"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[-1-]

RCSaunders wrote:

Of all the millions of people with the same history and biology as Madame Curie,

The history and biology of any individual is unique to that individual.

You two realize that you completely switched positions. Both of you took up the other's. Now Belinda is advocating the importance of individualism via the self's uniqueness, and RCS is showing how deterministic history is (incl. the evolution of science) via necessitating the birth of thought more due to circumstances of acquired common knowledge, than to individual achievement.

[RCSaunders]

The history and biology of any individual is unique to that individual.

Belinda, do you really believe what an individual does is determined by their biology and history? I'm only asking because I'm curious. If you do believe that, do you not believe in volition, by which I mean all human behavior is consciously chosen. (I do not mean simple animal biological behavior, the reflexes, or the behavior of the autonomic nervous system.)

It doesn't matter how you answer, I have no intention in arguing with your opinion. I'm sure you understand why I'm curious. To me, if how one lives is determined by history, biology, or anything else, they cannot also be a volitional being. Either my conscious choice determines what I do, and I am therefore responsible for what I do, or something else determines what I do, and I am not responsible for what I do, and neither is anyone else. That oddly would mean that any effort to convince others to make different choices, such as to think something different, would be an absurd waste of time.

[RCSaunders]

Of all the millions of people with the same history and biology as Madame Curie, only Madame Curie accomplished what she did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction

Counting the hits and not the misses

I do not know why, but you have completely misunderstood the argument. For example the following

I credit it to her own choice to pursue the work and research for which she is famous.

Her work was her own choice. Her fame wasn't.

I only gave her credit for her work. She did other work for which she was not famous. The phrase, "for which she is famous," simply indicates which work I'm talking about. Your whole response is of the same nature, arguing against things I never said or implied.

[RCSaunders]

You two realize that you completely switched positions. Both of you took up the other's. Now Belinda is advocating the importance of individualism via the self's uniqueness...

No. Belinda's argument is consistent. Her argument is pointing out her view that it is not Madame Curie's own chosen work, but the inevitable consequence of the forces of biology and history. She is certainly not arguing individualism as a volitional attribute. Her argument is that every individual is "unique," but its a uniqueness imposed on individuals, not chosen by them.

... and RCS is showing how deterministic history is (incl. the evolution of science) via necessitating the birth of thought more due to circumstances of acquired common knowledge, than to individual achievement.

No, again. There is nothing deterministic about history. There seems to be a mistaken idea that I am minimizing the importance of the accumulation of human achievement and knowledge. Every human accomplishment is limited by what there is available, in terms of knowledge and tools, but neither the knowledge or tools determine what any particular individual achieves, or fails to achieve. If an individual does not make the effort to learn what has already been discovered (in any field, science, industry, agriculture, etc.) and how to use the tools that have been developed, that knowledge and those tools produce nothing. It is individuals who choose to learn all they can and use that knowledge that make all future advances in any field.

That's been my only argument. It is not Belinda's argument.

[-1-]

You two realize that you completely switched positions. Both of you took up the other's. Now Belinda is advocating the importance of individualism via the self's uniqueness...

No. Belinda's argument is consistent. Her argument is pointing out her view that it is not Madame Curie's own chosen work, but the inevitable consequence of the forces of biology and history. She is certainly not arguing individualism as a volitional attribute. Her argument is that every individual is "unique," but its a uniqueness imposed on individuals, not chosen by them.

... and RCS is showing how deterministic history is (incl. the evolution of science) via necessitating the birth of thought more due to circumstances of acquired common knowledge, than to individual achievement.

No, again. There is nothing deterministic about history. There seems to be a mistaken idea that I am minimizing the importance of the accumulation of human achievement and knowledge. Every human accomplishment is limited by what there is available, in terms of knowledge and tools, but neither the knowledge or tools determine what any particular individual achieves, or fails to achieve. If an individual does not make the effort to learn what has already been discovered (in any field, science, industry, agriculture, etc.) and how to use the tools that have been developed, that knowledge and those tools produce nothing. It is individuals who choose to learn all they can and use that knowledge that make all future advances in any field.

That's been my only argument. It is not Belinda's argument.

While the above opinion sounds true, and the posts I commented on do not contradict the above, I can hardly believe that the posts I commented on mean all that you describe here. I mean, a lot of extrapolation is in play, and I don't find it unfair, but I insist that all that you said here was NOT expressed in the posts in question.

--------------

I furthermore argue that Belinda took up your position... "Her argument is that every individual is "unique," but its a uniqueness imposed on individuals, not chosen by them." Uniqueness is uniqueness. It's an attribute to personality, and it can take many forms. Your argument here seems to indicate that Belinda says Curie's uniqueness is an attribute that was given to her by social arrangements... such as being born into a time and place when discovery was ripe. But her point -- if indeed her point is what you say -- does not deny at all another possible sense of uniqueness, namely, that she was smart, observant, with a creative mind, highly capable of lateral thinking. In this sense if she was born into any other era, she would have made a mark or another. Maybe she would have developed calculus to describe gravity. Maybe. But what you attribute to Belinda as saying, this is also a possible thing.

So it is individualism that Belinda -- possibly but not unambiguously -- is advocating.

-----------------

You come with the claim, "nothing is deterministic about history". Then you go on to show how previous accumulated knowledge affects thought. This you can't deny is causational. Take away the previously accumulated knowledge, and things that otherwise happen CAN'T happen. I call that deterministic. You call it not deterministic. Why? I wish you could explain how things that are caused and caused only by particular prior events, is not deterministic.

I am not arguing the term deterministic. I am arguing the fact that in history things can't happen without prior events leading up to them. Hitler could have been born with an extreme hatred against Jews, but if he was born in 1734, in Sumatra, as a child of a fishing villager, he couldn't have created the Holocaust.

I admit you are right that if Curie was not a player in the science field in France in the nineteenth century, then perhaps the discovery of those elements she discovered wouldn't have happened then and there at the precise place, location and time. But they may have. This is not possible to predict, as history only has a one-way flow, and you can't sub different flows to history than the one that has happened. So your argument is possible, and acceptable, but not less or more, than the argument, that someone else would have or could have taken the role fo Curie at the precise same time and location. The universe is too deterministic to allow the butterfly effect to swing into action. What happens happens, and it happens precisely because causes cause that event to happen. Take away the event, and you have to change the causes. But you can't change the causes because other causes caused the causes.

[Univalence]

I only gave her credit for her work.

You didn't give her credit for her work. You gave her credit for SOME of her work.
You admit so yourself.

She did other work for which she was not famous. The phrase, "for which she is famous," simply indicates which work I'm talking about.

It begs a question: Why do you credit her selectively? Why not credit all the work she chose to do?

Your whole response is of the same nature, arguing against things I never said or implied.

Quite rightly so. I am not arguing against the factuality of your claims. I am arguing against their incompleteness.

And apparently you do believe in volition, so it's only fair to ask you this question: Why did you choose to omit the facts that you have omitted? Why did you choose to tell only part of the truth?

[Belinda]

RCSaunders wrote:

It doesn't matter how you answer, I have no intention in arguing with your opinion. I'm sure you understand why I'm curious. To me, if how one lives is determined by history, biology, or anything else, they cannot also be a volitional being. Either my conscious choice determines what I do, and I am therefore responsible for what I do, or something else determines what I do, and I am not responsible for what I do, and neither is anyone else. That oddly would mean that any effort to convince others to make different choices, such as to think something different,

I do understand your point is important .

Mme Curie was a volitional being in the sense that she chose . Unlike less brainy forms of life men's choices are based upon very complex reasoning.
The more the individual man knows himself , knows other men, knows his environment, and is able to form complex and reasoned judgements the more free hie is. Mme Curie as we are told knew a lot ; sufficient to free her to be a competent and courageous scientist.



The corollary is the more able and free a man is the more responsibility he bears. Freedom (or volition) pertains less to the unreasoning than to the reasoning man. One example of this is the unreason of madness . The madman is less free than the sane man because his volition is compromised by his illness. Our prophets and seers bore more responsibility because they were knew more than other men . The knowledge and wisdom of Jesus, Krishna, and Buddha was such that these men carried heavy responsibility.

[RCSaunders]

RCSaunders wrote:

It doesn't matter how you answer, I have no intention in arguing with your opinion. I'm sure you understand why I'm curious. To me, if how one lives is determined by history, biology, or anything else, they cannot also be a volitional being. Either my conscious choice determines what I do, and I am therefore responsible for what I do, or something else determines what I do, and I am not responsible for what I do, and neither is anyone else. That oddly would mean that any effort to convince others to make different choices, such as to think something different,

I do understand your point is important .

Mme Curie was a volitional being in the sense that she chose . Unlike less brainy forms of life men's choices are based upon very complex reasoning.
The more the individual man knows himself , knows other men, knows his environment, and is able to form complex and reasoned judgements the more free hie is. Mme Curie as we are told knew a lot ; sufficient to free her to be a competent and courageous scientist.

The corollary is the more able and free a man is the more responsibility he bears. Freedom (or volition) pertains less to the unreasoning than to the reasoning man. One example of this is the unreason of madness . The madman is less free than the sane man because his volition is compromised by his illness. Our prophets and seers bore more responsibility because they were knew more than other men . The knowledge and wisdom of Jesus, Krishna, and Buddha was such that these men carried heavy responsibility.

You have surprised me a bit, but very pleasantly. I really like your emphasis on the fact that the extent of one's personal freedom corresponds to the extent of their knowledge.

There is one point I could argue, but will not as promised. I also do not agree that Jesus, Krishna, and Buddha are examples of wise men. That Buddha was actually person is in some doubt, and Krishna is actually a "god" in the Hindu pantheon, not an individual at all, which points I do not think are worth pressing.

Thank you for the interesting comments.

[RCSaunders]

And apparently you do believe in volition, so it's only fair to ask you this question: Why did you choose to omit the facts that you have omitted? Why did you choose to tell only part of the truth?

Because I only know part of the truth. I have no idea what, "all of her work," was. I doubt that anyone does. I certainly wasn't evading anything. I've always dreaded the thought that if I were ever in court and told to swear to, "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," I would have to refuse, for the simple reason I don't know the whole truth, and even if I did, it would take forever to tell it.

If it bothers you that I only addressed what I know, I plead ignorance.

[RCSaunders]

While the above opinion sounds true, and the posts I commented on do not contradict the above, I can hardly believe that the posts I commented on mean all that you describe here. I mean, a lot of extrapolation is in play, and I don't find it unfair, but I insist that all that you said here was NOT expressed in the posts in question.

You are quite right. Perhaps I over-elaborated.

I furthermore argue that Belinda took up your position... "Her argument is that every individual is "unique," but its a uniqueness imposed on individuals, not chosen by them." Uniqueness is uniqueness. It's an attribute to personality, and it can take many forms. Your argument here seems to indicate that Belinda says Curie's uniqueness is an attribute that was given to her by social arrangements... such as being born into a time and place when discovery was ripe. But her point -- if indeed her point is what you say -- does not deny at all another possible sense of uniqueness, namely, that she was smart, observant, with a creative mind, highly capable of lateral thinking. In this sense if she was born into any other era, she would have made a mark or another. Maybe she would have developed calculus to describe gravity. Maybe. But what you attribute to Belinda as saying, this is also a possible thing.

So it is individualism that Belinda -- possibly but not unambiguously -- is advocating.

A total collectivist may believe every individual is unique. That would not make them an individualist. Belinda has written more and I do believe her views are more individualistic then I previously thought. (I hope she doesn't mind being written about in the third person.)

You come with the claim, "nothing is deterministic about history". Then you go on to show how previous accumulated knowledge affects thought.

By not deterministic I was referring only to individual human beings. The entire physical universe is deterministic with the exclusion of living organism, especially conscious living organism, and more especially conscious living organisms with volitional minds, i.e. human beings. Accumulated knowledge does not "affect" thought. It is available to those who choose to learn and use it, but the existence of that knowledge does not cause anyone to do anything. An individual must choose to use the knowledge, else it does nothing.

This you can't deny is causational. Take away the previously accumulated knowledge, and things that otherwise happen CAN'T happen. I call that deterministic. You call it not deterministic. Why? I wish you could explain how things that are caused and caused only by particular prior events, is not deterministic.

A potential is not an actuality. The existence of recorded knowledge may make something possible that would not have possible without out it, but to call that, "a cause," is wrong. In order for automobiles to run they need gasoline. Fortunately their a great many companies making gasoline availabe, without which automobiles would not be able to run. I think no one would make the mistake of claiming it is the existense of gasoline that causes automobiles to run. Neither does accumulate knowledge cause anyone to discover antibiotics or develop radio.

I am not arguing the term deterministic. I am arguing the fact that in history things can't happen without prior events leading up to them. Hitler could have been born with an extreme hatred against Jews, but if he was born in 1734, in Sumatra, as a child of a fishing villager, he couldn't have created the Holocaust.

No one is denying that. I will say no historic fact could have been other than it was, which also has nothing to do with determinism, which you, yourself, point out.

I admit you are right that if Curie was not a player in the science field in France in the nineteenth century, then perhaps the discovery of those elements she discovered wouldn't have happened then and there at the precise place, location and time. But they may have. This is not possible to predict, as history only has a one-way flow, and you can't sub different flows to history than the one that has happened. So your argument is possible, and acceptable, but not less or more, than the argument, that someone else would have or could have taken the role fo Curie at the precise same time and location. The universe is too deterministic to allow the butterfly effect to swing into action. What happens happens, and it happens precisely because causes cause that event to happen. Take away the event, and you have to change the causes. But you can't change the causes because other causes caused the causes.

I only differ with you on the nature of cause, which is too big a subject to discuss here. I will say that three things are exempt to some degree from the notion of physical cause, life, consciousness, and the human mind.

[Belinda]

RCSAunders wrote:

There is one point I could argue, but will not as promised. I also do not agree that Jesus, Krishna, and Buddha are examples of wise men. That Buddha was actually person is in some doubt, and Krishna is actually a "god" in the Hindu pantheon, not an individual at all, which points I do not think are worth pressing.

Interesting points though! What I think is that actual historical persons such as Jesus of Nazareth, and also personified gods influence us, and their historicity doesn 't matter much when we want examples of how best to live one's life. For instance we might take an example from Macbeth not to be over ambitious and we might take the example from Hans Andersen's Ugly Duckling to seek quality friends.

[Univalence]

If it bothers you that I only addressed what I know, I plead ignorance.

Like you said - you aren't in a court of law, so I am not sure why you are concerning yourself with my bother?

I am concerning myself with the fact that you claim to be a man of volition.
A man of volition who chooses to plead instead of cure his ignorance.

What good are your fact-based beliefs if your facts are incomplete?

[RCSaunders]

Like you said - you aren't in a court of law, so I am not sure why you are concerning yourself with my bother?

I was just trying to be congenial.

[-1-]

RCSAunders wrote:

There is one point I could argue, but will not as promised. I also do not agree that Jesus, Krishna, and Buddha are examples of wise men. That Buddha was actually person is in some doubt, and Krishna is actually a "god" in the Hindu pantheon, not an individual at all, which points I do not think are worth pressing.

Interesting points though! What I think is that actual historical persons such as Jesus of Nazareth, and also personified gods influence us, and their historicity doesn 't matter much when we want examples of how best to live one's life. For instance we might take an example from Macbeth not to be over ambitious and we might take the example from Hans Andersen's Ugly Duckling to seek quality friends.

Hehe! Of the three, Jesus was never mentioned in current affair documents then, he is only described in the Bible. Which is a historical evidence all right, if we can find a first edition. But even that does not exist.

Nevertheless, accounts of his antics are lifelike, he sounds like a fanatic preacher to me. "Fools!" he says that quite a bit. I can't make ends or tails of his parables... and he is quite countra-survivalist. I think the Darwin Award ought to be given to him posthumously.

At any rate, I can see lessons to be learned in life-skills from Aesop, from Andersen, from the brothers Grimm, but the Bible is full of stories that are just there, without seeming rhyme or reason.

[RCSaunders]

Of the three, Jesus was never mentioned in current affair documents then, he is only described in the Bible.

Well, a little more than the Bible.

Jesus is metioned three times by Flavius Josephus, a first-century Romano-Jewish scholar and historian as well as the near contemporary Roman authors: Suetonius, in the Life of Claudius, and Tacitus, in Annals, where he reports that a Christus, after whom Christians are named, was killed by Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius.