Brain clues to attention disorder

orkeltatte at hotmail.com orkeltatte at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 7 14:16:48 EST 2004


"k p  Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<D2RKb.13553$6B.13518 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> If anytone's 'interested', I am =not= 'oblivious' to the
> possibility that folks've actually read, and comprehended,
> the stuff I've discussed.
> 
> 
> But, because I "Guard Free Will", I Choose a 'path' that
> does exactly that.

You know of course ,that the question of the possibility of a free
will as opposed to the deterministic point of view, still is a
philosophically unresolved and "hot" question?
"What is greater - to think "right" or think "free"?

My personal standpoint on this is that there is no "right" hence it
must be greater to think free.
The argument against -is that we (humans) can´t think free , limited
as we are from our biological - genetical organism , thinking are more
or less restrained and determined.  So any standpoint is hard to
defend with ordinary logical reasoning. It is also said, that man can
not define himself because we can´t be objective in the true sense of
the word , only strive towards the objective position.

> 
> If folks do not become involved, in the end, all I can do is
> take that at its face-value.

THat would be a reasonable and pragmatic point of view.
 
> To do otherwise would be Failing with respect to the Need
> to Guard Free Will.
> 
> This said, yes, I do, routinely, apply, hopefully, gentle-enough,
> 'force'.

That would be disrespectful to others right of executing their free
will.
  
> This, be-cause there's a =lot= of Free Will that Needs Guarding.

Illogical with respect to my above statement.
 
> The Innocents out number those who've had opportunity to
> Choose by orders of magnitude.

Everybody is "innocent"
 
> So I can't just 'give-up'.
>
 Right on that one!
 
> I'm Obligated to work-at-it.

Self applied obligations we form in discurs with our conscience.
My point would be that the only obligation there is - is to live as
happily as I possibly can.
And this is a tuff one - because of my discurse with my conscience.

> The other thing is that I understand that redefining what it is to be
> Human constitutes some non-trivial Work. And, since that Work
> has to occur across nervous systems, I've got to 'wait' for nervous
> systems other than my own to do the Work that can only be done
> within =their= nervous systems.
> 
> You know?

 I think so.  

> 
> It's just that Free Will =must= be Guarded.
> OK?.
> 
> ken [k. p. collins]

See my reasoning above about the impossibility of "free will" 

Orkeltatte
 
> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:PpQKb.13427$6B.10391 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > I received the earlier copy of your post.
> >
> > ken
> >
> > <orkeltatte at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:84da9680.0401070004.56649c0e at posting.google.com...
> > > [...]



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list