From the thread, On the Verge ...

No, I don't see it so much as a new world-view, in as much as a changing of the prevalent view. There have always been proponents of free will. However, since we seemed to have reaped the fruits of the Age of Enlightenment, which is none other than the advance of Scientific determinism, which I equate with the spiritual bridegroom and the advent of the fifth church elsewhere which, has now drawn to a close, we have to ask what of its counterpart, the emotional/feeling side ... in other words free will? Is it true that we live in a wholly deterministic world, based entirely upon "intellectual structure" (in other words determinism), and so continue to discount our emotional side, and any notion of free will that might entail? Indeed, should the bride be coerced into marrying the husband without any consideration on her part or, should she truly be allowed to exercise her free choice in the matter?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I must say, Iacchus--this post makes my head spin. I do not see how you got from the last thread to whatever it is you are saying below. I will try to respond as best as I can, but some of it may well be beyond me.
And this is different how?But yours is different, no? Or else why would you not be promoting theirs? So...that's why I call it a new world-view, and thus deserving of critical examination.The fruits of critical examination, essentially. The scientific method does not so much point to what is right, as it efficiently gets rid of what is wrong, through critical examination and empirical investigation. And, as you note, it works.for reasons that are unclear, other than you like the metaphor. an arbitrary distinction--not solely your own, but neither is it supported by anything but speculation.drawing a line somewhere...a false dichotomyAbsolutely not. Feeling and emotion are not synonymous with free will.An improper translation of determinism. You have not, not once on this site, demonstrated that you understand what determinism is, and how one might distinguish between it and predestination. You also have circularly defined "the path of least resistance" after the fact, and other errors I have, thankfully, forgotten.Only your straw-determinist discounts emotion. A friend and colleague of mine is one of the top researchers of emotion in the world, and yet he is a scientist, a determinist. Determinism does not discount emotion. Individuals may or may not, but your caricature is simply false.I repeat, in case you missed it the first time, emotion and free will are not synonymous.Another arbitrary metaphor.A textbook example of misuse of metaphor. Wow...science as rape. Nice character assassination.


*****

I can't wait to be told, specifically, where my comments are wrong.

All I'm suggesting is that this (Scientific determinism) has come as far as it can go and, if allowed to continue, without any consideration for the process of free will, thus amounting to a woman's free choice in marriage, then yes, it effectively amounts to this, and there can be no heavenly marriage.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

As far as it can go? On what grounds do you make that observation? Do you see evidence that science has quit finding things? Has physics ground to a screeching halt? Has chemistry run out of things to look at? Please tell me, where is it that science has "come as far as it can go"?

The behavioral sciences? Arguably, the biggest obstacle to progress there is the assumption by some of the prescientific world view that presupposes free will (as evidenced by the varying progress in branches which do and do not make this assumption; it is quite clear that the assumption of free will is a hindrance to research, not a direction calling out for progress.)

As for your links...both show that your metaphor of bride, groom, and marriage are wholly arbitrary--you use it for science even though nothing at all in your "the six churches" mentions science at all (except in passing noting that Swedenborg was "a scientist with the gifts of a mystic", conveniently omitting the fact that his scientific knowledge would not get him out of third grade today, and that even his biographers admit that his science was subsumed into his mysticism), and your second link uses the same metaphor for the development of individual personality,without mentioning science at all...given an inch of metaphor, you are galloping for miles and miles, and there is nothing but metaphor under your feet. I cannot, from your metaphors (even reading the complete links) see how you can assert that scientific determinism has reached its limits, nor can I see any evidence other than your assertion that it must combine with anything--you can call it free will if you like, it does not matter, you don't define it--in order to continue to progress.

As far as establishing itself as a discipline, yes, I believe it's come as far as it can go ... not without incorporating the free will of the people. And so I ask, was man made for the Sabbath (determinism) or, the Sabbath made for man? (free will).

This is called religious freedom, and it should apply to both Religion as well as Science. Both were meant to augment our experience, not become the means by which to enslave us. Which surely can't be helped when we approach it from the standpoint of determinism ... which, for some reason wants to deny we have free will. Need I be more plain?

So the point is to deny it whether it exists or not. Is that what you're saying? Because it tends to be too sloppy and messes up our "perfect" models of determinism?

As a discipline, it's been thoroughly tested and established, to the point of becoming the status quo. So the question is, do we forsake our humanity for the sake of a little comfort and security or, do we give this thing called "life" back over to the will of people? We cannot solve our problems by Science alone, not without acknowledging we are people first ... not cattle.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Sorry, Iacchus, but your linkages of determinism and free will are utterly foolish. Why on earth would you think that "the sabbath [being] made for man" implies free will? It does not, of course. And, for that matter, there is no necessary connection between "man [being] made for the sabbath" being deterministic! The examples you choose here are completely independent of anything to do with free will and determinism.Religious freedom need not apply to science, Iacchus--science is not a religion. Besides which...you example is not, as it stands, an example of religious freedom. And why on earth do you think that science enslaves us, let alone that it "can't be helped" but be that way? Science has done more to free us than religion ever has--I beg you to look at history.No, Iacchus, because there is no evidence for it. Science does not have an agenda, much as you accuse it of that. If there is evidence for something, science will follow the evidence. You can assert all you like that science is "denying" free will; in point of fact, it is you who are denying that there is no evidence. Sorry, Iacchus, but the fact do not support your view.You have not established whatsoever that such a threat exists. Again, all evidence is to the contrary; science has given more dignity, or opportunity for dignity, to people than mysticism ever has.

You have a personal agenda against science, Iacchus. I don't know why. But you create a caricature bogeyman instead of learning about what science is really like, and attack your own creation.

Was religion made for man or, man made for religion? And here, where the one implies a sense of free will, and man has a choice in the matter, the other implies a strict and totalitarian policy which cannot be veered away from. In other words the people were there to serve the aristocracy, otherwise known as the priesthood.

When you try to maintain that such a thing as free will doesn't exist, and begin to enforce that, then yes, it becomes a form of tyranny.

Are we here to serve those who enforce the law or, are those who enforce the law here to serve us? Indeed, when the law begins to characterize us as having no free will, then what? It's pretty much up to the scientists and bureaucrats to determine our fate then isn't it?

How can you have dignity without the freedom to exercise it? Any apparent dignity you have is just an illusion then isn't it?

Yes, but wouldn't it be something if we could outlaw all this foolishness associated with The Church?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Religion was made by man. It has been used as a means of governance from the beginnings of organized religion. There need be no assumption of strict totalitarianism with either option you mention above, though. It could arise with either, or not arise.Your hidden implication here and elsewhere is that science tries to enforce this. It does not. Our current government assumes free will, and the freedom to act up to the point of breaking a law. After you break that law, the gov't assumes you did so of your own free will, and may throw you in jail. Given the right circumstances of law, this could easily be seen as tyranny, and this tyranny would have at its very base the assumption of free will.This strawman of yours grows old very quickly. Our government currently pays much more attention to religion than to science. Our government currently assumes free will (as said above). You would benefit greatly from reading Skinner's "beyond freedom and dignity". As long as you are concerned with concepts like freedom and dignity as they are currently understood (for instance, people are opposed to aversive control of their behavior, but positive control can be used to control their behavior just as easily, threatening their freedom just as much but in a manner undetected by those who equate "loss of freedom" with aversive control only. A better understanding of both positive and negative control of behavior, one which recognizes the deterministic nature of our experience, would allow us to see both types of attempts to control our behavior), you will miss important elements of our experience. Your views about human behavior and experience are based on your preconceptions, not on a true understanding of what happens.I hope this is sarcasm. A very large percentage of scientists are also religious (after all, they are members of our culture, which tends to be religious), and most religious people are not opposed to science, as you are. Wouldn't it be something if we could do something positive about all sorts of foolishness? Perhaps...oh, I don't know... perhaps education? Perhaps critical thinking? (Your assumption of "outlawing" foolishness is a product of a culture which is based on punishment and assumptions of free will. If we recognise determinism, we can educate before the fact, and not need to punish. Ah, but this "threat to freedom" is inacceptable--the advocates of freedom would much prefer to see people punished, it would seem.)

And since when would the need to educate arise out of that which has strictly been determined? ... Except to remind us perhaps (hmm ...) that there's only one way we can respond and, that we had better get with the program? Of course if that were the case, then cattle prods should do quite nicely.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Cattle prods...typically ignorant response about determining human behavior. I have heard it before, and always from people who do not know the first thing about determinism.

Your first sentence once again shows that you continue to confuse determinism with predestination.

Are you saying determinism doesn't take into account cause-and-effect then? If not, then what part of it doesn't it take into account?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

First...although it is not immediately evident here, I state for any new readers that your grasp of cause-and-effect is woefully inadequate (most of your C&E examples employ your favorite, circular reasoning). For one, your example above (the cattle prod example) is an example of punishment after the fact--that is, after performing a behavior, one is punished with the cattle prod. Note that you have not whatsoever addressed the cause of the behavior; your cattle prod is applied after the behavior in question. This is typical of approaches which assume free will; the behavior is seen to be freely chosen, something which cannot be influenced before the fact, and the only option is to punish the chosen behavior...it is a shallow misunderstanding of cause-and-effect which would lead one to such attempts at manipulation. Antecedent manipulation, as well as appropriate applications of reinforcers for desired behaviors, are the methods of choice among behaviorists, Iacchus. These most strict of determinists have found (empirically, and in great detail) that punishment is extraordinarily ineffective, unless very stringent demands are met (which, in the vast majority of our cultures attempts at punishment, are not met whatsoever).

But don't let me stop you from drawing your caricature of determinism and fighting against it. Never let the facts stand in your way, Iacchus--after all, whatever we dream is reality. Dream of nasty determinists who live to punish, and defenders of free will who beat them down with numerology.

So...to answer your question...it is you who does not take cause and effect into account. Your notions are flawed at best, wildly inaccurate and intentionally biased attempts at character assassination at worst.

Of course, we wouldn't want to mislead anyone now would we?

So, according to determinism is there such a thing as wrong behavior? If not, then why the need to educate? And if there is, why shouldn't cattle prods be acceptable? Or, is that because it would then smack of free will? Hmm ... very interesting.

Surely if there was no will involved, there would be no need to punish.

Manipulation is still manipulation and more often than not involves manipulating that which has a will other than one's own.

Life is but a dream ... of reality. But then again, reality is comprised of the dreams we dream.

Yeah, I'm just totally insane aren't I?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Of course not--if we wanted to do that, we'd start a new thread every time we got stuck, so that new readers would not see what got us to point A.Determinism is utterly independent of definitions of right and wrong. Moral codes may develop whether or not determinism is assumed; indeed, moral codes may develop more rationally and less arbitrarily once we recognise the effects on our behavior. But that has been pointed out here before, by both me and 'Berry, so I do not see why you should suddenly get it this time.

Why is not the cattle prod acceptable? Gee, Iacchus, maybe because I have more concern for human suffering than you do. If I can reduce rather than increase the pain in another's life, I would do that. It is part of my moral compass...and, not coincidentally (I knew you would appreciate that phrase), in the best long-term interests of my culture.I hope you are being sarcastic, and not merely ignorant.
Abandoning the failed assumption of free will has allowed us to improve people's lives, has allowed us to demonstrate the problems with improperly-applied punishment, and has allowed us to minimize punishment by focusing on positive means of control. It does not eliminate punishment, but it very much decreases our reliance on it, compared to our current assumptions of free will and reliance on punishment.Yes--manipulation is manipulation. But our lives are manipulated by our environment, so the best we can do is insure that the manipulation works in our best interests, so that we do not abuse punishment (as we currently often do) or abuse reinforcement (extreme example--gambling or addiction). As for "a will other than one's own"...until you are able to show otherwise (and thus far you have failed in every attempt), the concept of "will" is circularly defined and useless.How profound. How meaningless.

It's not good to have threads going on forever, most people will get bored after the first or second page.

Then there's no need to explain it, because nothing can ever veer from its "outlined" course. Or, how would you explain that?

Oh, it's only because you're concerned. I see. But isn't that also an outcropping of your own personal choice? In other words you choose determinism because you somehow think that will alleviate suffering. Free will is pretty sloppy isn't it? All we need to do is look at all the blood-baths of human history.

Sarcasm is in the eyes of the beholder, but it's funny how it seems to have a bite of its own now doesn't it?

I see, you're just trying eliminate man's free choice to inflict suffering on one another. Sounds more like politics if you ask me.

Manipulate unto others as you would have them manipulate unto you. So, the choice is ours. Albeit an educated choice, yes.

Just don't let somebody sell you down the river. Ha ha ha!

:love_2:

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Have you received complaints?Do you have any new examples, or are all your "outlined courses" still visible only in hindsight? I hope you have some new ones, because I am really getting tired of telling you "this is circular"...which once again it is. Have you read those pages yet?Why do you think it was my choice? My behavior was determined by my environment, just as yours is. Free will is not so much "sloppy" as "unsupported by any evidence whatsoever". So, sloppy conceptually, but irrelevant practically.I was just hoping it was sarcasm, because the other alternative was either callous ignorance, or outright mean-spiritedness. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.How nice of you, then, to defend cruelty.You can have the illusion of freedom, and the suffering that comes with it. I will take the knowledge that our lives are determined, and the ability to help others that comes with that knowledge.

This is a typical complaint that I hear from other forums, especially from the moderators, who are in the habit of closing threads or splitting them.

I can hook a hose up to the faucet and turn the water on and predict it will come out the other end if that's what you mean?

We always have a choice, although sometimes we may need to be educated as to what that choice is. I agree, environment plays a big factor in "determining" who we are, however, there would be nothing to determine, unless we were first self-aware and had the capacity to choose anything (i.e., experience pleasure and pain). We are not just automatons. By the way, I'm not saying determinism is not a viable aspect of life, because it is. Obviously there's no such thing as freedom without bounds.

Or, just the truth. How would I in fact know not to touch the hot stove unless I burned myself once or twice? Are you saying it's not good to learn from your mistakes in this regard? (and hence the fear of punishment).

Now you've made it a completely emotional issue, which has much more to do with free will than any thing else. But then again castration might be a viable option for a non-society of rapists.

No pain no gain. And by all means, feel free to do whatever you choose.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Ok...is it your assertion that a determinist would claim that it is, in principle possible to know at this point whether you will hook up this hose on a thursday in september of next year? (hint: predestination does predict this, determinism does not--there is, in current models, a limit beyond which we cannot predict)We always, or at least often, feel as if we have a choice. It can be (and has been) demonstrated that there are many times when we feel we have freely chosen, and we have not. The burden of proof is on those who would claim there is a causal free will.Your words were "I see, you're just trying eliminate man's free choice to inflict suffering on one another. Sounds more like politics if you ask me." This is a bit different from a hot stove. But it is not terribly different of you to withdraw and change positions without admitting it.

Are you saying that the mistakes are an important part of learning? What if we could guarantee the learning without the mistakes (and without the punishment); would you choose to have mistakes and punishment, just because? There are operant procedures which make learning much easier, and which do not involve punishment...oh, but they are based on an assumption of determinism, and a denial of free will. The person feels as if they freely choose, but they do not...and they learn quicker. Do you think this is somehow a bad thing?LOL...again, your own words were "I see, you're just trying eliminate man's free choice to inflict suffering on one another. Sounds more like politics if you ask me." If it was made emotional, it was not by me.

I already told you once, emotion and free will are not synonymous at all. There is a tremendous amount of research on the determinants of emotion. For you to say that emotional things "have more to do with free will than anything else" is...oh, I have tried to find another word, but this is the right one...ignorant."No pain no gain" is a rationalization made by free-will proponents to justify their piss-poor attempts at helping people to learn. There are plenty of ways to minimize "pain" while maximizing "gain", and these ways have come from the behavioral literature. The rejection of the assumption of free will made this possible. Just as the rejection of geocentrism opened up a whole new world to physics and led to the scientific revolution, the rejection of the flawed assumption of free will has led to a revolution in the understanding of human behavior, and has led to the greatest advances in helping people in history.

But if your assumption of free will is more important to you than helping people, have fun with your mysticism. Let me know when you do anything to help anybody. (oh, and helping their souls after they die following a miserable life does not count)

Hi guys,

I've been out of town much of the weekend, so I didn't get to comment on this thread, and it is pretty much done now, coming down to the usual stuff. However, allow me to comment (mostly to Diggy) on the starting of new threads.

It is pretty obvious that there are really only three people here who pay close attention to these boards. We have a few dilettantes and a few curious visitors, but only three with any kind of staying power. Those three pretty much know how the other threads have come out, so it is not really important to them that the threads maintain continuity. We already know it. So it would appear that the main reason Diggy wants continuity is so that a person not familiar with these boards can follow the progression of a discussion from start to finish.

On the surface, that seems like a reasonable wish, and indeed it is disorienting to have to try to pick up where you left off when where you left off is not where you left it. But that's not terribly important to me. Iacchy only stays on one or two topics at a time, so I simply look for the most recent threads. Besides, the threads go off topic more often that a presidential debate, so keeping all the diversions and evasions in one thread does no more to help newbies follow it than it would be to have them solve one big maze rather than dozens of little ones.

And here is what really results from the abandonment of old threads: The very last posts are almost always a scene of Iacchy scrambling madly to try to get out of the corner he has painted himself into. So if a newbie does go back and look at those old threads, what he will discover is that Iacchy has lost every debate, and then abandons it to try to find a new corner to paint himself into, using the same old worn out brushes and the same flat color of paint.

So really, Iacchy, it is not really to your benefit to start all these new threads. People usually only read the last stuff anyway, so starting a new one is not going to significantly increase readership. In fact, threads with hundreds of posts give me the impression that the topic is really hot and interesting. Only boring threads end after a dozen posts. Plus it does your case no good to see all those threads chronicling your history of abject failure to defend your ideas.

I tell you this as an adversary, and as a friend. I truly want you to get better at what you do.

Actually, if you were to read the original post, you can see that it has more to do with some of the concepts outlined in my book. I was just using this more as an opportunity to bring this up. Neither did it involve splitting the other thread.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?