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

Brain clues to attention disorder

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Mon Jan 12 03:58:38 EST 2004


In my prior reply [not quoted here], I failed to
respond to a couple of queries by the poster.

I do so below.

<orkeltatte at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:84da9680.0401090109.28486d3 at posting.google.com...
> "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"

"'supposed-to-be's" are long-'familiar' ways of doing
things that, through shear repetition, acquire an 'aura'
of 'being' the way this or that is "supposed to be" done.

When one 'ranges-widely' with respect to WDB2T
[as I've explained in my prior reply [not quoted here],
one sees right-through the 'supposed-to-be's, as one's
wide-ranging experiencing of WDB2T allows one to
see them for what they are - relatively-low, local, relative-
WDB2T 'maximums'.

"`climb' WDB2T further."

'move toward' Truth - instead of being Dictated-to by
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?

Yes, but don't 'abandon' them, by 'withholding' knowledge
that's been gained from them.

Give them the 'tools' of Knowledge.

Then Guard Free WIll.

Fail at this, and, through one's own choice, others cannot,
then, choose - because they are abandoned to absence-of-
understanding, and to the degree of absence-of-understanding,
Choice is 'impossible'.

So give understanding.

Then Guard Free WIll.

Giving understanding is giving understanding. It does not,
itself, Dictate anything to anyone.

It only assists folks in thier seeing so that they can, in fact,
Choose.

end of this answering of the poster's questions
that I failed to answer in my prior reply.

k. p. collins

>
> > 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

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