Dissily Mordentroge

Even though I agree with your analysis of the previous post I’m astonished at your approach to moderation. At times it feels as if one is sitting in on a tutorial where participants are constantly slapped on the wrist for errors in logic &/or unjustified claims. Such an regime of detailed criticism may be justified, however, I find the tone of many critical remarks so coldly judgmental as to discourage participation. I’m in no position to be diagnosing anything like aspergers syndrome however so depart leaving you to your ‘objective’ moderation.

At the risk if triggering a discussion that may not belong anywhere on SCIENCEFORUMS.NET I’m hoping to understand the anti-science direction taken by so many conservative political groups over the last several decades. At times I feel it’s as if The Enlightenment never happened. My post was triggered by an article today in The Melbourne Age newspaper describing an organised, well financed program to promulgate within primary and secondary schools in Australia the idea climate change/global warming is no more than an alarmist falsehood. The ostensible justification given is children shouldn’t be scared out of their minds by false prophecies. It will be interesting when this program unfolds this year to see if any focus is given to the nature of scientific method. Bacon is rolling in his grave.

May I suggest a reading of Arthur Koestler’s ‘The Ghost in the Machine’ could be of value in this context? I’m wary of attempting to precis his thesis and misrepresenting his tentative conclusions. Put as simply as I can he suggests the human forebrain developed ( in evolutionary terms) overnight and is out of sync with primitive tribal and aggressive instincts stretching back far further than our emergence as anything like homo-sapiens. To simplify his argument almost to the point of charictature: we are worse than apes equiped with nuclear weapons amongst numerous other means of achieving our own extinction, either through tribal aggression or blind group think.

Somehow discussions of this nature remind me we’re all in some way only dancing around the deck of the Titanic just before - - - - - - -

And you’re not playing word games? You’ve given yourself a narrow definition of ‘ voluntarily stop breathing’ without bothering to elucidate it’s characteristic/ limits . If consuming a toxic overdose with the intention of ceasing breathing is outside your definition such should have been delineated prior to availing yourself of the phrase. But you can always hide behind the claim consuming a toxic overdose can never be an act of free will and continue to go around and around in circles. I choose not to.

It appears a number of ‘philosophers’ who argue strict determinsm imagine we’re all ‘off the hook’.

Why does that reduce me to a fit of the giggles?

Putting aside for now the fact ‘philosophical reading’ has yet to be defined here - - Arthur Koestler’s ‘The Ghost in The Machine’ whose central thesis, as far as I know, has yet to be disproven.

Anyone claiming there’s no such thing as free will is is ‘forced’ to hold that view given the nature if such a claim. Therefore those of us who imagine we have some choice in our thoughts and actions have absolutely no need to accept totally determinist assertions given those making them didn’t either. Simple really. Then there are the moral implications of such claims. They can be used as a universal ‘get out of jail free’ card. No matter how horrifying an action none of us has choice in our actions. Therefore if the criminal justice system and/or anything like a generally accepted moral code is to survive the ‘delusion’ of free will has to be accepted. As to your question "Does anyone here believe in free will?” those who claim there’s no such thing as free will need to reflect upon even bothering to post here. Why bother if you had no choice?

Homo sapiens.

Fair enough and simple enough. My question I suppose derived from often having the feeling when ‘taken’ is used as reference to a path the writer appears to be implying something like ‘chosen’. But let’s not go there or we’ll be wollowing in a discussion of the quantum and consciousness.

I often find myself wondering if there’s an accepted definition for the term ‘taken’ in these contexts. Do we mean something as simple as ‘measured’ ?

I agree the will to power is a human trait but I'm not too worried about alienating our religious brethren considering they're none to worried about alienating my kind. http://tinyurl.com/z2jt5p5 http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/11/2/2.html http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/Tribal%20social%20instincts%20cliodynamics.pdf Far from a complete bibliography ( my library is packed prior to moving house next week) I do however recommend an unfashionable tome ( yet to have it’s central thesis disproven) in relation to this issue, if not fully focused on it. Arthur Koestler’s “The Ghost in The Machine"