Open Challenges to All Science Bigots!

[N-H-P]

There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free
will concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western
morality and the determinism demanded by science. The basic
issue remains inescapable. If our actions are not up to us,
then we have no moral responsibility for them. The fundamental
flaw of the scientific worldview is, thus, its failure to
explain how free will must be subject to causality and, yet,
remain free. The classical Western worldview of morality,
values, and virtues says that humans are different from other
animals precisely because man can rise above his base and
carnal desires with his free will.

Science says that individuals should blame everything on their
biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of prescription
medication. So, where is man's Free Will?

My first challenge is for any science person is to rationally
explain how the scientific worldview can account for FREE
WILL, which just so happens to have been the basis of the
Western system of Justice in America for the last 200 years.
Please explain how free will must be subject to causality and,
yet, remain free without making a public fool out of yourself.
The facts are that no rational explanation can be provided by
the scientific worldview. Ergo, the scientific worldview is
fundamentally defective.

Prior to and during the 19th century, the human psyche was a
direct reference to the existence of the soul. Today, it
primarily means the mind, or mental faculty, of a person;
directly due to the corrupting influence of the scientific
worldview upon Western society.

Science goes way beyond attacking alternative medicine. It
ultimately places a direct attack upon the Christian faith
and its belief in the physical existence of the soul.
Determinists suggests that our health is merely a choice
between scientific biomedicine and anti-science alternative
medicine. I am arguing, however, that the real choice is
between scientific determinism and classical Western
morality, values, and virtues.

My next challenge for any science person is to rationally
explain how the scientific worldview does not directly attack
all Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, especially but not
limited to beliefs in the physical existence of the human soul
(both before and after death), or at least 50 percent of the
population of the United States who hold to these religious,
and last but not least the Republican political party which
openly claims that America was founded upon the Christian
Faith and its belief in the physical existence of the human
soul. The facts are, no simple rational explanation can be
provided. Ergo, the scientific worldview is fundamentally
defective.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention.

[Darryl]

>There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free
>will concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western
>morality and the determinism demanded by science. The basic
>issue remains inescapable. If our actions are not up to us,
>then we have no moral responsibility for them. The
>fundamental flaw of the scientific worldview is, thus, its
>failure to explain how free will must be subject to causality
>and, yet, remain free. The classical Western worldview of
>morality, values, and virtues says that humans are different
>from other animals precisely because man can rise above his
>base and carnal desires with his free will.
>
>Science says that individuals should blame everything on
>their biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of
>prescription medication. So, where is man's Free Will?

It's described in Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The
Scientific Search For The Soul".

[markd]

Intresting, there is nothing like comparing apples to
peanutbutter. If you want us to accept your having some
knowledge of western philosophy and of theology, you must
first critique the several flaws in your logic and the
presuppisitions on which they stand. For an intresting book
that touches on the topic of both science and human will:

"How we Believe"

M. Shermer
>There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free
>will concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western
>morality and the determinism demanded by science. The basic
>issue remains inescapable. If our actions are not up to us,
>then we have no moral responsibility for them. The
>fundamental flaw of the scientific worldview is, thus, its
>failure to explain how free will must be subject to causality
>and, yet, remain free. The classical Western worldview of
>morality, values, and virtues says that humans are different
>from other animals precisely because man can rise above his
>base and carnal desires with his free will.
>
>Science says that individuals should blame everything on
>their biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of
>prescription medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
>
>My first challenge is for any science person is to rationally
>explain how the scientific worldview can account for FREE
>WILL, which just so happens to have been the basis of the
>Western system of Justice in America for the last 200 years.
>Please explain how free will must be subject to causality
>and, yet, remain free without making a public fool out of
>yourself. The facts are that no rational explanation can be
>provided by the scientific worldview. Ergo, the scientific
>worldview is fundamentally defective.
>
>Prior to and during the 19th century, the human psyche was a
>direct reference to the existence of the soul. Today, it
>primarily means the mind, or mental faculty, of a person;
>directly due to the corrupting influence of the scientific
>worldview upon Western society.
>
>Science goes way beyond attacking alternative medicine. It
>ultimately places a direct attack upon the Christian faith
>and its belief in the physical existence of the soul.
>Determinists suggests that our health is merely a choice
>between scientific biomedicine and anti-science alternative
>medicine. I am arguing, however, that the real choice is
>between scientific determinism and classical Western
>morality, values, and virtues.
>
>My next challenge for any science person is to rationally
>explain how the scientific worldview does not directly attack
>all Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, especially but not
>limited to beliefs in the physical existence of the human
>soul (both before and after death), or at least 50 percent of
>the population of the United States who hold to these
>religious, and last but not least the Republican political
>party which openly claims that America was founded upon the
>Christian Faith and its belief in the physical existence of
>the human soul. The facts are, no simple rational explanation
>can be provided. Ergo, the scientific worldview is
>fundamentally defective.
>--
>John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
>http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in
>Health are those who couldn't care less about prevention.

[Larry Hoov]

"N-H-P" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in
message
news:16a9b594.0409260414.660e8816@posting.google.com...

> Science says that individuals should blame everything on
> their biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of
> prescription medication. So, where is man's Free Will?

Do you really need an explanation why your premise is
fallacious?

Stay in the twit-filter, twit.

Lar

[Leo]

Troll in disguise...why don't you practise some safe sex and
go fck yourself!

Now that would also be caring about prevention! Please - don't
spread your genes.

[Socialism]

On 26 Sep 2004 05:14:49 -0700,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:
>
>There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free
>will concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western
>morality and the determinism demanded by science.
>

Science doesn't "demand" any determinism. You should stop
reading 19th century science books and start reading (at
least) 20th century science books.

>
>The basic issue remains inescapable.
>

Indeed, that you have no clue about what you are talking
about.

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Orac]

In article <16a9b594.0409260414.660e8816@posting.google.com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:

> Science says that individuals should blame everything on
> their biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of
> prescription medication. So, where is man's Free Will?

Perhaps the twisted version of science that exists in your
head says that, but science itself says no such thing.

Troll.

[Snip]

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
|inconvenience me with questions?"

[Jeff]

"N-H-P" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in
message
news:16a9b594.0409260414.660e8816@posting.google.com...
> There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free
> will concept of the human psyche assumed by classical
> Western morality and the determinism demanded by science.
> The basic issue remains inescapable. If our actions are not
> up to us, then we have no moral responsibility for them.

You're in the wrong forum. You need to go to a forum on
religion or philosophy.

Science deals with that can be answered experimentation.

Questions like why are we here, what is morally right and do
we have free will belong in the realm of philosophy and
religion, not science.

> The fundamental flaw of the scientific worldview is, thus,
> its failure to explain how free will must be subject to
> causality and, yet, remain free. The classical Western
> worldview of morality, values, and virtues says that humans
> are different from other animals precisely because man can
> rise above his base and carnal desires with his free will.

Again, science has no veiw on this. It outside the field
of science.

> Science says that individuals should blame everything on
> their biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of
> prescription medication. So, where is man's Free Will?

I don't recall scientitists saying this or this being part
of science.

Again, this is an issue for philosophy, not sceince.

> My first challenge is for any science person is to
> rationally explain how the scientific worldview can account
> for FREE WILL, which just so happens to have been the basis
> of the Western system of Justice in America for the last 200
> years. Please explain how free will must be subject to
> causality and, yet, remain free without making a public fool
> out of yourself. The facts are that no rational explanation
> can be provided by the scientific worldview. Ergo, the
> scientific worldview is fundamentally defective.

No. There a bumch of questions that are in the science arena,
like what will happen to the earth when the sun blows up,
what is an atom and why do people sleep at night. Do we have
free will, is it ok to the yell movie in a crowded fire
station and does god exist are not questions that can be
answered by science.

> Prior to and during the 19th century, the human psyche was a
> direct reference to the existence of the soul. Today, it
> primarily means the mind, or mental faculty, of a person;
> directly due to the corrupting influence of the scientific
> worldview upon Western society.

Again, the existance of the soul and the afterlife is not an
area that science deals with.

> Science goes way beyond attacking alternative medicine. It
> ultimately places a direct attack upon the Christian faith
> and its belief in the physical existence of the soul.

Actually, it says that the existance of God and the soul is
not something that we can test, and that it is not part of
science. It belongs to the realm of religion and philosophy,
not science.

> Determinists suggests that our health is merely a choice
> between scientific biomedicine and anti-science alternative
> medicine. I am arguing, however, that the real choice is
> between scientific determinism and classical Western
> morality, values, and virtues.

No. Science and religion are complementary areas of study,
with some overlap. Whether particular alternative medicine
theories are accurate is an area for science. Morality, values
and virtues belongs to philosophy and religion.

> My next challenge for any science person is to rationally
> explain how the scientific worldview does not directly
> attack all Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, especially but
> not limited to beliefs in the physical existence of the
> human soul (both before and after death),

If you can provide scientists with an experiment that will
test the existance of the soul, then this particular question
belongs in the realm of science. however, if you can't, then
this question doesn't.

As far as the beleif that Christ came to the earth around 2000
years ago, was the son of God, came back from death, heaven
and all that, this is a question for religion and philosophy,
not science.

> or at least 50 percent of the population of the United
> States who hold to these religious, and last but not least
> the Republican political party which openly claims that
> America was founded upon the Christian Faith and its belief
> in the physical existence of the human soul.

Actually, history shows that values of America was based on
the Christian faith. All pesidents have been christians so
far, and most Americans have been raised with the
JudeoChristian background.

What republicans have to say about this, I don't care.

> The facts are, no simple rational explanation can be
> provided. Ergo, the scientific worldview is fundamentally
> defective.

Wrong. The scientific is fundamentally limited to questions
that science can deal with. questions about why we exist, God
and morals belong to the realm of philosophy and religion.

Read Stephen J. Gould's books, espeically his "Rock of
Ages" book.

Jeff
> John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
> http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in
> Health are those who couldn't care less about prevention.

[Gmcarter]

On 26 Sep 2004 05:14:49 -0700,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:

>There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free
>will concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western
>morality and the determinism demanded by science.

This premise is false.

Genetics influences determinism (e.g., eye color, possibly
more complex factors like general emotional disposition). Free
will doesn't mean you can fly. But it means you have a choice
to open your heart or close it to the beauty of the world.

The notions are not mutually exclusive.

Science is a beautiful tool that can help ask questions,
design experiments and discover new interpretations and
aspects to the matrix of existence. It can be a hideous
waste of time. It can be turned toward means of destruction
or creation.

Faith can be a guide to more decent living and a more sublime
appreciation of our evanescent existence. Or it can be used
for crusades, beheadings and other atrocities.

Both approaches can become confused over topics such as
determinism and free will.

George M. Carter

[Stobius]

"Leo" <fupkonto@hotmail.dk> wrote in message
news:<41571673$0$212$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk>...
> Troll in disguise...why don't you practise some safe sex and
> go fck yourself!
>
> Now that would also be caring about prevention! Please -
> don't spread your genes.

Yes, a Christian Republican troll, usually the worst kind
because they aren't even entertaining.

[Alan Turle]

On 26 Sep 2004 05:14:49 -0700,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:

>There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free
>will concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western
>morality and the determinism demanded by science.

Eat the poison fruit much?

You have been deceived by your professional education, and
John can show you how if you'll just visit his website, to
reduce his entire argument to one bite-sized assertion.

A quick Google search can reveal the mystery of the troll's
message for what it is - the prelude to yet another round of
self-promotion and ignorance on parade. Save yourselves the
finger cramps due any more response; he is quite beyond
intellectual rehabilitation.

The author of this gibberish is none other than John Gohde,
who has altered his e-mail address slightly to escape the
quiet confines of many bozo bins.

@~

[N-H-P]

markd@toad-net.com wrote:

> Intresting, there is nothing like comparing apples to
> peanutbutter.

Too bad that I cannot say the same about your reply.

> If you want us to accept your having some knowledge of
> western philosophy and of theology, you must first critique
> the several flaws in your logic and the presuppisitions on
> which they stand. For an intresting book that touches on the
> topic of both science and human will:
>
> "How we Believe"
>
> M. Shermer

My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.

Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response .
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

Darryl <umpolung@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message

> It's described in Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The
> Scientific Search For The Soul".

My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.

Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response.
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

"Larry Hoover" <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Do you really need an explanation why your premise is
> fallacious?
>
> Stay in the twit-filter, twit.
>
> Lar

My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.

Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response .
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

"Leo" <fupkonto@hotmail.dk> wrote:

> Troll in disguise...why don't you practise some safe sex and
> go fck yourself!
>
> Now that would also be caring about prevention! Please -
> don't spread your genes.

My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.

Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response .
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

Orac <orac_usa@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps the twisted version of science that exists in your
> head says that, but science itself says no such thing.

I made a simple challenge. Your reply is non-responsive.
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

Alan Turley <arguilios@yahoo.com> wrote:

> A quick Google search can reveal the mystery of the troll's
> message for what it is - the prelude to yet another round of
> self-promotion and ignorance on parade. Save yourselves the
> finger cramps due any more response; he is quite beyond
> intellectual rehabilitation.
>
> The author of this gibberish is none other than John Gohde,
> who has altered his e-mail address slightly to escape the
> quiet confines of many bozo bins.

This was NOT an opportunity for the mentally ill to show the
world just how paranoid that they truly are.

I made a simple challenge. Your reply is non-responsive.
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

> >There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free
> >will concept of the human psyche assumed by classical
> >Western morality and the determinism demanded by science.

> This premise is false.

It is very easy to say that my premise is false. I believe
that YOUR premise is false, so your comment helps no one.

> Genetics influences determinism (e.g., eye color, possibly
> more complex factors like general emotional disposition).
> Free will doesn't mean you can fly. But it means you have
> a choice to open your heart or close it to the beauty of
> the world.

> The notions are not mutually exclusive.

No they are not. Science says that Free Will can be explained
i.e., is caused by biology and therefore there is a causative
factor to Free Will. But, if Free Will is caused by Chemistry
then it is NOT Free but simply the end result of a chemical
equation. So, if Free Will is truly Free then it is NOT caused
by Chemistry and is thus without a causative factor. And, Ergo
the Scientific Worldview is a few beers short of a six pack.

> Science is a beautiful tool that can help ask questions,
> design experiments and discover new interpretations and
> aspects to the matrix of existence. It can be a hideous
> waste of time. It can be turned toward means of destruction
> or creation.
>
> Faith can be a guide to more decent living and a more
> sublime appreciation of our evanescent existence. Or it can
> be used for crusades, beheadings and other atrocities.
>
> Both approaches can become confused over topics such as
> determinism and free will.

This part of your reply is non-responsive to my Challenge.
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

Longer replies are sometime worthy of a long response. :(

> You're in the wrong forum. You need to go to a forum on
> religion or philosophy.

No, I am in the correct forum. I want responses ONLY from ego
driven science people. Or, from physicians.

> Science deals with that can be answered experimentation.
>
> Questions like why are we here, what is morally right and do
> we have free will belong in the realm of philosophy and
> religion, not science.

The easiest way to avoid admitting that the scientific
worldview is fundamentally flawed is to discount the question.
Sorry, but I was NOT born yesterday. It was a valid question
that has been simmering within me for over one year.

> > The fundamental flaw of the scientific worldview is, thus,
> > its failure to explain how free will must be subject to
> > causality and, yet, remain free. The classical Western
> > worldview of morality, values, and virtues says that
> > humans are different from other animals precisely because
> > man can rise above his base and carnal desires with his
> > free will.
>
> Again, science has no veiw on this. It outside the field of
> science.

Factually, correct. However, while science is immortal and
goes on forever. Ego driven science people voice their point
of view on alternative medicine, and these types of subjects
all the time. These forums are people rather than science
driven forums. And, these science people also specifically
attacked spiritualism, or the science of the human soul,
during the 19th century. They are of course also active in
these forums. There is a bigger picture here than just
anti-science alternative medicine. And, it is about time that
somebody introduced it. So, I did. I did, I did, ... I did.

The fact that alternative medicine is anti-science is totally
besides the point once you realize that the majority of the
population and the long established institutional systems of
the United States, like the Judicial System, are in fact
anti-science.

Hell! Obviously, even our President George Bush is
anti-science when he places a band on stem cell research. So,
being anti-science in and of it self is no big deal. In fact,
I would say the phrase that something is anti-science is
totally meaningless.

> > Science says that individuals should blame everything on
> > their biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of
> > prescription medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
>
> I don't recall scientitists saying this or this being part
> of science.

The ONLY thing that I am interested in are the ego driven
science people who have a morbid compulsion to interject these
types of conclusions into threads on these forums.

> Again, this is an issue for philosophy, not sceince.

Again, a mute point.

> > My first challenge is for any science person is to
> > rationally explain how the scientific worldview can
> > account for FREE WILL, which just so happens to have been
> > the basis of the Western system of Justice in America for
> > the last 200 years. Please explain how free will must be
> > subject to causality and, yet, remain free without making
> > a public fool out of yourself. The facts are that no
> > rational explanation can be provided by the scientific
> > worldview. Ergo, the scientific worldview is fundamentally
> > defective.

> crowded fire station and does god exist are not questions
> that can be answered by science.

Again, the question posed is: Is there a physical explanation
for Free Will? If there is, then it follows that free will is
deterministic and therefore NOT Free. If it is NOT
deterministic, then the scientific worldview is unable to
explain all phenomena experienced by man. And, Ergo, there
then is more to being human than pure chemistry. Ergo, the
scientific wordview would thus be fatally flawed or
incomplete. And, hence, my point in starting this thread.

> > Prior to and during the 19th century, the human psyche was
> > a direct reference to the existence of the soul. Today, it
> > primarily means the mind, or mental faculty, of a person;
> > directly due to the corrupting influence of the scientific
> > worldview upon Western society.
>
> Again, the existance of the soul and the afterlife is not an
> area that science deals with.

Correct again. But, once again individual ego driven science
people have done so quite often.

For example, William A. Hammond, MD the first surgeon general
of the Unites States, did so during the 1880's.

> > Science goes way beyond attacking alternative medicine. It
> > ultimately places a direct attack upon the Christian faith
> > and its belief in the physical existence of the soul.

> Actually, it says that the existance of God and the soul is
> not something that we can test, and that it is not part of
> science. It belongs to the realm of religion and philosophy,
> not science.

Again, individual ego driven science people have done so quite
often. I call them Science Trolls on these forums.

> > Determinists suggests that our health is merely a choice
> > between scientific biomedicine and anti-science
> > alternative medicine. I am arguing, however, that the real
> > choice is between scientific determinism and classical
> > Western morality, values, and virtues.
>
> No. Science and religion are complementary areas of study,
> with some overlap. Whether particular alternative medicine
> theories are accurate is an area for science. Morality,
> values and virtues belongs to philosophy and religion.
>
> > My next challenge for any science person is to rationally
> > explain how the scientific worldview does not directly
> > attack all Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, especially
> > but not limited to beliefs in the physical existence of
> > the human soul (both before and after death),
>
> If you can provide scientists with an experiment that will
> test the existance of the soul, then this particular
> question belongs in the realm of science. however, if you
> can't, then this question doesn't.

Science people had no problems attacking Spiritualism during
the 1880's whatsoever.

> As far as the beleif that Christ came to the earth around
> 2000 years ago, was the son of God, came back from death,
> heaven and all that, this is a question for religion and
> philosophy, not science.
>
> > or at least 50 percent of the population of the United
> > States who hold to these religious, and last but not least
> > the Republican political party which openly claims that
> > America was founded upon the Christian Faith and its
> > belief in the physical existence of the human soul.
>
> Actually, history shows that values of America was based on
> the Christian faith. All pesidents have been christians so
> far, and most Americans have been raised with the
> JudeoChristian background.
>
> What republicans have to say about this, I don't care.
>
> > The facts are, no simple rational explanation can be
> > provided. Ergo, the scientific worldview is fundamentally
> > defective.
>
> Wrong. The scientific is fundamentally limited to questions
> that science can deal with. questions about why we exist,
> God and morals belong to the realm of philosophy and
> religion.

The remainder of your reply is non-responsive to my simple
challenge.
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

stobius2000@yahoo.com (Stobius) wrote:

> Yes, a Christian Republican troll, usually the worst kind
> because they aren't even entertaining.

We are starting to make progress, now. :)

So, looking at the bigger picture Republicans are
anti-science. Christians are anti-science. Everybody in the
American Judicial System is anti-science. In other words,
just about everybody in the United States of America is
actually anti-science except for a handful of Liberal
Academic @3*4#@!s.

Just like I thought! It is not just about alternative
medicine. There is a bigger picture here!
--
John Gohde

[Socialism]

On 27 Sep 2004 16:58:19 -0700,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:
>
>Sorry, but I was NOT born yesterday.
>

This explains why you are senile.

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

[markd]

"My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.

Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response ."

Succinctly, We rule you uninformed and ignorant of the basic
knowledge of logic 101. You imply having knowledge of science
and theology, the content of your "question" betrays your
sophomoric ignorance of both. My response stands, when you can
explain the flaws in your logic then we can talk, apples and
peanutbutter indeed.

[Joann Evan]

N-H-P wrote:
>
> Darryl <umpolung@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > It's described in Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The
> > Scientific Search For The Soul".
>
> My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
> succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
>
> Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response.
> --
> John Gohde

So, it must be a 'science person' right here in one of
these newsgroups? Do you not believe in doing some
research?

--

You know what to remove, to reply....

[Orac]

In article <16a9b594.0409271431.6db49bd3@posting.google.com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:

> Orac <orac_usa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the twisted version of science that exists in your
> > head says that, but science itself says no such thing.
>
> I made a simple challenge. Your reply is non-responsive.

No, my reply doesn't accept your premise and therefore doesn't
fall into your trap, troll.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
|inconvenience me with questions?"

[Orac]

In article <16a9b594.0409271414.5f265098@posting.google.com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:

> Darryl <umpolung@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > It's described in Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The
> > Scientific Search For The Soul".
>
> My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
> succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
>
> Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response.

That's OK, I rule your question a "non-challenge."

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
|inconvenience me with questions?"

[Orac]

In article <16a9b594.0409271437.7d335440@posting.google.com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:

> Alan Turley <arguilios@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A quick Google search can reveal the mystery of the
> > troll's message for what it is - the prelude to yet
> > another round of self-promotion and ignorance on parade.
> > Save yourselves the finger cramps due any more response;
> > he is quite beyond intellectual rehabilitation.
> >
> > The author of this gibberish is none other than John
> > Gohde, who has altered his e-mail address slightly to
> > escape the quiet confines of many bozo bins.
>
> This was NOT an opportunity for the mentally ill to show the
> world just how paranoid that they truly are.

But apparently it was an opportunity for people like you to
parade their ignorance of science for all to see.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
|inconvenience me with questions?"

[Orac]

In article <16a9b594.0409271453.19552285@posting.google.com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:

> Science says that Free Will can be explained i.e., is
> caused by biology and therefore there is a causative factor
> to Free Will.

Really?

Where?

You're clearly confusing probabilistic influences of genes
with causalities. Our behavior is undeniably influenced by our
genetic makeup, but it's probabilities, not causation. Do go
do some reading before you make a bigger fool out of yourself
than you already have.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
|inconvenience me with questions?"

[Joann Evan]

N-H-P wrote:
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Longer replies are sometime worthy of a long response. :(
>
> > You're in the wrong forum. You need to go to a forum on
> > religion or philosophy.
>
> No, I am in the correct forum. I want responses ONLY from
> ego driven science people. Or, from physicians.

'Ego driven?' You've already made up your mind, it seems.
This is also not part of science.

>
> > Science deals with that can be answered experimentation.
> >
> > Questions like why are we here, what is morally right and
> > do we have free will belong in the realm of philosophy and
> > religion, not science.
>
> The easiest way to avoid admitting that the scientific
> worldview is fundamentally flawed is to discount the
> question. Sorry, but I was NOT born yesterday.

Ask a scientist those questions, and he can only answer
them in philosophical or religous terms. As could
anyone else.

> It was a valid question that has been simmering within me
> for over one year.

How long you let it cook doesn't change the non-scientific
nature of the questions.

> > > The fundamental flaw of the scientific worldview is,
> > > thus, its failure to explain how free will must be
> > > subject to causality and, yet, remain free. The
> > > classical Western worldview of morality, values, and
> > > virtues says that humans are different from other
> > > animals precisely because man can rise above his base
> > > and carnal desires with his free will.
> >
> > Again, science has no veiw on this. It outside the field
> > of science.
>
> Factually, correct. However, while science is immortal and
> goes on forever.

Explain, please. You are the only one I've heard say
such a thing.

> Ego driven science people

You seem to be concerned with biases, but again, your own
biases show. Do you fundamentally believe there is no other
kind of 'science person' (whatever that is) than an 'ego
driven' one? Do you believe *non* science person (whatever
that is) can be ego driven?

Linking the two in that manner is one of those unsupported
leaps of logic that make meaningful discoures with you,
difficult to impossible. I'm tiring of this already.

> voice their point of view on alternative medicine, and these
> types of subjects all the time. These forums are people
> rather than science driven forums.

Perhaps that's your problem.If I follow the above, those
who do science can't be 'people.' Maybe that's why you
believe you can't find a 'science person.'

> And, these science people also specifically attacked
> spiritualism, or the science of the human soul, during
> the 19th century. They are of course also active in
> these forums. There is a bigger picture here than just
> anti-science alternative medicine. And, it is about time
> that somebody introduced it. So, I did. I did, I did,
> ... I did.

Hey, pat youreslf on the back all you want. No one here
will do it for you.

> The fact that alternative medicine is anti-science

Proof of that 'fact?'

> is totally besides the point once you realize that the
> majority of the population and the long established
> institutional systems of the United States, like the
> Judicial System, are in fact anti-science.

Objective truth is not subject to majority vote. But it
*is* open to all the interpretation you want.

But as someone once said long ago in the magazine Science
News, with respect to certain aspects of theoretical
physics; "Science, like physics, not only must be done,
they must be *seen* to be done, according to first
principles."

> Hell! Obviously, even our President George Bush is
> anti-science when he places a band on stem cell research.

He's very much for the science and technology underlying
ballistic missile intercept...

But his position on stemm cell research comes from personal
religous and philosophical beliefs, and an unwillingness to
alienate those voters who may share his views. The only
querstion is, how much of one factor, versus the other, is
one of those things subject to interpretation.

But if you're suprised that politics isn't entirely
'scientific,' (And even in science, we still deal in
ethics...don't think so? Try to carry out some sorts of
experiments on humans.) then you really haven't lived....

> So, being anti-science in and of it self is no big deal. In
> fact, I would say the phrase that something is anti-science
> is totally meaningless.

Good. No one's used it in this thread but yourself.

> > > Science says that individuals should blame everything on
> > > their biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of
> > > prescription medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
> >
> > I don't recall scientitists saying this or this being part
> > of science.
>
> The ONLY thing that I am interested in are the ego driven
> science people who have a morbid compulsion to interject
> these types of conclusions into threads on these forums.

So...all you want is for us to support what you
already believe?

Okay. All your assertions, even the contradictory ones are
true. You're absolutely right. You discovered the secret.
You know everything. Now go away.

> > Again, this is an issue for philosophy, not sceince.
>
> Again, a mute point.

Not because you say it is. (And I assume you meant 'moot.')
This logic would mean all things are On Topic in all
Newsgroups, in spite of their names.

> > > My first challenge is for any science person is to
> > > rationally explain how the scientific worldview can
> > > account for FREE WILL, which just so happens to have
> > > been the basis of the Western system of Justice in
> > > America for the last 200 years. Please explain how free
> > > will must be subject to causality and, yet, remain free
> > > without making a public fool out of yourself. The facts
> > > are that no rational explanation can be provided by the
> > > scientific worldview. Ergo, the scientific worldview is
> > > fundamentally defective.
>
> > crowded fire station and does god exist are not questions
> > that can be answered by science.
>
> Again, the question posed is: Is there a physical
> explanation for Free Will?

Yes. But it's not yet clear as to what it is. Explanations
abound, with no good means of determining which one is
correct, if any yet proposed explanation is correct.

> If there is, then it follows that free will is
> deterministic and therefore NOT Free.

'Physical' doesn't necessairily mean 'deterministic.'
Certain quantum phenomena are quite physically real and
measurable, but quite unassailably random.

> If it is NOT deterministic, then the scientific worldview
> is unable to explain all phenomena experienced by man.

That may possibly be. But this particular line of argument
doesn't prove it. Nor does it tell us what those 'other'
phenomena may be.

> And, Ergo, there then is more to being human than pure
> chemistry.

No, there's other kinds of things going on there that are
physics, but not strictly chemestry. (Personally, I think
some of the things Roger Penrose has said about the mind
are valid, but as he would be the first to say, the
foundations of his arguments depend on *currently*
unknown physics, such as a complete understanding of
quantum gravity.)

But not having a full explanation of something today does
not mean the answer must be something outside of science.
This is whre Creationists fall down. To basically say that
something is so because 'God did it' makes it impossible to
further uderstand it. God isn;t here to ask. And it
encourages lazyness in understanding how the Universe
works, because when one runs out of 'physical' explanations
and resorts to actions of a Deity, one doesn't try to look
farther, to discover a subtle, but explanable phenomena
that is actually responsible.

Even if one believes in supernatural forces, they should
always be the explanation of absolute last resort.

> Ergo, the scientific wordview would thus be fatally flawed
> or incomplete.

Science is *always* incomplete. There is never the
assumption of full and complete knowledge. (Even if it
happened that one knew 'everything,' one might never be
*sure* that one did. And that takes us into things like the
Incompleteness Theorem, and on into philosophy, and away
from science. That, and things like the existence of God,
become matters of faith, no longer lending themselves to
logical proof.

The only thing that 'science' takes on faith is that the
Universe *is* understandable. And in the extremes, even
that could be wrong. But you have to make sure you've
*really* reached the extremes, and not giving up at the
merely difficult....

> And, hence, my point in starting this thread.
>
> > > Prior to and during the 19th century, the human psyche
> > > was a direct reference to the existence of the soul.
> > > Today, it primarily means the mind, or mental faculty,
> > > of a person; directly due to the corrupting influence of
> > > the scientific worldview upon Western society.
> >
> > Again, the existance of the soul and the afterlife is not
> > an area that science deals with.
>
> Correct again. But, once again individual ego driven science
> people have done so quite often.

*Anyone* is free to speculate. Being a so-called 'science
person' (I don't pretend to be able to get into all their
heads, to know how 'eog driven' they might be, as you do.)
doesn't mean you give up the right to speculate.

I believe paranormal phenomena exist, even though I readily
admit that the evidence isn't as strong as I might like.
I'm willing to be proven wrong. But if they do exist, I
also assume they also involve physics we don't curently
understand, and would eventually incorporate into physics
as we currently understand it. If it should indeed be that
mind and consciousness somehow survives the death of one's
physical body, we should be able to say how and why. (As
the SF writer Charles Platt once said, with respect to what
happens to it during cryonic suspension; "If souls exist,
we don't know the rules by which they operate." And that's
true. *IF* they do, we don't. But it's reasonable to think
that there *are* such rules, if that's the case.)

> For example, William A. Hammond, MD the first surgeon
> general of the Unites States, did so during the 1880's.

Okay, so?

> > > Science goes way beyond attacking alternative medicine.
> > > It ultimately places a direct attack upon the Christian
> > > faith and its belief in the physical existence of the
> > > soul.
>
> > Actually, it says that the existance of God and the soul
> > is not something that we can test, and that it is not part
> > of science. It belongs to the realm of religion and
> > philosophy, not science.
>
> Again, individual ego driven science people have done so
> quite often. I call them Science Trolls on these forums.
>
> > > Determinists suggests that our health is merely a choice
> > > between scientific biomedicine and anti-science
> > > alternative medicine. I am arguing, however, that the
> > > real choice is between scientific determinism and
> > > classical Western morality, values, and virtues.
> >
> > No. Science and religion are complementary areas of study,
> > with some overlap. Whether particular alternative medicine
> > theories are accurate is an area for science. Morality,
> > values and virtues belongs to philosophy and religion.
> >
> > > My next challenge for any science person is to
> > > rationally explain how the scientific worldview does not
> > > directly attack all Judeo-Christian religious beliefs,
> > > especially but not limited to beliefs in the physical
> > > existence of the human soul (both before and after
> > > death),
> >
> > If you can provide scientists with an experiment that will
> > test the existance of the soul, then this particular
> > question belongs in the realm of science. however, if you
> > can't, then this question doesn't.
>
> Science people had no problems attacking Spiritualism during
> the 1880's whatsoever.

The spititualists seemed to having problems proving their
case. You don't have to be a so-called 'science person,'
just skeptical. I said above that I believe paranormal
phenomena exist...it doesn't mean I believe *anyone* who
claims to have such talents actually does. If someone says
they went to the Moon last week, I'd be skeptical too, even
though we *know* that it's physically possible to do so.

Granted, some people will never accept some things that are
too far outside their worldview (Einstine was never fully
accepting of quantum physics, for example), but that doesn't
mean you uncritically swallow everything presented to you,
either. Or believe in contradictory things. either one of
them is wrong, or a more thorough understanding of the
system means the seeminbg contradiction disappears. [We've
long understood why bees fly, for example. Original
assumptions involved rigid wings.])

> > As far as the beleif that Christ came to the earth around
> > 2000 years ago, was the son of God, came back from death,
> > heaven and all that, this is a question for religion and
> > philosophy, not science.
> >
> > > or at least 50 percent of the population of the United
> > > States who hold to these religious, and last but not
> > > least the Republican political party which openly claims
> > > that America was founded upon the Christian Faith and
> > > its belief in the physical existence of the human soul.
> >
> > Actually, history shows that values of America was based
> > on the Christian faith. All pesidents have been christians
> > so far, and most Americans have been raised with the
> > JudeoChristian background.
> >
> > What republicans have to say about this, I don't care.
> >
> > > The facts are, no simple rational explanation can be
> > > provided. Ergo, the scientific worldview is
> > > fundamentally defective.
> >
> > Wrong. The scientific is fundamentally limited to
> > questions that science can deal with. questions about why
> > we exist, God and morals belong to the realm of philosophy
> > and religion.
>
> The remainder of your reply is non-responsive to my simple
> challenge.

In other words, you don't want *your* world view and
intellectual laziness challenged.

Or, of course, you only came here to fuck with us. (Though
I gave benefit of the doubt, for the moment.)

Either way, I'm done. See ya...

--

You know what to remove, to reply....

[Darryl]

>> It's described in Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The
>> Scientific Search For The Soul".
>
>My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
>succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.

John God,

A search of your text turns up no hits on explicit*, succinct*
or "own words". Implicitness doesn't count on USENET.

>Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response.

<gasp> Neo's in trouble.

[Alan Turle]

On 27 Sep 2004 15:37:53 -0700, John wrote:

>I made a simple challenge. Your reply is non-responsive.

Appropriate isn't it? Your challenge, a begged question rather
than a real question, is a non-question. So, non-responses
might be the most complementary responses you should hope for.
Good luck with that.

@~

[Joann Evan]

N-H-P wrote:
>
> stobius2000@yahoo.com (Stobius) wrote:
>
> > Yes, a Christian Republican troll, usually the worst kind
> > because they aren't even entertaining.
>
> We are starting to make progress, now. :)
>
> So, looking at the bigger picture Republicans are
> anti-science.

How do you support that unqualified assetion?

> Christians are anti-science.

How do you support that unqualified assetion?

> Everybody in the American Judicial System is anti-science.

How do you support that unqualified assetion?

> In other words, just about everybody in the United States
> of America is actually anti-science except for a handful of
> Liberal Academic @3*4#@!s.

How do you support that unqualified assetion?

Do you see what others are saying? Your leaps of logic are
far too large and unsupported for meaningful discourse.

Oh, but I guess I'm a 'non-response' too....

> Just like I thought! It is not just about alternative
> medicine.

'It?' Any particular 'It'?

> There is a bigger picture here!

There always is. But not all parts of a picture have much
to do with all the others....that's what sweeping
generalizations can get you.

--

You know what to remove, to reply....

[Orac]

In article <16a9b594.0409271425.1dde19ee@posting.google.com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:

> stobius2000@yahoo.com (Stobius) wrote:
>
> > Yes, a Christian Republican troll, usually the worst kind
> > because they aren't even entertaining.
>
> We are starting to make progress, now. :)
>
> So, looking at the bigger picture Republicans are
> anti-science.

No. Only some Republicans--some Democrats, too.

> Christians are anti-science.

Nope, only some are, mainly fundamentalists.

>Everybody in the American Judicial System is anti-science. In
>other words, just about everybody in the United States of
>America is actually anti-science except for a handful of
>Liberal Academic @3*4#@!s.

Not exactly, although your statements do reveal you to be
rather ignorant of science. Whether that makes you
"anti-science," I don't know yet, but clearly you appear
ignorant of the basics of biology.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
|inconvenience me with questions?"

[N-H-P]

markd@toad-net.com wrote:

> "My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly
> and succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.

YES, and I am still waiting for a serious reply.

> Succinctly, We rule you uninformed and ignorant of the basic
> knowledge of logic 101. You imply having knowledge of
> science and theology, the content of your "question" betrays
> your sophomoric ignorance of both. My response stands, when
> you can explain the flaws in your logic then we can talk,
> apples and peanutbutter indeed.

No replies worth replying today. Just the usually Toads
foaming at the mouth.
--
John Gohde

[Piezzo Gur]

Not-Healthy-Person is only here for trolling. It has a
long history.

"Joann Evans" <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:4158ACAD.F54A698A@frontiernet.net...
> N-H-P wrote:
> >
> > Darryl <umpolung@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > It's described in Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis:
> > > The Scientific Search For The Soul".
> >
> > My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly
> > and succinctly to put it into a reply using their own
> > words.
> >
> > Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response.
> > --
> > John Gohde
>
> So, it must be a 'science person' right here in one of
> these newsgroups? Do you not believe in doing some
> research?
>
>
> --
>
> You know what to remove, to reply....

[Orac]

In article <1096353823.8Q/X8OY8R+v2CO7YG9m3vQ@teranews>, Alan
Turley <arguilios@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 27 Sep 2004 15:37:53 -0700, John wrote:
>
> >I made a simple challenge. Your reply is non-responsive.
>
> Appropriate isn't it? Your challenge, a begged question
> rather than a real question, is a non-question. So,
> non-responses might be the most complementary responses you
> should hope for. Good luck with that.

Can a non-response to a non-question be the most appropriate
response? ;-)

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
|inconvenience me with questions?"

[Piezzo Gur]

It's quite easy to killfilter this boz using OE.

Open your filter builder and insert "comple fucking idiot" and
you never see him again.

"Larry Hoover" <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:PmD5d.74$tT2.57147@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "N-H-P" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in
> message
> news:16a9b594.0409260414.660e8816@posting.google.com...
>
> > Science says that individuals should blame everything on
> > their biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of
> > prescription medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
>
> Do you really need an explanation why your premise is
> fallacious?
>
> Stay in the twit-filter, twit.
>
> Lar

[Alan Turle]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:00:12 GMT, Orac wrote:

>Can a non-response to a non-question be the most appropriate
>response?

Maybe not, not the *most*. By some twist of oxymoronic
irony, deafening silence is likely the most appropriate
response of all.

That's the course I'm lobbying for in John's non-debate.

@~

[N-H-P]

Joann Evans <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote:

> You seem to be concerned with biases, but again, your own
> biases show. Do you fundamentally believe there is no
> other kind of 'science person' (whatever that is) than an
> 'ego driven' one? Do you believe *non* science person
> (whatever that is) can be ego driven?

I just love these kooks!

I pose an intelligent question that totally destroys the
medical scientism bullshit that is constantly being posted on
these medical ngs and these science bigots immediately begin
babbling about the purity of pure science.

I shall repeat once again. I am not writing about the
process of pure science. That means absolutely nothing. I am
writing about the medical scientism bigots who like to live
on these medical ngs. In other words, the so-called science
of medicine.

--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

Joann Evans <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote:

> I believe paranormal phenomena exist, even though I
> readily admit that the evidence isn't as strong as I
> might like. I'm willing to be proven wrong. But if they
> do exist, I also assume they also involve physics we
> don't curently understand, and would eventually
> incorporate into physics as we currently understand it.
> If it should indeed be that mind and consciousness
> somehow survives the death of one's physical body, we
> should be able to say how and why. (As the SF writer
> Charles Platt once said, with respect to what happens to
> it during cryonic suspension; "If souls exist, we don't
> know the rules by which they operate." And that's true.
> *IF* they do, we don't. But it's reasonable to think that
> there *are* such rules, if that's the case.)

Back to the science of bio-medicine.

The science of the biomedicine theory of medicine says that a
person's mind is totally unimportant in a person's health. I
introduced the question of a person's psyche and right away
you jump to paranormal phenomena!!!

Huh? The topic is Free Will. Remember? And, the non-importance
of a person's mind in their health per the science of
bio-medicine.

According to the science of medicine the mind don't count at
all. Behavior is simply a matter of the prescription medicine
that you are taking, dosing issues, and other matters of
biology and biochemistry.

I bring up Free Will, and a bunch of Geeks previously started
babbling about the role of your mind; a factor not a part of
the bio-medical model of health advocated by physicians. And,
now you are babbling about paranormal phenomena!!!

Totally amazing and sad at the same time. But, totally
predictable.
--
John Gohde

[Socialism]

On 29 Sep 2004 17:25:07 -0700,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:
>
>I pose an intelligent question
>

It was a retarded question, from a retard mind.

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Joann Evan]

N-H-P wrote:
>
> Joann Evans <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> > You seem to be concerned with biases, but again, your
> > own biases show. Do you fundamentally believe there is
> > no other kind of 'science person' (whatever that is)
> > than an 'ego driven' one? Do you believe *non* science
> > person (whatever that is) can be ego driven?
>
> I just love these kooks!

(shrug) So you gonna answer a question that's simpler
than yours?

> I pose an intelligent question

You see, we have issues with that assertion, too.

> that totally destroys the medical scientism bullshit that is
> constantly being posted on these medical ngs and these
> science bigots immediately begin babbling about the purity
> of pure science.

You have already made up your mind. Nothing we say, other
than total surrender, will please you. This is as good a
definition of a 'kook' as any.

> I shall repeat once again. I am not writing about the
> process of pure science. That means absolutely nothing. I am
> writing about the medical scientism bigots who like to live
> on these medical ngs. In other words, the so-called science
> of medicine.

For which you must understand 'the process of pure science'
for a meaningful exchange to occur. Open-mindedness is an
important part of
it. You aren't proposing a hypothesis or theory, you believe
you already know.

And you obviously don't.

I waste no more time with you. (For the record, I am no
medical or research professional.)

--

You know what to remove, to reply....

[Joann Evan]

N-H-P wrote:
>
> Joann Evans <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> > I believe paranormal phenomena exist, even though I
> > readily admit that the evidence isn't as strong as I
> > might like. I'm willing to be proven wrong. But if they
> > do exist, I also assume they also involve physics we
> > don't curently understand, and would eventually
> > incorporate into physics as we currently understand it.
> > If it should indeed be that mind and consciousness
> > somehow survives the death of one's physical body, we
> > should be able to say how and why. (As the SF writer
> > Charles Platt once said, with respect to what happens
> > to it during cryonic suspension; "If souls exist, we
> > don't know the rules by which they operate." And that's
> > true. *IF* they do, we don't. But it's reasonable to
> > think that there *are* such rules, if that's the case.)
>
> Back to the science of bio-medicine.

Note that you conviently snipped the preceeding parts
relating to scientists being willing to speculate on
questions on or beyond the fringes of science...

> The science of the biomedicine theory of medicine says that
> a person's mind is totally unimportant in a person's health.

False. There would be no need for, among other things,
double-blind studies, if that were true. They remove
expectations of the subjects, and biases of the researcher.
A worhtwhile drug must work signifigantly better than a
placebo, because some people will improve on placebos,
because they *think* they might have the real thing.

Then there's the whole issue the effects of physically
benign, but nevertheless stress-filled environments.

No, we don't function like clockwork mechanisms, and no one
has said we do.

--

You know what to remove, to reply....

[Bill Clint]

Bye Bye John Boy. Be a good boy and go to the kill file.

John \ \ \ \ \ \
| |
| | downward motion toward ant
| |
| |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||

>O-OO old piss ant john gohde


"N-H-P" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in
message
news:16a9b594.0409271416.5a42b704@posting.google.com...
> "Larry Hoover" <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Do you really need an explanation why your premise is
> > fallacious?
> >
> > Stay in the twit-filter, twit.
> >
> > Lar
>
> My challenge was for a science person to both explicitly and
> succinctly to put it into a reply using their own words.
>
> Ergo, I rule your reply a non-response .
> --
> John Gohde

[Lictor]

N-H-P wrote:
> Factually, correct. However, while science is immortal and
> goes on forever. Ego driven science people voice their point
> of view on alternative medicine, and these types of subjects
> all the time.

No, science is perpetually re-evaluating and modifying itself.
That's the root of the scientific process, and the core
difference with religion. Religion is about believing,
accepting something for the truth is an act of faith. Science
only accept a truth as one as long as it has been demonstrated
and has not been proven false. When the Ether theory was
proven false, it was discarded, and physics moved on to
something closer to a Universal truth. On the other hand,
scientists are human beings. They can have opinions outside of
their field of expertises. When a researcher goes to Church,
his believing in a god is not a scientific fact, it's an act
of faith. Likewise, plenty of scientific voice their opinions
as citizens on various issues, political or otherwise.

> Hell! Obviously, even our President George Bush is
> anti-science when he places a band on stem cell research.

His doing that was not a scientific act, I doubt he would even
have enough room in his head to graps what stem cells are. It
was a pure political act, and done for religious reasons.
However, religion has not always been anti-science. Some key
scientific discoveries (like genetics) were the doing of
religious men, especially Jesuits.

> So, being anti-science in and of it self is no big deal. In
> fact, I would say the phrase that something is anti-science
> is totally meaningless.

The fact that it can be done so casually and without thinking
about the consequences doesn't make that "not a big deal" and
"meaningless". It's like saying it's ok to kill people if you
do it casually.

> Again, the question posed is: Is there a physical
> explanation for Free Will?

I guess chaos theory could explain part of the Free Will
process. After all, Free Will is merely our ability to pick
non optimal paths to a solution. The wise man has *no* Free
Will, since he will only pick the wisest option. You seem to
believe that science is still stuck in the 19th century and
its determinism. Since then, we have had quantum physics and
chaos theory, and a growing area of science is fairly
comfortable in dealing with non-determinism. Anyway, you're
the one claiming that Free Will exists. Many religions do
not agree with you. Psychology (which is part of science)
tends to think that our Free Will is severly bounded.
Sociology (another part of science) also leans this way. Why
should science have to explain something that maybe does not
even exist?

> If there is, then it follows that free will is
> deterministic and therefore NOT Free.

Okay, then either Free Will does not exist, or it lies in the
non-deterministic nature of some phenomenon. Either we have no
Free Will at all, or our Free Will is the consequence of
"bugs", because the mechanisms involved in our brain are not
fully deterministic. Or too complex to be properly described
in a deterministic fashion - which is what the chaos theory is
all about. Either way, science does not really care. It's
comfortable with handling either hypothesis.

> If it is NOT deterministic, then the scientific worldview
> is unable to explain all phenomena experienced by man.

What phenomena? Free Will? We have no proof that it exist. If
it does, it's probably very limited. Maybe our Free Will gets
exercised when picking the vanilla ice cream over the
chocolate one - but I even doubt that. What you call Free Will
is most of the time the complex sum of several factors : your
biological signals, your instincts, your cognitions, your
upbringing, peer presure, comformance drive... Whatever
variations you might show from one event to the next could be
either put on a somewhat different sub-set of factors among
the thousands that are integrated into your decision process.
Maybe a computer with a faulty memory chip has as much "Free
Will" as you do...

> And, Ergo, there then is more to being human than pure
> chemistry.

And there is more to science than chemistry. Neurology,
biology, sociology, psychology... are all part of science.

> Ergo, the scientific wordview would thus be fatally flawed
> or incomplete.

Or maybe you based your whole reasonning on a false hypothesis
(Free Will), and you have just "proven" that hypothesis wrong.
I think the "Free Will" concept is just a tool our complex
psychology uses to deal with the unacceptable.

[N-H-P]

"Piezzo Guru" <gabusey@hotnmail.com> wrote:

> It's quite easy to killfilter this boz using OE.

I have not changed my account in over 2 years.

Brains are worthless unless the operator uses them. What took
you so long to use yours?
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

Joann Evans <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote:

> You have already made up your mind. Nothing we say, other
> than total surrender, will please you. This is as good a
> definition of a 'kook' as any.

I am trying to ascertain whether or not I have to update my
arguments on my web site.

I am always willing to change my mind and often have. I am
working on the definition of natural health which I have
changed many times since I first wrote it last year.

Definition of Natural health

"Natural health is an eclectic self-care system of
natural therapies that builds and restores health and
wellness by working with the natural recuperative powers
of the human body."

Basic Core Tenets of Natural Health
1)Natural Philosophy
2)Vitalism
3)Free Will
4)Holism
5)Individualism
6)Individualization
7)Victim-blaming
8)Prevention is better than cure

I have gone in fact from 4 Basic Core Tenets to 8.

So, far you guys have not given me any reason to change my
Free Will arguments.
--
John Gohde

[Steve Harr]

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in
message
news:<16a9b594.0409260414.660e8816@posting.google.com>...

> There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free
> will concept of the human psyche assumed by classical
> Western morality and the determinism demanded by science.
> The basic issue remains inescapable. If our actions are not
> up to us, then we have no moral responsibility for them. The
> fundamental flaw of the scientific worldview is, thus, its
> failure to explain how free will must be subject to
> causality and, yet, remain free. The classical Western
> worldview of morality, values, and virtues says that humans
> are different from other animals precisely because man can
> rise above his base and carnal desires with his free will.
>
> Science says that individuals should blame everything on
> their biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of
> prescription medication. So, where is man's Free Will?
>
> My first challenge is for any science person is to
> rationally explain how the scientific worldview can account
> for FREE WILL, which just so happens to have been the basis
> of the Western system of Justice in America for the last 200
> years. Please explain how free will must be subject to
> causality and, yet, remain free without making a public fool
> out of yourself. The facts are that no rational explanation
> can be provided by the scientific worldview. Ergo, the
> scientific worldview is fundamentally defective.

COMMENT:

Why Ghode, you toothless wonder! What right has a person of
your mentality to use the word "ergo"??

FYI, it's possible that it is the "Western system of Justice
in America for the last 200 years" that is defective. You
know—the one that used to hang witches? That punished escaped
slaves? That approved at the supreme court level the forced
sterilization of the mentally ill (Buck vs. Bell)? The one
that executed a lot of black men for rape, but (for some
reason) only if the accusers were white women? The one that
will allow you to execute juveniles and mental defectives even
today? And also the mentally ill, but *only* if you medicate
them into sanity first? But never, not once in Ameican
history, anybody who is wealthy? The system that won't allow
further DNA testing if it becomes available in cases where a
person has already been executed for a crime, due to a formal
perceived need for something called "judicial closure"?

All hail the Western system of Justice in America for the last
200 years. Any system that invented the electric chair and
used it mostly in the bible belt against black men, can't have
enough good things said about it. If any of its conceptions
don't agree with science, why, that's enough to damn science
right there. Don't you all agree?

Has it occurred to you, Ghode, that "free will" is something
you can't even define, except by rejecting all the
alternatives that make sense?

Take identical men (let God make perfect copies of man X), and
present them with the same difficult moral choice, over and
over. Do they always, in the same circumstances, always make
the same choice? What do those who believe in "free will" say?

If the choices are always the same, how are men different from
machines? And if not, if there is some element of randomness
to the choice that has nothing to do with the makeup of the
people, then in what respect are they responsible for their
choices? Anybody who makes the wrong choice can argue truly
that only random chance kept him from making a different
choice, as indeed some of his identicals must have done in the
same circumstances.

"Free will" is a word used by people who don't like the idea
that human choice might be fully deterministic, AND who also
don't like the only alternative idea that it isn't fully
deterministic, but rather partly random. But since determinism
and random chance are the only alternatives it is possible to
logically talk about in any action, that leaves people who
want "free will" which somehow doesn't involve either one,
sort of stuck. It's not my responsibility as a scientist to
help them out of their foolishness.

It makes no sense to punish machines for actions, though you
might want to restrain them if they're dangerous. As well beat
an an automobile for running badly. And if people are not
fully deterministic machines, but instead act for
non-deterministic reasons, with even less predictibility than
the weather, or a quantum event, or your car, then it makes
even *less* sense to punish them.

But none of that keeps the justice system from punishing
people. We do it because we like it, not because it makes
logical or scientific sense. And Christians, who like
pushishment as much as anybody (and to tell the truth, maybe
even more), have invented a lot of dubious logic for doing
what makes them feel good.

Like, I hope this isn't news?

SBH

[Alan Turle]

On 30 Sep 2004 15:02:10 -0700,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:

>I have not changed my account in over 2 years.

Perhaps it's a question of how you define "account" since your
on-line handle and e-mail address have mutated often within
the last 2 years.

Some might expect you have a perfectly rational reason for
this - aside from evading the quiet solitude of kill file
oblivion that is.

09/2004 - (N-H-P) johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com
10/2003 - John 'the Man' DeMan@ffScience.com
11/2003 - John 'the Man' DeMan@ffMD.com
12/2003 - John 'the Man' DeMan[100]@hotmail.com
13/2003 - John the Man jhgohde@wmconnect.comSnarf
14/2003 - John the Man jhgohde@wmconnect.comVitalism
15/2003 - Jhgohde jhgohde@wmconnect.com
16/2003 - John the Man jhgohde@wmconnect.comMOOSH
17/2002 - John 'the Man' DeMan[87]@hotmail.com
18/2002 - John 'the Man' DeMan[83]@hotmail.com
19/2002 - John 'the Man' DeMan[79]@hotmail.com
20/2002 - John 'the Man' DeMan[78]@hotmail.com
21/2002 - John 'the Man' DeMan[77]@hotmail.com
22/2002 - John 'the Man' DeMan[73]@hotmail.com

However, the evidence might suggest an alternative conclusion
to the reasonable reader, even in Usenet.

@~

[Don Steige]

> All hail the Western system of Justice in America ...

The best justice system that money can buy.

[N-H-P]

Alan Turley <arguilios@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 30 Sep 2004 15:02:10 -0700,
> johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:
>
> >I have not changed my account in over 2 years.
>
> Perhaps it's a question of how you define "account" since
> your on-line handle and e-mail address have mutated often
> within the last 2 years.

Perhaps it's a question how one uses their brain or lack there
of?

I am a wealthy man. I own more than one account.

How many more degrees do you need before you can tell the
difference between a real account, and bogus accounts? Ha,
... Hah, Ha!
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

(Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:

> FYI, it's possible that it is the "Western system of Justice
> in America for the last 200 years" that is defective. You
> know?the one that used to hang witches? That punished
> escaped slaves? That approved at the supreme court level the
> forced sterilization of the mentally ill (Buck vs. Bell)?
> The one that executed a lot of black men for rape, but (for
> some reason) only if the accusers were white women? The one
> that will allow you to execute juveniles and mental
> defectives even today? And also the mentally ill, but *only*
> if you medicate them into sanity first? But never, not once
> in Ameican history, anybody who is wealthy? The system that
> won't allow further DNA testing if it becomes available in
> cases where a person has already been executed for a crime,
> due to a formal perceived need for something called
> "judicial closure"?

YES, Mr. Doctor, please tell us the biochemical equation for
lynching black men and the forced sterilization of the
mentally ill.

And, of course, the biochemical equation for convicting OJ in
the civil trial and letting him go in the criminal trial.
Please tell us, so that us mentally challenge laymen may the
know the wisdom of physicians that passeth all understanding.
--
John Gohde

[Piezzo Gur]

O.J Simpson

"Don Steiger" <sd00_2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:102dc541.0410011247.3ac4edba@posting.google.com...
> > All hail the Western system of Justice in America ...
>
> The best justice system that money can buy.

[markd]

It appears that we have another person here on the ng trying
to connect dots with a spray gun.

>It appears that all I have to do is tighten up my viewpoints
>by explicitly pointing out the strong connection to science
>with a few quotations, as follows.
>
>---------
>Determinism is the philosophical theory that all phenomena
>are the result of antecedent conditions and, thus, that there
>is no free will. Natural health views determinism and free
>will as being mutually exclusive.
>
>"In the Christian tradition ... the belief hinges on a
>metaphysical belief in non-physical reality. The will is seen
>as a faculty of the soul or mind, which is understood as
>standing outside of the physical world and its governing
>laws. Hence, for many, a belief in materialism is taken to
>imply a denial of free will." (the Skeptic's Dictionary,
>http://skepdic.com/freewill.html)
>
>While opinions vary, there is a strong connection between the
>scientific wordview, determinism, and materialism. "The
>scientific doctrine of evolution has gone far towards
>obliterating the distinction between external and internal
>compulsion, e.g. motives, character and the like[, in support
>of a hard view of determinism]. In so far as man can be shown
>to be the product of, and a link in, a long chain of causal
>development, so far does it become impossible to regard him
>as self-determined."(1911 edition of the Encyclopedia
>Britannica,
>http://14.1911encyclopedia.org/D/DE/DETERMINISM.htm)
>
>For biomedicine, internal determining causes such as a
>person's neurochemical state is the key issue. The Natural
>Health ideology of free will holds that the scientific
>wordview always looks for material causes as the determinants
>of all human behavior due to its strong connection to
>materialism. In medicine, physicians always looks for
>material causes as the sole determinants of human illness.
>Medicine's biomedical model (The On-line Medical Dictionary,
>http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?biomedical+model) of
>illness totally discounts the existence of psychological
>factors in illness and in health.
>---------
>John Gohde

[Mike Colli]

N-H-P wrote:
> There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free
> will concept of the human psyche assumed by classical
> Western morality and the determinism demanded by science.
> The basic issue remains inescapable. If our actions are not
> up to us, then we have no moral responsibility for them.

Rubbish!

The fundamental flaw of the scientific
> worldview is, thus, its failure to explain how free will
> must be subject to causality and, yet, remain free.

Read up on quantum mechanics. In the quantum world the
observer is all.

The classical Western
> worldview of morality, values, and virtues says that humans
> are different from other animals precisely because man can
> rise above his base and carnal desires with his free will.
>
Superstitious claptrap.

> Science says that individuals should blame everything on
> their biology, molecules, genetics, and their use of
> prescription medication.

Science says no such thing. Blame is not a part of science.

So, where is man's Free Will?
>
> My first challenge is for any science person is to
> rationally explain how the scientific worldview can account
> for FREE WILL, which just so happens to have been the basis
> of the Western system of Justice in America for the last
> 200 years.

Free will is not the basis of justice.

Please explain how free will must be
> subject to causality and, yet, remain free without making a
> public fool out of yourself.
The free will which you used in the past has determined your
current situation. You now have the free will to make choices
which will affect your future. Once you have made those
choices they are part of your past and can't be changed.

The facts are that no rational explanation can
> be provided by the scientific worldview.

Only the scientific worldview can rationally explain facts.

Ergo, the scientific
> worldview is fundamentally defective.
>
No the wordview of those who prefer superstition to knowledge
is fundamentally defective.

> Prior to and during the 19th century, the human psyche was a
> direct reference to the existence of the soul.

Again rubbish. There have been many other pre-scientific
attempts to explain this.

Today, it primarily means the
> mind, or mental faculty, of a person; directly due to the
> corrupting influence of the scientific worldview upon
> Western society.
>
> Science goes way beyond attacking alternative medicine. It
> ultimately places a direct attack upon the Christian faith
> and its belief in the physical existence of the soul.
> Determinists suggests that our health is merely a choice
> between scientific biomedicine and anti-science alternative
> medicine. I am arguing, however, that the real choice is
> between scientific determinism and classical Western
> morality, values, and virtues.
>
> My next challenge for any science person is to rationally
> explain how the scientific worldview does not directly
> attack all Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, especially but
> not limited to beliefs in the physical existence of the
> human soul (both before and after death), or at least 50
> percent of the population of the United States who hold to
> these religious, and last but not least the Republican
> political party which openly claims that America was founded
> upon the Christian Faith and its belief in the physical
> existence of the human soul.

The US was founded as a secular, state with freedom of belief.

The facts
> are, no simple rational explanation can be provided. Ergo,
> the scientific worldview is fundamentally defective.

Dream on!

Your genetics and other events in the past have determined
your present and affected your free will. For instance you are
not free to choose to be donkey because you don't have the
genes. However much you Bray, eat hay and generally act like
one you will still be human.

As for free will either it exists or it doesn't. If it exists
it would be madness to pretend it didn't. (A view by the way
most often held by those Christian sects which choose to
believe in an elect chosen by God for salvation.)

If there is no free will I will behave as if I possess it
anyway. There is no way to tell the illusion of free will
from the real thing and worrying about it is as useless as
speculation on the numbers of angels who can dance on the
head of a pin.

--
Mike Collins UK
Mike&heather-at-oakwellmount-dot-freeserve-dot-co-dot-uk

[N-H-P]

(Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:\

> Has it occurred to you, Ghode, that "free will" is something
> you can't even define, except by rejecting all the
> alternatives that make sense?
...
> Like, I hope this isn't news?

It appears that all I have to do is tighten up my viewpoints
by explicitly pointing out the strong connection to science
with a few quotations, as follows.

---------
Determinism is the philosophical theory that all phenomena are
the result of antecedent conditions and, thus, that there is
no free will. Natural health views determinism and free will
as being mutually exclusive.

"In the Christian tradition ... the belief hinges on a
metaphysical belief in non-physical reality. The will is seen
as a faculty of the soul or mind, which is understood as
standing outside of the physical world and its governing laws.
Hence, for many, a belief in materialism is taken to imply a
denial of free will." (the Skeptic's Dictionary,
http://skepdic.com/freewill.html)

While opinions vary, there is a strong connection between the
scientific wordview, determinism, and materialism. "The
scientific doctrine of evolution has gone far towards
obliterating the distinction between external and internal
compulsion, e.g. motives, character and the like[, in support
of a hard view of determinism]. In so far as man can be shown
to be the product of, and a link in, a long chain of causal
development, so far does it become impossible to regard him as
self-determined."(1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica,
http://14.1911encyclopedia.org/D/DE/DETERMINISM.htm)

For biomedicine, internal determining causes such as a
person's neurochemical state is the key issue. The Natural
Health ideology of free will holds that the scientific
wordview always looks for material causes as the determinants
of all human behavior due to its strong connection to
materialism. In medicine, physicians always looks for material
causes as the sole determinants of human illness. Medicine's
biomedical model (The On-line Medical Dictionary,
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?biomedical+model) of
illness totally discounts the existence of psychological
factors in illness and in health.
---------
John Gohde

[Gmcarter]

On 1 Oct 2004 13:47:19 -0700, sd00_2002@yahoo.com (Don
Steiger) wrote:

>> All hail the Western system of Justice in America ...
>
>The best justice system that money can buy.

And under Bush you are now: Guilty until proven rich!

Send 'em to the concentration camp at Guantanamo!

[Gmcarter]

On 2 Oct 2004 03:24:09 -0700,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:

>(Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:\
>
>> Has it occurred to you, Ghode, that "free will" is
>> something you can't even define, except by rejecting all
>> the alternatives that make sense?
>...
>> Like, I hope this isn't news?
>
>It appears that all I have to do is tighten up my viewpoints
>by explicitly pointing out the strong connection to science
>with a few quotations, as follows.
>
>---------
>Determinism is the philosophical theory that all phenomena
>are the result of antecedent conditions and, thus, that there
>is no free will. Natural health views determinism and free
>will as being mutually exclusive.

Who is Natural Health? A guru?

They define it axiomatically as mutually exclusive. So end of
argument for a closed mind.

George M. Carter

[Steve Harr]

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in
message
news:<16a9b594.0410020224.45677b8@posting.google.com>...
> (Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:\
>
> > Has it occurred to you, Ghode, that "free will" is
> > something you can't even define, except by rejecting all
> > the alternatives that make sense?
> ...
> > Like, I hope this isn't news?
>
> It appears that all I have to do is tighten up my viewpoints
> by explicitly pointing out the strong connection to science
> with a few quotations, as follows.
>
> ---------
> Determinism is the philosophical theory that all phenomena
> are the result of antecedent conditions and, thus, that
> there is no free will. Natural health views determinism and
> free will as being mutually exclusive.

COMMENT:

We're waiting for your answer as to whether or not "natural
health" thinks that if God created a second Earth, all the
people would do and say the same things in parallel with our
own, as well as get the same diseases, die the same time, and
everything in lock-step. Yes or no? It's one or the other.

Modern science, by the way, would vote "no."

>
> "In the Christian tradition ... the belief hinges on a
> metaphysical belief in non-physical reality. The will is
> seen as a faculty of the soul or mind, which is understood
> as standing outside of the physical world and its governing
> laws. Hence, for many, a belief in materialism is taken to
> imply a denial of free will." (the Skeptic's Dictionary,
> http://skepdic.com/freewill.html)

COMMENT: "Taken by many" is pretty meaningless. FYI, since the
advent of quantum mechanics and chaos theory, "materialism"
has certainly NOT automatically implied "determinism".
Determinism in the philosophical sense hasn't been a viable
option in science since the 1930's. A few old foggies stuck up
for the idea for a generation after that, but the diehards
pretty much died out when Einstein did.

> While opinions vary, there is a strong connection between
> the scientific wordview, determinism, and materialism. "The
> scientific doctrine of evolution has gone far towards
> obliterating the distinction between external and internal
> compulsion, e.g. motives, character and the like[, in
> support of a hard view of determinism]. In so far as man can
> be shown to be the product of, and a link in, a long chain
> of causal development, so far does it become impossible to
> regard him as self-determined."(1911 edition of the
> Encyclopedia Britannica,
> http://14.1911encyclopedia.org/D/DE/DETERMINISM.htm)

COMMENT: The *1911* edition of hte Encyclopedia Britannica?
You've got to be kidding. Do you have one in your home you use
for reference, Ghode, or are you pirating all this nosense
from some creatist site taken from some book using some
article that's out of print since the days of Piltdown man?

> For biomedicine, internal determining causes such as a
> person's neurochemical state is the key issue. The Natural
> Health ideology of free will holds that the scientific
> wordview always looks for material causes as the
> determinants of all human behavior due to its strong
> connection to materialism. In medicine, physicians always
> looks for material causes as the sole determinants of human
> illness. Medicine's biomedical model (The On-line Medical
> Dictionary,
> http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?biomedical+model) of
> illness totally discounts the existence of psychological
> factors in illness and in health.

COMMENT:

You're quoting out of context. A biomedical model ignores
social and
psychological factors, but that is not to say that doctors
don't believe in these. Any model has to ignore some part of
reality. Modern medicine is not simply "biomedicine."
Rather, biomedical models are one component of a modern
medical view which incorporates many models of health
dissease, including psychosocial ones.

SBH

[Don Steige]

> >(Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:\
> >
> >> Has it occurred to you, Ghode, that "free will" is
> >> something you can't even define, except by rejecting all
> >> the alternatives that make sense?
> ...

I was thinking about what would be a good definition for "free
will". This is what I came up with.

An occurrence of free will is when the creator can not predict
the behavior of its creation: aka a programming bug. And thus
microsoft has imbued its creations with free will.

[N-H-P]

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

> On 2 Oct 2004 03:24:09 -0700,
> johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:
>
> >(Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:\
> >
> >> Has it occurred to you, Ghode, that "free will" is
> >> something you can't even define, except by rejecting all
> >> the alternatives that make sense?
> ...
> >> Like, I hope this isn't news?
> >
> >It appears that all I have to do is tighten up my
> >viewpoints by explicitly pointing out the strong connection
> >to science with a few quotations, as follows.
> >
> >---------
> >Determinism is the philosophical theory that all phenomena
> >are the result of antecedent conditions and, thus, that
> >there is no free will. Natural health views determinism and
> >free will as being mutually exclusive.
>
> Who is Natural Health? A guru?
>
> They define it axiomatically as mutually exclusive. So end
> of argument for a closed mind.
>
> George M. Carter

Who or what are you: Stupid?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Sorry, but I don't have time to explain the perfectly obvious.
Perhaps if you were to get another useless science degree?

You have my condolences.
--
John Gohde

[Alan Turle]

On 1 Oct 2004 16:51:27 -0700, john wrote:

>I am a wealthy man. I own more than one account.

You've been exposed in your own obvious lie, John, and no
assertion of wealth can rehabilitate your lack of credibility
now. You clearly stated, "I have not changed my account in
over 2 years." That clearly isn't true. The reasonable
inference is that you've shifte identities for one reason - to
avoid the rejection you earned for yourself.

@~

[Gmcarter]

On 02 Oct 2004 18:19:44 GMT, markd@toad-net.com wrote:

>
>It appears that we have another person here on the ng trying
>to connect dots with a spray gun.

I think it serves as a model for his brain function. Kind of
spattered all over the place. LOL...it's not that he's
stupid that's so depressing but that he such an asshole to
boot. Poor guy.

George M. Carter

[N-H-P]

markd@toad-net.com wrote:

> It appears that we have another person here on the ng trying
> to connect dots with a spray gun.

I am nolonger a regular here on these ngs because my web site
became independent from the need to post here years ago. :)

http://naturalhealthperspective.com/

It has a Google pagerank of 6/10 and a Alexa traffic ranking
of 715,000. http://info.alexa.com/data/details?p=TBChrome_T_t-
_40_L1&amzn_id=alexa65-tb-20&url=http://contact.naturalhealth-
perspective.com/viewedby.html

I am in the process of making a few slight changes to my web
site design that should boost my Google pagerank to 7/10 and
dramatically increase hits, of course.

I connected the dots years ago. Now, I am filling them in
with color.
:)
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

(Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:

> We're waiting for your answer as to whether or not "natural
> health" thinks that if God created a second Earth, all the
> people would do and say the same things in parallel with
> our own, as well as get the same diseases, die the same
> time, and everything in lock-step. Yes or no? It's one or
> the other.

Per the definition of natural health, we are not concerned
with parallel worlds, just this one.

> "Taken by many" is pretty meaningless. FYI, since the advent
> of quantum mechanics and chaos theory, "materialism" has
> certainly NOT automatically implied "determinism".
> Determinism in the philosophical sense hasn't been a viable
> option in science since the 1930's. A few old foggies stuck
> up for the idea for a generation after that, but the
> diehards pretty much died out when Einstein did.

Per our idealogy of Free Will, we consider the concepts to be
mutally exclusive. While soft determinists don't, we do not
care. :) So, I guess that makes you soft? Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

> The *1911* edition of hte Encyclopedia Britannica? You've
> got to be kidding. Do you have one in your home you use for
> reference, Ghode, or are you pirating all this nosense from
> some creatist site taken from some book using some article
> that's out of print since the days of Piltdown man?

Unable to perceive the explicit hyperlink, Mr. Doctor? Hope
that blind physicans don't treat patients.

> You're quoting out of context. A biomedical model ignores
> social and
> psychological factors, but that is not to say that doctors
> don't believe in these. Any model has to ignore some part
> of reality. Modern medicine is not simply "biomedicine."
> Rather, biomedical models are one component of a modern
> medical view which incorporates many models of health
> dissease, including psychosocial ones.

If you believe that, I got a good deal to offer you on the
Brooklyn Bridge.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

This re-write of the idealogy of free will shifts the attack
away from science towards a specific group of scientists,
where it should be. The problem has never been with science
but rather with the science bigots; as the subject of this
thread has always suggested.

-----------
By far the most significant tenet of the natural health
philosophy refers to the capacity of humans to make choices.
The ideology of free will is in opposition to the hard
determinists of the scientific worldview. This fundamental
belief in free will clearly makes the human psyche a central
part of the philosophy of natural health.

It should be strongly emphasized that the ideology of free
will is NOT in opposition to science, but rather is opposed to
the viewpoint expressed by a specific group of scientists.

There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free
will concept of the human psyche assumed by classical Western
morality and the expressed viewpoints of many medical
scientism determinists. The basic issue remains inescapable.
If our actions are not up to us, then we have no moral
responsibility for them. The fundamental flaw of the hard
determinist's worldview is, thus, their failure to explain how
free will must be subject to causality and, yet, remain free.
The classical Western worldview of morality, values, and
virtues says that humans are different from other animals
precisely because man can rise above his base and carnal
desires with his free will.

Hard determinists believe that all phenomena are the result of
antecedent conditions and, thus, that there is no free will.
Natural health advocates view hard determinism and free will
as being mutually exclusive. "In the Christian tradition ...
the belief hinges on a metaphysical belief in non-physical
reality. The will is seen as a faculty of the soul or mind,
which is understood as standing outside of the physical world
and its governing laws. Hence, for many, a belief in
materialism is taken to imply a denial of free will." (source,
the Skeptic's Dictionary http://skepdic.com/freewill.html )

Originally, the human psyche was a direct reference to the
existence of the soul. Today, it primarily means the mind, or
mental faculty, of a person due to the direct influence of
many hard determinists upon our society. These misguided
scientists go way beyond attacking alternative medicine. They
ultimately make a direct attack upon the Christian faith and
its belief in the physical existence of the soul. These
determinists have suggested that our health is merely a choice
between scientific biomedicine and anti-science alternative
medicine. Natural health advocates argue, however, that the
real choice is between the worldview of the hard deterministic
scientists and the classical Western worldview.

These hard deterministic scientists believe that individuals
should blame everything on their biology, molecules, genetics,
and their use of prescription medication. Whereas natural
health advocates claim that there is more to being a person
than mere chemistry. The free will classical Western worldview
demands that individuals take personal responsibly for the
health choices that they make.
--
John Gohde The person who single handedly put medical
scientism in the Google database. :)

[markd]

Yes, you used to splash your web pages in every message,
which some other trolls have practice in common, including a
tactic to reply to most posts with useless childish retorts,
the more to increase potential traffic in the cascade of
responses it generated. . Which causes one pause to wonder if
this latest flurry of disconnected/dismembered notions aren't
a tactic also.

"I am nolonger a regular here on these ngs because my web site
becameindependent from the need to post here years ago. :)"

[Steve Harr]

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in
message
news:<16a9b594.0410030557.2f70ff0b@posting.google.com>...

> There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free
> will concept of the human psyche assumed by classical
> Western morality and the expressed viewpoints of many
> medical scientism determinists. The basic issue remains
> inescapable. If our actions are not up to us, then we have
> no moral responsibility for them. The fundamental flaw of
> the hard determinist's worldview is, thus, their failure to
> explain how free will must be subject to causality and, yet,
> remain free. The classical Western worldview of morality,
> values, and virtues says that humans are different from
> other animals precisely because man can rise above his base
> and carnal desires with his free will.

I think it therefore follows that a person who has been
raised in poverty, neglect, malnutrition, physical abuse,
psychological abuse, ignorance, and bad values, has just as
much responsibility for his bad actions as the person raised
with physical, social, and psycholgical needs attended to.
Which is good, because we know that people of the former
background commit a lot more crime! And if we couldn't blame
their bad souls for it (see Christianity), we might actually
have to do somehing about the conditions they live in. But
as it is, we can merely lock them up and throw away the key,
without a second thought. They had a choice, the same choice
as anybody else. Repeat that over and over, like a mantra.
If our jails are full of black people in the US, it must be
because black people are bad people. Bad, bad, bad. Morally
bad. Ethically bad. Bad in all kinds of free-will-having
ways. Yes, indeedy. No excuses tolerated and none needed.
All righty.

SBH

[Steve Harr]

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in
message
news:<16a9b594.0410011559.4929a4c1@posting.google.com>...
> (Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> > FYI, it's possible that it is the "Western system of
> > Justice in America for the last 200 years" that is
> > defective. You know?the one that used to hang witches?
> > That punished escaped slaves? That approved at the supreme
> > court level the forced sterilization of the mentally ill
> > (Buck vs. Bell)? The one that executed a lot of black men
> > for rape, but (for some reason) only if the accusers were
> > white women? The one that will allow you to execute
> > juveniles and mental defectives even today? And also the
> > mentally ill, but *only* if you medicate them into sanity
> > first? But never, not once in Ameican history, anybody who
> > is wealthy? The system that won't allow further DNA
> > testing if it becomes available in cases where a person
> > has already been executed for a crime, due to a formal
> > perceived need for something called "judicial closure"?
>
> YES, Mr. Doctor, please tell us the biochemical equation for
> lynching black men and the forced sterilization of the
> mentally ill.
>
> And, of course, the biochemical equation for convicting OJ
> in the civil trial and letting him go in the criminal trial.
> Please tell us, so that us mentally challenge laymen may the
> know the wisdom of physicians that passeth all
> understanding.

COMMENT:

I never claimed such a thing existed, and I don't know anybody
who does. You're beating a strawman.

SBH

[Steve Harr]

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in
message
news:<16a9b594.0410022005.7f083a6@posting.google.com>...
> (Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> > We're waiting for your answer as to whether or not
> > "natural health" thinks that if God created a second
> > Earth, all the people would do and say the same things in
> > parallel with our own, as well as get the same diseases,
> > die the same time, and everything in lock-step. Yes or no?
> > It's one or the other.
>
> Per the definition of natural health, we are not concerned
> with parallel worlds, just this one.

COMMENT:

In other words, you have no idea. But you're out here willing
to make assertions about "free will."

> > "Taken by many" is pretty meaningless. FYI, since the
> > advent of quantum mechanics and chaos theory,
> > "materialism" has certainly NOT automatically implied
> > "determinism". Determinism in the philosophical sense
> > hasn't been a viable option in science since the 1930's. A
> > few old foggies stuck up for the idea for a generation
> > after that, but the diehards pretty much died out when
> > Einstein did.
>
> Per our idealogy of Free Will, we consider the concepts
> to be mutally exclusive. While soft determinists don't,
> we do not care. :) So, I guess that makes you soft? Ha,
> ... Hah, Ha!

Hey, Ghode, do you have any idea of what you're talking about?

> > The *1911* edition of hte Encyclopedia Britannica? You've
> > got to be kidding. Do you have one in your home you use
> > for reference, Ghode, or are you pirating all this
> > nosense from some creatist site taken from some book
> > using some article that's out of print since the days of
> > Piltdown man?
>
> Unable to perceive the explicit hyperlink, Mr. Doctor? Hope
> that blind physicans don't treat patients.

FYI, there is no hyperlink to the 1911 Encyclopedia
Britannica. That work exists in print only. There is a link to
the 1911 LoveToKnow Online Encyclopedia, which you seem to
think is the same. This has some dubious relationship to the
1911 Britannica, but not one so close that LoveToKnow, Inc.
doesn't assert full right of copyright and use of the
material. Which it does. And which just as obviously they
could not if they hadn't made substantial changes in it.

The whole idea of using a 1911 reference in a debate
about science and determinism is so silly, that all one
can do is laugh.

> > You're quoting out of context. A biomedical model ignores
> > social and
> > psychological factors, but that is not to say that doctors
> > don't believe in these. Any model has to ignore some
> > part of reality. Modern medicine is not simply
> > "biomedicine." Rather, biomedical models are one
> > component of a modern medical view which incorporates
> > many models of health dissease, including psychosocial
> > ones.
>
> If you believe that, I got a good deal to offer you on the
> Brooklyn Bridge.

Let's see--- you're going to tell me about the beliefs of my
own profession?

SBH

[markd]

"This re-write of the idealogy of free will shifts the attack
away from science towards a specific group of scientists,
where it should be. The problem has never been with science
but rather with the science bigots; as the subject of this
thread has always suggested."

Is this morass of unconnected keyboard activity a wind up to
another go at selling homeopathy? I can see it coming, having
proven science,ie. those sets of research/researchers who
conflict with your notions, has a fundimental flaw, for which
oppisition to homeopathy is an example, we are now in a
position to explore the "natural" implications of this
science. Did I get it about right?

[Steve Harr]

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in
message
news:<16a9b594.0410030557.2f70ff0b@posting.google.com>...

> These hard deterministic scientists believe that individuals
> should blame everything on their biology, molecules,
> genetics, and their use of prescription medication.

COMMENT: I think you left out diet and exercise.

So now we'd like to ask: do you blame NOTHING on these things?

> Whereas natural health advocates claim that there is more to
> being a person than mere chemistry.

COMMENT: Really? And how much of personal choice is
chemistry (physics), and how much is the soul? We'd like a
percentage, please.

> The free will classical Western worldview demands that
> individuals take personal responsibly for the health choices
> that they make.

COMMENT: See my previous message. Does that include the
mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, too? And if
not, WHY not?

And if you're offering care for the soul and not just things
that have to do with chemistry and physics, what makes you
different from any other preacher? If you want to know about
the soul, type in your address and I'll send the Mormon
Missionaries to you. They're experts. They must be, because
they say so.

Pretty much like yourself, Gohde. They're legends in their
own minds.

SBH

[Joann Evan]

Joann Evans wrote:

> > is totally besides the point once you realize that the
> > majority of the population and the long established
> > institutional systems of the United States, like the
> > Judicial System, are in fact anti-science.
>
> Objective truth is not subject to majority vote. But it
> *is* open to all the interpretation you want.
>
> But as someone once said long ago in the magazine Science
> News, with respect to certain aspects of theoretical
> physics; "Science, like physics, not only must be done,
> they must be *seen* to be done, according to first
> principles."

Oops. That should've read; "Science, like *justice,* not
only must be done..."

--

You know what to remove, to reply....

[N-H-P]

markd@toad-net.com wrote:

> "This re-write of the idealogy of free will shifts the
> attack away from science towards a specific group of
> scientists, where it should be. The problem has never been
> with science but rather with the science bigots; as the
> subject of this thread has always suggested."

> Did I get it about right?

Mark 'the Toad' is on top of the specific group of scientists
that I was referring to.
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

markd@toad-net.com wrote:

>> "I am nolonger a regular here on these ngs because my web
>> site becameindependent from the need to post here years
>> ago. :)"
>
> Yes, you used to splash your web pages in every message,
> which some other trolls have practice in common, including a
> tactic to reply to most posts with useless childish retorts,
> the more to increase potential traffic in the cascade of
> responses it generated. . Which causes one pause to wonder
> if this latest flurry of disconnected/dismembered notions
> aren't a tactic also.

Average successful requests per day: 562 in September 2004.

Sep/ 1/04: 465: : Sep/ 2/04: 532: Sep/ 3/04: 419: Sep/ 4/04:
395: Sep/ 5/04: 351: Sep/ 6/04: 487: Sep/ 7/04: 556: Sep/
8/04: 503: Sep/ 9/04: 520: Sep/10/04: 430: Sep/11/04: 418:
Sep/12/04: 388: Sep/13/04: 648: Sep/14/04: 518: Sep/15/04:
571: Sep/16/04: 605: Sep/17/04: 441: Sep/18/04: 343:
Sep/19/04: 374: Sep/20/04: 557: Sep/21/04: 719: Sep/22/04:
640: Sep/23/04: 600: Sep/24/04: 886: Sep/25/04: 505:
Sep/26/04: 683: Sep/27/04: Mon 1109: Sep/28/04: Tues 1046:
Sep/29/04: 588: Sep/30/04: 568: Oct/ 1/04: 437: Oct/ 2/04:
348: Oct/ 3/04: 346: Oct/ 4/04: 424: and counting

So, your point was?
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

sbharris@ix.netcom.com (Steve Harris
sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:

> I think it therefore follows that a person who has been
> raised in poverty, neglect, malnutrition, physical abuse,
> psychological abuse, ignorance, and bad values, has just as
> much responsibility for his bad actions as the person raised
> with physical, social, and psycholgical needs attended to.

"The ideology of victim-blaming is in opposition to society
reducing the socioeconomic inequalities in health.

With victim-blaming the individual who has the free will to
choose their own lifestyle is supposed to take responsibility
for their health choices. To improve their prospects in life,
the victim must change rather than the environment around
them. Under the ideology of victim-blaming health problems are
viewed as something that should be self-corrected. At-risk
behavior is seen as the problem and changing lifestyle is
viewed as the solution."
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

sbharris@ix.netcom.com (Steve Harris
sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:

> > These hard deterministic scientists believe that
> > individuals should blame everything on their biology,
> > molecules, genetics, and their use of prescription
> > medication.
>
> COMMENT: I think you left out diet and exercise.
>
> So now we'd like to ask: do you blame NOTHING on these
> things?

Perhaps, if you were to focus?

Only if you decide to exercise your free will, and elect
to do same.
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

sbharris@ix.netcom.com (Steve Harris
sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:

> Does that include the mentally ill and the mentally
> handicapped, too? And if not, WHY not?

Your mental handicap does not seem to have affected your
ability to post. Yes, Steve these laws even apply to you.

Sorry, again Steve, but you did request a response.
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

sbharris@ix.netcom.com (Steve Harris
sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:

> > > We're waiting for your answer as to whether or not
> > > "natural health" thinks that if God created a second
> > > Earth, all the people would do and say the same things
> > > in parallel with our own, as well as get the same
> > > diseases, die the same time, and everything in
> > > lock-step. Yes or no? It's one or the other.
> >
> > Per the definition of natural health, we are not concerned
> > with parallel worlds, just this one.
>
> In other words, you have no idea. But you're out here
> willing to make assertions about "free will."

Okay, have it your way. :)

On your parellel planet, SBH would be worshiping my answers.
Next question!

Sorry, Steve ... but I was only trying to protect your
feelings.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
John Gohde

[Wolfbrothe]

markd@toad-net.com wrote in message
news:<4161d2c3$0$21383$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>...
> "Mark 'the Toad' is on top of the specific group of
> scientists that I was referring to."
>
> Ah shucks, blushing, a fella can't take such compliments
> full force without even a simple build up, ah shucks;
> unworthy, unworthy.
>
> So, the target is in sight, do a
> pointless/empty/superficial/dismembered rif on "bad" science
> as compared to "natural" science so we can be offered
> homoepathy once again.

Why am I not surprised that Chung would be the lone person
to agree with Gohde. It is quite amusing that those two seem
to get along and agree with each other. Now all we need is
some kind of freakish love child between the "Two Pound
Diet" and "Natural Health". Now that would be one scary
little mutant. Hehe

[Steve Harr]

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in
message
news:<16a9b594.0410041456.175ca0a4@posting.google.com>...
> sbharris@ix.netcom.com (Steve Harris
> sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> > Does that include the mentally ill and the mentally
> > handicapped, too? And if not, WHY not?
>
> Your mental handicap does not seem to have affected your
> ability to post. Yes, Steve these laws even apply to you.
>
> Sorry, again Steve, but you did request a response.

COMMENT

And if that was your response, it was only self-illustrative.
Deprive the developing brain of essential nutients, and you're
sure to grow little Republicans. Then big Republicans.
Eventually big ugly toothless fat old Republicans.

I'm amazed I'm still talking to you. I see that those who
aren't already professionally immunized against dealing
with phlegm and pus, have already decided to leave you to
be yourself.

SBH

[N-H-P]

sbharris@ix.netcom.com (Steve Harris
sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:

> > Your mental handicap does not seem to have affected your
> > ability to post. Yes, Steve these laws even apply to you.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Yes, even the laws of nature apply to Steve.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

> I'm amazed I'm still talking to you. I see that those who
> aren't already professionally immunized against dealing with
> phlegm and pus, have already decided to leave you to be
> yourself.

I see that you read my replies. :)

Perhaps, if you were to get another science degree?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

All you toads can crawl back into that slimy pond of yours. I
have better things to do with my time. I got the answer that I
was looking for.
--
John Gohde

[Bill Clint]

"Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.0410042340.fbf6be0@posting.google.com...
> markd@toad-net.com wrote in message
news:<4161d2c3$0$21383$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>...
> > "Mark 'the Toad' is on top of the specific group of
> > scientists that I was referring to."
> >
> > Ah shucks, blushing, a fella can't take such compliments
> > full force without even a simple build up, ah shucks;
> > unworthy, unworthy.
> >
> > So, the target is in sight, do a
> > pointless/empty/superficial/dismembered rif on "bad"
> > science as compared to "natural" science so we can be
offered
> > homoepathy once again.
>
> Why am I not surprised that Chung would be the lone person
> to agree with Gohde. It is quite amusing that those two seem
> to get along and agree with each other. Now all we need is
> some kind of freakish love child between the "Two Pound
> Diet" and "Natural Health". Now that would be one scary
> little mutant. Hehe

Mark de Toad, Chung, Gohde, and most names on the
misc.health.alternative are in my killfile. This action has
done much too improve my Usenet experience.

[Bill Clint]

<snip>
> COMMENT
>
> And if that was your response, it was only
> self-illustrative. Deprive the developing brain of essential
> nutients, and you're sure to grow little Republicans. Then
> big Republicans. Eventually big ugly toothless fat old
> Republicans.

This explains why Chamber of Commerce isn't concern about lead
and arsenic in the drinking water and opines that testing
drinking water is too expensive.

>
> I'm amazed I'm still talking to you. I see that those who
> aren't already professionally immunized against dealing with
> phlegm and pus, have already decided to leave you to be
> yourself.
>
> SBH

I am certainly amazed that you bother with John boy. Through
years, some have tried to engage him but he is a
..................

[Keith F. L]

Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com
<sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I think it therefore follows that a person who has been
> raised in poverty, neglect, malnutrition, physical abuse,
> psychological abuse, ignorance, and bad values, has just as
> much responsibility for his bad actions as the person raised
> with physical, social, and
> psycholgical needs attended to. Which is good, because we
> know that people of the former background commit a lot
> more crime!

However, most people raised in those conditions do not
commit crimes.

Not blaming people who do bad things is simply the flip side
of not crediting people who do good things. And I don't think
that's fair.

Even if determinism were true, it might still make sense to
punish bad behavior, since knowledge that bad behavior will be
punished could be the cause of good behavior.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the legal system as it
exists today in the US. Not because I don't believe there are
bad people who deserve punishment, but because in those cases
where the culprit isn't caught in the act it does little
better than chance at distinguishing the innocent from the
guilty, as I know from personal experience.

Indeed, if more poor people are convicted of crimes than rich
people, it may be largely because the latter can afford
better lawyers.

I don't agree that either determinism or random is the
opposite of free will. Determined is the opposite of random,
not of free. Free is the opposite of coerced, not of
determined nor of random.

I know I have free will because I always do what I choose to
do. If free will requires, not just that I do what I choose,
but also that I choose what to choose, and that I choose what
to choose what to choose, etc, ad infinitum, it devolves into
meaningless nonsense.

My free will is part of the causal chain rather than being
alien to it, or being some outside observer watching reality
on TV from some alternate unreal universe.

If we don't have free will, there's no point in debating about
punishment. Whatever will happen will happen, and we have
absolutely no control over it. If next year there will be a
penalty of life in prison without parole for "hacking" (as has
been seriously proposed) then there's no more point in
debating about it than in debating about whether a hurricane
should strike. If it happens it happens.

But then, there's also no point in my arguing against people
arguing about it. If people choose to argue for or against it,
it's because they had no choice in the matter.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/ Please see
http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Tom Adams]

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in
message
news:<16a9b594.0409260414.660e8816@posting.google.com>...
> There exists a fundamental incompatibility between the free
> will concept of the human psyche assumed by classical
> Western morality and the determinism demanded by science.

Huh?

I think you have confused science with a particular
philosopical view. Determinism dates back to Classical Greece,
so you cannot blame science for
it.

[Steve Harr]

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:<ckkj30$lkm$1@panix1.panix.com>...
> Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com
> <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > I think it therefore follows that a person who has been
> > raised in poverty, neglect, malnutrition, physical abuse,
> > psychological abuse, ignorance, and bad values, has just
> > as much responsibility for his bad actions as the person
> > raised with physical, social, and
> > psycholgical needs attended to. Which is good, because we
> > know that people of the former background commit a lot
> > more crime!
>
> However, most people raised in those conditions do not
> commit crimes.

Sure. But most people who smoke never get lung cancer, and
this means nothing. And some lung cancer victims never smoke
at all. Neither of these facts gets us anywhere in the issue,
except to exclude extreme positions. Useful questions are in
the form of probabilities and attributables: what *fraction*
of lung cancer is caused by (ie, is atrributable to) smoking?
It's not 100% and it's not 0% either. Once you understand
that, you're faced with having to come up with a real number.
And it's the same way with heart disease or crime.

> Not blaming people who do bad things is simply the flip side
> of not crediting people who do good things. And I don't
> think that's fair.

Quite right. The fair position is somewhere in between.
Partial credit and partial blame.

> Even if determinism were true, it might still make sense to
> punish bad behavior, since knowledge that bad behavior will
> be punished could be the cause of good behavior.

Yes, indeed, quite so. And for this reason, there might remain
some deterent penal system even if we all were determinists.
Though there remain two problems. One is that if deteminism is
true, punishing bad behavior in people is on par with
punishing it in animals. It's not very satisfying and
certainly it isn't what we actually think of ourselves as
doing. As a course in ethics it's on par with using pepper
spray on a bear which is trying to eat your picnic. Not much
meat there for the purveyors of, and believers in, "justice."

The other problem of course is that justice doesn't have much
to do with deterence. The old difficulty with all punishment
which is intended chiefly as deterence is that all you need is
for people to believe in it: there's no requirement that the
guilty actually get punished, for it to work. All that's
necessary is for people to *believe* the guilty got it.
Punishing the innocent makes a great display so long as nobody
believes them. If would-be criminals o believe this, the
purpose is of punishment as deterent is fulfilled, no matter
what the reality is. (And here we are).

> Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the legal system as it
> exists today in the US. Not because I don't believe there
> are bad people who deserve punishment, but because in those
> cases where the culprit isn't caught in the act it does
> little better than chance at distinguishing the innocent
> from the guilty, as I know from personal experience.
>
> Indeed, if more poor people are convicted of crimes than
> rich people, it may be largely because the latter can afford
> better lawyers.

Sure, but you can't have it both ways. Your first paragraph
suggests you think there's a problem with the accused innocent
being punished, and the second that you think the main
injustice is that some fraction of the guilty aren't.

> I don't agree that either determinism or random is the
> opposite of free will. Determined is the opposite of random,
> not of free. Free is the opposite of coerced, not of
> determined nor of random.
>
> I know I have free will because I always do what I
> choose to do.
If
> free will requires, not just that I do what I choose, but
> also that I choose what to choose, and that I choose what to
> choose what to choose, etc, ad infinitum, it devolves into
> meaningless nonsense.

Well, it's meaningless nonsense either way you think about it.
Do we choose how we go about choosing? Maybe sort of. But I
think usually sort of not. Let me raise a child to do A, and
I'm pretty sure (not completely, but 95% or 99% if the time)
that I can make sure he'll end up "choosing" to do A.
Conversely, the same if I raise him to deplore and be sickened
by A, that will result in him doing B instead. So does he
still have a choice to do or not do, A? Yes, but it's down to
maybe small fraction of what the system generally assumes it
is. Or less. Most ethical beliefs are rather like bacon or
kim-chee. If you were raised to love them, you will. And if
not, not. There's some wiggle-room and rebeliousness in all
societies. Not not a lot.

> My free will is part of the causal chain rather than being
> alien to it, or being some outside observer watching reality
> on TV from some alternate unreal universe.
>
> If we don't have free will, there's no point in debating
> about punishment. Whatever will happen will happen, and we
> have absolutely no control over it. If next year there will
> be a penalty of life in prison without parole for "hacking"
> (as has been seriously proposed) then there's no more point
> in debating about it than in debating about whether a
> hurricane should strike. If it happens it happens.

Here's where I get to point out that the debate itself is part
of the causal chain, even if things are deterministic <g>. You
can no more forgo it than the threat of punishment for
criminals, even if you knew determinism to be true.

> But then, there's also no point in my arguing against people
> arguing about it. If people choose to argue for or against
> it, it's because they had no choice in the matter.

On the contrary, as above. Even if they do have no real choice
in the matter after hearing the argument, it's still worth
making the argument. For it may influence thinking and
behavior, even so.

SBH

[N-H-P]

sbharris@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> > However, most people raised in those conditions do not
> > commit crimes.
>
> Sure. But most people who smoke never get lung cancer, and
> this means nothing.

Still trying to expose your mental defects, I see? :(

When all you got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

When all you got is science, everything begins to look like a
godless cruel world. So, what is your problem Geek? Still
cannot get over the fact that life is not fair?

When all you got is science, the Jewish Solution was simply a
matter of ... -Marching Jews into concentration camps.
-Killing the oldest and most useless Jews first. -Then
efficiently getting rid of the pollution caused by the
accumulation of corpses.

This is the worldview offered by the Science Bigots.

The tenant of Free Will simply puts on the record THE FACT
that there is more to human life than just science. People
have more tools than just science to work with. Time to get a
bigger tool belt, Steve!

Just thought that you might what to know. :)
--
John Gohde

[Steve Harr]

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in
message
news:<16a9b594.0410160259.47fc3443@posting.google.com>...

> When all you got is science, the Jewish Solution was simply
> a matter of ... -Marching Jews into concentration camps.
> -Killing the oldest and most useless Jews first. -Then
> efficiently getting rid of the pollution caused by the
> accumulation of corpses.
>
> This is the worldview offered by the Science Bigots.

COMMENT:

Hitler's insane racial hatreds had nothing to do with science.
Hitler wasn't a scientist. Nor were his worldviews formed or
informed by science. He was into bad art and Wagner, mainly.

> The tenant of Free Will simply puts on the record THE FACT
> that there is more to human life than just science.

COMMENT:

Gohde has no idea what the tenant of free will is. And
apparently no idea what science is, or what scientists think.
Or what they do. But he natters on and on about it all,
anyway. Amazing.

You know those novelty-item dentures that you can wind up and
they chatter away all by themselves, no head connected? That's
John Gohde.

SBH

[Piezo Guru]

Why do you keep feeding him as a troll then? Is some
rubbing off?

"Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com"
<sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:79cf0a8.0410161520.6fc9c5db@posting.google.com...
> johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote
> in message
news:<16a9b594.0410160259.47fc3443@posting.google.com>...
>
> > When all you got is science, the Jewish Solution was
> > simply a matter of ... -Marching Jews into concentration
> > camps. -Killing the oldest and most useless Jews first.
> > -Then efficiently getting rid of the pollution caused by
> > the accumulation of corpses.
> >
> > This is the worldview offered by the Science Bigots.
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Hitler's insane racial hatreds had nothing to do with
> science. Hitler wasn't a scientist. Nor were his worldviews
> formed or informed by science. He was into bad art and
> Wagner, mainly.
>
>
> > The tenant of Free Will simply puts on the record THE FACT
> > that there is more to human life than just science.
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Gohde has no idea what the tenant of free will is. And
> apparently no idea what science is, or what scientists
> think. Or what they do. But he natters on and on about it
> all, anyway. Amazing.
>
> You know those novelty-item dentures that you can wind up
> and they chatter away all by themselves, no head connected?
> That's John Gohde.
>
> SBH

[N-H-P]

sbharris@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> > When all you got is science, the Jewish Solution was
> > simply a matter of ... -Marching Jews into concentration
> > camps. -Killing the oldest and most useless Jews first.
> > -Then efficiently getting rid of the pollution caused by
> > the accumulation of corpses.
> >
> > This is the worldview offered by the Science Bigots.
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Hitler's insane racial hatreds had nothing to do with
> science. Hitler wasn't a scientist. Nor were his worldviews
> formed or informed by science. He was into bad art and
> Wagner, mainly.

Perhaps, if you were to focus?

Every time I make a serious argument, all these science bigots
toss it off because they are living in a world of self-denial.

I was talking about the scientific worldview, dim wit!

Your comment about "Hitler's insane racial hatreds" is not
part of the scientific worldview. The scientific worldview
of any event does not pass moral judgement, which is
precisely my point.

Yes, I do love my dentures. And, yes Steve you are still
advertising your mental impairments.

Just thought that you might want to know.
--
John Gohde

[Steve Harr]

"Piezo Guru" <gbusey@honmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1097977910.cwvql9DYP04RthgXoD3OKQ@teranews>...

> > You know those novelty-item dentures that you can wind up
> > and they chatter away all by themselves, no head
> > connected? That's John Gohde.
> >
> > SBH

> Why do you keep feeding him as a troll then? Is some
> rubbing off?

COMMENT:

You're right of course. IF you argue with a fool, chances are
that he is doing just the same. Time for Mr. Chattering
Teeth's new posting address to join his many former monikers
in my killfile.

SBH

[Piezo Guru]

It's too damn bad. The guy can be quite profound sometimes but
it gets irritating like a bad piece of tail.

"Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com"
<sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:79cf0a8.0410171539.76bd42d9@posting.google.com...
> "Piezo Guru" <gbusey@honmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1097977910.cwvql9DYP04RthgXoD3OKQ@teranews>...
>
> > > You know those novelty-item dentures that you can wind
> > > up and they chatter away all by themselves, no head
> > > connected? That's John Gohde.
> > >
> > > SBH
>
>
>
> > Why do you keep feeding him as a troll then? Is some
> > rubbing off?
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> You're right of course. IF you argue with a fool, chances
> are that he is doing just the same. Time for Mr. Chattering
> Teeth's new posting address to join his many former monikers
> in my killfile.
>
> SBH

[N-H-P]

"Piezo Guru" <gbusey@honmail.com> wrote:

> It's too damn bad. The guy can be quite profound sometimes
> but it gets irritating like a bad piece of tail.

Yes, I am always profound unlike most of the science geeks on
these threads.

You find me the most irritating when I am both profound and
nailing you geeks big time. :)

Whenever I am 100% correct, all you guys go silent, because I
am winning and you do not want to admit it. :)
--
John Gohde

[Krkuhn]

But most people who smoke never get lung cancer, and
this means
> nothing.
A statement unsupported by statistics, the thread maybe
correct but without sighting a reference or numbers....it is a
bold statement. What did they died of emphysema, coronary/
pulmonary... And some lung cancer victims never smoke at all.
Yes, but a low percentage get small cell carcinoma, where a
high percentage of smokers get small cell carcinoma. Note that
I also do not quote a source, but referrer to my many years of
seeing these cases.
--
Detective Tom Polhaus: " Heavy. What is it?" Sam Spade: "The,
uh, stuff that dreams are made of." "Steve Harris
sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:79cf0a8.0410152120.554bf193@posting.google.com...
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:<ckkj30$lkm$1@panix1.panix.com>...
> > Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com
> > <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > I think it therefore follows that a person who has been
> > > raised in poverty, neglect, malnutrition, physical
> > > abuse, psychological abuse, ignorance, and bad values,
> > > has just as much responsibility for his bad actions as
> > > the person raised with physical, social, and
> > > psycholgical needs attended to. Which is good, because
> > > we know that people of the former background commit a
> > > lot more crime!
> >
> > However, most people raised in those conditions do not
> > commit crimes.
>
>
> Sure. But most people who smoke never get lung cancer, and
> this means nothing. And some lung cancer victims never
> smoke at all. Neither of these facts gets us anywhere in
> the issue, except to exclude extreme positions. Useful
> questions are in the form of probabilities and
> attributables: what *fraction* of lung cancer is caused by
> (ie, is atrributable to) smoking? It's not 100% and it's
> not 0% either. Once you understand that, you're faced with
> having to come up with a real number. And it's the same way
> with heart disease or crime.
>
>
> > Not blaming people who do bad things is simply the flip
> > side of not crediting people who do good things. And I
> > don't think that's fair.
>
>
> Quite right. The fair position is somewhere in between.
> Partial credit and partial blame.
>
>
> > Even if determinism were true, it might still make sense
> > to punish bad behavior, since knowledge that bad behavior
> > will be punished could be the cause of good behavior.
>
>
> Yes, indeed, quite so. And for this reason, there might
> remain some deterent penal system even if we all were
> determinists. Though there remain two problems. One is that
> if deteminism is true, punishing bad behavior in people is
> on par with punishing it in animals. It's not very
> satisfying and certainly it isn't what we actually think of
> ourselves as doing. As a course in ethics it's on par with
> using pepper spray on a bear which is trying to eat your
> picnic. Not much meat there for the purveyors of, and
> believers in, "justice."
>
>
> The other problem of course is that justice doesn't have
> much to do with deterence. The old difficulty with all
> punishment which is intended chiefly as deterence is that
> all you need is for people to believe in it: there's no
> requirement that the guilty actually get punished, for it to
> work. All that's necessary is for people to *believe* the
> guilty got it. Punishing the innocent makes a great display
> so long as nobody believes them. If would-be criminals o
> believe this, the purpose is of punishment as deterent is
> fulfilled, no matter what the reality is. (And here we are).
>
>
> > Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the legal system as
> > it exists today in the US. Not because I don't believe
> > there are bad people who deserve punishment, but because
> > in those cases where the culprit isn't caught in the act
> > it does little better than chance at distinguishing the
> > innocent from the guilty, as I know from personal
> > experience.
> >
> > Indeed, if more poor people are convicted of crimes than
> > rich people, it may be largely because the latter can
> > afford better lawyers.
>
>
> Sure, but you can't have it both ways. Your first paragraph
> suggests you think there's a problem with the accused
> innocent being punished, and the second that you think the
> main injustice is that some fraction of the guilty aren't.
>
>
> > I don't agree that either determinism or random is the
> > opposite of free will. Determined is the opposite of
> > random, not of free. Free is the opposite of coerced, not
> > of determined nor of random.
> >
> > I know I have free will because I always do what I choose
> > to do.
> If
> > free will requires, not just that I do what I choose, but
> > also that I choose what to choose, and that I choose what
> > to choose what to choose, etc, ad infinitum, it devolves
> > into meaningless nonsense.
>
>
> Well, it's meaningless nonsense either way you think about
> it. Do we choose how we go about choosing? Maybe sort of.
> But I think usually sort of not. Let me raise a child to do
> A, and I'm pretty sure (not completely, but 95% or 99% if
> the time) that I can make sure he'll end up "choosing" to do
> A. Conversely, the same if I raise him to deplore and be
> sickened by A, that will result in him doing B instead. So
> does he still have a choice to do or not do, A? Yes, but
> it's down to maybe small fraction of what the system
> generally assumes it is. Or less. Most ethical beliefs are
> rather like bacon or kim-chee. If you were raised to love
> them, you will. And if not, not. There's some wiggle-room
> and rebeliousness in all societies. Not not a lot.
>
>
>
> > My free will is part of the causal chain rather than being
> > alien to it, or being some outside observer watching
> > reality on TV from some alternate unreal universe.
> >
> > If we don't have free will, there's no point in debating
> > about punishment. Whatever will happen will happen, and we
> > have absolutely no control over it. If next year there
> > will be a penalty of life in prison without parole for
> > "hacking" (as has been seriously proposed) then there's no
> > more point in debating about it than in debating about
> > whether a hurricane should strike. If it happens it
> > happens.
>
>
> Here's where I get to point out that the debate itself is
> part of the causal chain, even if things are deterministic
> <g>. You can no more forgo it than the threat of punishment
> for criminals, even if you knew determinism to be true.
>
>
> > But then, there's also no point in my arguing against
> > people arguing about it. If people choose to argue for or
> > against it, it's because they had no choice in the matter.
>
> On the contrary, as above. Even if they do have no real
> choice in the matter after hearing the argument, it's still
> worth making the argument. For it may influence thinking and
> behavior, even so.
>
> SBH

[Keith F. L]

Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com
<sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> However, most people raised in those conditions do not
>> commit crimes.

> Sure. But most people who smoke never get lung cancer, and
> this means nothing. And some lung cancer victims never
> smoke at all.

I have a strong subjective sense that I can directly choose
whether to commit crimes or not. I have no such sense that I
can directly choose whether to have lung cancer.

> And it's the same way with heart disease or crime.

I'm not convinced that the medical model is appropriate for
everything in life. Not everything is a disease.

> The old difficulty with all punishment which is intended
> chiefly as deterence is that all you need is for people to
> believe in it: there's no requirement that the guilty
> actually get punished, for it to work. All that's
> necessary is for people to *believe* the guilty got it.
> Punishing the innocent makes a great display so long as
> nobody believes them.

Sure. A famous moral dilemma is whether the sheriff should
frame one man he knows to be innocent, and send him to the
gallows, if it's the only way to prevent a riot that's sure to
kill several innocent people. (I regard it as a good reductio
ad absurdum of Utilitarianism.)

> If would-be criminals o believe this, the purpose is of
> punishment as deterent is fulfilled, no matter what the
> reality is. (And here we are).

Sure, until it breaks down when everyone finally comes to
realize that the legal system is a scam. That's happening now
thanks to the hundreds of recent DNA exonerations. Of course
anyone who was paying attention would have already realized
this from how plea bargains work:

A mugger, named Mr. State, has the peculiar habit of not
merely demanding that you give him your wallet, but of also
demanding that you publicly assert that you *owe* him your
wallet due to some wrong you had previously done Mr. State,
and that you are handing it over, not because he has a gun
pointed at your head and will pull the trigger if you don't
hand it over and make the statement he asks you to (although
he does, and will), but because you had wronged him and owe
him your wallet, and are willingly giving up your wallet and
your reputation as an peaceful and honest person.

As it happens, some of his victims *had* wronged him, and
*do* owe him their wallets. But would any reasonable person
believe that that is the *reason* those people are handing
him their wallets, even if they loudly assert -- at gunpoint
-- that it is?

But that's how 95% of all convictions are made in the US.

I read an article in the latest Readers Digest about a male
nurse who confessed to murdering forty patients. Does that
prove he's guilty? A close reading shows that he pled guilty
in return for the death penalty being dropped. In other words,
there was almost literally a gun pointed at his head when he
confessed. Such a confession is utterly meaningless. Anyone
but a saint or martyr is going to say whatever the man holding
the gun tells them to say.

> Sure, but you can't have it both ways. Your first paragraph
> suggests you think there's a problem with the accused
> innocent being punished, and the second that you think the
> main injustice is that some fraction of the guilty aren't.

Why can't I have it both ways? Many innocent people go to
prison, or to the electric chair. Many guilty people go free,
and keep committing crimes, for which more innocent people are
sent to prison. Both are unjust.

> Let me raise a child to do A, and I'm pretty sure (not
> completely, but 95% or 99% if the time) that I can make sure
> he'll end up "choosing" to do A. Conversely, the same if I
> raise him to deplore and be sickened by A, that will result
> in him doing B instead. So does he still have a choice to do
> or not do, A? Yes, but it's down to maybe small fraction of
> what the system generally assumes it is.

We're using the language differently. I would say he has total
choice, even if the odds were 0% or 100%.

> Here's where I get to point out that the debate itself is
> part of the causal chain, even if things are deterministic
> <g> . You can no more forgo it than the threat of punishment
> for criminals, even if you knew determinism to be true.

I debate because I chose to debate. From my perspective, I
could have chosen otherwise. From the perspective of an
omniscient observer, or of a time traveler who has already
read all the postings I will have ever written, I could not
have chosen otherwise. But there's no contradiction, any more
than if I claim that the Mississippi River is to the west, and
you claim it's to the east. We're both right. It's a matter of
perspective.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/ Please see
http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[N-H-P]

> http://naturalhealthperspective.com/
>
> It has a Google pagerank of ... and a Alexa traffic ranking
> of 715,000. http://info.alexa.com/data/details?p=TBChrome_T-
> _t_40_L1&amzn_id=alexa65-tb-20&url=http://contact.naturalhe-
> althperspective.com/viewedby.html

I recently have discovered that my web site in Alexa under the
Open Directory Project category of
> Health > Alternative > Holistic and Integrated Medicine
is ranked as the 6th most popular web site on the entire
Internet. :)
http://www.alexa.com/browse/general?catid=7318&mode=general

Within the next six months I expect to move up to number 5 as
I am adding a health blog as well as the Wikiproject on
Alternative Medicine to my site.

I created the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine on another
web site, and now I will simply copy it to my site under an
open documentation license. This will mean another 30 or 40
web pages to my web site, at the very least.
--
John Gohde

[N-H-P]

markd@toad-net.com wrote:

> As noted before, your recent reappearence on the ng is
> related to resuming spam promoting activity for your
> web site.

Obviously, discussions about web site optimization in Goggle
go way over your pea brain. I am not really surprised, since
you know absolutely nothing about that whole foods web site
you just introduced to smn.

Tying to spam that site, Toad? I think you failed.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
john gohde

[N-H-P]

markd@toad-net.com wrote:

> Ah, confession time,"optimization", interpretation -
> learning how to manipulate the search rules in order to make
> it seem one's site is of more intrest then is reality.

Actually, I think that is the definition for a PhD. :)

A doctor is a total idiot, just like you, who knows how to
manipulate the system in order to make everybody else think
that they are a lot smarter and more educated than they
actually are. :(

Now back to Google and Alexa. I find it interesting to observe
the world around me. Apparently, scientists like you do NOT!
You have my condolences, Mark. :(

The #1 rated site at Alexa is now: http://www.holisticmed.com/
with a score of 93,774.

With http://nccam.nih.gov/ now in second place. This leads me
to believe that Alexa is even more inaccurate than Google is.

User Review for holisticmed.com at Amazon.com: "It is more
than apparant that they have way too much time on there hands.
If you are looking for facts I suggest skipping this "urban
legend" site...and go straight to the source."

I agree, completely. I looked at http://www.holisticmed.com/
and it contains mostly out of date garbage. It has a lot of
web pages on Yahoo Groups and Newsgroups. So, how does this
site rate a 93,774 and millions of hits?

It seems to me, that the answer must be because it has a lot
of web pages that contain a lot of keywords. My adding the
project on alternative medicine to my web site should thus
produce the same results, only with better quality
information.

While everyone marvels at Google, they are actually the party
most responsible for dropping page content as the most
important part of the rating process. When you do a search in
Google, the results that show up first are from the most
popular sites rather than from web pages with the most
relevant page content. Thanks to Googles patented PageRank
search algorithm.

Now, thanks to Google, the name of the game is getting others
to link to your home page. The more phony links you have, the
higher you are rated. Page content means next to nothing.

The situation is even more funny when you consider the number
of advertisers and Spammers making big bucks off these two
phony systems used by Google and Alexa.

Just thought that you might want to know.
--
john gohde

[N-H-P]

> I agree, completely. I looked at http://www.holisticmed.com/
> and it contains mostly out of date garbage. It has a lot of
> web pages on Yahoo Groups and Newsgroups. So, how does this
> site rate a 93,774 and millions of hits?
>
> It seems to me, that the answer must be because it has a lot
> of web pages that contain a lot of keywords. My adding the
> project on alternative medicine to my web site should thus
> produce the same results, only with better quality
> information.

I was the mastermind of the WikiProject on Alternative
Medicine at Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

I modeled this project after their project on Buddhism.

I left these ngs for Wikipedia because the interaction between
the editors was more interesting than these two dimensional
ngs. Wikipedia is basically moderated by a bunch of science
bigots. You people should really feel at home there. The
science bigots at Wikipedia finally got around to lobotomizing
the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. But, thanks to the
GNU free documentation project a dozen or so mirror sites are
still carrying the project as I had originally designed the
interface (after the project on Buddhism). These mirror sites
were created by others, not to promote free encyclopedias on
the web as Jimbo 'the Bimbo' claims to be promoting, but
because these mirror sites are an easy way to build up
PageRank and attract the hits that sells advertising

So, you guys should thank Wikipedia, for keeping me busy for
several months. Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Besides me, quite a few other editors worked on the project.
Most notably an expert on Traditional Chinese Medicine
organized all the material on TCM. So, the material is
actually quite good and slanted towards a very dry science
viewpoint.

I am almost finished redesigning the interface to what I am
calling a dictionary on alternative medicine. Calling it a
dictionary should really piss off the bigots at Wikipedia. My
interface will end up being about 200K in size. So, I will
split it up into 3 or 4 separate web pages. Virtually every
keyword remotely related to alternative medicine will be on
these pages. My dictionary will be quite unique as it is a
consolidation of 4 separate indexes at Wikipedia.

Then at my leisure, I can gradually translate selected
articles removing their science bias. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! The
advantage being that since these articles are already written,
adding more web pages will be very easy to do.

Instead of wasting time fighting with those science bigots at
Wikipedia, I will be spending my time improving my website
selecting from thousands of older versions of their articles.
The idiots at Wikipedia are still wasting their time making
endless changes to all their articles.
--
john gohde