“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[DBT]

Again it is a battle of definitions. The nature of metaphysics.

I think deterministic is too simple and broad a term to apply it to the brain.

We do have AI based in neural networks.

I could male an analogy to pseudo random number generators. Good ones are deterministic but for all practical purposes are random over intervals . The essences appear to be random and meet tests for randomness.

If the physical world is deterministic, so is the brain as a physical organ.., being the central processor of the nervous system, and essentially responsible navigating within the external world.

Besides that, compatibilism assumes the world to be deterministic, which must necessarily include the brain as a deterministic information processor.

 

[steve_bank]

Again it is a battle of definitions. The nature of metaphysics.

I think deterministic is too simple and broad a term to apply it to the brain.

We do have AI based in neural networks.

I could male an analogy to pseudo random number generators. Good ones are deterministic but for all practical purposes are random over intervals . The essences appear to be random and meet tests for randomness.

If the physical world is deterministic, so is the brain as a physical organ.., being the central processor of the nervous system, and essentially responsible navigating within the external world.

Besides that, compatibilism assumes the world to be deterministic, which must necessarily include the brain as a deterministic information processor.

Determinism or free will are not physically or objectively provable.

We do know historically that law enforcement does affect how people 'choose' to act.

Cosmpatibilism and other terms are far too generalized to describe what we experience in modern times.

The long op[en question from QM is weather results of experiments are due to the universe beiong fundamentally probabilistic, or if the results are due to our measurements.

Yoiu sit insde the door of a store and record the time on each day when somedody enters and leaves the store. Over time you can develop a model that estimkatess the number of people in the store at anytime on any day. You can not predct exactly when someone enters or leaves, but here is a prbability at any time of the day.

You do not know the causal chain that leads a person to enter the store and to you it is for all practical purposes it is random.

For all practical purposes we might say we have free will even if the universe is deterministic.


Back in the 70s I took a psych class alternate states of awareness. The teacher ran an experiment. Hn showed the class the standard symbols used in telepathy tests. Held sets of of envelopes with the symbols inside side and we had to choose which symbol. Individual students were a little below or above the protected random value, but the class was right on the number for random choices.

What dcoes that tell you about chice and free will? Ittells me that in any choice we make there is an element of rndomnees.

 

[peacegirl]

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals.

Tell me that you are not a man, without telling me that you are not a man.

I'm not a man. I'm a mother and grandmother.

(Young) men fight over women. It's stupid, and (in many modern societies) pointless. It happens anyway, even to those of us who are massively averse to violence in all other contexts.

I can count the number of fights I have been in in my 55 years of life on the fingers of one hand. But even I fought over women (girls, really) when I was a teenager. If it's not a biological trait, it certainly looks like one.

Your reasoning is shallow. I never said that there aren't fights to win over a woman, but basing your ideas on what is happening in today's world is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the possibilities of a new world that you have no understanding of because you don't read. Fighting and killing opponents to win a woman is not a sociological inevitability, which you will never understand.

 

[pood]

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals.

Tell me that you are not a man, without telling me that you are not a man.

I'm not a man. I'm a mother and grandmother.

(Young) men fight over women. It's stupid, and (in many modern societies) pointless. It happens anyway, even to those of us who are massively averse to violence in all other contexts.

I can count the number of fights I have been in in my 55 years of life on the fingers of one hand. But even I fought over women (girls, really) when I was a teenager. If it's not a biological trait, it certainly looks like one.

Your reasoning is shallow. I never said that there aren't fights to win over a woman, but basing your ideas on what is happening in today's world is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the possibilities of a new world that you have no understanding of because you don't read. Fighting and killing opponents to win a woman is not a sociological inevitability, which you will never understand.

Right, and in your “new world,” the three types of “homo-sexuals” —“I-homos,” “E-homos,” and “G-homos” — are all destined to pass by the wayside in due course, remember? Your problem is not that people failed to read what your writer wrote. You problem is that they DID read it.

 

[peacegirl]

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals.

Tell me that you are not a man, without telling me that you are not a man.

I'm not a man. I'm a mother and grandmother.

(Young) men fight over women. It's stupid, and (in many modern societies) pointless. It happens anyway, even to those of us who are massively averse to violence in all other contexts.

I can count the number of fights I have been in in my 55 years of life on the fingers of one hand. But even I fought over women (girls, really) when I was a teenager. If it's not a biological trait, it certainly looks like one.

Your reasoning is shallow. I never said that there aren't fights to win over a woman, but basing your ideas on what is happening in today's world is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the possibilities of a new world that you have no understanding of because you don't read. Fighting and killing opponents to win a woman is not a sociological inevitability, which you will never understand.

Right, and in your “new world,” the three types of “homo-sexuals” —“I-homos,” “E-homos,” and “G-homos” — are all destined to pass by the wayside in due course, remember? Your problem is not that people failed to read what your writer wrote. You problem is that they DID read it.

You’re not going to win playing dirty. You never read the book. You’re the worst offender of all!

 

[peacegirl]

Again it is a battle of definitions. The nature of metaphysics.

I think deterministic is too simple and broad a term to apply it to the brain.

We do have AI based in neural networks.

I could male an analogy to pseudo random number generators. Good ones are deterministic but for all practical purposes are random over intervals . The essences appear to be random and meet tests for randomness.

If the physical world is deterministic, so is the brain as a physical organ.., being the central processor of the nervous system, and essentially responsible navigating within the external world.

Besides that, compatibilism assumes the world to be deterministic, which must necessarily include the brain as a deterministic information processor.

Determinism or free will are not physically or objectively provable.

We do know historically that law enforcement does affect how people 'choose' to act.

Cosmpatibilism and other terms are far too generalized to describe what we experience in modern times.

The long op[en question from QM is weather results of experiments are due to the universe beiong fundamentally probabilistic, or if the results are due to our measurements.

Yoiu sit insde the door of a store and record the time on each day when somedody enters and leaves the store. Over time you can develop a model that estimkatess the number of people in the store at anytime on any day. You can not predct exactly when someone enters or leaves, but here is a prbability at any time of the day.

You do not know the causal chain that leads a person to enter the store and to you it is for all practical purposes it is random.

For all practical purposes we might say we have free will even if the universe is deterministic.


Back in the 70s I took a psych class alternate states of awareness. The teacher ran an experiment. Hn showed the class the standard symbols used in telepathy tests. Held sets of of envelopes with the symbols inside side and we had to choose which symbol. Individual students were a little below or above the protected random value, but the class was right on the number for random choices.

What dcoes that tell you about chice and free will? Ittells me that in any choice we make there is an element of rndomnees.

If something is random, it indicates a lack of the kind of control needed for free will. Another dead end.

 

[Jarhyn]

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals.

Tell me that you are not a man, without telling me that you are not a man.

I'm not a man. I'm a mother and grandmother.

(Young) men fight over women. It's stupid, and (in many modern societies) pointless. It happens anyway, even to those of us who are massively averse to violence in all other contexts.

I can count the number of fights I have been in in my 55 years of life on the fingers of one hand. But even I fought over women (girls, really) when I was a teenager. If it's not a biological trait, it certainly looks like one.

Your reasoning is shallow. I never said that there aren't fights to win over a woman, but basing your ideas on what is happening in today's world is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the possibilities of a new world that you have no understanding of because you don't read. Fighting and killing opponents to win a woman is not a sociological inevitability, which you will never understand.

Right, and in your “new world,” the three types of “homo-sexuals” —“I-homos,” “E-homos,” and “G-homos” — are all destined to pass by the wayside in due course, remember? Your problem is not that people failed to read what your writer wrote. You problem is that they DID read it.

Wow.

So, to be fair, I didn't read a lick of her (daddy's) bullshit?

Also, why are all the cults so vile against the LGBT?

I find it weird, honestly, that every person to spawn a worldly religion seems to be in lockstep there: denigrate psychology/psychiatry, and attack the gays.

I actually look on these as the hallmarks of a cult at this point, the first thing I should ask whether it is happening before scouring a belief structure for whatever "loss leaders" they use, and then throwing away the rest.

Falun Gong? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Scientology? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Seventh Day Adventists? Attacks psychology and the gays.

JW?

Mormons?

You guessed it... They attack psychology and the gays.

It's almost like psychology gives people the means to solve their problems without needing a cult, and as if gay people increase the financial capabilities of a whole family so as to defeat generational poverty without getting a nod from the church.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

I don't know where I got the idea that you were a determinist.

You saw me putting forth the determinist position. Because I did it well, you figured I must certainly be a determinist. But I am not. You got the wrong impression because charity is rarely realized. Even so, I did state that determinism is incoherent.

 

[pood]

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals.

Tell me that you are not a man, without telling me that you are not a man.

I'm not a man. I'm a mother and grandmother.

(Young) men fight over women. It's stupid, and (in many modern societies) pointless. It happens anyway, even to those of us who are massively averse to violence in all other contexts.

I can count the number of fights I have been in in my 55 years of life on the fingers of one hand. But even I fought over women (girls, really) when I was a teenager. If it's not a biological trait, it certainly looks like one.

Your reasoning is shallow. I never said that there aren't fights to win over a woman, but basing your ideas on what is happening in today's world is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the possibilities of a new world that you have no understanding of because you don't read. Fighting and killing opponents to win a woman is not a sociological inevitability, which you will never understand.

Right, and in your “new world,” the three types of “homo-sexuals” —“I-homos,” “E-homos,” and “G-homos” — are all destined to pass by the wayside in due course, remember? Your problem is not that people failed to read what your writer wrote. You problem is that they DID read it.

You’re not going to win playing dirty. You never read the book. You’re the worst offender of all!

Then how did I know about the “homo-sexuals”?

 

[pood]

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals.

Tell me that you are not a man, without telling me that you are not a man.

I'm not a man. I'm a mother and grandmother.

(Young) men fight over women. It's stupid, and (in many modern societies) pointless. It happens anyway, even to those of us who are massively averse to violence in all other contexts.

I can count the number of fights I have been in in my 55 years of life on the fingers of one hand. But even I fought over women (girls, really) when I was a teenager. If it's not a biological trait, it certainly looks like one.

Your reasoning is shallow. I never said that there aren't fights to win over a woman, but basing your ideas on what is happening in today's world is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the possibilities of a new world that you have no understanding of because you don't read. Fighting and killing opponents to win a woman is not a sociological inevitability, which you will never understand.

Right, and in your “new world,” the three types of “homo-sexuals” —“I-homos,” “E-homos,” and “G-homos” — are all destined to pass by the wayside in due course, remember? Your problem is not that people failed to read what your writer wrote. You problem is that they DID read it.

Wow.

So, to be fair, I didn't read a lick of her (daddy's) bullshit?

Also, why are all the cults so vile against the LGBT?

I find it weird, honestly, that every person to spawn a worldly religion seems to be in lockstep there: denigrate psychology/psychiatry, and attack the gays.

I actually look on these as the hallmarks of a cult at this point, the first thing I should ask whether it is happening before scouring a belief structure for whatever "loss leaders" they use, and then throwing away the rest.

Falun Gong? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Scientology? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Seventh Day Adventists? Attacks psychology and the gays.

JW?

Mormons?

You guessed it... They attack psychology and the gays.

It's almost like psychology gives people the means to solve their problems without needing a cult, and as if gay people increase the financial capabilities of a whole family so as to defeat generational poverty without getting a nod from the church.

Well, it’s even weirder, because in the “new world,” people won’t in love with other people. People will “fall in love” with other people’s sex organs. Also, in the new world, it will be “mathematically impossible” for married couples to desire to share a bed. Of course, all this crap should be in her own thread, so hereafter I will try to un-derail things.

 

[peacegirl]

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals.

Tell me that you are not a man, without telling me that you are not a man.

I'm not a man. I'm a mother and grandmother.

(Young) men fight over women. It's stupid, and (in many modern societies) pointless. It happens anyway, even to those of us who are massively averse to violence in all other contexts.

I can count the number of fights I have been in in my 55 years of life on the fingers of one hand. But even I fought over women (girls, really) when I was a teenager. If it's not a biological trait, it certainly looks like one.

Your reasoning is shallow. I never said that there aren't fights to win over a woman, but basing your ideas on what is happening in today's world is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the possibilities of a new world that you have no understanding of because you don't read. Fighting and killing opponents to win a woman is not a sociological inevitability, which you will never understand.

Right, and in your “new world,” the three types of “homo-sexuals” —“I-homos,” “E-homos,” and “G-homos” — are all destined to pass by the wayside in due course, remember? Your problem is not that people failed to read what your writer wrote. You problem is that they DID read it.

Wow.

So, to be fair, I didn't read a lick of her (daddy's) bullshit?

Also, why are all the cults so vile against the LGBT?

I find it weird, honestly, that every person to spawn a worldly religion seems to be in lockstep there: denigrate psychology/psychiatry, and attack the gays.

This author did not denigrate gays.

I actually look on these as the hallmarks of a cult at this point, the first thing I should ask whether it is happening before scouring a belief structure for whatever "loss leaders" they use, and then throwing away the rest.

Falun Gong? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Scientology? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Seventh Day Adventists? Attacks psychology and the gays.

JW?

Mormons?

You guessed it... They attack psychology and the gays.

It's almost like psychology gives people the means to solve their problems without needing a cult, and as if gay people increase the financial capabilities of a whole family so as to defeat generational poverty without getting a nod from the church.

To repeat, this author did not denigrate gays.

Many people share misinformation unknowingly and sometimes with good or altruistic intentions - whether to articulate their perspectives, warn others away from danger or join others in trying to make sense of the world around them.

But some knowingly share things they suspect are false - whether to damage “the other side” in a political debate, get social media likes and shares, or conform to their ideological identities. Bad actors - such as hyperpartisans, trolls and even foreign agents - create and share disinformation to cause division and confusion, to promote political interests and points of view or for financial gain.

Source: News Literacy Project

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

How we think is determined by neural architecture and the electrochemical activity of networks

''I don't think "free will" is a very sensible concept, and you don't need neuroscience to reject it -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough, and indeed you could even argue on purely conceptual grounds that the opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will! Most thoughtful neuroscientists I know have replaced the concept of free will with the concept of rationality -- that we select our actions based on a kind of practical reasoning. And there is no conflict between rationality and the mind as a physical system.'' - Martha Farah, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a prominent neuroethicist.

Well, the notion of thinking being determined by neural architecture. etc., is certainly a basic assumption upon which determinism rests. But reference to neural architecture and the like is not more informative than is reference to free will. In fact, free will is superior at least insofar as it is readily recognizable as closer to the actual experience of human being.

As Martha Farah noted, "you don't need neuroscience to reject [free will] -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough". And she is right -- but the part she did not say out loud is: never mind the unnecessary cognitive dissonance effected by the conjunction of a mechanistic world view and the experience of human being. Not knowing is one thing; cognitive dissonance is another. Not knowing is not cognitive dissonance, and not knowing does not necessarily result in cognitive dissonance. Ignoring, dismissing, or explaining away human experience will lead to cognitive dissonance. There is much else wrong with what Farah said, but it is the noted unsaid part that is most important.

 

[peacegirl]

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals.

Tell me that you are not a man, without telling me that you are not a man.

I'm not a man. I'm a mother and grandmother.

(Young) men fight over women. It's stupid, and (in many modern societies) pointless. It happens anyway, even to those of us who are massively averse to violence in all other contexts.

I can count the number of fights I have been in in my 55 years of life on the fingers of one hand. But even I fought over women (girls, really) when I was a teenager. If it's not a biological trait, it certainly looks like one.

Your reasoning is shallow. I never said that there aren't fights to win over a woman, but basing your ideas on what is happening in today's world is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the possibilities of a new world that you have no understanding of because you don't read. Fighting and killing opponents to win a woman is not a sociological inevitability, which you will never understand.

Right, and in your “new world,” the three types of “homo-sexuals” —“I-homos,” “E-homos,” and “G-homos” — are all destined to pass by the wayside in due course, remember? Your problem is not that people failed to read what your writer wrote. You problem is that they DID read it.

Wow.

So, to be fair, I didn't read a lick of her (daddy's) bullshit?

Also, why are all the cults so vile against the LGBT?

I find it weird, honestly, that every person to spawn a worldly religion seems to be in lockstep there: denigrate psychology/psychiatry, and attack the gays.

I actually look on these as the hallmarks of a cult at this point, the first thing I should ask whether it is happening before scouring a belief structure for whatever "loss leaders" they use, and then throwing away the rest.

Falun Gong? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Scientology? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Seventh Day Adventists? Attacks psychology and the gays.

JW?

Mormons?

You guessed it... They attack psychology and the gays.

It's almost like psychology gives people the means to solve their problems without needing a cult, and as if gay people increase the financial capabilities of a whole family so as to defeat generational poverty without getting a nod from the church.

Well, it’s even weirder, because in the “new world,” people won’t in love with other people. People will “fall in love” with other people’s sex organs. Also, in the new world, it will be “mathematically impossible” for married couples to desire to share a bed. Of course, all this crap should be in her own thread, so hereafter I will try to un-derail things.

I've corrected you many times. You are repeating this excerpt because you want people to misinterpret what is being said. You have nothing left in your toolbox. You have failed in your comprehension because you did not read the book. You took what sounds funny when read out of context and ran with it because you hate his claim regarding light and sight. You're just repeating this as a last-ditch effort to hurt the author and get me out of the way, so you don't have to contend with me, as if this somehow makes the truth disappear. It's so obvious. Now I am forced to rectify your misinformation (as best I can given what you have done to make the book unrecognizable) because this excerpt depends on previous chapters to be fully understood. If people turn away, so be it. I am not depending on this forum for anything.

It is true that we have already been conditioned to move in the direction of certain preferences, but we cannot be hurt when these individuals reject us at the very outset and when other choices in a partner will never be directly or indirectly criticized. If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs and her features will become secondary because nobody will ever refer indirectly to her as ugly by calling other types beautiful, which in our present world could possibly make him regret his choice and keep an eye out for someone who would be looked upon by others as having more to offer in the way of physical appearance. But how is it possible for him to regret his choice when the world stops criticizing and when he has fallen head over heels for his sweetheart, which takes place after, not before, the sexual union?
When he said, "it will be “mathematically impossible” for married couples to desire to share a bed," he meant that if we want a healthy marriage (which most people, if not all, do), then it would be mathematically impossible for a couple to move in a direction that they know would decrease passion.

There is one change about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will surprise everybody, for you are about to see why a couple would never desire only one bed for the two of them.

“Is this because sleeping together decreases passion over time?”

“Sleeping together night after night does decrease passion, but it is not the reason you will have two beds, twin or otherwise.”

“When I first got married, my wife suggested we buy a double bed immediately (since that’s what is expected of married couples), so I agreed to it.”

The person who brings it up is the one who strikes this first blow of marriage. If you understand what it means that man’s will is not free and are able to perceive and extend the mathematical relations thus far, you will easily see the reason for this. Take note.

If, after making love, our partner wishes to sleep alone, this desire has the right-of-way over our desire to have our partner sleep by our side since this is a judgment of what is right for the other. Using today’s standards, it would be unusual to see a married couple sleeping in two separate beds. Most people would consider this a sign that the marriage was on the rocks, which may be true in our present world. If a couple preferred sleeping in a separate bed, they would then have to tolerate the comments of family and friends. There is nothing wrong with desiring to sleep together, but it cannot be satisfied unless both parties want the same thing. If they do not desire to move to another bed after making love, then it is obvious that both are content with the sleeping arrangement. But having only one double bed as the only alternative involves the same principle of considering only one person’s desire, and it is a subtle form of advance blame. In other words, the person desiring the double bed is actually blaming in advance the desire of the other to sleep alone, whereas the other does not blame by not making any demands. A’s desire involves B, but B’s desire does not involve A; it is that simple. In our present world, we justify criticizing our partner for wanting to sleep alone by invoking sleeping together as a condition of marriage. We expect them to show their love by sacrificing their desire in favor of ours, which only reveals our selfishness by expecting them to give up what they should not have to. Then, when they insist on sleeping alone, and because we believe we are right, we call them selfish and strike the first blow to get even for something that does not infringe on anyone else’s desires. But when we know they have the right-of-way and that they would never blame us for striking this blow, no matter what we do to hurt them for not satisfying our desire, then we are given no choice but to sacrifice our selfishness and respect desires that make no demands on us.

 

[pood]

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals.

Tell me that you are not a man, without telling me that you are not a man.

I'm not a man. I'm a mother and grandmother.

(Young) men fight over women. It's stupid, and (in many modern societies) pointless. It happens anyway, even to those of us who are massively averse to violence in all other contexts.

I can count the number of fights I have been in in my 55 years of life on the fingers of one hand. But even I fought over women (girls, really) when I was a teenager. If it's not a biological trait, it certainly looks like one.

Your reasoning is shallow. I never said that there aren't fights to win over a woman, but basing your ideas on what is happening in today's world is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the possibilities of a new world that you have no understanding of because you don't read. Fighting and killing opponents to win a woman is not a sociological inevitability, which you will never understand.

Right, and in your “new world,” the three types of “homo-sexuals” —“I-homos,” “E-homos,” and “G-homos” — are all destined to pass by the wayside in due course, remember? Your problem is not that people failed to read what your writer wrote. You problem is that they DID read it.

Wow.

So, to be fair, I didn't read a lick of her (daddy's) bullshit?

Also, why are all the cults so vile against the LGBT?

I find it weird, honestly, that every person to spawn a worldly religion seems to be in lockstep there: denigrate psychology/psychiatry, and attack the gays.

I actually look on these as the hallmarks of a cult at this point, the first thing I should ask whether it is happening before scouring a belief structure for whatever "loss leaders" they use, and then throwing away the rest.

Falun Gong? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Scientology? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Seventh Day Adventists? Attacks psychology and the gays.

JW?

Mormons?

You guessed it... They attack psychology and the gays.

It's almost like psychology gives people the means to solve their problems without needing a cult, and as if gay people increase the financial capabilities of a whole family so as to defeat generational poverty without getting a nod from the church.

Well, it’s even weirder, because in the “new world,” people won’t in love with other people. People will “fall in love” with other people’s sex organs. Also, in the new world, it will be “mathematically impossible” for married couples to desire to share a bed. Of course, all this crap should be in her own thread, so hereafter I will try to un-derail things.

I've corrected you many times. You are repeating this excerpt because it sounds funny without it being read in context. You have nothing left in your toolbox. You have failed in your comprehension because you did not read the book. You took what sounds silly when read out of context and ran with it because you hate his claim regarding light and sight.

Ad hom, to be reported.

You're just repeating this as a last-ditch effort to hurt the author and get me out of the way, so you don't have to contend with my refutations. It's so obvious. Now I am forced to rectify your misinformation which I can only corrected in a limited way because this excerpt depends on previous chapters to be fully understood. If people turn away, so be it. I am not depending on this forum for anything.

It is true that we have already been conditioned to move in the direction of certain preferences, but we cannot be hurt when these individuals reject us at the very outset and when other choices in a partner will never be directly or indirectly criticized. If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs and her features will become secondary because nobody will ever refer indirectly to her as ugly by calling other types beautiful, which in our present world could possibly make him regret his choice and keep an eye out for someone who would be looked upon by others as having more to offer in the way of physical appearance. But how is it possible for him to regret his choice when the world stops criticizing and when he has fallen head over heels for his sweetheart, which takes place after, not before, the sexual union?

Everyone can make their own judgment about that ludicrous passage. Notice how shallow he was — in this world we fall in love with physical appearance, but — ah! — in the “new world” we’ll fall in love with sex organs instead! Too bad it never occurred to Simple Seymour that most people fall in love with other people, not their looks or their sex organs.

 

[peacegirl]

How we think is determined by neural architecture and the electrochemical activity of networks

''I don't think "free will" is a very sensible concept, and you don't need neuroscience to reject it -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough, and indeed you could even argue on purely conceptual grounds that the opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will! Most thoughtful neuroscientists I know have replaced the concept of free will with the concept of rationality -- that we select our actions based on a kind of practical reasoning. And there is no conflict between rationality and the mind as a physical system.'' - Martha Farah, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a prominent neuroethicist.

Well, the notion of thinking being determined by neural architecture. etc., is certainly a basic assumption upon which determinism rests. But reference to neural architecture and the like is not more informative than is reference to free will. In fact, free will is superior at least insofar as it is readily recognizable as closer to the actual experience of human being.

The actual experience of human beings may differ from the reality. Just because people may experience the feeling of being free when they are not being coerced, against their will, to do what they do, does not mean they have FREE will.

As Martha Farah noted, "you don't need neuroscience to reject [free will] -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough". And she is right -- but the part she did not say out loud is: never mind the unnecessary cognitive dissonance effected by the conjunction of a mechanistic world view and the experience of human being. Not knowing is one thing; cognitive dissonance is another. Not knowing is not cognitive dissonance, and not knowing does not necessarily result in cognitive dissonance. Ignoring, dismissing, or explaining away human experience will lead to cognitive dissonance. There is much else wrong with what Farah said, but it is the noted unsaid part that is most important.

Determinism, the way it's correctly defined, is not mechanistic. All it means is that we are compelled to move away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction. There is no deterministic hand that forces you to eat steak when you want to eat fish. Additionally, there is no deterministic hand that can force you to shoot someone randomly when you don't want to.

 

[peacegirl]

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals.

Tell me that you are not a man, without telling me that you are not a man.

I'm not a man. I'm a mother and grandmother.

(Young) men fight over women. It's stupid, and (in many modern societies) pointless. It happens anyway, even to those of us who are massively averse to violence in all other contexts.

I can count the number of fights I have been in in my 55 years of life on the fingers of one hand. But even I fought over women (girls, really) when I was a teenager. If it's not a biological trait, it certainly looks like one.

Your reasoning is shallow. I never said that there aren't fights to win over a woman, but basing your ideas on what is happening in today's world is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the possibilities of a new world that you have no understanding of because you don't read. Fighting and killing opponents to win a woman is not a sociological inevitability, which you will never understand.

Right, and in your “new world,” the three types of “homo-sexuals” —“I-homos,” “E-homos,” and “G-homos” — are all destined to pass by the wayside in due course, remember? Your problem is not that people failed to read what your writer wrote. You problem is that they DID read it.

Wow.

So, to be fair, I didn't read a lick of her (daddy's) bullshit?

Also, why are all the cults so vile against the LGBT?

I find it weird, honestly, that every person to spawn a worldly religion seems to be in lockstep there: denigrate psychology/psychiatry, and attack the gays.

I actually look on these as the hallmarks of a cult at this point, the first thing I should ask whether it is happening before scouring a belief structure for whatever "loss leaders" they use, and then throwing away the rest.

Falun Gong? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Scientology? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Seventh Day Adventists? Attacks psychology and the gays.

JW?

Mormons?

You guessed it... They attack psychology and the gays.

It's almost like psychology gives people the means to solve their problems without needing a cult, and as if gay people increase the financial capabilities of a whole family so as to defeat generational poverty without getting a nod from the church.

Well, it’s even weirder, because in the “new world,” people won’t in love with other people. People will “fall in love” with other people’s sex organs. Also, in the new world, it will be “mathematically impossible” for married couples to desire to share a bed. Of course, all this crap should be in her own thread, so hereafter I will try to un-derail things.

I've corrected you many times. You are repeating this excerpt because it sounds funny without it being read in context. You have nothing left in your toolbox. You have failed in your comprehension because you did not read the book. You took what sounds silly when read out of context and ran with it because you hate his claim regarding light and sight.

Ad hom, to be reported.

Report me. It is true that you have nothing left in your toolbox that you can use to hurt him. Does anyone see the unfairness? Pood can misrepresent this author and then go cry to the moderators that my response against his misrepresentation is an ad hom, but he is free to misrepresent the author because that's not an ad hom?

You're just repeating this as a last-ditch effort to hurt the author and get me out of the way, so you don't have to contend with my refutations. It's so obvious. Now I am forced to rectify your misinformation which I can only corrected in a limited way because this excerpt depends on previous chapters to be fully understood. If people turn away, so be it. I am not depending on this forum for anything.

It is true that we have already been conditioned to move in the direction of certain preferences, but we cannot be hurt when these individuals reject us at the very outset and when other choices in a partner will never be directly or indirectly criticized. If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs and her features will become secondary because nobody will ever refer indirectly to her as ugly by calling other types beautiful, which in our present world could possibly make him regret his choice and keep an eye out for someone who would be looked upon by others as having more to offer in the way of physical appearance. But how is it possible for him to regret his choice when the world stops criticizing and when he has fallen head over heels for his sweetheart, which takes place after, not before, the sexual union?

Everyone can make their own judgment about that ludicrous passage.

It's ludicrous to you because you misinterpreted what he was trying to convey.

Notice how shallow he was — in this world we fall in love with physical appearance, but — ah! — in the “new world” we’ll fall in love with sex organs instead! Too bad it never occurred to Simple Seymour that most people fall in love with other people, not their looks or their sex organs.

Stop belittling him or I'll call you Simple Pood. Then you'll go running to the mods as this has become your hobby. Again, you are not seeing the full picture which makes you respond the way you do. Most people who are looking for marriage are interested in sexual fulfillment. You have to be blind not to see that sex is the most important aspect of romantic love. He also said that love will grow stronger after marriage, never before, because sexual satisfaction is the mainstay of a happy marriage. Further, nothing will be said or done to hurt the other intentionally or unintentionally, which will prevent their passion from waning over time. As a result, the bond between them will grow stronger with each passing year. Of course, as people grow older and don't have the same libido they once did, does not mean the bond between them will diminish. The sweetness of their relationship will have carried them through until "death do they part."

 

[pood]

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals.

Tell me that you are not a man, without telling me that you are not a man.

I'm not a man. I'm a mother and grandmother.

(Young) men fight over women. It's stupid, and (in many modern societies) pointless. It happens anyway, even to those of us who are massively averse to violence in all other contexts.

I can count the number of fights I have been in in my 55 years of life on the fingers of one hand. But even I fought over women (girls, really) when I was a teenager. If it's not a biological trait, it certainly looks like one.

Your reasoning is shallow. I never said that there aren't fights to win over a woman, but basing your ideas on what is happening in today's world is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the possibilities of a new world that you have no understanding of because you don't read. Fighting and killing opponents to win a woman is not a sociological inevitability, which you will never understand.

Right, and in your “new world,” the three types of “homo-sexuals” —“I-homos,” “E-homos,” and “G-homos” — are all destined to pass by the wayside in due course, remember? Your problem is not that people failed to read what your writer wrote. You problem is that they DID read it.

Wow.

So, to be fair, I didn't read a lick of her (daddy's) bullshit?

Also, why are all the cults so vile against the LGBT?

I find it weird, honestly, that every person to spawn a worldly religion seems to be in lockstep there: denigrate psychology/psychiatry, and attack the gays.

I actually look on these as the hallmarks of a cult at this point, the first thing I should ask whether it is happening before scouring a belief structure for whatever "loss leaders" they use, and then throwing away the rest.

Falun Gong? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Scientology? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Seventh Day Adventists? Attacks psychology and the gays.

JW?

Mormons?

You guessed it... They attack psychology and the gays.

It's almost like psychology gives people the means to solve their problems without needing a cult, and as if gay people increase the financial capabilities of a whole family so as to defeat generational poverty without getting a nod from the church.

Well, it’s even weirder, because in the “new world,” people won’t in love with other people. People will “fall in love” with other people’s sex organs. Also, in the new world, it will be “mathematically impossible” for married couples to desire to share a bed. Of course, all this crap should be in her own thread, so hereafter I will try to un-derail things.

I've corrected you many times. You are repeating this excerpt because it sounds funny without it being read in context. You have nothing left in your toolbox. You have failed in your comprehension because you did not read the book. You took what sounds silly when read out of context and ran with it because you hate his claim regarding light and sight.

Ad hom, to be reported.

Report me. It is true that you have nothing left in your toolbox. Does anyone see the unfairness here? Pood can hurt me by misrepresenting this author and then cry to the moderators that my justified response against his misrepresentation is an ad hom?

I did not misrepresent the author. You quoted the stupid sex organs passage yourself!

Ad hom is when you ignore counterarguments from your interlocutors and attribute opposition to a claim to something personal about them. You do this all the time. So, yes, it will be reported.

You're just repeating this as a last-ditch effort to hurt the author and get me out of the way, so you don't have to contend with my refutations. It's so obvious. Now I am forced to rectify your misinformation which I can only corrected in a limited way because this excerpt depends on previous chapters to be fully understood. If people turn away, so be it. I am not depending on this forum for anything.

It is true that we have already been conditioned to move in the direction of certain preferences, but we cannot be hurt when these individuals reject us at the very outset and when other choices in a partner will never be directly or indirectly criticized. If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs and her features will become secondary because nobody will ever refer indirectly to her as ugly by calling other types beautiful, which in our present world could possibly make him regret his choice and keep an eye out for someone who would be looked upon by others as having more to offer in the way of physical appearance. But how is it possible for him to regret his choice when the world stops criticizing and when he has fallen head over heels for his sweetheart, which takes place after, not before, the sexual union?

Everyone can make their own judgment about that ludicrous passage. Notice how shallow he was — in this world we fall in love with physical appearance, but — ah! — in the “new world” we’ll fall in love with sex organs instead! Too bad it never occurred to Simple Seymour that most people fall in love with other people, not their looks or their sex organs.

You have to be blind not to see that sex is one of the most important aspects of romantic love. Give me a break Pood. He also said that love will grow stronger after marriage, not before, because nothing will be said or done that would hurt the other intentionally or unintentionally that would lessen sexual desire. The bond between two people will grow with each passing year.

Your author claimed that right now people fall in love with each other’s physical appearance, but in the “new world” appearance won’t matter, so they will fall in love with sex organs instead! It’s right there in the quoted passage! These are the claims of someone with arrested development who has an adolescent’s understanding of intimacy, love and sex.

 

[pood]

Just look at how stupefyingly ridiculous that passage is: More to offer in the way of physical appearance. Nothing — not even a hint! — of more to offer as a person, as a human being.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

The actual experience of human beings may differ from the reality. Just because people may experience the feeling of being free when they are not being coerced, against their will, to do what they do, does not mean they have FREE will.

The experience of there being actual (meta)physical indeterminateness is not sufficient to establish that there is such indeterminateness. Determinism does not cohere with the experience. There are assorted ways of explaining away the experience, but the experience persists, and the experience in itself is not deleterious.

Determinism, the way it's correctly defined, is not mechanistic. All it means is ... to move away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction.

It does not have to be mechanistic for the cognitive dissonance criticism to hold. I see compatibilism as attempts at trying to deal with that dissonance. I do not find those attempts to be successful. The most felicitous attempts are too narrow. Similar at best is the ex post facto explanation in terms of satisfaction, wants, desires.

 

[steve_bank]

I don;'t follow PG's posts in detail, those comments on sex and love are just plain weird.

The author, her father, advances from routine eccentric to bizarre and crazy.