all the fields that interest me, from some of the world's leading scientists".[21]
I reflect back to previous discussion and reiterate that I am not an academic... and while I'm not even close to being in the same league as Dennett, I can somewhat relate to approaching the condition of being an autodidact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No. The field has exploded with activity in all directions since the 1990s, and I haven't even tried to follow them.
I do think they reject the classical definition of free will (as do I), and they pretty much have hunches about some PRACTICAL feeling of free will, but very few zero in on free will. They have thousands of options for specializing in some field less "airy" than free will. The scientists among my old contacts all want numbers; numbers in the laboratory and numbers in the the theories.
I chose to zero in on free will when I saw the 3 hints VPW gave us, plus lots of Biblical cues on the limits of human consciousness, plus lots of hints that Daniel Dennett offered.
My theory doesn't predict numbers, as a scientific theory would.
My theory is for the mental economy of all those interested in understanding the brain. My minimalist approach makes it easier to mentally juggle the concepts of a self and a will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Both Dennett and Patricia Churchland were PhD philosophers of high rank, and they sought tutoring from top scientists. For instance, Patricia Churchland had an office in the Salk Institute very close to Francis Crick's office. He tutored her in Physics.
Dennett and Churchland are unique in their field of Philosophy, in that they insist on augmenting their philosophical approaches to line up with modern laboratory findings on the brain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
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.