Page 5 of 6 « First<23456>
Topic Options
#47468 - 01/28/11 01:13 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Jake999]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
 Originally Posted By: HeimiricIX
It seems that Dr. Aquino's definition of what is beyond is what actually bothers you, you'll find that there no such thing as a dogmatic approach to "eternity" within the Setian philosophy so I should tell you Dr. Aquino's view on it is not the Temple's view of it.


When the man who FOUNDED the Temple of Set, wrote the rules, stratified the membership, initiated the initiated, and stands as the authority and primary proponent of "Setian thought" says what is IS, it is the marching order for the rank and file of that organization, founded in his name.

Much as the Vatican canonized and then de-canonized St. Christopher, declared Fridays meatless and then rescinded it later, institutionalized Limbo to downgrade it later, sold dispensations for sin, only to declare them invalid once the check cleared the bank..." the fish stinks from the head down." The general gives the orders and the rank and file follow.


Well, we at least know for Satanism, this isn't true at all. Even when Lavey codified it and worked out his views, not that many follow it to the letter, if even at all. It might be different in the ToS but since they're having their roots in Satanism, I would be surprised to see a Borgish uniformity in thinking there.

D.

Top
#47472 - 01/28/11 04:22 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Diavolo]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
I think there is something to be said for the use of mythopoetic mythich descriptions, fictions, archetypes, metaphors, poetry etc to inform the world. Indeed much of the notions of 'souls' were metaphysical extrapolations to dignify one category of life to another (Aristotelian sense). But much of what these functioned for might be viewed as constructs for which we now have an emperical worldview to inform.

I still think there is room for it today in terms of personal constructs to either provide detail or emphasise something that one would not deem possible without. But as soon as one wishes to use that reason as rhetoric/argument the self authentication of the dialog becomes a superficial reference to flitter back to. It is to say "You have your opinion and I have mine".

I would expect more from someone who works in anthropology and advertises their peer reviewed writings and every acalade/educational/job they ever experienced in a 4 page list while chucking an indiana jones impression to have a little more respect for a process of common dialog especially if they want that to confer a sense of awesomeness.

Top
#47477 - 01/28/11 09:20 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: thedeadidea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
In the end, everything is a mythic description. Neurons, photons, matter… etc are the heroes and gods in our current empirical mythology just like Ares, Osiris or Set were those of previous ones. Language in itself is metaphorical.

I subscribe to the idea that there are things I will never understand or grasp unless I see them as the others do. Of course we dislike the idea that we have to be of a specific mindset to understand a specific idea but we also propagate that very principle when stating that "if Satanism does jibe with you, it isn't for you", or "you have to be a Satanist to fully understand Satanism". It's fundamentally rather similar but much more comfortable to serve than to get served. As such, we too prefer pointing at the tree instead of being accused sniffing the base.

So while it doesn't have much weight as an objective argument or proof, subjective experience, and thus perception, is pretty valid to understand a certain interpretation.

D.

Top
#47486 - 01/28/11 02:44 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Diavolo]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
... but such is the case when you have to slap a word on that which you point at but can't express.


Understood. I'm rereading the thread, and trying to put myself in your shoes, so it's very possible I'm just off in left field.

(erased and rewritten)

If you don't believe in free will, then whether a Self or X exists "outside" of "reality" is irrelevant, to my thinking.

If you cannot tell the difference between "objective" reality and perceived reality - that is, if you have no way to test or determine which is "correct", and both give you the same results - they you may as well treat them the same. (I have a vague memory about a conversation about ... a razor ... ;\) )

If your brain creates reality, including itself, then either you vanish in a puff of logic; or it happened only once (possible, but implausible); or it continuously happens. If it's continuous, and you either have free will or believe you have free will, then you (can) create a reality where free will exists. If you don't, then again the mechanism is irrelevant.


Edited by Autodidact (01/28/11 03:44 PM)
Edit Reason: typo
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#47502 - 01/29/11 04:37 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Autodidact]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
As I see it, free will is a problem of the "I". To put it simplistic, if we have free will, none should be able to predict our choices before we make them, at least not very accurate. In Germany they had some experiment, of which the details escape me now, that involved some nifty equipment, a brain scanner, and a subject having to make some conscious choices. The result was that they could predict, accurately, his conscious choice, in his case, around 6 seconds before he made it. To me, this, and other findings, provides evidence we are a subject of our brain and that free will is nothing but an illusion. But, as we know, the illusion feels pretty damn real.

So yes, I do not believe in free will but this does not imply that while operating under this limited force, I cannot explore the workings and limitations of it. The humorous part of it is, that when we evolved from an awareness-engine into a conscious-engine, we, at one point, realize what we are. It's like the processor of your computer suddenly realizing it's processing. And while it creates a reality without free will, the one thought it can not escape is: "what makes me do this?"

And it is this question that leads it, and us, outside of our reality. Is it irrelevant to ask such questions or ponder possibilities? Of course not. And I don't really think you find it that irrelevant. You making that argument feels more like grabbing wreckage to stay afloat. If your ship was still sailing, your cannons surely would deliver more argumentative power.

If I could not determine the difference between objective and perceived reality, I could indeed regard them as identical. But since there are differences between my perceived reality and that of others, and my perceived reality is not being a constant, and we know how we all create, or affect, this perceived reality, we also know that what we perceive is merely a compilation and that this compilation therefore doesn't need to be aligned with the very thing what is beyond it. So again, the razor only cuts in simplistic equations. Else using LSD would imply transforming the very ontological reality, which we'll likely both agree upon, is a silly idea.

D.

Top
#47506 - 01/29/11 08:42 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Diavolo]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1710
Loc: New York
As much as I don’t like your hypothesis regarding the lack of free will, I have to agree with it.

This leaves me with another mind fuck. How would we be able to prove the existence of free will if we had it?

In the example that you mention regarding that German experiment, how does one know if they were measuring and calculating the subjects predetermined program response, or if they were merely able to observe the processes in which direction the subjects free will was going, and were able to arrived at the final conclusion faster?

Even if a person was to come to a decision to do something then to prove to themselves that they are using free will, did the exact opposite of what they planned to do, it could still be a programmed response, or they could be exercising free will over a programmed response.

It’s kind of like trying to figure out if the puppeteer is pulling the strings of the puppets or are the puppets controlling the hands of the puppeteer.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#47507 - 01/29/11 09:18 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Asmedious]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Making decisions is a process that happens in different regions throughout the brain. Of course the test objective was simple; choosing a left or right button to push but by keeping an eye on what parts of the brain light up, they know what choice you will make, even before you made the very choice.

Bloom describes this process nicely when he calls the brain a board meeting. Several directors give their views or consider options and when they come to a conclusion, they inform the CEO who will take all credit for it and present it to the world.

Split-brain surgery also provides a good case for the lack of a real "I". Because the left and right hemisphere work separately after the surgery, funky things happen. The most hilarious anecdote I saw this far was the left brain being an Atheist while the right part suggested to believe in god.

But even when lacking free will, the problem of consciousness still remains.

The question is how the material world can bring forth something as immaterial like consciousness. This is the hard problem and this far we are still struggling to define how consciousness works, why is completely beyond our understanding.

But if consciousness is fundamental, one can turn the question around and ask how something immaterial like consciousness can bring forth something material like the world. Since reality as we know it is compiled by our brain and we guess there is something material, it might be easier to understand or answer.

D.


Edited by Diavolo (01/29/11 09:27 AM)

Top
#47514 - 01/29/11 02:09 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Asmedious]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Asmedious
How would we be able to prove the existence of free will if we had it?


The "million dollar" question, I love it. Quick answer: you couldn't, simply due to apparency/illusion. Think of a rough analogue - how would you prove the Sun doesn't traverse the canopy? You are only able to do this by escaping the phenomenology in question and resorting to a higher/better phenomenology. With "free will" there is no higher phenomenology. The horizon problem is literally inescapable.

JK
_________________________



Top
#47527 - 01/29/11 05:34 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Jason King]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
 Originally Posted By: Asmedious
How would we be able to prove the existence of free will if we had it?


The "million dollar" question, I love it. Quick answer: you couldn't, simply due to apparency/illusion. Think of a rough analogue - how would you prove the Sun doesn't traverse the canopy? You are only able to do this by escaping the phenomenology in question and resorting to a higher/better phenomenology. With "free will" there is no higher phenomenology. The horizon problem is literally inescapable.


I just read a nice summarization of this somewhere (Bateson? Ouspensky?): "Science probes, it does not prove."

Science provides useful frameworks for predicting and understanding, whose primary attribute is usefulness, not how true in an absolute way they are (IMNSHO, of course).

In my opinion, one does not need to prove free will exists, it's enough to believe and act as if it does. If one does not believe in free will, it's pointless to attempt to understand or prove anything about it - such experiments will lead to nothing useful, as "the skein of your life was written a long time ago". (I watched The 13th Warrior a few days ago.)

(Longer answer to Diavolo in a bit, I didn't forget about you )
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#47528 - 01/29/11 05:45 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Autodidact]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
In my opinion, one does not need to prove free will exists, it's enough to believe and act as if it does. If one does not believe in free will, it's pointless to attempt to understand or prove anything about it - such experiments will lead to nothing useful, as "the skein of your life was written a long time ago". (I watched The 13th Warrior a few days ago.)


I don't really agree. Replace "free will" with "god" in that argument and contemplate if you'd still find it valid.

 Originally Posted By: Autodidact

(Longer answer to Diavolo in a bit, I didn't forget about you )


Good good, bring a fleet and enough ammo. I'm looking forward to it.

D.

Top
#47833 - 02/01/11 07:48 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Diavolo]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
The responses! I'll add to that:

In the distant past, humankind existed within nature (in some sense well harmonized with nature), and was assimilated with the universe. In this phase, there was a primitive cosmology but there was no theory 'of the human.' Then, people departed from this primitive cosmology. The second phase which began thereafter was termed 'the age of the theory of humans.' The philosophy of Socrates which took as its motto, "Know Thyself," is its archetype. It departed from both nature and primitive cosmology, and the Self-consciousness of humans as a 'human' explicily began. Thus, began the tradition of Hebraism as a post-cosmological and anti-natural theism with the fact of latent and strong 'theory of the human.'

Both Confucius and Buddha developed their unique theories of the human. Also, they were inextricably related to a new cosmology, and this tendency was prominent. Socrates 'theory of the human' was not anthropocentric, but anthropocentrism was latent in its foundation. The latent anthropocentrism which we see in Hellenism received the baptism of the theism of Hebraism. The theism was eventually negated, and what emerged after being stimulated by the strong 'anti-natural' human theory which existed within that theism is exactly modern Western anthropocentrism.

Setism is analogically related to the concept of the Christian God, and is not univocally or equivocally divulged.

Ciao...666
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#47840 - 02/01/11 08:41 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: paolo sette]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2399
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: paolo sette
Setism is analogically related to the concept of the Christian God, and is not univocally or equivocally divulged.

I knew that if this thread continued long enough, it would eventually arrive at this profound truth.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#47879 - 02/02/11 11:31 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
The contemporary age is not 'the end of the Law', but one of 'the extinction of the Law.' By the essential failure as it has been revealed, humans are losing this very center. Neither a simple cosmology, nor God, nor humans can any longer become the center to which one can entrust his or her existence. What basic Law remains other than cosmos, God or human? All Laws have ceased to exist. Now, humankind can be said to be in Lawlessness. This age of the extinction of the Law (or Lawlessness) always contains the danger of turning into a dis-harmonic age.

The current, modern age is a new cosmological standpoint. It is the standpoint which includes (and according to some excludes) the primitive cosmology, theism and 'the theory of the human.' Only from this standpoint of awakening can humankind be a Self-aware of itself as a single, Self-aware entity.

p.s.-- I saw the video, Rah. Never forget the past in building a better tomorrow. ;\)

3-7-9
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#48117 - 02/05/11 12:59 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Diavolo]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
I had a busy week, but I was enjoying this conversation.

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
In my opinion, one does not need to prove free will exists, it's enough to believe and act as if it does. If one does not believe in free will, it's pointless to attempt to understand or prove anything about it [...]


I don't really agree. Replace "free will" with "god" in that argument and contemplate if you'd still find it valid.


Of course - it's the very definition of "belief". I just don't happen to believe in an xtian "god".

Not everything is strictly subject to scientific proof. There are things science doesn't know everything about yet, and there are things beyond the realm of science. And, of course, there's interpretation.

The brain scanner experiments you cite are the beginnings of our attempts to understand how decision-making works at a physical level. But they're new, and incomplete - until we can scientifically "prove" whether free will exists or not, we are free to go one way or the other. I know the words "faith" and "belief" are shied away from here, but that's only because the general populace associates them with religion. The concepts serve a valid purpose to provide heuristics that fill in the gap between known and unknown.

For myself, the existence of free will seems to fit better, so far, than its nonexistence, so I "believe" in it. The difference between me and an xtian is that I am willing to be convinced otherwise. My inability to prove it simply relegates it to a heuristic - it doesn't preclude leveraging the concept at all.

Similarly, there are things outside the realm of science - the concept that I exist, the concept that things can be known, etc. - that cannot be proven. Again, that doesn't mean we can do nothing either way. I "believe" that I exist and that I can know, because that seems more useful to me than the other way around.

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
So yes, I do not believe in free will but this does not imply that while operating under this limited force, I cannot explore the workings and limitations of it.


This may the crux of our tension - to me free will and consciousness go hand-in-hand. Under my understanding of free will, you cannot, in fact, explore if you have no free will, because there is no "you". Without free will, there is no actor.

This is why I made the "irrelevant" comments. My interpretation of what you are expressing, based on my understanding that free will and consciousness are a package deal, is that even if the German brain scanner was perfect, and could predict anyone's actions far into the future, it wouldn't change anything. People would continue to act along their predetermined path, and the additional knowledge would be "interesting", but pointless.

Since that doesn't seem to fit with my "beliefs" or experience, I find this difficult to accept at face value.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#48136 - 02/05/11 05:50 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Autodidact]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
Every Willfull happening is a picture and an imagination. Were this not so, there could be no consciousness and no phenomenality of occurences. The imagination itself is a psychic occurence, and whether the Will is called 'real' or 'imaginative' is immaterial. The human who has a strong Will (or alleges he/she has it) thinks that he/she is Willfull. What others think about it can determine nothing whatever for that strong person with regard to his/her experience. Even if it were a lie, the lie would be a fact. Even if all reports were nothing but conscious inventions and falsifications, a treatise could be written on the fact of such lies with the same scientific treatment with which delusions are presented.

The fact that there is a movement (Satanism) upon which many brillant Minds have worked over a period of time is sufficient reason for venturing at least upon an attempt to bring happenings within the realm of Willfull understanding. (Keep up the work.)

666
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
Page 5 of 6 « First<23456>


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.