Philosophy Now Forum

It said "without apparent external influence".
you have misconstrued that as a logical requirement that there must be no influence at all (even if non-apparent).

Even if Dalek were breaking a rule, that same rule would be broken by anybody citing any source of inspiration - even an ethical one.

FlashDangerpants wrote:It said "without apparent external influence".
you have misconstrued that as a logical requirement that there must be no influence at all (even if non-apparent).

Even if Dalek were breaking a rule, that same rule would be broken by anybody citing any source of inspiration - even an ethical one.

Not at all.

Apparent cause places phenomena in the realm of predictable, which is conditioning.

Non-apparent cause makes the phenomena unpredictable, unconditioned, i.e., spontaneous.

To say that all things are caused when not all causes are known, asserts only belief that spontaneous phenomena has an unknown cause.

In other words, though all salivating is presumed to be caused, Pavlov’s dog predictably salivates at the sound of the bell, not because of an unknown cause, and not because of no cause.

In absolute terms, one cannot necessarily do the "right" thing, for people other than themselves, and even then, they may not do something "right" for themselves. Something might seem "right" at any particular moment, that further down the road, reflection reveals otherwise. So there is never really such a thing as an absolute "right thing to do." As ignorance is replaced by knowledge, what's "right" also changes, as does pretty much everything else dealing with human conceptualization.

Walker wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:It's not wrong. If I go jogging or doing anything pleasurable, and am flooded with endorphins, I'm going to do it again, and the neural response will be built. But fine, allow me to remove the offending word Pavlovian. Better? BTW, don't use a standard lay dictionary for terms in specialties. In a legal dictionary, all drugs are narcotics. In a median al, only opioids.

So, you seem to be chaffing at what I'm saying. Would you like to offer something instead of nitpicking?

Well, I did present relevance to the thread topic before you veered off onto your personal definition of spontaneous, a personal definition at variance with the actual meaning of the word, though perhaps there is a “special” and so-far unpresented meaning of spontaneous that is the reasoned basis of your assertion that spontaneous equates to conditioning … hardly nitpicking.

Well, don't let me interrupt your discussion then. Carry on.

The rest is speculation currently or pastwise unspeculated.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:It's not wrong. If I go jogging or doing anything pleasurable, and am flooded with endorphins, I'm going to do it again, and the neural response will be built. But fine, allow me to remove the offending word Pavlovian. Better? BTW, don't use a standard lay dictionary for terms in specialties. In a legal dictionary, all drugs are narcotics. In a median al, only opioids.

So, you seem to be chaffing at what I'm saying. Would you like to offer something instead of nitpicking?

Well, I did present relevance to the thread topic before you veered off onto your personal definition of spontaneous, a personal definition at variance with the actual meaning of the word, though perhaps there is a “special” and so-far unpresented meaning of spontaneous that is the reasoned basis of your assertion that spontaneous equates to conditioning … hardly nitpicking.

Well, don't let me interrupt your discussion then. Carry on.

To prop up your initial impulse a bit:

Googling the words “spontaneous operant conditioning” does turn up some references that suggest a specialized usage of the word “spontaneous” in the course of explaining the psychological concept of “spontaneous recovery,” a term which actually refers to relapsing back into the conditioning after the conditioning has been supposedly eliminated (or so it appears after whole minutes of layman surfing).

You may have been suggesting that because of this, neural pathways have indeed been formed by the lab conditioning of animals such as Pavlov’s dog, and that these habits persist in sentient beasts, just waiting for the cue to activate.

What this means is, any lab-trained rat that finds his freedom on the streets of a city may find himself spontaneously acting out a sequence of events seemingly at random, but in fact originally were orchestrated through conditioning and are now triggered by a random stimulus that resembles a link in the conditioned neurosphere, a stimulus such as the labyrinth-like urban structure, particularly in older neighborhoods.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:In absolute terms, one cannot necessarily do the "right" thing, for people other than themselves, and even then, they may not do something "right" for themselves. Something might seem "right" at any particular moment, that further down the road, reflection reveals otherwise. So there is never really such a thing as an absolute "right thing to do." As ignorance is replaced by knowledge, what's "right" also changes, as does pretty much everything else dealing with human conceptualization.

Nonsense. You know right from wrong.

Life is the standard, the measure of all existence. By that standard every culture determines right and wrong, and the shadings.

Wrong is done because it is wrong. Capital punishment is known to be wrong and that's why it's used. People aren't punished by having right done to them.

Walker wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:In absolute terms, one cannot necessarily do the "right" thing, for people other than themselves, and even then, they may not do something "right" for themselves. Something might seem "right" at any particular moment, that further down the road, reflection reveals otherwise. So there is never really such a thing as an absolute "right thing to do." As ignorance is replaced by knowledge, what's "right" also changes, as does pretty much everything else dealing with human conceptualization.

Nonsense. You know right from wrong.
No, you missed my point, apparently you missed the words "absolute" and "necessarily," as well as "ignorance" and "knowledge." Once those words are understood, my argument stands!


Life is the standard, the measure of all existence. By that standard every culture determines right and wrong, and the shadings.
Culture is a function of the fear of death. So says cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker in his Pulitzer Prize winning book: The Denial of Death.

"The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of our mortality, which in turn acts as the emotional and intellectual response to our basic survival mechanism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death

Of course I concur!

Wrong is done because it is wrong.
Nope, it depends upon the individual. In the US it is bad manners to pick up your bowl at the dinner table and slurp your soup, then belch after you're done. In Japan all of that is considered a complement to the chef, and is appreciated!

Capital punishment is known to be wrong and that's why it's used.
Yet the proper way to lead is to "lead by example."

People aren't punished by having right done to them.
Ultimately, right and wrong are determined by the individual, not any group.

What would be the "right thing" to do, if you were a teacher monitoring the playground during recess, and saw a child crying profusely?

Walker wrote:Mahavishnu Orchestra - You Know You Know (1971) ... the right thing
(Billy Cobham – drums, especially last quarter)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mdGCqZTres

You're cheating Walker! You Know I'll not have a chance against Mahavishnu!! Thanks, I'll check it out!

UPDATE: I actually have that album, nice one! John is definitely one of those men!

duszek wrote:The question of doing the right thing comes to mind when we make some sort of sacrifice for a higher ideal and repress the instinct of self-preservation.

Duszek's comment is profound, probably more than he realizes. Does it result from reason or emotion is the question?

The notion of self-sacrifice is significant in the thinking on religion of Roger Scruton. I'm on the last chapter of his book, The Soul of the World.
http://www.amazon.com/Soul-World-Roger- ... er+scruton

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=18785&p=247536&hili ... on#p247536

tbieter wrote:

duszek wrote:The question of doing the right thing comes to mind when we make some sort of sacrifice for a higher ideal and repress the instinct of self-preservation.

Duszek's comment is profound, probably more than he realizes. Does it result from reason or emotion is the question?

The notion of self-sacrifice is significant in the thinking on religion of Roger Scruton. I'm on the last chapter of his book, The Soul of the World.
http://www.amazon.com/Soul-World-Roger- ... er+scruton

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=18785&p=247536&hili ... on#p247536

Thanks for promoting me to a man !

duszek wrote:

tbieter wrote:

duszek wrote:The question of doing the right thing comes to mind when we make some sort of sacrifice for a higher ideal and repress the instinct of self-preservation.

Duszek's comment is profound, probably more than he realizes. Does it result from reason or emotion is the question?

The notion of self-sacrifice is significant in the thinking on religion of Roger Scruton. I'm on the last chapter of his book, The Soul of the World.
http://www.amazon.com/Soul-World-Roger- ... er+scruton

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=18785&p=247536&hili ... on#p247536

Thanks for promoting me to a man !

Sometimes it's hard for us old timers to keep track, if the subject does indeed actually arise, that is. Supposedly a true philosopher really doesn't care one way or the other. Though there are chemical differences between us, the superior resultant, dependent upon ones perspective, what does higher, better, superior, etc., actually mean in this context?

Answer: The two are in fact one;
two halves of a whole;
incomplete without the other;
their totality, what it is in being human;
without either one, they would neither one exist.

Then equal is it???

Obviously!!!

I am usually interested whether I am talking to a man or to a woman, to a youth or to a senior citizen.
But I never ask to tell me. I prefer to guess somehow one day. Usually it is a surprise, one way or the other.

It helps to understand the interlocutor´s point of view.
It helps to forgive some very young persons if they freak out or are unable to keep their temper. They try things out, they can still change for better.

duszek wrote:

tbieter wrote:

duszek wrote:The question of doing the right thing comes to mind when we make some sort of sacrifice for a higher ideal and repress the instinct of self-preservation.

Duszek's comment is profound, probably more than he realizes. Does it result from reason or emotion is the question?

The notion of self-sacrifice is significant in the thinking on religion of Roger Scruton. I'm on the last chapter of his book, The Soul of the World.
http://www.amazon.com/Soul-World-Roger- ... er+scruton

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=18785&p=247536&hili ... on#p247536

Thanks for promoting me to a man !

This just proves that I'm just a silly old man, just a turd circling the drain.