Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalSearchRegisterLog in

Share
 

 Free-Will

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyMon Nov 25, 2019 12:24 pm

The mind is neither a blank slate upon which the world imprints itself, nor is it the world which is a blank slate upon which the mind imprints itself, as the romantics claimed.
The mind is an interplay between the two, starting with the first, and developing towards the second.
In the meantime, the mind is a manifestation of world which then attempts to make the world a manifestation of itself.
This is where this post-modern animosity towards the body comes from. The body is a representation of cosmic contingency - it is past made present, interpreted as appearance.
We are drifting towards the feminine, the romantic, and this idea is deplorable to such minds. It is like rape, an imposition of some external authority over the individual's will.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyTue Dec 03, 2019 12:06 pm

What is most traumatic about the idea of free-will for the Desperate Degenerate is the concept of culpability, and his participation in determining his own destiny.
The idea that it could have been otherwise than how it is, scares him, because it brings to consciousness his own choices and how they were decisive in shaping the circumstances he finds himself in, and he dislikes.

The idea of determinism - god's will - places the blame outside of himself. Things can only be as they are, and hey could never have been any other way.
This is comforting to him.
He is innocent of his own circumstances, and although many of this kind begin by blaming other, as an extension of blaming this obscure otherness - if not an absolute one-god then a universe - if their self-deceptive self-contradiction is exposed they are willing to sacrifice the blame for another to preserve his won innocence.

Everything to avoid the thought that things could have turned out differently, if not for his choices and judgement calls, or those he failed to make.
His ego is dependent on this, willing to imply slavishness so as to protect it from the implications.

Judgements are not made in perfect situation but in real insinuation in real-time. No perfect environment is present to absolve the individual from its repercussions.
Each man chooses according to the circumstances he finds himself in, based on his judgement, which is a product of the quality of his mind. this is the real-time display of intelligence....and not a theoretical number, or a declaration, or a pretentious display of knowledge.
A judgement call is based on the accurate perception of circumstances and the accurate approximation of possible consequences for every option available.
Each option perceived and chosen determining al subsequent options....and consequences - good and bad.
A bad judgement call displays a poor mind, or a mind unable to control its impulses, or a mind without access to all its options - unable to perceive them - and therefore unable to approximate all the possible repercussions.
This is the true measure of intelligence, an of wisdom...not theories and regurgitating data or constructing fantasy alternate realities or using word games to evade responsibility.

The idea that it could not have been any other way - implying a god like absolute order or will, intent - is a self-deceiving way of self-comforting.
A strategy of evading knowing thyself, so as to then construct a hyperbolic identity based on these kinds of evasions.
It would be like an individual suffering failure after failure unwilling to admit what this implies about him and his quality of mind, seeking excuses in other or declaring his failures as part of some universal order, some cosmic plan, that he simply enacts without being responsible for them.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyTue Dec 03, 2019 3:20 pm

Empathize...do not succumb to the easy temptation to project self into their position and feel  sympathy or antipathy....but objectively empathize and think how devastating it will be to admit that in your one and only passage through life you misjudged and ruined your life, and instead of correcting your error in time, you were unable to accurately determine the cause so you repeated the errors that resulted in your previous misjudgements, adding insult to injury.

Now, imagine how comforting it would be to convince yourself that you could not have ever done differently, and that all of it is in accordance to a divine plan, a universal inevitability.
You can feel comforted as a 'victim' of cosmological forces beyond your ability to resist, and find pride in enduring your fate as it has been laid out for you by universal destiny.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyTue Dec 03, 2019 3:56 pm

Like Christians who judge atheist by projecting themselves in their place, they mistakenly assume that atheists are sad, or can explode in fits of violence, and that they cannot be rusted because they know that without a belief in a one-god they would be like that....similarly those who do not believe in free-will imagine it as a blame game, because they are prone to blaming others and had to surrender to a universal absence of freedom to find peace and salvation in innocence.
Like the Christians, because they come from the same psychological pool, they imagine free-will as an opportunity to blame others for one's own predicaments and failures and suffering, but this is the opposite of what is true, just as it is in regards to atheists, because free-will begins with self, and ends with self as the free-agent who failed or failed to accurately identify the cause of his failure, offering an opportunity to self-correct and to take hold of one's own destiny, to whatever degree this is possible.

This is typical of nihilists....they cannot empathise without projecting self into the analysis. Ultimately this is what exposes them because everything they think is a projection so their accusations are always more revealing about them.
like when Christians imagine disbelief in a one-god, or atheists as being secretly vile, immoral people, prone to violence and cruelty because they do not have a fear to regulate their impulses. the Christian projects himself into the atheists position and exposes his true nature; similarly, the denier of any degree of free-will projects himself into the position of having free-will and exposes how he would always and only blame others, hating what they've done to him, because in his min, there is no way to find peace in a belief in slavish hard-determinism which makes everyone innocent, including those who wrong them, as a necessary compromises to feel innocent about what they've done to themselves and to their won lives.
The only application for freedom they can imagine is as a way of unburdening themselves of personal responsibility. Their solution is to compromise with a belief in universal innocence.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyWed Dec 25, 2019 1:52 pm


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyMon Jan 20, 2020 10:51 am

McGilchrist, Iain wrote:
POSSIBILITY VERSUS PREDICTABILITY
The right hemisphere is, in other words, more capable of a frame shift; and not surprisingly the right frontal lobe is especially important for flexibility of thought, with damage in that area leading to perseveration, a pathological inability to respond flexibly to changing situations. For example,
having found an approach that works for one problem, subjects seem to get stuck, and will inappropriately apply it to a second problem that requires a different approach – or even, having answered one question right, will give the same answer to the next and the next. It is the right frontal cortex that is responsible for inhibiting one's immediate response, and hence for flexibility and setshifting; as well as the power of inhibiting immediate response to environmental stimuli.
It is similar with problem solving. Here the right hemisphere presents an array of possible solutions, which remain live while alternatives are explored. The left hemisphere, by contrast, takes the single solution that seems best to fit what it already knows and latches onto it. V. S.
Ramachandran's studies of anosognosia reveal a tendency for the left hemisphere to deny discrepancies that do not fit its already generated schema of things. The right hemisphere, by contrast, is actively watching for discrepancies, more like a devil's advocate. These approaches are both needed, but pull in opposite directions.
This difference is not predicated on any of the old distinctions such as verbal versus visuospatial. It operates equally in the realm of attention to verbal information. In keeping with what we know of its priorities, the left hemisphere actively narrows its attentional focus to highly related words while the right hemisphere activates a broader range of words. The left hemisphere operates focally, suppressing meanings that are not currently relevant. By contrast, the right hemisphere ‘processes information in a non-focal manner with widespread activation of related meanings’. Whereas close lexical semantic relationships rely more on the left hemisphere, looser semantic associations rely on the right. Because the right hemisphere makes infrequent or distantly related word meanings available, there is increased right-hemisphere involvement when generating unusual or distantly related words or novel uses for objects. This may be one of many aspects that tend to associate the right hemisphere with a freer, more ‘creative’ style. The right anterior temporal region is associated with making connections across distantly related information during comprehension, and the right posterior superior temporal sulcus may be selectively involved in verbal creativity. In the ‘close’ situation, by contrast, the left hemisphere actively suppresses the right, to exclude associations which are semantically only distantly related.
The more flexible style of the right hemisphere is evidenced not just in its own preferences, but also at the ‘meta’ level, in the fact that it can also use the left hemisphere's preferred style, whereas the left hemisphere cannot use the right hemisphere's. For example, although the left hemisphere gains more benefit from a single strong association than several weaker associations, only the right hemisphere can use either equally.
One of the standard psychological tests that is supposed to measure creativity is the Remote
Association Test, an expression of the belief that creativity requires the ability to make associations between widely different ideas or concepts. Since efforts of will focus attention and deliberately narrow its range, it may be that cessation of the effort to ‘produce something’ – relaxation, in other words – favours creativity because it permits broadening of attention, and, with the expansion of the attentional field, engagement of the right hemisphere. (From what has been said it can be seen that relatively more remote or tenuous associations of thought are made more easily by permitting the broader scope of right-hemisphere attention, which may also explain the ‘tip of the tongue’ phenomenon: the harder we try, the more we recruit narrow left-hemisphere attention, and the less we can remember the word. Once we stop trying, the word comes to us unbidden.)
Since the left hemisphere actually inhibits the breadth of attention that the right hemisphere brings to bear, creativity can increase after a left-hemisphere stroke, and not just in sensory qualities but, as Alajouanine says of one painter he describes, in ‘numerous intellectual and affective components’.
Certainly there is plenty of evidence that the right hemisphere is important for creativity, which given its ability to make more and wider-ranging connections between things, and to think more flexibly, is hardly surprising. But this is only part of the story. Both hemispheres are importantly involved. Creativity depends on the union of things that are also maintained separately – the precise function of the corpus callosum, both to separate and connect; and interestingly division of the corpus callosum does impair creativity.
[The Master and His Emissary - The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World]
From Gilchrist's insights we can identify free-will as a predominately right-hemisphere reactivity to the novel – product of chaos & order; patterned energies interacting with non-patterned energies.

McGilchrist, Iain wrote:
THE NEW VERSUS THE KNOWN
From this it follows that in almost every case what is new must first be present in the right hemisphere, before it can come into focus for the left. For one thing, the right hemisphere alone attends to the peripheral field of vision from which new experience tends to come; only the right hemisphere can direct attention to what comes to us from the edges of our awareness, regardless of side. Anything newly entering our experiential world instantly triggers a release of noradrenaline – mainly in the right hemisphere. Novel experience induces changes in the right hippocampus, but not the left. So it is no surprise that phenomenologically it is the right hemisphere that is attuned to the apprehension of anything new.
This difference is pervasive across domains. Not just new experience, but the learning of new information or new skills also engages right-hemisphere attention more than left, even if the information is verbal in nature. However, once the skills have become familiar through practice, they shift to being the concern of the left hemisphere, even for skills such as playing a musical instrument.
If it is the right hemisphere that is vigilant for whatever it is that exists ‘out there’, it alone can bring us something other than what we already know. The left hemisphere deals with what it knows, and therefore prioritises the expected – its process is predictive. It positively prefers what it knows.
This makes it more efficient in routine situations where things are predictable, but less efficient than the right wherever the initial assumptions have to be revised, or when there is a need to distinguish old information from new material that may be consistent with it. Because the left hemisphere is drawn by its expectations, the right hemisphere outperforms the left whenever prediction is difficult.
The link between the right hemisphere and what is new or emotionally engaging exists not just in humans, but already in higher mammals: for example, horses perceive new and possibly emotionally arousing stimuli with the left eye.
[The Master and His Emissary – The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World]

Preprogrammed reactivity, inherited as memory (DNA), represented by the body - is usurped by the mind's ongoing engagement with a fluid reality, confronting it with the unpredictable, the novel, reacting to it by usurping the previous.
Here we can also identify the source of Nihilism attempting to completely erase the genetic programming of the body, to reinvent itself as something 'new' or to identify in contradiction to the body's appearance.
Right-hemisphere is the source of 'ego' - that which becomes aware of itself, becoming aware of reality - self-consciousness a product of a partial separation, attempting to become complete - mind/body dissonance in the duality of right/left brained specialization.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyThu Jan 30, 2020 6:02 am

Christ Narrative - Salvation from Past - Liberation from Responsibility.

Consider the Christ myth as it has been presented to us through the Bible.
It is a story of redemption, from guilt and responsibility.
Through the 'coming of Christ' man is absolved of primordial sin - what is this terrible sin?
The exercise of his free-will, in contradiction to the absolute, i.e., god, order....
How does Christ achieve this?
By dying, symbolically, as a corporeal physical being and being reborn as pure idea: as the ideal of absolute order.
See, when Christ was supposedly resurrected he became ideology - the ideology of absolute order that can only exist in the minds of men as idea.
This modification no longer required the story about Gardens of Eden, Satan, snakes, and Adam & Eve being given a choice.
Choice is the problem, you see.
By being reborn as absolute order - as the idea of it - no evidence is required, even if absoluteness is contradicted by the experienced, physical world - all this is left behind when the Christened one was reborn as pure noumenon, represented by word.
Man could no longer be held accountable for anything he did, does, or will do, as long as he accepted the absolute idea of order into his heart.
This is a crucial point. The idea has to be consciously accepted, believed in, otherwise this salvation does not occur.  
The idea, you see, can only exist as an abstraction, and this is why the corporeal, the physical, must be abandoned and left behind for salvation to ensue. The believer must accept the idea, wholeheartedly, in order that he or she be saved from his own sins, i.e., form his responsibilities.
Through Jesus, reborn as idea, guilt is erased. Nothing a believer does can hold him accountable to anything or anyone, because it is all in accordance to the 'will of god' - in accordance to nature - conceptualized as absolute order.
An easy enough task, because man is made in god's image, he is himself a product of order, so why would absolute order be difficult to accept?
Unless he harboured a secret doubt - an evil. Perhaps absolute order is the illusion, and entirely man's creation. Could god be an image of man's ideal?
Blasphemy!!!
To doubt the absoluteness of order is to doubt god's omnipotence and omniscience - his Will.
What madman would even consider such a deplorable thing? Who but an arrogant fool would think that he could go against god's will?
Has not Adam & Eve already warned us about such thoughts?
Lost Paradise means the "hell" of your own making - to hold yourself accountable, and to know that others participate in your fate with their won choices.

The Jews had no need for such narratives because they were already 'saved' by converting themselves, in their entirely, to the christened ones - the chosen.
From Semite they were reborn Jews - genes to meme - from the multiplicity of physicality to the singularity of their oneness.
They acted on behalf of absolute order, burdened with the responsibility of being its corporeal representation - the tangible, physicality of this idea.
That one of their own broke off and gave this idea to other tribes - as once it was given to them by others - makes Christ a threat to their privileged distinctness. He, Jesus, made the idea of them, being chosen, obsolete, for how can they be chosen to act in accordance to absolute order if all are also doing so?
This destroys the very idea of choseness, of being christened.
Their mission was to bring salvation through destruction - the tangible would submit to the absolute, through their dominion, or be destroyed - Messianism.
A mission now taken up by Americanism, i.e., the U.S. will save mankind form itself, or it will destroy it. Utopia or Dystopia - Heaven or Hell. This is the messianic 'choice': duality, pretending to be a choice when in fact there is only one acceptable option.
Biblical.
For some of the zealots destruction is inevitable, even desirable to complete the mission they were chosen for - Armageddon; world-cleansing event, brought about by the agency of the chosen ones acting on behalf of absolute order.

Muslims have something similar.
As long as thy act on behalf of absolute order - Allah - they bear no personal responsibility.
When they kill and rape and destroy they evoke Allah's name, to show that it is not they, as individuals, acting of their free volition, but that they are acting on behalf of absolute order, a higher authority - deferring responsibility for anything they do they not only absolve themselves of responsibility but they convince themselves that instead punishment, they deserve rewards and praises.
Beheading a man in the name of Allah only means that they are not to be held accountable for this. It is not they, but the hand of God, acting through them.
A way of implying that all this was preordained and that they are simply the agency through which this manifests in real time.

Christians erase guilt; Jews embrace it; Muslims reject the very idea as nonsense.

This myth permeates the world in the shadow of these three Abrahamic nihilistic religions.
The idea of guilt is erased, through the coming of the Jewish idea of the christened one, bringing to the pagans the concept of absolute order which makes primordial sin obsolete - will is illusory, and all act in accordance to a preordained order, natural order, the Jew Spinoza would say, forcing his fellow Jews to ostracise him for challenging their choseness, just as the other half-Jew, Jesus, had done.
The world repeats the same continuously as it always has, always does and forever will.
Man has no agency in absolute order. He cannot change what will be, therefore there is no guilt for one who understands this, believes in it - he is, essentially, saved from past and from his own responsibilities; the choices of his ancestors are erased, along with his own, because choice is illusory.
This idea of absoluteness was not Jewish. As with everything, they appropriated it from the tribes they were eventually expelled from for doing things against the interests of their hosts. Zoroastrianism is the source of the idea of an absolute one-god, and his evil counterpart.
Monism is an ancient idea. Its application is innovative.

This has carried onto modern times. God is not dead - he is reborn, like Christ, as pure abstraction, as idea, i.e., the idea/ideal of absolute order, a.k.a, oneness, wholeness, singularity, universe.
How can there be personal responsibility, or guilt, on any level, if all is preordained and follows a repeating path of absolute order?
Order is about repeating consistency, and so absolute order implies a pattern that cannot be contradicted or stopped, but only surrendered to.
Man makes of himself a shadow, a ghost, a mere representation of universal order - in god's image. What's there to do but endure what fate has in store for him?
What god has in store for him. Stoicism. Cynicism follows, as one can only laugh at what is happening to him, if he is not to cry; laugh at those who think they can resit or change what god wills, what fate has in store for them.
Life becomes a performance one experiences as an audience/actor who is following a script he is oblivious to.
An actor who cannot believe what is coming out of his own mouth, or how his own body is behaving - entirely absorbed by the spectacle of his own performance.
He is innocent. A mere puppet.

Now we can understand what existential issues arise from this. Futility, fatalism, the questioning of purpose, of one's own existence.
Absolution leaves the individual empty - a physical husk, awaiting the inevitable. A slave, humbly finding pride in belonging to the ultimate master - power through association; feminine to the core.
Self-medication is essential.
At least the Christians, the Jews, and the Muslims have their purpose given to them by a higher authority, but what of the secular version of this psychosis?
What purpose are they given for their suffering - for their very life - when everything is already inevitable?
They dare not grasp their own fate in their hands - their will. Their hands are not even governed by their will, for they have no will of their own.
With innocence comes ennui. How to distract one's self from the inevitable, as existence happens to you.
The paradox - this too is not in your hands.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Kvasir
Augur
Kvasir

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2622
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 34
Location : Gleichgewicht

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptySat Feb 01, 2020 11:01 am

Modern psychosis is self-freedom through self-destruction; the human power complex, imprisoned by its own sense of power, trapped by its own nature. Release, escape is the only viable source of purpose that remains, which is why it always takes on insane appearances and behaviors.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyTue Feb 11, 2020 10:51 am

McGilchrist wrote:
THE PRIMACY OF THE UNCONSCIOUS WILL
Some now famous experimental work by Benjamin Libet, published in 1985, attempted to investigate the conscious will from a neurophysiological point of view. Libet asked subjects to make spontaneous movements of their fingers at will, and recorded what was going on in the brain by monitoring the accompanying electroencephalographic data, recorded by electrodes on the scalp. He confirmed earlier findings of a German neurologist, Hans Kornhuber, who had shown that there is a blip in the trace, known as a ‘readiness potential’ (Bereitschaftspotential), about a second before the movement takes place. But, much to his amazement, he discovered that the conscious urge to move the finger occurred, not before, but approximately 0.2 seconds after, the readiness potential. In other words the brain seemed to know in advance that its ‘owner’ was going to make a decision to carry out an action.
This clearly doesn't square with the common-sense notion that we make a conscious decision to do something, and has cast doubt in some minds on free will, giving rise to an extensive philosophical literature of debate. As Susan Pockett puts it, some of Libet's research results ‘seem to deny to consciousness any major role in the conduct of our day-to-day affairs’. Quite so. But as one of the contributors to this debate points out, this is only a problem if one imagines that, for me to decide
something, I have to have willed it with the conscious part of my mind.44 Perhaps my unconscious is every bit as much ‘me’. In fact it had better be, because so little of life is conscious at all.
One would have thought that such a conclusion would not be hard to embrace in a post-Freudian era. It certainly would not surprise those who have read the now classic work of Princeton psychologist Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, in which he systematically disabuses the reader of the idea that consciousness is needed for any of the defining features of human mental life. He points out that very little brain activity is in fact conscious (current estimates are certainly less than 5 per cent, and probably less than 1 per cent), and that we take decisions, solve problems, make judgments, discriminate, reason, and so on, without any need for conscious involvement.

As McGilchrist points out much of human judgement occurs on a unconscious, or pre-conscious level.
Consciousness is not necessary for life to choose, or to act intentionally....as life exists with no nervous system and no brain long before brains evolve and with the potential for conciousness - man advancing further becoming concious of his own consciousness, taking a third-party perspective, creating this mind/body division, necessitating some for of coping mechanism.

My own positions are clear. I've repeated them often enough.
Objectivity, or its possibility, is only possible in organisms that have become self-conscious - perceiving themselves as another agency among others - and exposing the organism to a perspective that multiplies pain/suffering, requiring nihilism as a ideological- mental/psychological - method of dealing with what is perceived.  
Animals are 'trapped' in subjectivity - they can only relate to otherness as subjective agencies - and so nihilism never develops because animals are not self-aware on a level man can become - manimals wanting to revert back to that 'primal' state, as a way of regressing, degenerating, to what they imagine is 'better' or less painful - correctly assessing self-awareness as the source of a multiplier of their suffering, that animals do not share.

It is the cost, the price, paid by higher life-forms.
Nothing is without a price - there is no benefit without a cost. - no negative without a positive and no positive without a negative - no absolutes.

This is why philosophy is not for all - just as self-conciousness canoe be endured by all, forcing most to seek refuge in nihilism.

McGilchrist, Iian wrote:
Jaynes aligns the right hemisphere with the unconscious mind, and this link has been made by many others. The alignment has to be a matter of degree rather than all or nothing. As one writer puts it, ‘the left side is involved with conscious response and the right with the unconscious mind’. It is true that processing of pre-conscious information, which includes most of what is encompassed in social understanding, tends to be carried out by the right hemisphere. The attentional system that detects stimuli outside the focus of conscious processing, is ‘strongly lateralised to the right hemisphere’.
Equally, conscious processing tends to go on in the left hemisphere. This dichotomy can be seen at play even in a realm, such as emotion, with an admittedly strong right-hemisphere bias: the right hemisphere processes unconscious emotional material, whereas the left hemisphere is involved in the conscious processing of emotional stimuli. Certainly the right hemisphere experiences material that the left hemisphere cannot be aware of;  and according to Allan Schore, Freud's pre-conscious lies in the right orbitofrontal cortex. Freud wrote of non-verbal, imagistic thinking that it ‘is, therefore, only a very incomplete form of becoming conscious. In some way, too, it stands nearer to unconscious processes than does thinking in words, and it is unquestionably older than the latter both ontogenetically and phylogenetically.’ Freud may in fact have derived his distinction between the secondary (conscious) process and the primary (unconscious) process from Hughlings Jackson's
distinction between the verbal, propositional thought of the left hemisphere and the speechless, ‘lower levels of ideation’ associated with the right hemisphere.55 All of this is perhaps in keeping with evidence suggesting that during REM sleep and dreaming there is greatly increased blood flow in the right hemisphere, particularly the temporoparietal region. EEG coherence data also point to the predominance of the right hemisphere in dreaming.

Moderns associate 'identity' with the lucid part of their conciousness - what I call 'ego' to differentiate it from the unconscious, or pre-conscious self.....
I've made a distinction between ego - self and Self, as the identity that precedes the synthesis of fertilization, generally placed as what precedes birth.
This is how they splinter themselves into segments - schizophrenic - making narcissism a by-product of this separation.
It is always how they deny free-will, absolutely, rejecting any accountability for what they are not aware of, even if they are wilful agencies that evolved through stags of unconscious willing: judging and choosing.

It also orients and explains how nihilism works or where it intervenes with its semiotic defensive walls, separating ego from self, as if self was not part of themselves, their organic identity held together by an uninterrupted link of memories - not only experienced memories but unconscious, and inherited.

This makes it possible for an individual to believe one thing - according to a meme - and act, behave, judge and choose, in accordance to another - the gene.
To protect ego through self-deceit.
A self-purifying method, producing this Abrahamic God/Satan or good/evil dichotomies.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyTue Feb 11, 2020 1:17 pm

More McGilchrist....'caue I love this guy...

McGilchrist wrote:
Jaynes aligns the right hemisphere with the unconscious mind, and this link has been made by many others. The alignment has to be a matter of degree rather than all or nothing. As one writer puts it, ‘the left side is involved with conscious response and the right with the unconscious mind’. It is true that processing of pre-conscious information, which includes most of what is encompassed in social understanding, tends to be carried out by the right hemisphere. The attentional system that detects stimuli outside the focus of conscious processing, is ‘strongly lateralised to the right hemisphere’.
Equally, conscious processing tends to go on in the left hemisphere. This dichotomy can be seen at play even in a realm, such as emotion, with an admittedly strong right-hemisphere bias: the right hemisphere processes unconscious emotional material, whereas the left hemisphere is involved in the conscious processing of emotional stimuli. Certainly the right hemisphere experiences material that the left hemisphere cannot be aware of; and according to Allan Schore, Freud's pre-conscious lies in the right orbitofrontal cortex. Freud wrote of non-verbal, imagistic thinking that it ‘is, therefore, only a very incomplete form of becoming conscious. In some way, too, it stands nearer to unconscious processes than does thinking in words, and it is unquestionably older than the latter both ontogenetically and phylogenetically.’ Freud may in fact have derived his distinction between the secondary (conscious) process and the primary (unconscious) process from Hughlings Jackson's distinction between the verbal, propositional thought of the left hemisphere and the speechless, ‘lower levels of ideation’ associated with the right hemisphere. All of this is perhaps in keeping with evidence suggesting that during REM sleep and dreaming there is greatly increased blood flow in the right hemisphere, particularly the temporoparietal region. EEG coherence data also point to the predominance of the right hemisphere in dreaming.
If what we mean by consciousness is the part of the mind that brings the world into focus, makes it explicit, allows it to be formulated in language, and is aware of its own awareness, it is reasonable to link the conscious mind to activity almost all of which lies ultimately in the left hemisphere. One could think of such consciousness as a tree growing on one side of a fence, but with a root system that goes deep down into the ground on both sides of the fence. This type of consciousness is a minute part of brain activity, and must take place at the highest level of integration of brain function, at the point where the left hemisphere (which in reality is in constant communication with the right hemisphere, at the millisecond level) acts as Gazzaniga's ‘interpreter’. Not the only one that does the experiencing, mind you, but the one that does the interpreting, the translation into words.
(Note the significance of the metaphor. Meaning does not originate with an interpreter – all one can hope for from the interpreter is that in his or her hands the true meaning is not actually lost.)
Why should ‘we’ not be our unconscious, as well as our conscious, selves? Libet's experiment does not tell us that we do not choose to initiate an action: it just tells us that we have to widen our concept of who ‘we’ are to include our unconscious selves. The difficulties seem to arise, as so often, because of language, which is principally the left hemisphere's way of construing the world. It will be objected that what we mean by words such as ‘will’, ‘intend’, ‘choose’ is that the process is conscious: if it's not conscious, then we did not will it to happen, we did not intend it, it was not our choice. The fact that it is clear to all of us these days that our unconscious wishes, intentions, choices can play a huge part in our lives seems not to be noticed.
If forced to concede this point, the next line of defence is to disown the unconscious, just as in split-brain
patients the left hemisphere will disown the actions that are obviously initiated (‘chosen’, ‘intended’, ‘willed’) by the right hemisphere: it was not ‘my’ will. One does not in fact have to look at split-brain patients to see that the right hemisphere has a will, can intend, mean, will and choose, just as the left hemisphere can. As Hans Vaihinger wrote:
the organic function of thought is carried on for the most part unconsciously. Should the product finally enter consciousness also, or should consciousness momentarily accompany the processes of logical thought, this light only penetrates to the shallows, and the actual fundamental processes are carried on in the darkness of the unconscious. The specifically purposeful operations are chiefly, and in any case at the beginning, wholly instinctive and unconscious, even if they later press forward into the luminous circle of consciousness …
I want to present some amazing research findings that I hope will confirm not only that this is so, but that, once again, these intentions arise from the right hemisphere and are prior, in every sense – temporally, logically and ontologically – to those of the left hemisphere.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyWed Feb 12, 2020 11:41 am

McGilchrist wrote:
McNeill unearths further evidence of the link between the gestural language that has primacy and its right-hemisphere origins. ‘After right-hemisphere damage, speakers show tendencies both to decontextualise speech and to reduce gesture output;’ and those who do not make gestures tend to give more ‘segmented’ sequences of information than global descriptions. As mentioned, restricting hand movement limits the content and fluency of speech, and we can now see that this is probably because it inhibits expression of the primary global-synthetic concept of what one wants to say, originating in the right hemisphere.
Perhaps the most striking finding of all is that, when there is a mismatch between gesture and speech, it is the gesture that carries the day in 100 per cent of cases.
‘In all cases, the affecting element in the stimulus appeared to be the gesture, and it was never the speech.’ Where a mathematical speaker made a mistake verbally, his gesture proceeded with the metaphorical meaning correctly, implying that the thought was correct even if the language wasn't, and the gesture conveyed the thought.

McGilchrist affirms my own positions that act precedes logos, and is more honest than words.
The body's judgements preceded the mind's and determine them.
We may say that Nihilism is the usurping of the body's judgement, after the fact, attempting to deny, negate, and replace the body's genetic honesty - though vague and unconscious - with the memetically driven mind's own motives.
The left-hemisphere - linguistic - experiences this as an external intrusion - an external order - the right-hemisphere having already processed and translated stimuli into a form the brain can process - as sensation, emotion, image etc.
The left-hemisphere would associate this intrusion as a mystifying pre-existing will.

Nihilism, as I've said, is a denial of the tangible, the physical, the experienced, and its replacement with the ideological, the theoretical, the language-based.
In effect, nihilism attempt to overturn this sequence, from right to left hemisphere synthesis into a left-to-right hemisphere sequence.
It begins with the idea - given a name.

McGilchrist wrote:
Why should ‘we’ not be our unconscious, as well as our conscious, selves? Libet's experiment does not tell us that we do not choose to initiate an action: it just tells us that we have to widen our concept of who ‘we’ are to include our unconscious selves. The difficulties seem to arise, as so often, because of language, which is principally the left hemisphere's way of construing the world. It will be objected that what we mean by words such as ‘will’, ‘intend’, ‘choose’ is that the process is conscious: if it's not conscious, then we did not will it to happen, we did not intend it, it was not our choice. The fact that it is clear to all of us these days that our unconscious wishes, intentions, choices can play a huge part in our lives seems not to be noticed.
If forced to concede this point, the next line of defence is to disown the unconscious, just as in splitbrain patients the left hemisphere will disown the actions that are obviously initiated (‘chosen’, ‘intended’, ‘willed’) by the right hemisphere: it was not ‘my’ will. One does not in fact have to look at split-brain patients to see that the right hemisphere has a will, can intend, mean, will and choose, just as the left hemisphere can. As Hans Vaihinger wrote:
the organic function of thought is carried on for the most part unconsciously. Should the product
finally enter consciousness also, or should consciousness momentarily accompany the processes of logical thought, this light only penetrates to the shallows, and the actual fundamental processes are carried on in the darkness of the unconscious. The specifically purposeful operations are chiefly, and in any case at the beginning, wholly instinctive and unconscious, even if they later press forward into the luminous circle of consciousness …
I want to present some amazing research findings that I hope will confirm not only that this is so, but that, once again, these intentions arise from the right hemisphere and are prior, in every sense – temporally, logically and ontologically – to those of the left hemisphere.

Modern man - Alexandrian - chooses to identify with the lucid part of himself - ego, consciousness - and denies the judgements and choices already made by the more ancient and primal body - through the right-hemisphere - because it is this part that does not adhere to socio-economic ideologies or to self-serving bullshit.
The defensiveness of nihilism is on the part of the left-hemisphere which associates with reason and language - semiotics - and is full of certainty, focusing no the positive and ignoring the negative.

Like Jaynes described how conscience must have baffled early man - mistakenly associating it with an external will - so too McGilchrist explains how modern man is intentionally or not, confused and schizophrenic.

My own hypothesis is that the brain is an organ interested in the survival of the individual, without which it perishes - it is interested in the body's continuance, and it will place this above all other considerations, such as clarity, objectivity, honesty. If self-deceit and compartmentalization and idiocy, increases survivability then it will unconscionably choose that option rather than risk an alternative. For this reason I've said that philosophy is a rare occurrence, emerging only within specific types of individuals who place clarity above their own self0-interest.
The rest use philosophy as a way of justifying their own already made choice to self-deceive and self-comfort, placing survival above integrity and clarity.

By the time the lucid mind becomes aware of the choices - and the judgements they were based upon - it is, as if, some external entity has intervened to contradicts its lucid beliefs and its rational principles.

I've used the example of a pious religious man getting an erection at the sight of a teenage female which is, by the standards of his culture and the morals of his own beliefs, beyond his ability to perceive sexually.
Clothes have this additional benefit: they hide the body's judgements, when they are overt, and when they contradict the mind's ideological convictions.
Without this self-deception and the technologies that make it possible, civilization would be impossible.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyThu Feb 13, 2020 8:35 pm



This is the first time I've ever heard of this Dyer dude.
He refers to himself in the third plural....'we'....strange and typical of an Abrahamic. He is a agent of the divine...so he speaks on behalf of its singular multiplicity.


*I've watched part of it...up until they get to the "seven coconuts".
The distinction between the noumenon/phenomenon.
Seven coconuts would refer to the abstraction of patterns with specific similarities, organizing them into a group, a category - eidos. A kind.
All language is a representation of an abstraction which is itself a simplification/generalization of a sensually perceived pattern.
Similarities unify, differences distinguish, separate, divide - differentiate. The degree of similarities and differences perceived and the intent, determines what will be differentiated and what will be unified into a group, or a thing - the apparent.

*Yes, people contradict their own stated convictions - an example of actions being more honest than words proposing theories that only exist in a mind.

*Mathematics can and do go beyond the experienced world - for example they can go beyond the infinite.
This only proves that language, and symbols, the realm of mind, are representations that may or may not refer to reality.
That the mind can imagine, project itself beyond reality - as it does when it attempts to conceptualise the universe as a singular whole -  is how it is mistaken as the divine, or an organ that channels the divine - as a external consciousness.
It is also how the mind can construct a nihilistic linguistic defence against existence and its awareness of itself in relation to it.

*A belief is justified through trial and error and over time....and in most cases by the confirmation of multiple minds. Yet, it is never absolutely validated.
All is accepted as a probability. As the most possible of all known possibilities...and because omniscience is impossible - just as all absolutes are - therefore one can be relatively certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, without ever attaining the godly perspective of absolute certainty.
The death of god does not mean anything is equally possible, nor that man is now god, creator of reality.  

*It's remarkable how the "transcendental" or what cannot be justified is justified in the mind.
A theory that can exceed the unknown and the experienced, finds a place in the existing brain.
It's always in the mind where god exists, as a thought, an idea...and so god is mind, in its purest form.  

*Flux refers to interactivity, or the dynamic experience of existence. It cannot not-exist because to exist is to be in Flux, as the existent that is immutable, indivisible, has never been experienced.
We cannot assume that it will exist, when it would be a contradiction of existence, and because it would contradict precedent.

*The dialectic is the relationship between the perceived and the perceiver, or subject and object, i.e. noumenon/phenomenon, or ideal/real.
as long as there is life there is a dialogue - a relationship between  self and the other.  In the context of free-will, it is the relationship between what is determined and the active agent participating in determination with its choices and actions.  
It can also be reduced to the relationship[p between chaos and order and/or what has been ordered as self - ordering - and what has yet to be ordered and confronts this order, outside self - the dichotomy of esoteric/exoteric.
Dielectric is founded no the dualistic essence of conciousness and its binary systolic/diastolic nature.
Without it life would be impossible because life is a degree of detachment, separation, from otherness - represented by the skin as a fluctuating ephemeral and incomplete (imperfect) boundary.

*We have to differentiate morality - as it evolved to facilitate cooperative survival and reproductive strategies - and ethics, delivered in Abrahamism on stone tablets, which are manmade rules of conduct that makes sophisticated and huge social unities possible - enforced by god and by the rule of law.
Confusing the two leads to idiocy or paradoxes. A distinction between genes and memes.
Man inherits a disposition for certain moral behaviour but he is also trained, and indoctrinated, into social conventions which he cannot imagine contradicting, and yet often does - and so out prisons are full of those who have broken these manmade laws of conduct we also call ethical laws.
This confusion of the two is how morality is either affirmed as divine in orig8in, or dismissed as entirely subjective and man-made.

*Solipsism is evaded if you reject the idea of an absolute and believe in an open-ended existence which cannot be enclosed and known entirely, but only believed in with a degree of certainty. Also, evading the confusion of an idea with the real, or confusing the abstraction for the existent fails to become a circular argument.
Application of theory evades the entrapments within theory.
Life is about a constant process of judgement, application/action, adjustment and repeat. Nothing is ever completed, final, perfect; there is no being, only becoming.
All is movement - process.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:29 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyThu Feb 13, 2020 8:55 pm

Oh shit...he's a Christian.
The hair cut, dress and tone of voice kind-of hinted at it....

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Kvasir
Augur
Kvasir

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2622
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 34
Location : Gleichgewicht

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyThu Feb 13, 2020 9:57 pm

An engrossing discussion. But Dyer is a dissapointment so far. His Christian mentality "utilizes" philosophy for promotion. Augustine and Aquines did a better job.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyThu Feb 13, 2020 10:01 pm

Kvasir wrote:
An engrossing discussion. But Dyer is a dissapointment so far. His Christian mentality "utilizes" philosophy for promotion. Augustine and Aquines did a better job.
I just wasted an hour on this imbecile.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Kvasir
Augur
Kvasir

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2622
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 34
Location : Gleichgewicht

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyThu Feb 13, 2020 10:10 pm

I've seen this strategy before by these new age Christians actually. Its a growing trend I think. They take part in science and reason as a way to lend credibility to thier delusions, using it as an "intellectual tactic" for the purposes of sophistry to advance thier Christian beliefs. Churches dedicated to "Christian Science" is a case in point. Christians like to stay hip and trendy with the times. The insidiousness of the parasite.

If molyneux had any honor or true loyalty to the integrity of philosophy he would never had engaged this dude. But he is not a philosopher. Only a pretend one for performance reasons.

Molynuex and his stupid fuckin Masters degree in philosophy. Haha. Fuckin twat.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyThu Feb 13, 2020 10:18 pm

The tactic involves the see-saw strategy, as I call it.
They go from the rational to the irrational, or from empiricism to mysticism, depending on the environment and who they re dealing with.
Like the 'chosen" who are sometimes a race and other times an ideology a religion, an idea - both and neither, so they can expel immigrants one day and then justify their entrance into another nation, the other.
Sometimes defending their racial identity and then only preserving their religious identity.

So, they can deny empiricism while participating in it, and then justify their idiocies using transcendental arguments that already presuppose a world that is transcended.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 EmptyThu Feb 13, 2020 10:37 pm

That this moron considers the philosophical questions 'does god exist' and 'what is the meaning of life' as the greatest, exposes how idiotic he is.
A schoolgirl would ask "what is the meaning of life" presupposing an answer she can only provide.
Life has no meaning. It must be given a meaning by the living.  
Both questions ask for an external will, consciousness' to provide something that is lacking, e.g., guidance, strength, meaning, wisdom, authority, motive etc.

Mental note....never watch anything with him involved.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Sponsored content




Free-Will - Page 9 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free-Will Free-Will - Page 9 Empty

Back to top Go down
 
Free-Will
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 9 of 9Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: