I get what it means and that’s a good thing. There seems to be some folks with empty shoulders
====
t Indeed. as far as I know, all mammals do to some degree. I’m not sure about reptile or avian (they might) but mammals do.
====
lol you’re friends with pedantic people – you *know* this is gonna happen 
—-
It doesn’t invalidate your phrasing in the OP, which is good and gets the point across poetically just fine 
====
The way you use monkey as a metaphor is equivalent to the way it is used in, “monkey on your back” – for a “primitive human problem” (like addiction).
===
This image is making me laugh. I think someone was trying to illustrate a metaphor with it and mixed a few metaphors together in a novel way. [I think I see what they’re getting at but still it’s so absurd]
====
—-
Ah, that’s why that image was making me laugh. It’s using monkey as a metaphor in the opposite direction. [from the site it came from]:
”
You know that one of my favorite images is that of the monkey riding on the back of a tiger, used as a metaphor for how the conscious mind interprets the input of the senses and the unconscious. The tiger is the unconscious and the raw input of the sensory apparatus, and the monkey is the conscious mind. The tiger is running this way and that, and the monkey is perched on his back, holding a toy steering wheel in his hands, pretending to steer.
Oh, and the monkey is facing backwards.
”
=====
That’s what it’s implying more or less. I can’t say I agree with it but that’s part of why it’s making me laugh.
—
t It illustrates it well but I disagree with the concept. Let’s use the metaphor. Who trained the monkey?
The limiting factor is whatever metaphor is used to illustrate free will, not free will.
=====
Evolution made clothes and a steering wheel for the monkey and perched it on a tiger’s back?
====
The metaphor takes something presumably higher (human) and posits the higher as the lower [the monkey], abstracting the monkey into a form an actual monkey would be incapable of comprehending.
The metaphor went from high to low. This doesn’t mean what the metaphor represents goes from high to low.
It’s map/territory stuff here.
=====
An apple is like a rubber ball because it rolls.
Therefore, I will go hungry because I cannot eat a rubber ball.
This is what using this for a no-free will argument is like.
=====
Oh I didn’t mean to imply that you had an empty shoulder Eli. It crossed my mind that you *might* think I meant you but I took the chance and said it anyway.
No, I was generalizing to humanity – that there’s a percentage that don’t appear to have well formed consciences. It was chancy and I apologize if it seemed I implied you because that wasn’t my intention.
—–
I’m pedantic. When I said “pedantic friends” I meant both you and I because we’re _both_ being pedantic about Z’s stuff here. I didn’t mean only you.
=====
Yes. The metaphor expressed in the monkey/tiger illustration (which still makes me chuckle because it reminds me of an absurd paper tiger that I’ve seen in animations before) illustrates well the concept it’s expressing. It maps well to the concept.
====
Uncle Grandpa used the “Giant Realistic Flying Tiger” but I’m pretty sure they borrowed a similar paper tiger construct from either Pee Wee’s playhouse or maybe Monty Python. If there was a compendium of paper tigers in children’s entertainment that existed, I’d be sure to look it up.
—
—–
But, do you have an image of yourself as a monkey on the back of a tiger facing the wrong direction?
—-
Well, without technical equipment (or combination of mirrors) you can’t see behind your back either… which is something that always bothered me and still does.
Much like that ONE spot on the back that most humans can’t reach. Design flaw. Such as it is.
—–
How I lok at it is this: There’s unknown unknowns. There might always be. But that doesn’t mean the unknown unknowns are in control or even that the known unknowns are in control. Maybe they are somewhat, but to abandon all control to an unknown is overkill of the known.
====
But we can detect them. We know about them. We just need supplemental equipment.
=====
How often are you objectively alone without supplemental equipment around?
How far from you is a way for you to see yourself? Or see other people? Or contact other people who can see you for you and tell you about you?
Sometimes you are, sure. But even then, that spot you can’t reach on your back? Are you floating in space somewhere? Nope. You can find a supplemental tree and scratch your back on it.
——
The illusion that you’re correct controls you in this case Eli
====
My “itch” has a measurable quantity to it. Stick a supplemental instrument to me and you’ll find it.
But where’s the physical part that you’re correct at? Seems that’s more an illusion, although it’s likely ultimately traceable to a couple of phosphorous molecules switching a few gates in your brain causing a flood of that set of chemicals that give you that emotional “high” of “being certain and correct”, in that fascinating illusionary loop that’s well graphed in cases of gambling and addiction in particular.
=====
I can see the strings that control me but you can’t” seems to be your chorus most of the time just sayin’.
=====
The concept of illusion, while useful at times, can be misused.
Break down what it means for something to “be” an illusion. It describes a process whereby assumption doesn’t meet up with perception, or where perception doesn’t meet up the consensus perceptions of others.
Do you find that agreeable
=====
The distinction I’m making is that of process. I see illusion as “process”, basically, a verb. Active.
It’s a happening. Someone is believing. Someone is determining truth value through some process they follow. Someone is declaring the results of these processes. Someone is agreeing or disagreeing with any of these results.
—–
“Illusion” is illusion. It’s useful have a noun form of the process, but to talk about it “as if” it is a tangible reality can be a dangerous process that misleads.
—–
I don’t see “most people” here. I’m talking with you and Zachary right now.
It seems to me that “most people” that you consider authoritative believe in no free will and there’s another group of “most people” who you do not consider authoritative that believe in free will.
Is it something like that?
====
Sounds like “most people who understand all of the evidence believe free will is not evident”
That’s where I derive “most people” from : the set of “most people” that matter to you.
====
yes, and they are the “most people believe [x]” that you go with.
You also posit that there is another set of “most people believe [y]” that you do not agree with.
=====
Do they Eli? Do you know how popular “fate thinking” is? It’s very popular around the world.
—–
Causal determinism is ancient Eli. Free will is not something that exists in all cultures or all peoples.
Pagan and folk religions very commonly have no free will, just causal determinism.
====
Collectivist societies have different defaults.
—–
There’s this “most people” again. Why do you keep appealing to this mysterious entity?
There’s just Eli, Ken + Zach in this conversation at present.
—–
You’ve defined it as a genetic factor inherent in all human beings that they believe at some point in their cognitive development that this mysterious free will is real when it apparently isn’t.
That’s what I got so far.
====
Dualism is a cultural artifact. The English language is littered with dualism making it hard to describe things any other way… thanks to that excluded middle from way back when…
===
D ude, Indian thought predating “excluded middle” had a non-dualistic basis. It’s not “intuitive”. It’s cultural.
====
“Here’s my cultural bias. I’m going to extend it backwards through time and space to include all peoples in all times”
—-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandogya_Upanishad
8th to 6th century BCE are the first traces of nondualism.
Perhaps nondualism is intuitive and dualism is the cultural construct.
=====
ou’ve posited that dualism is built-in to us at a genetic level. You’ve posited that belief in free will is built-in to us on a genetic level.
It’s big claims there.
—
Psychology is approximately 1850s+. The concepts of psychology also had origins. Those origins had origins. etc
====
we’re not talking about physics. Physics is simple. Psychology is more complicated because we’re dealing with concepts and bias in interpreting data.
====
Yes, Eli, you know the strings that pull us but we don’t. That’s your chorus.
====
But you get a peek at them when most people don’t (implied).
====
You keep talking *about* it but not presenting it. “Most who study these things completely agree with me” is put against an apparently larger team of “everybody else”.
====
Is science a culture?
====
Culture must be relevant because how is science _not_ a culture?
====
A method performed by whom?
=====
Do these humans (I presume) called scientists work in a collective of some kind with customs and laws, values, things held in high regard and things disregarded, friends and enemies and a line of demarcation where this collection of scientists ends and ‘others’ begin? It’s a culture.
====
Culture is relevant.
—-
Being a culture doesn’t make something right or wrong. It’s a collection of people with customs and standards of behavior.
====
You’ve acknowledged that it’s possible that you’re wrong Eli. That’s not moot 🙂 You might have missed a string behind you, just over to the left somewhere
=====
You’re appealing to these entities that aren’t here right now again.
===
Sin? Well, in Greek, sin meant “missing the mark”. I’m just teasing. It’s my own personal thing: I try not to overgeneralize because it assumes too much without evidence.
====
Dualism from Plato’s forms? yeah that’s an illusion.. well… it has practical uses but it’s ultimately a less correct view of things, I think.
====
Dualism or “mind-body problem” is a uniquely Western problem. It’s cultural. It’s affected our very language development to the point that it’s difficult to describe things in a non-dualistic manner.
Started with Plato’s Theory of Forms and the Platonic Realm and grew from there.
Where’s Western God? Platonic Realm.
Where’s Mathematics? Platonic Realm.
etc.
=——
*ahem* in which culture was that behavior interpreted in? A dualistic culture who thinks in terms of ‘mind/body’ split? hm.
====
So, you believe there *is* a mind-body split? Or that it’s an illusion?
====
Interesting how Plato has “infected” all of western culture. [I like plato of course]. He goes from Reality to Senses to Belief, to “right or wrong” belief, with “right belief” is justified by evidence that’s weighed in.
Yet, his introduction to European culture was late. 14th century. He was available in Byzantium and Persia for a long time before there as well as Rome, and Greece before that.
Europe was stuck with fragments of Aristotle in the first schools… which was ok I guess.
Prior to that, they were stuck between a Fate-no-free-will style Paganism and Free-will Christianity, which *was* ultimately based upon a Platonic realm but Europeans didn’t have access to primary sources for like 900 years, which sucked for them.
=====
Modern scientific methods grew primarily out of the Calvinistic line, which was predestined, predetermined (and easily toppled logic allowing god to be lopped off the top and replaced with humanism, reason, physics, logic, whatever], although there *was* a Romance Science in the 19th century that was more ecological, more process oriented and even ’emotional’, a little less ‘bottom up’ ‘up down’ reductionism.
====
Well, it was a commercial success don’t forget! Coal man. Coal is one of the dirty little secrets of the popularity of the sciences. It got so much of the necessary funding fed into chemistry. Then there was the commercial successes in the energy wars between AC/DC…. and we can go forward from there.
Still, it might’ve been all about engineering if it weren’t for a post WW2 effort to swap “Development” and “Research” around to give the “Pure Sciences” a needed boost.
I once read the history of engineering + science and it was a political ‘flip’ – changing the definition of engineering to make it a subset of pure science — somewhere around 1947/1948. Genius move. It kept funding for the pure sciences available which might’ve collapsed it as an industry.
====
Oh you’re going way back. Council of Florence, Gemistus Pletho (yes, he renamed himself “Plato” – Pletho), – and the neoplatonists which led to the Renaissance humanism bursting forth.
See? Back to Plato after 900 years of being without.
Had the Byzantine empire not fallen to the Turks in 1483 (I think?), western europe might not have had to re-invent the wheel so much.
They already had the knowledge but were no longer excited about it. [it was just standard crap they learned].
But it was new to Western Europe and they loved it.
=====
One of the sad things about modern scientific education is the dearth of history. It’s treated almost as if it “fell from the sky magically” – a truth that evidences itself thanks to the all holy scientific method. Sure, some fishing lines are cast backwards into history for support, but it’s a very cherry picked history that misses an awful lot.
I felt cheated honestly the more I learned about the influence of cultures upon cultures and how concepts fed into concepts that led to where the sciences are today. I’m still learning as I go. Fun stuff really.
====
I never liked history. Turns out it was because the way history is taught sucks and is … bad. I have no other way to put it. They teach it badly (most of the time), especially history of science.
I got involved in religious stuff which sparked an interest in histor, especially when I tripped over the Eastern Orthodox in my 20s. Suddenly there’s the history of Russia and Greece and the Copts looming before me, a whole different world than I ever knew.
That’s when I started to get more of the “backstory” behind European history.
I was only involved for 5 years or so but it sparked a deepened interest in history. Meh, anectodes. I have too many.
=====
I never lost my passion for science. Even during my ‘questing phase” (probably age 17-30 in religious stuff) the sciences were always in front of all of it.
As I saw religions as experiential I went through the experiences and took lots of notes. Learned a lot. Never really ended up believing but like the old X-Files poster that said, “I want to believe”, well, that was me. I gave it a go.
=====
I thought of founding an internet charter school. it’s easy enough to do. No real accountability. I’d just need a small bank of servers, a gimmick (some kind of immersive game) and people willing to work for commission. Unfortunately, I’m not a scam artist. I’d WANT to do it right and tear my hair out in the process.
===
in *theory* – that _seems_ to be one of the products Trump is selling (but not delivering) : slimmer government reduced bloat etc.
Sad thing is: he’s taking what *should be* good ideas and spoiling them. It’s annoying. I should be cheering the bastard on but I can’t.
—-
I don’t like a darwinism model though. That depends on honesty to function properly. With dishonest people running dishonest organizations without accountability, the darwinism simply becomes a tool for domination.by backroom deals and fraud.
=====
Who designs the curriculum ?
—-
Sounds like educational psychology. They’re ok but they can get subject to faddishness at times… and it runs on a distinct track from developmental psychology although it’s informed by it.
====
i guess i like the randomness of internet education. let people form their fandoms and follow their interests. I’d have some watchers along the way : people who keep 1/2 an eye on issues developing like excess intimidation (a little is fine but there’s a limit) and available to get them out of trouble spots but generally follow their interests.
Needs can determine learning although *some* minimally basic humanistic secular knowledge base should be scattered around and encouraged.
But if someone wants to spent a year getting obsessed with UFOs that’s fine.
I’d have real-life ‘hang out’ centers with security and helpers and mentors available that *do* have educational facilities available but act more like safe social centers that they want to be at. [or can get dumped at if parents can’t homeschool]
Some charter schools are set up like that. A lot of them rely on Khan, who is ok. . although a little odd in some areas but not horrible.
But there’s lots of awesome stuff put out voluntarily by youtubers that kids already trip over and learn from.
Eh, I dunno. I’ve got buttloads of ideas but no real solutions.
=====
US education is mostly the same as it ever was. Old model still in use. There *was* a period called Progressive from the early 00s to the early 40s (John Dewey and company) that was rational, child centered and science-based, which produced (I think) some of the smartest people (remember by the 1930s, Roosevelt tried to follow a rational approach and it was the era of the development of “poll science”, which reached its peak of quality around the 50s but started to fail since).
But mid-late 40s, we moved to the model we have today. Statistical-based, bell-curve style.
=====
So many charters are 1/2-assed money grabbers though. I don’t like a for-profit model.
DeVos’ school choice unfortunately sucks, and not just because of her religious Foundation. Apparently Detroit had a “Wild West” time with Charter schools thanks to her and a lot of people fell through the cracks in a big way, schools opening and closing randomly, no real accountability… just not good. Oh, and health? ugh. the buildings were in disrepair and dangerous… we NEED safety inspectors.
Yet other places do it right. Florida has a hybrid public/charter set up that _seems_ to work well and there’s great reports coming from New Orleans in their charter system, making vast strides since that hurricane.
But I dunno. I’ve looked at many models of education since I was in school and read Summerhill and John Holt books (“Unschooling, Why Johnny Can’t Read etc), which prompted me to find a private school FAST and get myself IN… which I did. [got myself a scholarship 🙂 ]
So I’m ultimately not a fan of public but I see their necessity and some people flourish in its environment.
====
Idealists need to get paid too though… and those idealists need administration.. and the administrators need to be administered…. and so on…
I should love this “blowing up” of the beaucracy in this administration, but I don’t trust any of them. I wish I could. Now I’m starting to see the value in current systems that I once thought were awful. If you’re going to replace something, do it right. Otherwise, work with them to change it. “Anything’s better than what we have” is NOT a good answer in most cases, including this.
=====
If they had a decent replacement I’d listen. But “hey whatever happens happens but by the way, we’re going to be building a LOT of schools ourselves because we need more numbers in our religious group” just strikes me as swapping oligarchies.
——
Oh I mean swapping the Dept of Education with for-profit bible thumping billionaire school founders.
====
s ide benefit _might_ be the occasonal democratic school (Sudbury Valley has a decent model and there’s a really nice school in NYC that actually teaches activism in all of its classes which is something fascinating) – and even a church-of-satan school here and there, and maybe a Bill Nye School .. but I don’t know if the tradeoff is worth it.
====
If it *does* go this way, I might be compelled to *have* to start a school. All my talk through the years I might have to put into action. The idea scares me but if I start seeing what I expect I’ll start seeing… I can’t just sit back online and yap about it.
—-
I just hope I’m wrong. I hope there’s enough people pushing back against such agendas to prevent it. I hate *having* to do something. So I’m hoping others fix it before it’s a problem.
====
Well, if it comes to that, it’ll be “pick your indoctrination” and it’ll be up to everybody who *doesn’t* like the default – if those schools become the default – to deliver. I’d definitely focus on a science-based. I know already how I’d have the classes taught. [backwards from how they do it now]/
=====