Prev: Stalker Stalking Stalkers by a Stalker
Next: Hehehe, poor Blokes....
From: michaela on 9 Feb 2007 20:47
Actually I think it's called "What is Man", but whatever...

I wrote this elsewhere tonight and something became
clear to me. Wanted to share and mebbe discuss it
some.

http://uncletaz.com/library/philclass/essays.html
What I got from it is that we are machines and can change
nothing about ourselves by ourselves.We are as we are
until the "right" bit of info comes to us at the "right" time.
And only once we're ready to hear that info will we hear
it. And then we get the opportunity to process it and that's
when we start thinking it's our own idea...

And we know that if we want anyone to do anything for
us we need them to think it's their idea to start off with.

Anyone else excited?

- Michaela



From: arc on 9 Feb 2007 23:03
michaela wrote:

> http://uncletaz.com/library/philclass/essays.html
> What I got from it is that we are machines and can change
> nothing about ourselves by ourselves.We are as we are
> until the "right" bit of info comes to us at the "right" time.
> And only once we're ready to hear that info will we hear
> it. And then we get the opportunity to process it and that's
> when we start thinking it's our own idea...

I have not read the entire text, but I have read to the end of the
dialogues.

The view presented is essentially the philosophy of "determinism",
without the explicit moniker.

The OM first claims that a person cannot change other than by outside
influences. He later claims that a person acts in order to comfort their
own conscience. This is, on the face of it, contradictory, unless we
also claim that one's conscience is an outside influence. If this claim
is made and supported by the argument that outside influences have
shaped it, then we can similarly claim intellect, will, desire, and any
other force of motivation which could be called "internal" is actually
"external". As such, it is an argument that is supported by definitions
of its own creation, and thus not altogether convincing. This is a
logical fallacy of low redefinition, followed, as usual, by that of
equivocation.

Determinism itself need not suffer from this mistake. Indeed,
determinism seems to be irrefutable, in much that same way that God
cannot be proved nor disproved. This, however, does not make the
ideology correct.

If we set aside the parallel with determinism (wherein choice is an
illusion), then the response to the argument is that it does not account
for a person's ability to choose. I may hold a position on a topic, and
then be presented with further information. This information may support
my view. If it does not, then it may completely undermine it, or merely
bring certain aspects into question. What does it mean to bring it into
question? It means I may ponder the new information, and ultimately
decide whether or not my original view is still valid. I make a choice.
I may find another person with the same original view, and present them
with the same information. There is no guarantee that they will make the
same ultimate choice. Each person has an individual standard of proof
that must be met. This standard of proof is internal. Indeed, it may
have been shaped by external influences, which have in turn undergone
the same pondering. But in undertaking the thought, I will have merged
it with my own existing set of beliefs, or likewise rejected it, and it
will become a part of me (my beliefs), or not. This is my internal
choice, and to redefine it as external is to repeat the same fallacy.

The dialogue also fails to sufficiently address the issue of invention
or creation. The example of Shakespere is raised, and refuted with the
argument that, eg, Shakespeare, merely imitated, and did not create. "He
exactly portrayed people whom GOD had created". The first problem with
this is that it presumes the existence of God, which cannot be proven.
The second problem is an ambiguity. Am I to take this to mean that
Shakespere's characters were all based on "real" people, created by a
presumed God, and Shakespeare met or researched these people to the
point of representing them exactly? Shakespeare cannot have known what
was in the minds of his historical characters, he can only have made
observations and assumptions, and so to portray them exactly would be an
impossibility. Or are we to take it to mean that, for the purely
fictitious characters, God planted the characters in Shakespeare's mind,
and thus they are still "external"? To do this is to fall back to the
argument of the first mover, God, which could be used to refute any
claims of internal origniality in any form, and is again logcically
unsupportable.

Returning finally to determinism, one will find that as irrefutable as
it may be, it is ultimately an ideology with no consequence. I have
written enough and will not elaborate on this here, the topic is widely
discussed on the web.

Personally, I believe that only I can choose, and that I *must* choose
my own destiny. I certainly do not mean to say I have not been shaped by
external influences. But it is ulitmately my own responsibility to act,
or not, based upon the ideas and beliefs which I have accepted and which
now form a part of who I am as an individual. I believe opposition to
this point of view is in the best case apathetic, and at worst
irresponsible.
From: -Phil Clemence on 10 Feb 2007 07:07

"arc" <notarealaddress(a)sorry.com> wrote in message
news:12sqh1ebmndp180(a)corp.supernews.com...
> michaela wrote:
>
>> http://uncletaz.com/library/philclass/essays.html
>> What I got from it is that we are machines and can change
>> nothing about ourselves by ourselves.We are as we are
>> until the "right" bit of info comes to us at the "right" time.
>> And only once we're ready to hear that info will we hear
>> it. And then we get the opportunity to process it and that's
>> when we start thinking it's our own idea...
>
> I have not read the entire text, but I have read to the end of the
> dialogues.
>
> The view presented is essentially the philosophy of "determinism", without
> the explicit moniker.
>
> The OM first claims that a person cannot change other than by outside
> influences. He later claims that a person acts in order to comfort their
> own conscience. This is, on the face of it, contradictory, unless we also
> claim that one's conscience is an outside influence. If this claim is made
> and supported by the argument that outside influences have shaped it, then
> we can similarly claim intellect, will, desire, and any other force of
> motivation which could be called "internal" is actually "external". As
> such, it is an argument that is supported by definitions of its own
> creation, and thus not altogether convincing. This is a logical fallacy of
> low redefinition, followed, as usual, by that of equivocation.
>
> Determinism itself need not suffer from this mistake. Indeed, determinism
> seems to be irrefutable, in much that same way that God cannot be proved
> nor disproved. This, however, does not make the ideology correct.
>
> If we set aside the parallel with determinism (wherein choice is an
> illusion), then the response to the argument is that it does not account
> for a person's ability to choose. I may hold a position on a topic, and
> then be presented with further information. This information may support
> my view. If it does not, then it may completely undermine it, or merely
> bring certain aspects into question. What does it mean to bring it into
> question? It means I may ponder the new information, and ultimately decide
> whether or not my original view is still valid. I make a choice. I may
> find another person with the same original view, and present them with the
> same information. There is no guarantee that they will make the same
> ultimate choice. Each person has an individual standard of proof that must
> be met. This standard of proof is internal. Indeed, it may have been
> shaped by external influences, which have in turn undergone the same
> pondering. But in undertaking the thought, I will have merged it with my
> own existing set of beliefs, or likewise rejected it, and it will become a
> part of me (my beliefs), or not. This is my internal choice, and to
> redefine it as external is to repeat the same fallacy.
>
> The dialogue also fails to sufficiently address the issue of invention or
> creation. The example of Shakespere is raised, and refuted with the
> argument that, eg, Shakespeare, merely imitated, and did not create. "He
> exactly portrayed people whom GOD had created". The first problem with
> this is that it presumes the existence of God, which cannot be proven. The
> second problem is an ambiguity. Am I to take this to mean that
> Shakespere's characters were all based on "real" people, created by a
> presumed God, and Shakespeare met or researched these people to the point
> of representing them exactly? Shakespeare cannot have known what was in
> the minds of his historical characters, he can only have made observations
> and assumptions, and so to portray them exactly would be an impossibility.
> Or are we to take it to mean that, for the purely fictitious characters,
> God planted the characters in Shakespeare's mind, and thus they are still
> "external"? To do this is to fall back to the argument of the first mover,
> God, which could be used to refute any claims of internal origniality in
> any form, and is again logcically unsupportable.
>
> Returning finally to determinism, one will find that as irrefutable as it
> may be, it is ultimately an ideology with no consequence. I have written
> enough and will not elaborate on this here, the topic is widely discussed
> on the web.
>
> Personally, I believe that only I can choose, and that I *must* choose my
> own destiny. I certainly do not mean to say I have not been shaped by
> external influences. But it is ulitmately my own responsibility to act, or
> not, based upon the ideas and beliefs which I have accepted and which now
> form a part of who I am as an individual. I believe opposition to this
> point of view is in the best case apathetic, and at worst irresponsible.

The whole Shakespeare thing makes me think ... What exactly?
I am having some thoughts (not exactly random but certainly spastic) and no
conclusion is likely.
Well, here they are...
I can see how some might say that we are not separate from the rest of
reality, and that however Shakespeare came to write what he did, or anyone
writes anything, even the wildest fiction, is not an individual act. He did
not invent writing - he did not invent the ideas and philosophies that make
him interpret - he did not invent humor - he did not invent thought ..
Is he only a machine, and any seeming individuality is only a variance
within the whole - a product of the whole, still controlled by the whole...
If there was only one person, sprung into life by whatever means to live a
very short life alone, without the benefit of the past, then he would seem
to be an individual (his ideas his own), but the process that allows thought
is not individual and the process that allows life is not.
I think it is a slippery slope, just as most philosophies are. As soon as
you simplify anything, it becomes something else.
It is only in retaining complexity that we can accurately describe anything.
I think a major problem in all philosophy is in trying to determine what
reality is without a gauge of importance.
Everything is reality. Imagination is reality. It is part of the same thing
that keeps Saturn in its orbit .. so where do we draw the line?
We can't. We can only account for everything and gauge each aspect according
to importance or impact, but what is the gauge of importance or impact or
influence? It is different for each aspect and more different for every
aspect. What keeps Saturn in its orbit is the MOST important thing, because
without it we would all die? How important is that to the rest of reality?
For any aspect, what is relevant or important must be gauged in relation to
that aspect.
We are an aspect and what is important to us?
First we have to determine what we are - our aspects gauged by importance.
If we were not so complex, it would be much easier. We could gauge what is
important by what allows us to procreate.
It is only in our complexity that we differ from the other animals .. and
the rest of reality.
What seems to be important to humans that is different for other animals is
mostly what relates to thought.

No conclusion .. and the more I think the further I seem to get from
conclusions.. but maybe my thoughts will trigger other thoughts (in support
or in rebuttal) in other's minds, and maybe THEY will have some conclusions
;)


From: Pisano on 10 Feb 2007 11:12
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:03:42 +1100, arc <notarealaddress(a)sorry.com>
wrote:

>michaela wrote:
>
>> http://uncletaz.com/library/philclass/essays.html
>> What I got from it is that we are machines and can change
>> nothing about ourselves by ourselves.We are as we are
>> until the "right" bit of info comes to us at the "right" time.
>> And only once we're ready to hear that info will we hear
>> it. And then we get the opportunity to process it and that's
>> when we start thinking it's our own idea...
>
>I have not read the entire text, but I have read to the end of the
>dialogues.
>
>The view presented is essentially the philosophy of "determinism",
>without the explicit moniker.
>
>The OM first claims that a person cannot change other than by outside
>influences. He later claims that a person acts in order to comfort their
>own conscience. This is, on the face of it, contradictory, unless we
>also claim that one's conscience is an outside influence. If this claim
>is made and supported by the argument that outside influences have
>shaped it, then we can similarly claim intellect, will, desire, and any
>other force of motivation which could be called "internal" is actually
>"external". As such, it is an argument that is supported by definitions
>of its own creation, and thus not altogether convincing. This is a
>logical fallacy of low redefinition, followed, as usual, by that of
>equivocation.
>
>Determinism itself need not suffer from this mistake. Indeed,
>determinism seems to be irrefutable, in much that same way that God
>cannot be proved nor disproved. This, however, does not make the
>ideology correct.
>
>If we set aside the parallel with determinism (wherein choice is an
>illusion), then the response to the argument is that it does not account
>for a person's ability to choose. I may hold a position on a topic, and
>then be presented with further information. This information may support
>my view. If it does not, then it may completely undermine it, or merely
>bring certain aspects into question. What does it mean to bring it into
>question? It means I may ponder the new information, and ultimately
>decide whether or not my original view is still valid. I make a choice.
>I may find another person with the same original view, and present them
>with the same information. There is no guarantee that they will make the
>same ultimate choice. Each person has an individual standard of proof
>that must be met. This standard of proof is internal. Indeed, it may
>have been shaped by external influences, which have in turn undergone
>the same pondering. But in undertaking the thought, I will have merged
>it with my own existing set of beliefs, or likewise rejected it, and it
>will become a part of me (my beliefs), or not. This is my internal
>choice, and to redefine it as external is to repeat the same fallacy.
>
>The dialogue also fails to sufficiently address the issue of invention
>or creation. The example of Shakespere is raised, and refuted with the
>argument that, eg, Shakespeare, merely imitated, and did not create. "He
>exactly portrayed people whom GOD had created". The first problem with
>this is that it presumes the existence of God, which cannot be proven.
>The second problem is an ambiguity. Am I to take this to mean that
>Shakespere's characters were all based on "real" people, created by a
>presumed God, and Shakespeare met or researched these people to the
>point of representing them exactly? Shakespeare cannot have known what
>was in the minds of his historical characters, he can only have made
>observations and assumptions, and so to portray them exactly would be an
>impossibility. Or are we to take it to mean that, for the purely
>fictitious characters, God planted the characters in Shakespeare's mind,
>and thus they are still "external"? To do this is to fall back to the
>argument of the first mover, God, which could be used to refute any
>claims of internal origniality in any form, and is again logcically
>unsupportable.
>
>Returning finally to determinism, one will find that as irrefutable as
>it may be, it is ultimately an ideology with no consequence. I have
>written enough and will not elaborate on this here, the topic is widely
>discussed on the web.
>
>Personally, I believe that only I can choose, and that I *must* choose
>my own destiny. I certainly do not mean to say I have not been shaped by
>external influences. But it is ulitmately my own responsibility to act,
>or not, based upon the ideas and beliefs which I have accepted and which
>now form a part of who I am as an individual. I believe opposition to
>this point of view is in the best case apathetic, and at worst
>irresponsible.


Now you have absolutely gone too far.

I BELIEVED, AND WAS HAPPY IN IT; YOU HAVE TAKEN MY BELIEF
AWAY, AND MY COMFORT. NOW I HAVE NOTHING LEFT, AND I DIE MISERABLE;
FOR THE THINGS WHICH YOU HAVE TOLD ME DO NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF THAT
WHICH I HAVE LOST.

NOW I AM FOREVER LOST, AND MY HEART IS BROKEN. HOW COULD YOU
DO THIS CRUEL THING? I HAVE DONE YOU NO HARM, BUT ONLY KINDNESS; I
MADE MY HOUSE YOUR HOME, YOU WERE WELCOME TO ALL I HAD, AND THIS IS MY
REWARD.

I HAD BELIEVED, ALL MY LIFE, WHAT I BELIEVED TO BE THE TRUTH,
AND IN MY BELIEVING FAITH I WAS HAPPY. NOW I AM DEAD,--AND LOST; AND
I AM MISERABLE. MY FAITH CAME DOWN TO ME THROUGH CENTURIES OF
BELIEVING ANCESTORS; WHAT RIGHT HAD YOU, OR ANY ONE, TO DISTURB IT?
WHERE WAS YOUR HONOR, WHERE WAS YOUR SHAME?

I just hope you're proud of yourself.

From: arc on 10 Feb 2007 11:33
Pisano(a)puppet.world wrote:

> Now you have absolutely gone too far.

<snip quotes>

Hahaha, nice one.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Stalker Stalking Stalkers by a Stalker
Next: Hehehe, poor Blokes....