Hi Tim, and thanks for putting up with my bad spells, every so often. Let me put this a bit more explanatorily, as to my thought processes. I just wrote a paragraph, and immediately ran off the rails, and had to delete, so let me just throw out these axioms, etc., of what I see determinism and free-will to represent, to me__as logically as possible…
1. Strong Determinism is a complete self-contradiction of its own self-necessity and self-consistencies__It uses the language mechanics of free-will choices, to attempt proofs against free-will, i.e., tis counterfactual, question begging, or the snake swallowing its own tail, or/and the conclusion is deriving far more from the statement mechanics’ premise/s than is present, to possibly deduct from it/them, i.e., tis a false deduction logic…
2. Strong Determinism is an infinite regress to a logical impossibility__It bases its arguments on cause and effect, yet when its cause and effect is chased to its true deductive foundations in absolute fundamental motion mechanics, there’s absolutely no fundamental prime mover mechanics known, to found such fallacious circular logic on, therefore__tis a pretentious logic, and impossible of absolutely true groundings…
3. Free-will is a perfect Q.M. engine__It’s indiscernible as to absolute foundation, except as to its general motion and simple choices, through highly possible frequency mechanics__Its foundation is indeterminism, randomness and/or uncertainty, etc., at base__We simply don’t yet know how it fully mechanically works, but are absolutely certain it works, as intuitive choice is a fact of human decision and judgment function, and also creativity__which can not be disproved, except by determinism's illogical feeble attempts by using this same free-will intuitive choice function, which certainly is no proof, but is its logical opposite, and such counterfactuals are dis-allowed in logic… A never equals not A…
4. Strong Determinism can never be intelligent, as it falsely attempts to eliminate the intelligence of its own necessary free-will choices, to be intelligent__and such attempts are highly offensive to all sound intelligence, without the determinist even recognizing the offensiveness of his statements, being identical to calling intelligent free-will’ers__highly stupid, especially when the sound logical proofs are on the free-will’ers side__Not the side of the determinists’ illusions and delusions of false scientific grandeur…
5. The Necessary Free-Will, to Be Subjectively and Objectively Intelligent, Exists__and oppositely__To advocate strong or absolute determinism, is to (unknowingly-implyingly) call everyone else who doesn’t agree__Stupid…! Strong determinism produces all its own logical self-contradictions__from its negative infinite regresses to nothing but pure ego, since its own logic kicks its own legs out from under it__Splat…!!!
Hope that’s offensive enough to make my points about the offensiveness of ‘Strong Determinism...’ Sorry Tim, but a man’s gotta stand up for being a man… :-)
I'm not suggesting that naming and catagorizing have no purpose, and as I stated, this is a difficult area to express properly. All I'm saying is to take advantage of both aspects, the associations and such brought about by way of the scientific methodology and the amazement and wonder of a child brought about by allowing ones mind to be unfamiliar with aspects of those things which we have associated by way of science. It just stimulates my own mind to look deeper into aspects of nature by doing this. This is part of my interpretation of the logical processes possessed by children which look deeper into things as you suggested earlier, as I see it as a path to reestablish such child like connections. We potentially learn more in the first few years of our life than in all the rest. I'm just suggesting a reason for this, which you are welcome to dispute.
No dispute here Tim__I agree completely with this paragraph, and might only further add that I call it my intuitive childhood mind, which simply has the innocent ability to sit atop and between all ideas, and simply observe__Where we later as adults take up opinions and positions of choosing sides of the many global cultural arguments and debates__preferebly logically__but I fully agree on the extreme importance of staying in tune with this childhood natural innate intuitiveness, as pure innocent observer, as I’ve written on it often… I’ve also called it the mean position between two extremes(as did the Pythagorean Greeks__The Golden Mean…), as was depicted in my first post’s graphic, at my TQ thread on ‘False and True Philosophical Utopias…’
From my understanding of natural selection Lloyd, I don't see how one can deny it at the bio evolutionary scale (not speaking of QM here). If the same species of cow came in several colors and we prefered not to eat one certain color while eating the rest and we did nothing to try and breed the other colors for sustaining our preference, then as the population dwindled due to our dining habits, the untouched color cow might find opportunities to breed more often whereby it's color gene might thrive while the other colors died off. It's actuall a cornerstone to evolutionary aspects. Certain individuals within a species might have had random traits which benifited them over others within the species due to food supplies and such, whereby they ate, thrived and reproduced while others without such genetic traits died off, thus such a trait would become dominant through time. Anxiety attacks within humans is often attributed to the instinct to flee passed down from our ancestors, whereby due to ancient predators, survival favored those who treated every sound as potential doom and fled vs the more brave who often got eaten due to treating such sounds as harmless. The environment and ecosystem of a species can favor varying aspects of individuals within a species. Nothing bizarre or unscientific here in my views, only a dynamic of nature. Many animals fur could potentially cause them to go extinct due to our love of fancy clothing. This would be a natural selection which contributed to the extinction of an entire species and not just an individual trait within a species. As I stated, I'm only speaking on the bio level here and not QM.
My only point here Tim, is that there are no__or at least far fewer than needed for soundness__quantum mechanical links to such NS scientific theorizing, which imo, would be required to link NS to the scientific reality biology is claiming for it__but, when we go deep into the bio-RNAi/DNA structures, at the QM bio-chemistry levels__the information is far from being a completed science. Incompleteness does not produce as completed a science as they are claiming, except the science of known incompleteness__as relates to NS, imo… I’ve studied this area for years Tim, and I do not find the scientific evidence some are claiming__their literature is far exceeding what’s truly logically known about it. To me, the Russian biologists have always been far in in lead here, as many of them respected our own Barbara McClintock’s work in fundamental RNAi(on/off information switching mechanisms) research__which the male scientific community of America and Europe have both been slow to take up__It’s called Epi-Genetics, the deeper biological-physics and chemistry studies of non-NS bio-physics… I see far more evidence from the epi-geneticists than from the simple non-epi-geneticists__and this branch of biology all goes back to Barbara McClintock__as opposed to the outdated Crick and Watson gang of thieves, of Rosalind Franklin’s work…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_McClintock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin
Sorry Lloyd, let me be more specific here. The language of the universe or method of operation is frequency based IMHO. Just as various frequencies of light are absorbed or emitted by atomic structures, and being as I see no occurence of field state or structure which isn't frequency based, then I would infer that such frequency mechanics are a critical aspect of understanding all interactions within the universe. This takes my thoughts to the Characteristica universalis conversations along with the binary aspects we discussed. I see such frequency mechanics as the underlying interface of the various states of FS whether structured or unstructured. The interface at which the brain and body are engulfed within the EM field with it's various frequency ranges is a point of convergence of various frequencies of structured and unstructured FS whereby I am exploring the concept and implications of these very dynamics concerning our current discussions as with the relationship of frequencies per interaction dynamics. Is that scientific enough for you, as I can only relate this as a concept, but I'm trying to consider the implications of other absorption emission aspects which are already understood per bio processes and mental processing.
And all I’m stating as to these same frequency mechanics, Tim, is the fact that our free-will agent, in our lil’ ol’ pea brains, is no more than the actions of this bio-physical agent’s micro-field’s em-frequency mechanics, being purely free-will choice manipulated by one or more of our lil’ ol’ pea brain’s other bio-physical agent’s micro-field’s em-frequency mechanics__by nothing more than nature’s and our own inferences’ em-frequency micro-field inter-actions__sometimes enacted by one of nature’s natural inferences through any one of our five senses, or by our own choice of em-frequency-free-will percept/concept choosings, any one of the many em-frequency percepts or concepts, directly or indirectly, represented to our cognitive perception’s em-bio-field-processing-agency, for further em-frequency-field judgments, of finally em-frequency-field seeing/knowing the em-frequency actions involved, as the end product fully self-free-will-processed final end-states. Yes Tim, it’s nothing but em-frequency mechanics of that ancient ol’ inference mechanics__that’s been around since the Gita and the Vedas, or many other ancient sanskrit or cuneiform texts, etc… And this is my foundation of all the foolishness of mis-interpretations__that logic has known and worked with, for millennia__Nothing complicated, just simple em-conceptual mechanics, imo… It’s just the fact that when bio-fields are processing other bio-fields, within our lil’ ol’ pea brains__the entire inter-acting mechanics can become a bit complicated and confusing to explanation__unless one thoroughly understands the epistemological semeiotics symbol mechanics, that logic has used for mellinea to technically explain it fully. You don’t need to go there, Tim, as it can be quite confusing, at first__as your own concept mechanics is sufficient to generally understand this more complex em-frequency field mechanics of our semeiotic thought inferences… I myself prefer the semeiotic language to be interpreted as the far less complex inference and concept mechanics__but my point would still be, it is very complex, to describe the em-mechanical actions of a few bio-agents’ fields, let alone the twenty-five or so actual innate bio-physical brain agents, all inter-acting at once__and for that reason alone, the ancients invented semeiotic sign logic, represented by symbol logics__but general understandings are far easier understood, by the inference and concept mechanics we both far more easily understand__as a possible dialogue of these complexities__though I do use the complex systems for my own deep interpretations of FOPL, (or first order predicate logic), which is also most likely beyond your educational level, but is far simpler a logic than the higher order logics of 2nd order, and higher__which I don’t use either, as that’s the areas Godel showed to always necessitate incompletenesses, and Tarski later showed common English to exhibit the same problems__Therefore I stay with the far more sound first order logics__if any of this is any help to you, as when I first started studying the many logics, I found a list of 137 different logics, in nine different categories, and it weren’t easy rapping me lil’ ol’ pea brain around all that complexity, but logic’s always been my choice of dearest study, as imo, no science can be understood without logic__and the math and real world evidential experiments’ correspondences, to keep the logic honest…
That's just a smartass comment from where I stand Lloyd. I work hard to not come off as arrogant or imply that I know more than anyone else, and I don't insist that what I see within my mind is how it must be
Yeah Tim, I wasn’t trying to come off arrogant or smartass, or impress necessity upon your mind, but I realize when I’m irritated by my research’s outer world affairs__I do come off as an ars’ at times__but I also do think there is a true mechanics of how the brain actually does process information__and I’m not relaying my brain’s information content__I’m simply offering what historically logically accurate information mechanics, I’ve gathered and agree with__that is in thorough agreement with so many of history’s logicians, mathematicians and other sound scientists__I can not ignore such truth connections__and this is coming from an extreme skeptic, me… So, take it, or leave it, for what it’s worth, or not worth__It matters not to me__as these factual scientific logical histories have existed since the dawn of time__been taught, been ignored, been lied about, been stomped on, shit on, resurrected, and resurrected hundreds of times over through the millennia__and if logical truth of the full scientific understandings and methods ever makes it to the roof of the world, it’ll surprise me, as much as you… I don’t state what the mind needs to think, I state how the mind’s mechanics needs to work, to function most logically, scientifically and mathematically truthfully. If I make mistakes of the logic, science or mathematical truths and mechanics of__I’ll gladly accept my faults and correct, where needs be. I have no problem with being human and wrong, which needs correcting, Tim__but, I do stand my ground as to what I do know to be historically sound logical thinking, and I do criticize harshly, what I do know to be unsound thinking__It’s that simple… Though I certainly do not mean to offend, I also do not think I have the capacity, nor do I think you have the capacity to not offend__even though neither of us may intend to… That’s just the way it is, and is exactly why the world has all these, at variance, ideas… People fight for what they believe, whether they believe it or not__just because certain intellectual statements offend their sensibilities, and fight they do__that’s the way it is__No…??? I’m just one of those who doesn’t go outta’ my way, to be an overly nice guy about it… Just the way I am Tim, and you know it…
You misinterpretted me here Lloyd. If we consider evolution to be relevant whereby humans with thinking brains evolved from lesser species which had not the ability to process which we do, then such a processing ability was brought about through time and has reached it's pinnacle with us. I'm not speaking of passed on knowledge as though knowing things at birth, but rather that we possess a genetic predisposition to a more evolved thought process.
Yeah, I guess I can see what your point about my mis-interpreting you was, but what’s your point…? You can’t set ‘Evolution’ up as a ‘God’ and say evolution did it__That’s not a logical statement. It’s a mere observational statement of the given facts of existence. I just don’t see the use of such statements, that are not explaining some scientific mechanic of the facts being stated. Fine, yes we’ve evolved from extremophiles to humans__that’s a factual given, to me, thus no information__The information would be ‘How’__what is the exact quantum mechanical facts of the logical scientific path from extremophile to human…?__and we lack that scientific information, except a few piece-meal connections, but when I ask for the explicit and exact physical proof, of say from inanimate to animate functions, or the exact explicit physical facts of RNAi/DNA evolution__It’s almost completely lacking__except as some general assumptions of circumstantial evidence of NS__I don’t buy it. I want the total QM-Path Mechanics. There’s more absolute science lacking in evolution and NS, than there is in Logical Semeiotics, therefore I study science from the premise of where I find the most accurate and complete science available__The science of brain/mind mechanics is far more known than the science of both or either evolution or NS, as far as my studies have found__where quantum mechanics is clearly needed for full understandings__Therefore, I prefer to study the science of brain/mind mechanics to understand QM deeper than the many dead-ends of present QM studies, in other areas__That’s all, Tim…
That's enough answers for now Lloyd. I'd rather try to evaluate your position for a while rather than explaining mine. I'll go back through the last few posts to try to find your logic path as Im beginning to see some aspects of where our ideas part ways. I think we need to take this back to the fundamental levels so if you have any further explaination of your position, I'm all ears cause I'm gonna have to get into your total mechanics to be of any help here as debating from mine will not work. I must understand yours and debate from there if I find that I still disagree once we are relating to the same mental pool of information and are aligned in the connections which are further building connections within our logic.
Not to make this any longer, I’ll end here also Tim… I’m actually far less complex than I sound, though__to me anyway… But then again, I’m a ‘piss-poor’ judge of me…
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please let us know your logical, scientific opinions...