Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Determinism] NEW BOOK

Expand Messages
  • Dave Winslow
    ... Most also believe in ghosts. Why would such beliefs , rather than logically supportable positions, mean anything to us? ... Good luck with that! I have
    Message 1 of 37 , Mar 22, 2012
      On 3/22/2012 3:12 AM, Robert Kopp wrote:
      > I think most people believe in free will.

      Most also believe in ghosts. Why would such "beliefs",
      rather than logically supportable positions, mean anything
      to us?

      > Perhaps this is because they do not find determinism
      > intuitively plausible. So books that make it seem
      > plausible to such people may serve a worthwhile purpose,
      > even though enlightened people like ourselves do not
      > need this kind of persuasion :-)

      Good luck with that! I have not yet found the magic words
      whereby a person will give up a cherished belief, due to a
      good argument. Instead, the attempt lights up denial systems
      that come on full force, one can see it like a switch being
      thrown sometimes.

      Free will is surely how it "feels", as we go about deciding
      and behaving. Those willing to ponder why, are I think
      already determinists. Those unwilling to do so, cling to
      free will, along with lots of other hobgoblins.

      Thanks, Dave W.

      > Robert "Tim" Kopp
      > http://analytic.tripod.com/
      > >________________________________
      > > From: Dave Winslow <davidwin@...
      > <mailto:davidwin%40TDS.net>>
      > >To: determinism@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:determinism%40yahoogroups.com>
      > >Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:37 PM
      > >Subject: Re: [Determinism] NEW BOOK
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >On 3/21/2012 11:35 AM, Robert Kopp wrote:
      > >> I do not think that a concept, including determinism, must
      > >> be intuitively convincing in order to be true. Nevertheless,
      > >> I believe that belief in incompatibilist "libertarianism" is
      > >> almost universal, though false.
      > >
      > >I have no idea what you are refering to.
      > >
      > >> Therefore an empirical account of how it might have
      > >> originated should be helpful in this context.
      > >
      > >Could be, I don't know. Determinism is the only side of the
      > >coin that is compatible with logic, with science, with
      > >common sense. I need no convincing, and am beyond bored with
      > >free will types.
      > >
      > >Dave
      > >
      > >
      > >------------------------------------
      > >
      > >If you ever unsubscribe, we would appreciate a brief note
      > about your decision. Also, please feel free to join us
      > again, some day.
      > >
      > >With Warm and Determined Regards,
      > >
      > >Dr. Les Garwood,
      > >Moderator, Determinism Groupsome day.
      > >
      > >With Warm and Determined Regards,
      > >
      > >Dr. Les Garwood,
      > >Moderator, Determinism GroupYahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dave Winslow
      ... The definition of science, its history etc. all transcend the individual scientist. It is similar to religion in that participants feel a certain respect
      Message 37 of 37 , Mar 25, 2012
        On 3/24/2012 8:31 PM, n2 health wrote:
        >> Ok here it goes:>
        >>> Yes clout in a form of leaders. Is this not accurate
        >>> to say that science is formed and bounded and even
        >>> manipulated tomeet the specs of those they work for.
        >> this may be true of some individual scientists, but not
        >> "science". That remains as it is defined, a product of the
        >> scientific method, scientists being only players in the game.
        > If it is true of some scientists how can science be
        > deemed any different than those who oversee it.

        The definition of science, its history etc. all transcend
        the individual scientist. It is similar to religion in that
        participants feel a certain respect due the institution, for
        its principles, and such forms a kind of intellectual
        imperative. Individual people called scientists are more or
        less respectful of such of course. I suppose this is a form
        of following, but not a leader, following an ideal.

        >>> I really like to learn about the minds of the people...
        >>> my mind is wide open.
        >> How would you know if it were not? The first think people in
        >> denial deny, is denial itself.
        > Not sure what this means however, I would have no
        > interest and would not have applied my life accordingly.

        You might not know.

        Denial is a kind of filter and distortion applied to
        everything, such that one can remain convinced of some self
        deception. A mother who thinks her derelict son can do no
        wrong, a pig headed person who is always right. It is a
        psychological mechanism that protects one's illusions.
        Suggest to such a person that he is in denial, and he will
        almost immediately deny it, rather than pursue the idea in
        order to answer in a more rational way.

        >>> And with these results years of research is based on
        >>> something that was misconstrued... so is it proper to
        >>> say everything after this is well misconstrued too?
        >> Tests which prove predictability speak louder than anything
        >> proper one might say.

        >>> Anything created by man whether hypothesized or not
        >>> is an expression or reflection of what one deems true
        >>> Deception? Perhaps but it is my illusion in which I
        >>> live by.
        >> You are content believing that what you believe may be an
        >> illusion? That would be very disconcerting to me. Like the
        >> boy scout, I like to be prepared, intellectually.
        > To be prepared is to know one's potential weakness.
        > What one may perceive as anothers weakeness could very
        > well be that individuals strength.

        I agree, it could be. In making judgments, simple practical
        ones, vital family matters, political ideas, some watch for
        signs of their own denial, objectivity being more important
        than clinging to an illusion. Formal logic is more than an
        esoteric study for some, more of a discipline they apply to
        themselves. Unfortunately logic works best with black and
        white matters, where so much of life can not be so described.

        I guess it can be summed up this way. Some apply
        intellectual discipline to themselves, as they have been
        taught to do, while others are content to go with their
        feelings. The issue for the latter is of course, that
        feelings are notoriously fickle, self centered, short
        termed, etc.

        >>> I believe truth lies in the following; answers are
        >>> formed individually through trial and error and yes
        >>> a belief of one not the masses.
        >> I don't know what you are getting at with "a belief of one
        >> not the masses. ".

        > the greatest strength of the masses in union is based on
        > the weakest link of one

        Sometimes maybe, other times not at all. One guy is down,
        another takes his place, no one being indispensable.

        >> If a belief is not there nothing can be formed.

        >> I prefer to start with premises, to withhold all judgment as
        >> to what is or is not until forced by circumstances to place
        >> my bets. That to me is the meaning of an open mind. It is to
        >> hold NO beliefs.
        > I think we have some similiar ideas. They are just
        > said/expressed differently.

        I'm sure we have some similar ideas.

        >>> but it starts from within not out. To many forget self
        >>> and allow man and their words to dictate what is what.
        >> I disagree here. We are as social by instinct as a pack
        >> animal. We need people when young, first mother and her
        >> breast, then protection from father and the group. As a teen
        >> we rebel only as far as the guys we hang out with, and with
        >> them, we are very much conformists. And most people do not
        >> go much farther, but remain one of the gang, in church, in
        >> politics, in aesthetics even, taste is as second hand for
        >> most people as their language. We must develop to become
        >> independent of them, and to look within, and find a secure
        >> individual of worth there.
        > Coming from the ways I have viewed the life I have lived
        > and experienced working with others people are still
        > searching. As far as myself I have not found anyone thing
        > I am willing to conform too. Ok maybe two; pay taxes and
        > help the blind man get to the other side of the street.
        > But most people wouldn't help the blind man anyway... so
        > scratch that one off the list.> I am open to both yet
        > not affirmative to either.
        >> A responsibility in life is to find what is more likely than
        >> not, and to act accordingly, so as to survive, feed the
        >> kids, enjoy a scotch now and then. We must all play the
        >> odds, with intelligence, or be blown by the wind and fall
        >> victim to every con. We learn to discriminate, and what
        >> seems more reasonable we call knowledge and teach our kids.
        >> This that I describe is not compatible with your neutrality.
        >> Some ideas are a whole lot better than others.
        > Im not afraid to admit I am backwards. I have a desire,
        > determine if its worth pursuing. Look at the angles and
        > take my first step.

        Towards what exactly?

        > The results of these actions determine what is next
        > on the list. And thats putting it in a nut shell.
        > I like to keep an open mind. I should not desire another
        > way.

        >> Now I can't disprove God or Creation, but it seems
        >> to me, only one who started by believing, long
        >> before having any idea what objectivity was, could
        >> draw such a conclusion, and that would not be an
        >> example of logic, but social indoctrination.

        > Yes. This is what I was saying with self belief
        > versus the masses.

        > I'm almost speechless!
        > I know what you mean : O Have a great rest of the weekend.

        You too. Dave
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.