dream_weaver

Clearly animals use the results of perception for bodily movements. A reformulation, or a supplement? Again, no disagreement here. What science guides physiology in drawing their conclusions? What state is that science currently in? Are those the only suggested alternatives? Perception is automatic. I have no issue with an animal having the capacity to automatically act on its perception. It acts within the scope of its instincts, and each successive generation has continued to bear this out. I'm more inclined to wonder about the physiologist's epistemic justification for his conclusions, especially with the weight volition provides to the morality inferred on being right or wrong on the matter.

Man's consciousness shares with animals the first two stages of its development: sensations and perceptions; but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man. Sensations are integrated into perceptions automatically, by the brain of a man or of an animal. But to integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction, is a feat that man alone has the power to perform—he has to perform it by choice. The process of abstraction, and of concept-formation is a process of reason, of thought; it is not automatic nor instinctive nor involuntary nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is nonvolitional; volition begins with the first syllogism. Man has the choice to think or to evade—to maintain a state of full awareness or to drift from moment to moment, in a semi-conscious daze, at the mercy of whatever associational whims the unfocused mechanism of his consciousness produces. From page 15 of my paperback edition of For The New Intellectual, highlighted, the portion that is central here. The nonconceptual level of consciousness is nonvolitional by extension.

With the restrictions placed on the producers in the past year, I did hear once the notion to take government to task for deprivation of property without compensation. On the other hand, many handouts where extended, some across the board, some to first come first served, and some by submitting the request in writing. The looters currently cloak theft by repackaging it and are abetted in the process by the current philosophic climate. The Eddie Willers' in this context ring of the Dave Mitchems' of the world, again, show up to work, do their job, and hold a vague sense of justice, sense something is not quite right, but the struggle to put it into perspective keeps taking a back seat to the immediacy of any distraction of the moment that competing for attention.

HBTV-6: The use and misuse of experts Judge for yourself. (1:07:00) So, did I make this up? (Rhetorical inquiry.) As this thread drifts into page 12, my inquires drift more toward what Greg Salmeiri is exploring in his presentation of Preliminaries - Objectivist Epistemology in Outline: Lesson 1 in particular as he touches base at around 19-20 minutes, distinguishing where the level of volition begins and later expanding with an example of a chipmunk leaping to a branch deemed by experiential knowledge of a 'expectation' that it conform to previous experiences at the 50-60 minute mark.

HBTV-6: The use and misuse of experts Judge for yourself. (1:07:00) Still the philosophic payoff is yet to be tendered here. Is volition philosophic or a matter to be delegated to the realm of microscopes and corpuscular dissection and comparison?

Before Plato (citation would be needed), plants had not been considered alive (as a life form.) Plato had observed that they move and grow, albeit rooted in place, hence they were alive. Ayn Rand had cats. She accepted the damage they can inflict on their surroundings as part of the "price" of owning them. I wonder if the archives or some of the inner circle recollect if this discussion of volition arose in their midst. An example in Harry Binswanger's "How We Know" referenced a horses foal being able to walk at birth (or very shortly thereafter—think within hours.) He disagrees with the sensory stage in human development. While cell's act to live, the process is innate. A continuum exists in many considerations, but if volition is introduced at the conceptual level, where is the conceptual continuum in the tree of life. Nervous systems carry signals originated by volition in man. Why couldn't a similar nerve structure also carry signals by non-volitional means in other animals. The lion, looking at the potential prey, and by innate means, identify and chase the one likely to serve as lunch by an instinct that serves it in such a matter. There is a video of a polar bear that comes on a pack of sled dogs where the two breeds go into a stage of play for the camera that recorded the encounter. I consider this fringe or marginal, not the black and white clear cut example needed to base principles upon for deeper development. So far Merjet, you've offered interesting biological studies that may be lost on my philosophical inquiry. My cat gives me pause to wonder at times about its capacity for volitional behavior, but in general it has acted pretty consistently for the five years it has had to persuade me otherwise.

In the episode Who Mourns for Adonais, a gods strength was measured by the quantity of its followers. The Roman goddess Libertas, or her Greek predecessor Elutheria, do not need to shrug under such a premise. In J.R.R. Tolkien's book, Gollum's possession of the ring of power had generated whispers of a shadow growing in the area of the mountain he was harbored within. Note the focus on the gods, placing them at the center of interest, the object of veneration and love, provides the metaphorical increase in power and influence. When the 'god' is made to be the loss of liberty, its degradation, its erosion — to what would the conversed 'metaphorical increase' apply? Yes, what goes on in the world need be taken into consideration. There is also the the adage regarding one finding what one seeks, i.e.; if one is focused on finding negative, is it any surprise that negative is found?

The most insightful article on QAnon dealt with game theory, of the stones on the floor that many gamers considered an arrow. Many gamers spent time seeking to understand what that programmer had never intended as a clue. Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity outline James Valliant's and Warren Fahy's quest for the origins of a religion that has had an incontrovertible had influence on the course of history. L. Ron Hubbard is the author and instigator of Dianetics and Scientology. Thanks to some investigative reporting, Ron Watkins has been traced as an origin of 'Q-Level Clearance leaks'. How many 'movements' can be traced back to their origins? Karl Popper pontificated about how difficult some conspiracies are to keep secret, while others can persist for generations. Hopefully the thread that runs loosely through these also bind them somewhat together. The play on words "Q" gives rise to in existing cultural entertainment and can contribute to the amusement we indulged in flitting from Q of James Bond to Q of Star Trek: Next Generation, to John de Lancie who plaed Q, to a role he played in Murder, She Wrote that has been playing an a screen by pure intention, compliments of the local public library here. Hopefully this will help place some of this into better perspective.

For a while it was if QAnon had gone dark. Early June, Real Clear Science resurrected Karl Popper regarding the conspiracy theory of society. With regard to Q, the discovery of a Ron Watkins is a rare find in a movement that has gained the degree of notoriety attributed to QAnon. And to think L. Ron Hubbard signed his name to many of the tenants he put forward.

Given the efforts to foist the point here, the anthropomorphic explanation continues to provide the most salient grasp. Years ago I discussed with someone about plant growing toward the sun as evidence for having a sense organ. Sometime a conclusion gets in the way being able to keep the final arbiter's say on the matter in perspective. What's the philosophic payoff on this matter?

When John de Lancie materialized on an episode of Murder, She Wrote, the implications you bring up here make me wonder if you're in cahoots with the Q-man himself.

Interesting. This establishes a clear distinction between self-initiated motion and the application of volition to the arena of self-initiated motion in the realm of cognition. In this context, a resort to the principle of two definitions is appropriate with the distinction drawn between volition as applied extrospectively to the observable self-initiated motion contrasted against the introspectively observable self-initiated motion in the realm of cognition. Such leaves the animal kingdom free to volitionally repeat their self-initiated motions generation after generation while mankind demonstrates his difference by applying volition to the self-initiated motions available to him in the cognitive realm.

By all means. Pursue the intent.

Point taken. She obviously set a distinction by contrasting a volitional consciousness to what would have to be implied as an instinctive consciousness. Perhaps better stated as a volitional conceptual consciousness contrasted with the animal mind amounting to "here now tree", "here now food", "here now master." If the intent is to apply it solely to man and how it relates to his conceptual faculty as set apart from the animal, it is difficult to square with her usual precision and particularization with the English language.

I would say thanks for pointing that out, but I think I alluded to that already.

Rand made the distinction of a volitional consciousness, and the section on life sustaining action stemming from plants, and stampeding though animals and stood man erectly apart using volitional choice as a distinguishing characteristic. If the intent is to merely dilute volitional choice by extending it to what she clearly did not have in mind, what is a better term to use in the place of volition regarding man in her context, or a better term to use regarding animals to avoid usurping its usage here by such a dilution?

Intellectually I do know that. The payoff of this thread personally was understanding just how much weight had implicitly been put on volitional consciousness over the years as the predominate essential element.

A lion or a bear kills a human, animals eating farmers crops - both are generally culled to prevent repeating. While animals can not commit fraud, if volition is not the heart (or essential) of the matter in morality, then something else needs be essential to morality that only man is held to be so, or are kangaroo courts actually being pursued in this thread now?

1913 Webster Dictionary (app).

In 1913, psychology was considered as: (n.) The science of the human soul; specifically, the systematic or scientific knowledge of the powers and functions of the human soul, so far as they are known by consciousness; a treatise on the human soul. While studying entities other than man can provide insight applicable to man, a question that isn't addressed seems to bear on volitional consciousness as it applies to epistemic knowledge, and the episodic appearance of "choice" that resides outside of this refinement.

oh man, the way you worded this is just so bizarre I'm even more convinced that you are a fringe nut job. What would be more bizarre is to note how the house and senate have ceded much political authority to the presidents and to their executive orders, while only a court order seems sufficient to put an executive-order made "law" into check or overturn an errent law once it is discovered, an example recently enacted out on the state level in Michigan. The peacekeepers (first responders seems a bit ambiguous when conjoined with police and military) answer to their respective executive branches. The executive branch upholds the laws passed by the legislative branches, and if need be, sign into law. The supreme court is to consider the legal merits of the laws in the light of the constitution.

Apparently, it's not just the catch-phrases. (Or it just makes for good headliners.) Netanyahu's Trump-style campaign to stop Israel's transfer of power

I did go back and listen. This is a nice tie-in to the Steven Hicks postmodernism talks. And article I ran across this morning on Vaccination is Making America Forget a Basic Pandemic Rule also drove the point home. It is filed as https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/06/individualism-still-spoiling-pandemic-response/619133/ and contained at least this following: From its founding, the United States has cultivated a national mythos around the capacity of individuals to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, ostensibly by their own merits. [Bold mine] and followed up with this pay-dirt of what is to be cultivated later: Individualism can be costly in a pandemic. It represents one end of a cultural spectrum with collectivism at the other—independence versus interdependence, “me first” versus “we first.”

Nope. Just waiting to confirm or deny your status as a closet Q-drop addict.