Friday, April 24, 2009

Reflections of your mind.

See comment section.

I'm too lazy to reformat this cut and paste drivel.


pboyfloyd said...

ONE of some.

There is no freewill.

Who among us can say that they 'choose' based on nothing.

We even have to be taught what our 'choices' are!

Our streaming consciousnesses create a model of reality in our minds, a model of our environment in our minds using memory.

When faced with choices, our streaming consciousnesses use our model of reality(our memory) to make a decision.

Our model of reality changes over time depending on outside influences.

But, what the change is, depends on the model. Outside influence might reinforce our model OR force us to change the model.

There is no free will.

pboyfloyd said...

Two of some more.

Let's say that 'we have no free will', is a given.

Where does the idea of free will come from?

I suggest that free will is part of our model of reality. The idea that you can choose anything you like BECAUSE you are free to do so, is obviously an illusion.

You aren't free to be a man or a woman if you choose.

You aren't free to be an astronaut, choosing at any random moment to just BE one.

You might think of yourself as 'free' to be 'anything' but most of the choices that you might make to change 'you being you' are BAD CHOICES.(You could go out one day for a walk and never turn back WHATEVER your home circumstances are.)

This would probably never occur to the vast majority of people as a valid choice unless they'd just watched 'Crocodile Dundee'!

Even then, your friends and family would likely know that that was the kind of person that you are.(i.e. from what they know of your personality, your model of reality.

pboyfloyd said...

THREE of even more.

"..we should not praise those who do good in anything for they did not have a choice and on the otherside of this coin we should not punish those who do bad or evil because they did not have a choice."

Sure, we ought to praise those who do good things for having a model of reality which give them NO CHOICE but to do good things.

And, we ought to punish those who do bad things for having that model of reality where they HAVE NO CHOICE but to do evil things.

As a group, we influence our collective model of really in many ways.

One way is to punish those whose model of reality is defective by societal standards.

pboyfloyd said...

FOUR(now you see why I didn't want to reformat all this crap!)

Our model of reality is prone to change by outside influence.

For example, if our model of reality consists in part of our collective model being 'NOBLE' or 'HONORABLE'(perhaps ALL THINGS GOOD) we can see that this model would give us NO choice to say anything but, "We do not torture."

But, getting caught torturing would force us to CHANGE the model to, "We torture (and LIE about it), BUT for only NOBLE and HONORABLE reasons."

To maintain our nobility and honor it is also necessary to accept the LIE that torture has been shown to be effective.

We can STILL disparage the ignoble and dishonorable Japanese for torturing, after all, their prisoners might have only known about the USA planning to drop two WMD's on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We can then explain that dropping those bombs HAD a noble and honorable purpose(adjusting our model accordingly) therefore the Japanese are back to torturing to prevent the Honorable and Noble mass murdering of the ignoble and dishonorable Japs)

In other words, "WE" are ALWAYS noble and honorable, "THEY are ALWAYS ignoble and dishonorable, no matter WHAT they do!

We have NO CHOICE but to believe this.

I mean, that's just not possible, is it?

pboyfloyd said...

Cinco! (de Mayo)

In my 'model of reality' model(hehe) I predict that Jim has nowhere to 'go' except to try to elevate his model above mine.

That is to sneer at me that 'who am I to tell HIM what is noble and honorable?'

After all, he can just discount the 'message' by discounting the 'messenger'.

This is typical Christo-Nationalist tactic. Hitler and his buddies were masters of that, weren't they Jim?

pboyfloyd said...

And finally Six. (phew)

At this point, you're probably thinking that my idea is interesting and true, or you're a fuckin' idiot.

Just kiddin' Jim.(I aleady KNOW you're a fuckin' idiot!)

Couldn't resist THAT ONE EITHER!

No really though, I don't think that the idea of a mind model is 'radical' at all.

The idea that this model of reality (which is our minds) prevents 'free will' while at the same time the notion of 'free will' is just part of our model of reality seems kind of circular to me.

But, of course it would seem circular because, after all, the model that we make in our mind is essentially a reflection of actual reality PLUS what we have come to accept as part of reality.

We can manipulate or model to try to integrate our 'persona' with reality.

That's called transcendence.

But, what we are really doing would be trying to integrate our persona with our MODEL OF REALITY.

And so, we can be 'in two mind', our persona(which we use to relate to the outside world AND another 'ghost self' which feels integrated with reality(really 'our model of..').

Spirituality is 'born'. Communication with a being totally beyond real is possible.

Just ask your 'other-self' if it's true. He or she will admit it unless he or she is under a delusion that he or she is REAL(as opposed to beyond real)

mac said...

You know, I've been considering this idea of yours for a couple of years.

I'm beginning the validity in it.

Sure, we all like to think we are making our OWN choices. But, so much influence is exerted on us, we really aren't actually making these conclusions. Rather the decision is made by those influences we have been exposed to throughout our lives.


mac said...

It should read "I'm beginning to see the validity..."

... but not realy my choice ;-)

Anonymous said...

Comment on 1:

I think you mean there is no free will from nothing. Just like there is not something from nothing.

Comment on 2:

But being an astronaut is an option for someone! And please don't tell me that the choice to be an astronaut can only happen for future astronauts! You're not going into circular reasoning are you?

Comment on 3:

I didn't realize you were that type of determinist. You talk about a milieu but then just one choice and then a milieu and then one choice. Which is it? Is there only one choice from the god inevitable or are there a limited range of choices contextualized for each person?

Comment on 4:

This is not a point (technically).

Comment 5:

Another non-point (technically).

Comment on 6:

So you didn't want to talk about freewill. You wanted to talk about spirituality.

As far as the meta-consciousness, I think that's a valid point.

And on a side note, you make me smile. I have no choice in the matter. And you say, "But of course."

pboyfloyd said...

Yea mac and oneblood.

Did you notice that there is an invisible line between free-will and the 'model of reality' that INCLUDES 'free will'.

If you've been told all your life that you have it, HEY!, I guess it follows you, same as if you were told that you have PIZZAZ!

oneblood, are you deliberatel misinterpreting my 'astronaut' point?

I make this shit up as I go along, so my point is that we can't all just decide to BE things.

You're actually reversing what I was saying.

"Why would 'some people get to be astronauts' void my point.

PLUS, these were cut and pasted from my comments on newsblogger and not intended to be 'technical' points.

Finally, HAHA, made you smile, told ya! No free will. :-)

Anonymous said...

That explains it. Why did you decide to put those posts together like that? I of course mean the reason why you felt this would be an effective way to convey your reasoning, because you've already given the skinny on the technical.

Stacy S. said...

I think I need to have a good stiff drink and re-read this post.

"You aren't free to be a man or a woman if you choose."Well.. at birth there is no choice. There's just not even an option. Don't you have to have an option to make a choice?

And as an adult... well... erm ...uh.. Do you know who RuPaul is??

Now where did I put that drink?

pboyfloyd said...

Well, I guess I was trying to convey that we lack options there Stacy.

Guess I was using this obvious example to cover options up to ridiculous one's like that all the way down to options that we don't even know that we had.

An unknown(to us) option is NOT an option to us.

Anonymous said...

"An unknown(to us) option is NOT an option to us."

A ha! But where is the fun in that?! I have you! Your point of view is not fun! And any logically challenged individual such as myself knows that is almost the same as not being cool which is a little bit closer to completely untrue...maybe.