Brain clues to attention disorder

orkeltatte at hotmail.com orkeltatte at hotmail.com
Fri Jan 9 04:09:13 EST 2004


"k p  Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<K_aLb.16143$6B.16006 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> <orkeltatte at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:84da9680.0401071116.12d81392 at posting.google.com...
> > "k p  Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
>  news:<D2RKb.13553$6B.13518 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > 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?
> 
> Physical reality is Deterministic.
> 
> And Free Will is physically-real be-cause physical reality is,
> in fact, Deterministic.
> 
> It would only be in a non-Deterministic 'universe' that 'free
> will' would be Impossible.
> 
> In a Deterministic universe, although one cannot choose
> with respect to all variables, one can, in fact, still choose.
> 
> In a non-Determinic 'universe' there exists no possibility
> of 'choice'.
> 
> The difference is subtle, but sufficient.
> 
> How do I know physical reality is Deterministic?
> 
> All available evidence substantiates that the one-way flow
> of energy from order to dis-order that is what's =described=
> by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T] permeates physical reality at all
> scales.
> 
> What if I've not experienced the stuff of some place, within
> physical reality, in which WDB2T does not hold?
> 
> With respect to such, on the basis of all available evidence,
> I Choose :-]

I must admit, that I don´t quite follow your line of reasoning.
I can , to the best of my knowledge, agree that the universe is
organized in a lawbinded way - even chaos follows rules(?)
But when you state "free will" as a fact, it is ,IMHO,presupposed that
to execute an action of free will the actor has total knowledge of all
alternativ actions and their outcome when choosing? If not, there
could be unkown variables biasing the choice, hence not really an
action of free will?
   
> > "What is greater - to think "right" or think "free"?
> 
> Th think in a way that 'moves toward' Truth - both are in-it.
> 
> > My personal standpoint on this is that there is no "right" hence it
> > must be greater to think free.
> 
> 'Move toward' Truth, be as Free as one can be.
> 
> As far as 'being right' goes, it's irrelevant, as long as one does,
> in fact, 'move toward' Truth.
> 
> How does one 'move toward' Truth?
> 
> How does one know the direction in which to 'move'
> in order to 'move toward' Truth?
> 
> Within physical reality, one 'moves away from' WDB2T.
> 
> 'Moving toward' Truth is 'moving toward' least-dis-order.
> 
> It's Easy.
> 
> All one has to do is 'range-widely' enough to see beyond
> local order-'maximums' - 'climb' WDB2T, and, from 'there'
> see where it's good to 'move toward' the further 'climbing'
> that's always out-there.
> 
> [BTW, in the sense invoked, here, "order" is not some
> 'dictatorial' stuff. That kind of 'order' is as a straight-jacket.
> 
> In the sense invoked here, "order" is that which enables one
> to do-more than one can, 'presently', do - which is 'just'-the-
> opposite of enduring 'dictatorship' [or 'wearing" a straight-jacket].
> 
> And why the seeking of such "order" is Worthy is that, 'moving
> toward' it, simultaneously, enables one to not only allow others
> to 'move toward' it, but to assist others in 'moving toward' it.
> 
> All 'automatically' - because it's in-it that imposing dis-order
> uon others imposes dis-order upon one's self.]
> 
> Easy choice.
> 
> Just makes stuff that would negatively impact one's Being, anyway,
> un-choosable.
> 
> Easy choice.
> 
> Why would I want to 'impose-dis-order' upon myself?
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Yeah, I know all about the 'supposed-to-be's.

I don´t, please enlight me on the "supposed-to-be´s"
 
> It's just that I see them for what they are: ancient Erroneous
> presuppositions that gained their 'existences' through their
> being actualized within behavior =before= anyone understood
> how nervous systems process information.
 
Please be more specific on "ancient" 

> After one understands how nervous systems process information,
> these 'supposed-to-be's just become the objects of Sorrowfully-
> reverent [because of the Tragedy that Humanity has inflicted
> upon itself] 'hilarious' stuff.
> 
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> 
> When one understands how nervous systems process information,
> one  sees that it's not only not-disrespectful, it's actually a goodness -
> be-cause doing such =gently= activates the biological reward mech-
> anisms within nervous systems, and because one knows that, sometimes,
> nervous systems just have to be lifted-up above the 'walls' that 'contain'
> them.
> 
> What's Disrespectful is to allow folks to suffer stuff that they do not
> have to suffer.
 
What about folks right to their own destiny and freedom of choice? 
What says I better understand what is good for them than they
themselves?

> One must be careful, though, because there's only a relatively-narrow
> 'band' in which such 'lifting-up' can actually occur.
> 
> 'Push' too hard, and it's in the way that nervous systems process
> information that that is not only Disrespectful, but Hurtful [and
> imposing dis-order - through which one imposes dis-order
> upon one's self, as above.]
> 
> >
> > > This, be-cause there's a =lot= of Free Will that Needs Guarding.
> >
> > Illogical with respect to my above statement.
> 
> I was discussing with particular respect to whether or not folks
> have had opportunity to choose with respect to NDT and TH [my
> research subjects], and just pointing out that there are many more
> folks who've not had such opportunity than have had such opportunity.
> 
> >
> > > The Innocents out number those who've had opportunity to
> > > Choose by orders of magnitude.
> >
> > Everybody is "innocent"
> 
> Not True.
> 
> Folks who've not had the opportunity to choose are Innocent.
> 
> The rest are probably, but not necessarily, Victims of the
> 'supposed-to-be's.
> 
> >
> > > 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.
> 
> How such 'discourse' happens within nervous systems is explained
> in AoK, Ap7 [but all of AoK is needed for first-comprehension].
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Try what's above.
> 
> One cannot 'be happy' if one's actions do not allow others to
> 'be happy' [it's the "order" vs. "dis-order" stuff, above, and its
> relationship with Truth].
 
That is excactly one of the things I mean when I say it is a tuff one
- many variables to consider as well.

> > > 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"
> 
> See my reasoning, above, which demonstrates the Possibility :-]
> 
> >
> > Orkeltatte
> 
> Thank You for your reply - I enjoyed it.
> 
> ken [k. p. collins]
> 
> >
> > > "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...
> > > > > [...]

Orkeltatte



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list