> I cast my vote for EW. Two against one, that settles it. Ruy, you're an > EW, numb nuts!
Who voted for me? You can label me if you want, Paul. I am only trying to provide a warning. I'm not espousing any particular action. I think the problem runs much too deeply to be solved by any of the political ideas you imply with your label.
I am just telling you what is self evident in biology. In any natural ecosystem, there exists balance. The balance starts with green plant life that turns sunlight into biological energy. From there, up springs a beautiful, elaborate, diverse system of predator and prey, plant and animal, life and death, which all exists in a finely tuned arrangement that sustains for hundreds of millions of years. I stand in awe of its complexity.
You may ask, how does this fine balance arise? How is it that predator and prey exist in such a finely tuned balance? You may look, for example, at a coral reef ecosystem, which is one of the most (if not the most) diverse biological systems in existence. You will see an amazing array of life forms, which feed off and feed each other, any of which, if out of balance, could destroy the whole place. Yet none of them seem to be out of balance. How is it that such a wonderfully tuned place arises?
You may say that God made it so. You would be essentially wrong, although I do not believe saying such a thing should make you feel any better about screwing it up. In fact, no intelligent designer is necessary to create such a marvelous order. Hundreds of millions of years of natural processes make it so. It is not because species do not ever disturb the balance. We are not the first species to live in an unsustainable fashion, to upset the balance of an ecosystem such that we take out more than we put in, such that we grow beyond what the system can support. We will not be the last. The reason we do not see such organisms in the delicate surviving ecosystems is simple. Mother Nature does not allow it. She quickly eliminates these unsustainable strategies. We shall be no exception.
I do not fear for life on the rest of the planet. While it is true that we are destroying it at an astonishing rate, and upsetting nearly every one of these natural systems I have spoken of, they will recover. They will do their thing, long after we are gone. They will recover without us. I am only telling you what Mother Nature shows us already. You can label me however you wish. You deny that we are but a part of this ecosystem, and that to sustain we must live as such, and we much put back what we take, and we must allow other forms of life to exist as well, for we are just one tiny part of a larger system. You have the wrong idea. Mother will show you. She is quite the EW herself.
>> What we seem to have collectively forgotten, is that man is much, much >> older than civilization. Still, among many of us (including some people >> that you know, almost certainly) persists the idea that the world, that >> man, that even the universe is only 6000 or 10,000 years old. This myth >> dates to the dawn of civilization. If we spend some time on why that is, >> we may come closer to the "working definition" which you are seeking.
> Actually, I do not know anyone who believes that the universe is only 6000 > years old.
Walk into any of your local churches and you will meet some.
> I also do not agree that the idea of creation at 6000 years ago > dates to the dawn of what I would call civilization.
But the dawn of civilization happened around the time that creationists believe the world came into existence. This is no coincidence. There certainly is an important "edge" here.
> I am not really seeking a working definition; rather I am seeking to > discover what you might mean by the word "civilization."
I have been trying to show you. It means a change from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle (which indeed sometimes included agriculture) to a totalitarian agricultural style. To a belief that all other styles of human life are barbaric. To a belief that we are the masters nature, instead of a humble part of it. To a belief that our way of life is the only valid way of life. To a culture of food surpluses, salvationist religion, and totalitarian farming - which means simply that the food we create is for us, and us only, and that none of the other creatures of the Earth can have it.
The assumptions of modern civilization are so fundamental to the modern mind that it can be nearly impossible to see past them. I am becoming aware that this line is too heavy for this thread, at least, and perhaps too heavy for RGP in general. It needs to be better developed. I am surprised at how difficult these ideas are for people to grasp, which is not meant as an insult. They are difficult when one has grown up worshiping hardily at the church of civilization. It requires more background and a more gradual approach. Perhaps I'm just not up to the task. Perhaps I will try again some other time.
>> The great irony of this story, under this interpretation, is that it was >> taken up by the very religions and cultures that it condemns. Made their >> own. And lucky for us that it was, as it turns out, perhaps, to be one of >> the few surviving bits of wisdom from all that was known before this >> "edge".
> I am afraid this is too deep for me to fathom. I love this sort of > conversation. This point is often reached in my home after the third glass > of wine. I am drinking coffee, unfortunately.
Indeed if you can't catch up with me here I doubt anyone else can either. I have offered an alternate interpretation of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis which I think is very important. I believe it was written by and represents people from the other side of this "edge" I have been speaking of. I believe it is a message of the folly inherent in the assumptions of modern civilization. Yet, later, modern civilization took the story and made it their own, incorporating it in several of these major, modern, salvationist religions, all the while having no understanding of what it truly meant.
Current thought is that Genesis was written by three individuals, and later assembled by an editor. We know hardly anything about these authors, nor about this editor. It was not Moses; we are relatively sure of that.
I have tried to highly parts of the story which fit in better to my (not really mine, but mine here) interpretation. The idea of realizing one is naked. Of knowing the difference between good and evil. Of being like Gods among the creatures of the Earth. These are parts of our modern civilization, which were not part of life before the "edge".
I believe the story actually makes far more sense interpreted this way. Modern Christian theology only ascribes to this story the simple idea of mankind having a choice in its destiny, and choosing to disobey God. This interpretation makes no attempt to deal with the words of the story like what it means to know the difference between good and evil, or what the significance of clothing oneself is, or what it means to be like gods. Even what the "Fall of Man" might really mean. Rather all these imagery is ignored and only a very simplified meaning is extracted. And then the rest of the Bible goes on to discuss the differences between good and evil, and to justify modern civilization done properly. I can not help but think they have got it wrong.
If you are not following me, I suppose nobody else is either. It is a shame. It's a fascinating story and these are fascinating ideas and I have managed to have many interesting discussions about them outside of RGP. Perhaps I am failing at getting it across here. Perhaps it is just too deep for RGP. Maybe I need a few glasses of wine myself.
Jerry Sturdivant wrote: > HELP! I need somebody. HELP! Not just anybody.
> Rather than read through all this shit; will somebody tell me if a poster > was able to show the melting was from other than global warming?
No.
It does seem like the original paper makes some dubious conclusions, at least regarding the date at which the ice on Kilimanjaro will be gone. We have nothing solid about the reason why the ice is evaporating. It probably has more to do with humidity up there than temperature, but then, the humidity up there could easily be changing as a part of global climate change as well.
>And, as we all should know, the next Summit is scheduled for >Copenhagen.
>How's that? >Does that source meet with your approval?
Sure. I'm not sure how it proves whatever point you were trying to make, however. It says that the UN is concerned with sustainable development. Are you going to argue that sustainable development is a bad thing?
You also seemed to have ignored a key sentence:
>Implementation by member states remains essentially voluntary.
> Uh, I never said it was a Conspiracy. > I said that the UN's goals are clearly stated in their Agenda 21.
> I do not think it is a conspiracy if the planners are right there in > the open about their agenda.
> Do you have some other definition of "conspiracy" that I don't know > about?
> Is there such a thing as a "public conspiracy"?
Over the years I think you have pretty much thought of ME as a "conspiracy nut", yet the Council on Foreign Relations is ALSO very open about their plans. You are correct in your definition of conspiracy. In criminal law it is the planning to commit a crime, by more than one person, coupled with an overt act. Secrecy is a necessary ingrediant. There is nothing secret about the Council on Foreighn Relations, except it is not right out there in the open, amongst CFR-controlled sources. They are not going to elaborate on the trojanhorsism of John Bolton, or Rush Limbaugh for that matter. I do not feel sorry for you that your trying to explain anything about the United Nations seems to fall on deaf ears. For one thing, you have sunk low enough to be arguing with Pepe Papon, one of the biggest dopes in all of RGP history. But it was the CFR that got us into the United Nations. They planned it, made it what it is, and have pushed it all the way. It is their vehicle, and one cannot truly understand what the UN is all about without understanding the CFR's agenda. (which is not secret).
But you keep right on going there with John the Savage, uhh, good luck with THAT! And, uhh, Pepe. I'm sure you'll bring Pepe around to seeing the picture someday. Ha! Laughing my paranoid ass off!
> Who voted for me? You can label me if you want, Paul. I am only trying > to provide a warning. I'm not espousing any particular action. I think > the problem runs much too deeply to be solved by any of the political > ideas you imply with your label.
> I am just telling you what is self evident in biology. In any natural > ecosystem, there exists balance. The balance starts with green plant life > that turns sunlight into biological energy. From there, up springs a > beautiful, elaborate, diverse system of predator and prey, plant and > animal, life and death, which all exists in a finely tuned arrangement > that sustains for hundreds of millions of years. I stand in awe of its > complexity.
> You may ask, how does this fine balance arise? How is it that predator > and prey exist in such a finely tuned balance? You may look, for example, > at a coral reef ecosystem, which is one of the most (if not the most) > diverse biological systems in existence. You will see an amazing array of > life forms, which feed off and feed each other, any of which, if out of > balance, could destroy the whole place. Yet none of them seem to be out > of balance. How is it that such a wonderfully tuned place arises?
> You may say that God made it so. You would be essentially wrong, although > I do not believe saying such a thing should make you feel any better about > screwing it up. In fact, no intelligent designer is necessary to create > such a marvelous order. Hundreds of millions of years of natural > processes make it so. It is not because species do not ever disturb the > balance. We are not the first species to live in an unsustainable > fashion, to upset the balance of an ecosystem such that we take out more > than we put in, such that we grow beyond what the system can support. We > will not be the last. The reason we do not see such organisms in the > delicate surviving ecosystems is simple. Mother Nature does not allow it. > She quickly eliminates these unsustainable strategies. We shall be no > exception.
> I do not fear for life on the rest of the planet. While it is true that > we are destroying it at an astonishing rate, and upsetting nearly every > one of these natural systems I have spoken of, they will recover. They > will do their thing, long after we are gone. They will recover without > us. I am only telling you what Mother Nature shows us already. You can > label me however you wish. You deny that we are but a part of this > ecosystem, and that to sustain we must live as such, and we much put back > what we take, and we must allow other forms of life to exist as well, for > we are just one tiny part of a larger system. You have the wrong idea. > Mother will show you. She is quite the EW herself.
Thanks for this thoughtful and well-written response, Ruy, but blow it out your ass. TROLL!
>> Actually, I do not know anyone who believes that the universe is only >> 6000 years old.
> Walk into any of your local churches and you will meet some.
>> I also do not agree that the idea of creation at 6000 years ago dates to >> the dawn of what I would call civilization.
> But the dawn of civilization happened around the time that creationists > believe the world came into existence. This is no coincidence. There > certainly is an important "edge" here.
>> I am not really seeking a working definition; rather I am seeking to >> discover what you might mean by the word "civilization."
> I have been trying to show you. It means a change from a hunter-gatherer > lifestyle (which indeed sometimes included agriculture) to a totalitarian > agricultural style. To a belief that all other styles of human life are > barbaric. To a belief that we are the masters nature, instead of a humble > part of it. To a belief that our way of life is the only valid way of > life. To a culture of food surpluses, salvationist religion, and > totalitarian farming - which means simply that the food we create is for > us, and us only, and that none of the other creatures of the Earth can > have it.
Oh, "that" Civilization. Does not sound very "civil" to me. Is that the only reasonable definition of "civilization?"
> The assumptions of modern civilization are so fundamental to the modern > mind that it can be nearly impossible to see past them. I am becoming > aware that this line is too heavy for this thread, at least, and perhaps > too heavy for RGP in general. It needs to be better developed. I am > surprised at how difficult these ideas are for people to grasp, which is > not meant as an insult. They are difficult when one has grown up > worshiping hardily at the church of civilization. It requires more > background and a more gradual approach. Perhaps I'm just not up to the > task. Perhaps I will try again some other time.
Perhaps we are indeed too unsophisticated in such matters to think about it properly.
Perhaps when you feel up to the task, we can continue to listen and perhaps learn.
I will try to proceed along with my own parallel journey but I do hope we meet again along the path to understanding.
>>> The great irony of this story, under this interpretation, is that it was >>> taken up by the very religions and cultures that it condemns. Made >>> their own. And lucky for us that it was, as it turns out, perhaps, to >>> be one of the few surviving bits of wisdom from all that was known >>> before this "edge".
>> I am afraid this is too deep for me to fathom. I love this sort of >> conversation. This point is often reached in my home after the third >> glass of wine. I am drinking coffee, unfortunately.
> Indeed if you can't catch up with me here I doubt anyone else can either. > I have offered an alternate interpretation of the Adam and Eve story in > Genesis which I think is very important. I believe it was written by and > represents people from the other side of this "edge" I have been speaking > of. I believe it is a message of the folly inherent in the assumptions of > modern civilization. Yet, later, modern civilization took the story and > made it their own, incorporating it in several of these major, modern, > salvationist religions, all the while having no understanding of what it > truly meant.
I will be the first to admit that I am not a member of a salvationist religion ... I am not really a member of any nominate religion ... and I would agree that many members of all sorts of organizations do not really know what their goups believe in the canonical sense. However, I disagree that people are as dumb as you seem to imply.
> Current thought is that Genesis was written by three individuals, and > later assembled by an editor. We know hardly anything about these > authors, nor about this editor. It was not Moses; we are relatively sure > of that.
My seminary treatment actually has four attributions, and nothing I have read would allow me to say we are relatively sure of much of anything about those guys or Moses either.
> I have tried to highly parts of the story which fit in better to my (not > really mine, but mine here) interpretation. The idea of realizing one is > naked. Of knowing the difference between good and evil. Of being like > Gods among the creatures of the Earth. These are parts of our modern > civilization, which were not part of life before the "edge".
I like to dwell on the idea of "free will" ... it seems to me to be the difference between man and the other animals. If indeed there is such a thing as free will. The idea of there being any difference become somewhat moot, to me, if there is no free will.
> I believe the story actually makes far more sense interpreted this way. > Modern Christian theology only ascribes to this story the simple idea of > mankind having a choice in its destiny, and choosing to disobey God. This > interpretation makes no attempt to deal with the words of the story like > what it means to know the difference between good and evil, or what the > significance of clothing oneself is, or what it means to be like gods. > Even what the "Fall of Man" might really mean. Rather all these imagery > is ignored and only a very simplified meaning is extracted. And then the > rest of the Bible goes on to discuss the differences between good and > evil, and to justify modern civilization done properly. I can not help > but think they have got it wrong.
The bible is not the only "bible" ... I am not sure exactly who "they" might be that have "it" wrong.
> If you are not following me, I suppose nobody else is either. It is a > shame. It's a fascinating story and these are fascinating ideas and I > have managed to have many interesting discussions about them outside of > RGP. Perhaps I am failing at getting it across here. Perhaps it is just > too deep for RGP. Maybe I need a few glasses of wine myself.
I am trying to follow along. All philosophical and theological discussion have the same "feel" to me. I like to jump in with a little "physics" some times too ... just to get the pot stirred up a bit more.
Another glass of wine is often a help in understanding such matters. Dropping a lid might help too.
Hey Turbo, I thought you were talking to yourself until I clicked this and saw that you are talking to someone I killfiled. Hey, weren't you recently asking others not to respond to someone else that YOU had killfiled? Well, then let me ask of you the same thing. Please do not feed this little brat, Beldin. You know he's a piece of crap and one of the biggest polluters on this newsgroup. Please don't reply to him so I don't have to be reminded that he is still here. I was hoping that the fact I had not seen his posts recent might have been because he was somewhere on the side of the road rotting until nothing is left but maggots and a skeleton. Your reply to him just shows me that he still walks the Earth while wasting good oxygen. Please don't do that anymore, thanks. Tell me who you have killfiled and I will be sure not to respond to him either, and we can do each other a favor. Thx.
>>And, as we all should know, the next Summit is scheduled for >>Copenhagen.
>>How's that? >>Does that source meet with your approval?
>Sure. I'm not sure how it proves whatever point you were trying to >make, however. It says that the UN is concerned with sustainable >development. Are you going to argue that sustainable development is >a bad thing?
Wiki probably does as good as anyone describing the permutations and combinations of what "sustainability" is supposed to mean.
I won't bore you with a long rant of what it means for the "industrialized world", but the bottom line is that it means that they think you and I are taking up far too much of the earth's resources, and we must lower our standard of living.
There is a large reading list. You probably have to read a lot of them before you decide whether the concept is a good thing or a bad thing.
>Snip a lot of bullshit. >>[edit] DCSD investigation >>On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The >>ruling >>was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but >>Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in >>question:[3]
>>> Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is >>>deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of >>>the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, >>>however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this >>>characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary >>>to >>>the standards of good scientific practice. >>>The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
>>> 1.. Fabrication of data; >>> 2.. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation); >>> 3.. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods; >>> 4.. Distorted interpretation of conclusions; >>> 5.. Plagiarism; >>> 6.. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results. >>>Yeah, Turbo, you can pick em.
>> The result was The Skeptical Environmentalist and the vilification of >> Lomborg began. >> It reached its nadir in 2003 when the Danish committee on scientific >> dishonesty accused him of "perversion of the scientific message" and >> "systematically biased representation". >> The charges were later withdrawn. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
>> Did you catch that last sentence? >> You know, the one about the charges that were later withdrawn?
>Yeah, turbo, it shows you can't read worth a goddamn.
>Go read my cite again. It's right there. >His BOOK was found guilty. He was found a goddamned idiot, (or, to inexpert >in the field to understand the data, so it was accidental scientific fraud) >THAT'S why the charges were withdrawn, you shithead. >Here, read it again, just for clarity. >>[edit] DCSD investigation >>On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The >>ruling >>was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but >>Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in >>question:[3] >He's a dumbshit, but the book is a load of lies anyway.
Okay. You are now free to disregard everything that goes against your fixed viewpoint.
Who am I to argue that you are wrong about anything? You're right.
>And he's your champion.
>You gonna stick with this approach?
I'll keep reading about the new research and data coming out all the time.
You can stick to your overwhelming consensus mantra.
>> Uh, I never said it was a Conspiracy. >> I said that the UN's goals are clearly stated in their Agenda 21.
>> I do not think it is a conspiracy if the planners are right there in >> the open about their agenda.
>> Do you have some other definition of "conspiracy" that I don't know >> about?
>> Is there such a thing as a "public conspiracy"?
>Over the years I think you have pretty much thought of ME as a "conspiracy >nut", yet the Council on Foreign Relations is ALSO very open about their >plans. You are correct in your definition of conspiracy. In criminal law >it is the planning to commit a crime, by more than one person, coupled with >an overt act. Secrecy is a necessary ingrediant. There is nothing secret >about the Council on Foreighn Relations, except it is not right out there in >the open, amongst CFR-controlled sources. They are not going to elaborate >on the trojanhorsism of John Bolton, or Rush Limbaugh for that matter. I do >not feel sorry for you that your trying to explain anything about the United >Nations seems to fall on deaf ears. For one thing, you have sunk low enough >to be arguing with Pepe Papon, one of the biggest dopes in all of RGP >history. But it was the CFR that got us into the United Nations. They >planned it, made it what it is, and have pushed it all the way. It is their >vehicle, and one cannot truly understand what the UN is all about without >understanding the CFR's agenda. (which is not secret).
I would tell you that you need to concentrate on what the CFR and the UN sycophants are currently saying and doing, instead of bashing the commentators who don't meet your concept of Conservative Purity.
The Lefties must really be laughing their asses off watching you attacking their enemies, like Rush. Come to think of it, I have never heard you say a good word about any prominent Conservative. Wassup wit dat?
You're a One Man Circular Firing Squad.
>But you keep right on going there with John the Savage, uhh, good luck with >THAT! And, uhh, Pepe. I'm sure you'll bring Pepe around to seeing the >picture someday. Ha! Laughing my paranoid ass off!
>-PP
I think that JTS has spent way too much time in Academia to be able to think outside the box he's in. When you're surrounded by very smart people who all think the same way, it's hard to break out.
Pepe does display at least a little openness to ideas that don't follow the Liberal orthodoxy.
>Hey Turbo, I thought you were talking to yourself until I clicked this and >saw that you are talking to someone I killfiled. Hey, weren't you recently >asking others not to respond to someone else that YOU had killfiled? Well, >then let me ask of you the same thing. Please do not feed this little brat, >Beldin. You know he's a piece of crap and one of the biggest polluters on >this newsgroup. Please don't reply to him so I don't have to be reminded >that he is still here. I was hoping that the fact I had not seen his posts >recent might have been because he was somewhere on the side of the road >rotting until nothing is left but maggots and a skeleton. Your reply to him >just shows me that he still walks the Earth while wasting good oxygen. >Please don't do that anymore, thanks. Tell me who you have killfiled and I >will be sure not to respond to him either, and we can do each other a favor. >Thx.
>-PP
Okay. I will put an embargo on Beldin. That's an easy decision for me.
Actually, I boast about how few people I have in my killfile. Currently I only have 3 posters in there.
The one you are thinking about is the the one I fondly call La cosa Nostradumass. It makes my stomach hurt reading his idiocy.
Then there's the Faux Pickle. Finally, there's Ed Conrad.
But for the rest, I have a Delete key, and I know how to use it.
> I think that JTS has spent way too much time in Academia to be able to > think outside the box he's in.
Damn that education, confounding the ability to think again. It is a skilled combat art of the right-wing poster to insist that a solid education is a weakness.
> When you're surrounded by very smart people who all think the same > way, it's hard to break out.
Because this is what academia is like, is it? You would probably be surprised to find that the ideas I have supported in this thread are generally just as difficult and uncomfortable for my peers. This strategy of attempting to group me into a bin you have already thought about is typical, and it is lazy, and you should really just be ashamed.
> I would tell you that you need to concentrate on what the CFR and the > UN sycophants are currently saying and doing, instead of bashing the > commentators who don't meet your concept of Conservative Purity.
> The Lefties must really be laughing their asses off watching you > attacking their enemies, like Rush.
Rush has DEFENDED the CFR, you fucking dope. Rush has dismissed and attacked as "whackos" other conservatives who point out that the CFR is working to destroy our nation's sovereignty. Rush is a trojan horse, a counter agent, working FOR the CFR. You fucking idiot. You stupid fucking idiot! Do I have to dig up his remarks for you where he defends the CFR and pooh poohs any suggestion that their agenda might be nefarious? Get the fuck oudda here. No wonder Travel and Risky call you "Turbotard". Sheesh! You ARE a turbotard.
On Nov 9, 10:36 am, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(no apam)hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I like to dwell on the idea of "free will" ... it seems to me to be the > difference between man and the other animals.
Really? I disagree. It seems to me that animals have plenty of free will. My cats certainly seem to do whatever they want at any given moment. No, I think the difference between humans and other animals is level of intelligence, not "free will".
> If indeed there is such a thing as free will. The idea of there being any difference become somewhat > moot, to me, if there is no free will.
I believe there is, but it is modified and limited by instinct, animal desires, and conditioning.
>> I think that JTS has spent way too much time in Academia to be able to >> think outside the box he's in.
> Damn that education, confounding the ability to think again. It is a > skilled combat art of the right-wing poster to insist that a solid > education is a weakness.
"The regime saw that children could be molded and indoctrinated to their political ideology; they were able to condition the children to believe that they were not the enemy and in doing so developed a community of children who were not able to identify with any other than the Khmer Rouge. The intention was to destroy the family values that were part of their culture and irradiate the trust that is held within family and community networks. Community and family members were expected and given incentives to spy on each other and this shattered networks and dissolved any trust through imbedding deeply rooted fear [1].
The young minds of children were easier to manipulate and the regime were able to brainwash children to such an extent that they would report back to the regime if their own parents were being antagonistic, the regime taught them to believe that they were their family and that their own kin were their enemies. Slogans such as "I"m not killing my mother -I'm killing my enemy' were planted into their minds [2]. A propaganda song entitled, "We Children Love Angkar boundlessly," compared pre-revolutionary children to orphans abandoned by "the enemy", their parents, an excerpt from the song follows:
"Before the revolution, children were poor and lived lives of misery,
Really? I disagree. It seems to me that animals have plenty of free will. My cats certainly seem to do whatever they want at any given moment. No, I think the difference between humans and other animals is level of intelligence, not "free will".
> If indeed there is such a thing as free will. The idea of there being any > difference become somewhat > moot, to me, if there is no free will.
I believe there is, but it is modified and limited by instinct, animal desires, and conditioning.
We rarely see you on RGP anymore, Bob, but still we cannot completely shake you. It's like Haley's Comet, every 78 years you come around to remind us how stupid you are.
> I like to dwell on the idea of "free will" ... it seems to me to be the > difference between man and the other animals.
Really? I disagree. It seems to me that animals have plenty of free will. My cats certainly seem to do whatever they want at any given moment. No, I think the difference between humans and other animals is level of intelligence, not "free will".
> If indeed there is such a thing as free will. The idea of there being any > difference become somewhat > moot, to me, if there is no free will.
I believe there is, but it is modified and limited by instinct, animal desires, and conditioning.
> Really? I disagree. It seems to me that animals have plenty of free > will. My cats certainly seem to do whatever they want at any given > moment. No, I think the difference between humans and other animals > is level of intelligence, not "free will".
> > If indeed there is such a thing as free will. The idea of there being any > > difference become somewhat > > moot, to me, if there is no free will.
> I believe there is, but it is modified and limited by instinct, animal > desires, and conditioning.
> We rarely see you on RGP anymore, Bob, but still we cannot completely shake > you. It's like Haley's Comet, every 78 years you come around to remind us > how stupid you are.
> > I like to dwell on the idea of "free will" ... it seems to me to be the > > difference between man and the other animals.
> Really? I disagree. It seems to me that animals have plenty of free > will. My cats certainly seem to do whatever they want at any given > moment. No, I think the difference between humans and other animals > is level of intelligence, not "free will".
> > If indeed there is such a thing as free will. The idea of there being any > > difference become somewhat > > moot, to me, if there is no free will.
> I believe there is, but it is modified and limited by instinct, animal > desires, and conditioning.
> Perhaps, we have a miscommunication on what we might mean by "free will" ... > (and "intelligence" as well, perhaps).
Most of the debates I have seen about "free will" inolves the question of whether we really make choices or if it is all predestined and our choices are just an illusion. It is a separate question from how "intelligent" we are.
What do you mean by "free will"? If we don't have "free will", what is the alternative?
> >> I like to dwell on the idea of "free will" ... it seems to me to be the > >> difference between man and the other animals.
> And here I was always told it was an opposing thumb.
There are a number of other animals with opposable thumbs, so that can't be it. Pandas don't have opposable thumbs, per se, but they have evolved an adaptation of their sesamoid bones that function in the same way.
"In both the giant panda[3] and the red panda[4], the radial sesamoid is larger than the same bone in counterparts such as bears. It is primarily a bony support for the pad above it, allowing the panda's other digits to grasp bamboo while eating it. The panda's thumb is often cited as a classical example of exaptation, where a trait evolved for one purpose is commandeered for another[5]."
> > If indeed there is such a thing as free will. The idea of there being > > any > > difference become somewhat > > moot, to me, if there is no free will.
> I believe there is, but it is modified and limited by instinct, animal > desires, and conditioning.
> Perhaps, we have a miscommunication on what we might mean by "free will" > ... > (and "intelligence" as well, perhaps).
Most of the debates I have seen about "free will" inolves the question of whether we really make choices or if it is all predestined and our choices are just an illusion. It is a separate question from how "intelligent" we are.
What do you mean by "free will"? If we don't have "free will", what is the alternative? ----------------------------------------
I am not sure. I was rereading a collection of essays on free will the other day.
Background Determinism Libertarianism the Voluntary
A lot of others are mentioned, of course ... Kant, Spinoza, Descartes, Hume ... the list gets pretty long.
I am still trying to formulate my thoughts on "civilization" so a concise definition of "free will" is a little beyond me at present. The subject is a "big bite" for me. I am not sure there is AN "alternative." I am still chewing the fat of the question.
I am still a Sufi at heart ... an answered question is as useful to a man's mind as a broken sword on the battlefield.
> Perhaps, we have a miscommunication on what we might mean by "free will" ... > (and "intelligence" as well, perhaps).
Once again (as a tease) I must insert my opinion that "free will" is boring. It is meaningless to talk of animals making choices without giving them this concept of "free will". It is, thus, impossible that any human being can have a consciousness, and can "choose" anything, without having "free will" - that is simply what free will is.
And none of that is incompatible with the notion of a deterministic universe.
Your free will, looked at from a broad perspective, is one of the mechanisms which runs the universe. Just because it can not work out any other way does not mean it does not exist. Of COURSE it exists. The common conception is that it is mutually exclusive with determinism, but I just don't see it that way, and thus I find it kinda boring.
This is another idea which might take a novel to explain. Someday.
|
