IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Brain clues to attention disorder

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Thu Jan 8 06:16:58 EST 2004

<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>...
> > If anytone's 'interested', I am =not= 'oblivious' to the
> > possibility that folks've actually read, and comprehended,
> > the stuff I've discussed.

[Context deleted.]

> >
> >
> > 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?

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

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 :-]

> "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,

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.

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.

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'

What's Disrespectful is to allow folks to suffer stuff that they do not
have to suffer.

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

> > 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].

> > 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...
> > > > [...]

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net