Yeah, I'm prodding you to discipline your own mind, since your thoughts are penduluming all over the place. Your ideas about correcting supposed "genetic" defects comes from your own anthropocentric fallacy, and the necessary technology is pure fantasy right now. You know I didn't say a goddamn thing aobout crippling people; but what You have to understand is how little insight you have here. You do not have wisdom to even define or manifest your well being; you have no business even evaluating other's.

I've left all the references here at betterhumans for catalyzing freedom and sanity, no matter what physiological and psycho-social and technological sewer one happens to be mired in. Why don't you have looksy before you post any more of your stuff here.

My message and content here at betterhumans is focused - if you'd like to point out an inconsistency it would be helpful to know the details.

Genetic defects are well-documented by the scientific community. Actually the technology exists right now for screening out potentially harmful genes - it's likely to improve rapidly (if politically supported.)

The comment about crippled people has a purpose - to challenge the assumption that we should continue to allow genetic disorders to be propagated in order to force humanity to develop character.

I have every business to question and debate here on these forums - that is what they were designed for. The methods for determining subjective well-being are to be debated by all. As I've said earlier - I consider subjective reports to be a necessary aspect of assessing the well-being of an individual.

 In order to design a society that is effective at increasing the well-being of it's individuals - we'll need to be able to determine how to evaluate the success of various policies.

This doesn't mean that you'll stop having the ability to believe in free-will. Although I suspect that the belief will fade from popular acceptance over time as science continues to refute the theory.

Abolitionist:

Yeah, I'm prodding you to discipline your own mind, since your thoughts are penduluming all over the place. Your ideas about correcting supposed "genetic" defects comes from your own anthropocentric fallacy, and the necessary technology is pure fantasy right now. You know I didn't say a goddamn thing aobout crippling people; but what You have to understand is how little insight you have here. You do not have wisdom to even define or manifest your well being; you have no business even evaluating other's.

I've left all the references here at betterhumans for catalyzing freedom and sanity, no matter what physiological and psycho-social and technological sewer one happens to be mired in. Why don't you have looksy before you post any more of your stuff here.

My message and content here at betterhumans is focused - if you'd like to point out an inconsistency it would be helpful to know the details.

Genetic defects are well-documented by the scientific community. Actually the technology exists right now for screening out potentially harmful genes - it's likely to improve rapidly (if politically supported.)

The comment about crippled people has a purpose - to challenge the assumption that we should continue to allow genetic disorders to be propagated in order to force humanity to develop character.

I have every business to question and debate here on these forums - that is what they were designed for. The methods for determining subjective well-being are to be debated by all. As I've said earlier - I consider subjective reports to be a necessary aspect of assessing the well-being of an individual.

 In order to design a society that is effective at increasing the well-being of it's individuals - we'll need to be able to determine how to evaluate the success of various policies.

This doesn't mean that you'll stop having the ability to believe in free-will. Although I suspect that the belief will fade from popular acceptance over time as science continues to refute the theory.

I don't recognize either the physical or mental states of John Nash or Stephen Hawking as being crippled or disabled. However, I do recognize that a lot of people working in psycho-social fields as having sub-human social IQ's themselves, which explains the provincial concept of "genetic defects" you employ without ever questioning the source's characters or the reasoning behind it.

So.. are you even capable of questioning the opinion of anyone wearing a lab coat? 

If not, than you've no "improvements" to offer anyone. 

Also, don't make the mistake that I 'believe(?)' in anything. Freewill only operates for critical and creative thinkers, which are few in the extreme.

In terms of free will, one is obviously free to engage in an operative deterministic life style where one never questions the governing dynamics informing their "society", &c. In the same sense your "system of improvements" are determined by scientific "facts" which are given, and not to be questioned.

 

Chironian:

Abolitionist:

Yeah, I'm prodding you to discipline your own mind, since your thoughts are penduluming all over the place. Your ideas about correcting supposed "genetic" defects comes from your own anthropocentric fallacy, and the necessary technology is pure fantasy right now. You know I didn't say a goddamn thing aobout crippling people; but what You have to understand is how little insight you have here. You do not have wisdom to even define or manifest your well being; you have no business even evaluating other's.

I've left all the references here at betterhumans for catalyzing freedom and sanity, no matter what physiological and psycho-social and technological sewer one happens to be mired in. Why don't you have looksy before you post any more of your stuff here.

My message and content here at betterhumans is focused - if you'd like to point out an inconsistency it would be helpful to know the details.

Genetic defects are well-documented by the scientific community. Actually the technology exists right now for screening out potentially harmful genes - it's likely to improve rapidly (if politically supported.)

The comment about crippled people has a purpose - to challenge the assumption that we should continue to allow genetic disorders to be propagated in order to force humanity to develop character.

I have every business to question and debate here on these forums - that is what they were designed for. The methods for determining subjective well-being are to be debated by all. As I've said earlier - I consider subjective reports to be a necessary aspect of assessing the well-being of an individual.

 In order to design a society that is effective at increasing the well-being of it's individuals - we'll need to be able to determine how to evaluate the success of various policies.

This doesn't mean that you'll stop having the ability to believe in free-will. Although I suspect that the belief will fade from popular acceptance over time as science continues to refute the theory.

I don't recognize either the physical or mental states of John Nash or Stephen Hawking as being crippled or disabled. However, I do recognize that a lot of people working in psycho-social fields as having sub-human social IQ's themselves, which explains the provincial concept of "genetic defects" you employ without ever questioning the source's characters or the reasoning behind it.

So.. are you even capable of questioning the opinion of anyone wearing a lab coat? 

If not, than you've no "improvements" to offer anyone. 

Also, don't make the mistake that I 'believe(?)' in anything. Freewill only operates for critical and creative thinkers, which are few in the extreme.

In terms of free will, one is obviously free to engage in an operative deterministic life style where one never questions the governing dynamics informing their "society", &c. In the same sense your "system of improvements" are determined by scientific "facts" which are given, and not to be questioned.

There are many genetic defects;

http://www.chkd.org/HealthLibrary/Content.aspx?pageid=P02113

Can you provide evidence that supports the theory of free-will?

 

Chironian:

I don't recognize either the physical or mental states of John Nash or Stephen Hawking as being crippled or disabled.

On what do you base this? Don't you think Nash would rather have not been mentally ill and Hawking would rather be able-bodied? Don't you think that certain mental and physical conditions cause suffering that should be prevented? Do you think you would somehow be insulting disabled people if you stated that it's better not to be disabled?

However, I do recognize that a lot of people working in psycho-social fields as having sub-human social IQ's themselves, which explains the provincial concept of "genetic defects" you employ without ever questioning the source's characters or the reasoning behind it.

What? 

Also, don't make the mistake that I 'believe(?)' in anything. Freewill only operates for critical and creative thinkers, which are few in the extreme.

In terms of free will, one is obviously free to engage in an operative deterministic life style where one never questions the governing dynamics informing their "society", &c. In the same sense your "system of improvements" are determined by scientific "facts" which are given, and not to be questioned.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that operating according to societal norms = determinism, while seeing through and overthrowing societal norms = free will. I completely agree that it's better to see through and overthrow societal norms, but do you realize that you're probably the only person on the planet using those definitions of those words?

Abolitionist:

Chironian:

Abolitionist:

Yeah, I'm prodding you to discipline your own mind, since your thoughts are penduluming all over the place. Your ideas about correcting supposed "genetic" defects comes from your own anthropocentric fallacy, and the necessary technology is pure fantasy right now. You know I didn't say a goddamn thing aobout crippling people; but what You have to understand is how little insight you have here. You do not have wisdom to even define or manifest your well being; you have no business even evaluating other's.

I've left all the references here at betterhumans for catalyzing freedom and sanity, no matter what physiological and psycho-social and technological sewer one happens to be mired in. Why don't you have looksy before you post any more of your stuff here.

My message and content here at betterhumans is focused - if you'd like to point out an inconsistency it would be helpful to know the details.

Genetic defects are well-documented by the scientific community. Actually the technology exists right now for screening out potentially harmful genes - it's likely to improve rapidly (if politically supported.)

The comment about crippled people has a purpose - to challenge the assumption that we should continue to allow genetic disorders to be propagated in order to force humanity to develop character.

I have every business to question and debate here on these forums - that is what they were designed for. The methods for determining subjective well-being are to be debated by all. As I've said earlier - I consider subjective reports to be a necessary aspect of assessing the well-being of an individual.

 In order to design a society that is effective at increasing the well-being of it's individuals - we'll need to be able to determine how to evaluate the success of various policies.

This doesn't mean that you'll stop having the ability to believe in free-will. Although I suspect that the belief will fade from popular acceptance over time as science continues to refute the theory.

I don't recognize either the physical or mental states of John Nash or Stephen Hawking as being crippled or disabled. However, I do recognize that a lot of people working in psycho-social fields as having sub-human social IQ's themselves, which explains the provincial concept of "genetic defects" you employ without ever questioning the source's characters or the reasoning behind it.

So.. are you even capable of questioning the opinion of anyone wearing a lab coat? 

If not, than you've no "improvements" to offer anyone. 

Also, don't make the mistake that I 'believe(?)' in anything. Freewill only operates for critical and creative thinkers, which are few in the extreme.

In terms of free will, one is obviously free to engage in an operative deterministic life style where one never questions the governing dynamics informing their "society", &c. In the same sense your "system of improvements" are determined by scientific "facts" which are given, and not to be questioned.

There are many genetic defects;

http://www.chkd.org/HealthLibrary/Content.aspx?pageid=P02113

Can you provide evidence that supports the theory of free-will?

 

But you miss the moral thrust, the meta-language facet, that I endeavor to draw out. "Defect" is not synonomous with "difference", or distinction for that matter. Which is what these genomic variations should be called, without the prejudice that defect imposes.

Chironian:

But you miss the moral thrust, the meta-language facet, that I endeavor to draw out. "Defect" is not synonomous with "difference", or distinction for that matter. Which is what these genomic variations should be called, without the prejudice that defect imposes.

I'm sorry, but not calling a gene that causes someone to die young with severe disability and pain a "defect" strikes me as insane political correctness. Don't you think all sane people with, e.g., cystic fibrosis would say that it is a serious problem that they want corrected? I admit it could get a little touchy with things like Asperger's, but that's no reason to not call a spade a spade in the obvious cases.

Besides, saying that a person suffers from a biochemical defect isn't an insult to that person in any way - if anything, it should inspire more compassion towards them than simply saying they're "different".

EschewObfuscation:

Chironian:

But you miss the moral thrust, the meta-language facet, that I endeavor to draw out. "Defect" is not synonomous with "difference", or distinction for that matter. Which is what these genomic variations should be called, without the prejudice that defect imposes.

I'm sorry, but not calling a gene that causes someone to die young with severe disability and pain a "defect" strikes me as insane political correctness. Don't you think all sane people with, e.g., cystic fibrosis would say that it is a serious problem that they want corrected? I admit it could get a little touchy with things like Asperger's, but that's no reason to not call a spade a spade in the obvious cases.

Besides, saying that a person suffers from a biochemical defect isn't an insult to that person in any way - if anything, it should inspire more compassion towards them than simply saying they're "different".

I was thinking of suggesting that you ask the people at this site:

Mindfreedom

whether they appreciate being referred to as suffering from "biochemical defects", but I doubt if you'd escape with your life, to be frank.

As for the other examples I've given, with all due respect, they prefer to be called Professor. As such, you should regard them as whole human beings, if even more self-actuallized as human beings than you are.

 But still you do not understand the perfection at play in your own examples; is it "better" to live life as a super nova or an ordinary star, and who are you to decide?

Chironian:

I was thinking of suggesting that you ask the people at this site:

Mindfreedom

whether they appreciate being referred to as suffering from "biochemical defects", but I doubt if you'd escape with your life, to be frank.

As I said, it can get a little touchy with psychological issues, and as I probably have Asperger's syndrome myself, I can definitely see the potential problems. But I don't believe a 'cure' should be forced on anybody, whether for a physical or mental condition. And I think incorrect diagnosis is a big problem. However, these do not lessen the fact that mental and physical conditions exist that cause suffering, these should be prevented from coming about when doing so does not infringe on the rights of already-existing beings, and cures for them should be offered to already-existing beings that have them. It seems that the problems people at Mindfreedom have are largely with wrongful diagnosis (of conditions that do cause suffering when actually present, mind you) and forcible treatment.

As for the other examples I've given, with all due respect, they prefer to be called Professor. As such, you should regard them as whole human beings, if even more self-actuallized as human beings than you are.

Did I ever say that I don't regard physically disabled people as being whole human beings? Just because there is a "defect" in someone's DNA does not mean that that person is "defective" - in fact, I think this linguistic similarity is the source of our confusion, and if this is the case, the irony should not escape you. I just think that even most disabled people would consider their disabilities to be something profoundly negative rather than neutral "differences".

But still you do not understand the perfection at play in your own examples; is it "better" to live life as a super nova or an ordinary star, and who are you to decide?

Your analogy makes no sense to me, and I'm not saying I have the right to decide anything for anybody who already exists. I'm just saying that it must be acknowledged that it is generally preferable not to be disabled, and therefore selection of genes (that is what we were originally talking about, right?) to prevent disability is justifiable. If you're going to say it's not usually better to have full use of your limbs than not... you're kidding.

Abolitionist:

Korimyr the Rat:

I believe in free will because it is necessary for me to believe in it-- how can you make decisions about your life when you don't believe you're capable of making decisions?

It may or may not be logically supportable-- just as my existence is not logically justifiable-- but it doesn't matter. We can either believe in free will and function, or we can deny the existence of free will and either behave in a logically inconsistent fashion-- trying to change the inevitable-- or cease functioning altogether.

It's like believing in any kind of moral code. It's not logically supportable-- at least, not without a great deal of begging the question-- but it's necessary for our survival.

Your mind will create the illusion of free will whether you believe in it or not, the percieved power to believe is also the result of biological processes, IMO.

Do you seriously consider something as pre-axiomatic as consciousness and free will as illusory? This above represents a personal report on your state of mind, which is all anyone can experience directly.

What you are describing is that you are not even fully sapient, or conscious.

Which I'm beginning to suspect is more typical than I'd prefer, but it's up to you. 

Chironian:

Do you seriously consider something as pre-axiomatic as consciousness and free will as illusory? This a personal report on your state of mind, which is all can experience directly.

What you are suggesting is that you are not even fully sapient, conscious.

Do you have proof of free-will? How about a test to determine whether or not free-will exists?

Why do you consider the theory of free-will 'pre-axiomatic?'

Why do you think that the lack of free-will would mean that humans are not fully sapient or conscious?

Abolitionist:

Chironian:

Do you seriously consider something as pre-axiomatic as consciousness and free will as illusory? This a personal report on your state of mind, which is all anyone can experience directly.

What you are suggesting is that you are not even fully sapient, conscious.

Abolitionist:

Do you have proof of free-will? How about a test to determine whether or not free-will exists?

Why do you consider the theory of free-will 'pre-axiomatic?'

An abstract proof would not help you, it would only add a confusing array of polymathematical data to other kinds of abstract knowledge that your agenda is mired in. Freedom should be lived from the heart, not analyzed to death and  thereby rendered pointless, regardless of the truth value concluded.

Abolitionist:

Why do you think that the lack of free-will would mean that humans are not fully sapient or conscious?

I specifically said that you yourself were not fully sapient, which, as much as I dislike evaluating and invalidating people, stems from your comments here. You and a lot of other people are not capable of breaking out of "the box"- of questioning the dubious, arbitrary assumptions with which you've constructed your paradigm(s). As such you are basically declaring yourself an "object oriented program", and view others through these intellectual blinders as well. Your modern myth also comes with your absolute certainty that people can only be changed by things because they are mere objects, where my supposition synthesizes the following:

A) The self-adaptive learning system applied to human thinking.

B) The postulate that the fully self-aware individual optimally and potentially has the properties of a causally open, evolving, self-optimizing phenomena.

D) That through various personal traumas and convincing indoctrination, many people's minds are caught in the mental analog of "closed program loops", with different kinds of political and religious memes acting as a kind of mind-virus that keeps them "orbiting in these loops", in many cases for entire lifetimes.

E) That sponsoring some new, improved thing will not have the transformational consequences that getting individuals to re-examine and question their own sponsoring thoughts do.

The problem being that, in Abolitionist's case, from viewing his most recent posts there have been no new cognitions about his own agenda (such as his genetic "defect" meme) from any of the efforts that I &al have made. Eugenics has a seriously bad track record, I do not believe that setting free the will of someone who mindlessly espouses such bad Frankenscience would be such a good idea. I refuse to be baited until I see some very different reactions to my own posts, for starters. Argument and Counterargument are one thing, discussion built on (my) Signal and (your) Noise are quite another.

I'm not demanding that anyone "tune-in" to my "station" intellectually either (an impossibility!); Just that they tune-in. There's another "box outside the box", so to speak that's too enormous for only a few thousand people to explore themselves... Are you game?

I like the way you think, although I disagree here and there.

For example, IMO if E happens, then D quite naturally starts happening too. It certainly did for me. Meaning that when I began neurohacking (changing my brain chemistry towards a more optimal state), repressed traumas began surfacing and my enhanced awareness introduced me more meta-cognitive thinking than was part of my system before.

Chironian:

Abolitionist:

Chironian:

Do you seriously consider something as pre-axiomatic as consciousness and free will as illusory? This a personal report on your state of mind, which is all anyone can experience directly.

What you are suggesting is that you are not even fully sapient, conscious.

Abolitionist:

Do you have proof of free-will? How about a test to determine whether or not free-will exists?

Why do you consider the theory of free-will 'pre-axiomatic?'

An abstract proof would not help you, it would only add a confusing array of polymathematical data to other kinds of abstract knowledge that your agenda is mired in. Freedom should be lived from the heart, not analyzed to death and  thereby rendered pointless, regardless of the truth value concluded.

Abolitionist:

Why do you think that the lack of free-will would mean that humans are not fully sapient or conscious?

I specifically said that you yourself were not fully sapient, which, as much as I dislike evaluating and invalidating people, stems from your comments here. You and a lot of other people are not capable of breaking out of "the box"- of questioning the dubious, arbitrary assumptions with which you've constructed your paradigm(s). As such you are basically declaring yourself an "object oriented program", and view others through these intellectual blinders as well. Your modern myth also comes with your absolute certainty that people can only be changed by things because they are mere objects, where my supposition synthesizes the following:

A) The self-adaptive learning system applied to human thinking.

B) The postulate that the fully self-aware individual optimally and potentially has the properties of a causally open, evolving, self-optimizing phenomena.

D) That through various personal traumas and convincing indoctrination, many people's minds are caught in the mental analog of "closed program loops", with different kinds of political and religious memes acting as a kind of mind-virus that keeps them "orbiting in these loops", in many cases for entire lifetimes.

E) That sponsoring some new, improved thing will not have the transformational consequences that getting individuals to re-examine and question their own sponsoring thoughts do.

The problem being that, in Abolitionist's case, from viewing his most recent posts there have been no new cognitions about his own agenda (such as his genetic "defect" meme) from any of the efforts that I &al have made. Eugenics has a seriously bad track record, I do not believe that setting free the will of someone who mindlessly espouses such bad Frankenscience would be such a good idea. I refuse to be baited until I see some very different reactions to my own posts, for starters. Argument and Counterargument are one thing, discussion built on (my) Signal and (your) Noise are quite another.

I'm not demanding that anyone "tune-in" to my "station" intellectually either (an impossibility!); Just that they tune-in. There's another "box outside the box", so to speak that's too enormous for only a few thousand people to explore themselves... Are you game?

so you'll rejoin the debate when I get your drift, eh?

Where is your proof of the theory of free will? That's what you keep dodging. A theory is just a theory until it is proven my friend.

Abolitionist,

Chimaster's link to Alex Ramonski's "I changed my mind"  has one of the most coherent, operative explanations of the free will problem I've ever read, and this aspect of his philosophy is not the most interesting part of his theory. Read the first few pages, right through the section called "hyper-reality..again" and ch.19,20 at least.

There's also some good reason's expounded as to why you do not experience free will yourself, and you're right about "genes and environment" controlling yourself for now, just as you report here.

 Chimaster,

I posted links to Alex's book in a help forum and a general serious topic forum about SAT scores in OffTopic.com. The first person who commented on it got confused by it. Funny how she(?) seemed so intelligent before. I could've appreciated it's signifance back when I was 15 years old, it's very clearly written.
Uhhh. blockage?
 

Chironian:

Abolitionist,

Chimaster's link to Alex Ramonski's "I changed my mind"  has one of the most coherent, operative explanations of the free will problem I've ever read, and this aspect of his philosophy is not the most interesting part of his theory. Read the first few pages, right through the section called "hyper-reality..again" and ch.19,20 at least.

There's also some good reason's expounded as to why you do not experience free will yourself, and you're right about "genes and environment" controlling yourself for now, just as you report here.

Could you explain why you think Ramonski's work provides evidence for free will in your own words? I'm assuming that's why you posted it, am I correct?

I do agree that cognitive re-programming can be useful. De-habituation is an organic process that can be modified biotechnologically - potentially more effectively than through 'self-introspection'.