APP - Do Conservatives lack Freewill

[midcan5]

Is it possible to lack freewill: the basic idea that consciousness guides your decisions. I think it is certainly worth our consideration. It may just be that conservatives lack the capacity both genetically and culturally to exhibit freewill. This interplay of genes and culture make them easily susceptible to the influence of ideas that oppose change or revision. Most cognitive processes never reach consciousness, thus if you are conservative, thought would require an awareness you are not capable of. Given the widespread power of their media today, you witness an opposition to change repeated over and over again. No rational discussion is possible when you have the answer already. The final question becomes, are conservatives then a threat to a dynamic, open, democratic society?

See 'The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy' Albert O. Hirschman

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Is it possible to lack freewill: the basic idea that consciousness guides your decisions. I think it is certainly worth our consideration. It may just be that conservatives lack the capacity both genetically and culturally to exhibit freewill. This interplay of genes and culture make them easily susceptible to the influence of ideas that oppose change or revision. Most cognitive processes never reach consciousness, thus if you are conservative, thought would require an awareness you are not capable of. Given the widespread power of their media today, you witness an opposition to change repeated over and over again. No rational discussion is possible when you have the answer already. The final question becomes, are conservatives then a threat to a dynamic, open, democratic society?

See 'The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy' Albert O. Hirschman

You know that is an interesting discussion. I guess when you speak of conservatives being opposed to change you are talking about their ideas to reform Social Security and the democrat party stubbornly not wanting to change it.

Or maybe you are referring to the conservatives desire to reform our failed union run public education system juxtaposed against the democrat party and their desire to maintain the status quo.

Sometimes before you go off on some half baked meme, it would be helpful to hold the mirror up to your own face to make sure it doesn't apply.

God bless

 

[midcan5]

'No, you are' is too much like schoolyard chatter. Address the point - ironically you repeat the very ideas you are programmed to repeat. I'd bet you didn't have to think much about your reply? The answer was there already. lol

 

[canceled.2021.1]

'No, you are' is too much like schoolyard chatter. Address the point - ironically you repeat the very ideas you are programmed to repeat. I'd bet you didn't have to think much about your reply? The answer was there already. lol

Your thesis is that conservatives are opposed to change. I gave two examples of wanting to change our current system. This is your answer?

Here are some more

I think we should end the Fed and go back to the gold standard

I think we should abolish the income tax

I think we should end the energy department

Looky three areas of CHANGE.

maybe you should have changed your thesis to the kind of change you agree with

 

[Steelplate]

Your thesis is that conservatives are opposed to change. I gave two examples of wanting to change our current system. This is your answer?

Here are some more

I think we should end the Fed and go back to the gold standard

I think we should abolish the income tax

I think we should end the energy department

Looky three areas of CHANGE.

maybe you should have changed your thesis to the kind of change you agree with

That isn't change...that's reverting....going backwards. To some imagined "good old days" that Conservatives have created in their minds and made it their platform.

 

[Auster]

I believe that God only grants what you are willing to reach out and take. In a society where people increasingly depend upon the state for their food, housing, and education I find it ironic that you accuse those who wish to increase self-reliance as focusing upon an external locus of control.

 

[Crashk]

'No, you are' is too much like schoolyard chatter. Address the point - ironically you repeat the very ideas you are programmed to repeat. I'd bet you didn't have to think much about your reply? The answer was there already. lol

Ring the bell and watch em salivate.

 

[midcan5]

Your thesis is that conservatives are opposed to change. I gave two examples of wanting to change our current system. This is your answer?

Here are some more

I think we should end the Fed and go back to the gold standard
I think we should abolish the income tax
I think we should end the energy department
Looky three areas of CHANGE.

maybe you should have changed your thesis to the kind of change you agree with

You continue to prove my point. Those ideas are the work of the conservative thought control machine, every conservative shares them - I see them everywhere. You just proved you cannot think outside them. So far you have proved, the premise holds.

I believe that God only grants what you are willing to reach out and take. In a society where people increasingly depend upon the state for their food, housing, and education I find it ironic that you accuse those who wish to increase self-reliance as focusing upon an external locus of control.

I am always amazed at how religion has changed from a cooperative, charitable institution to a survival of the fittest? When did helping our neighbor, whether it be locally, personally, or by the state become a wrong? Jesus needs to come back and revise the Sermon on the Mount and especially leave out the loaves and fishes.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=108

"Economic ideology that turns human beings into relentless market maximizers undermines commitments to family, to church, to neighborhood, to school and to the larger national and global societies. In Habits of the Heart we documented what this kind of thinking does to our capacity to sustain relationships in every sphere, private as well as public. But the final irony is that this apparently economic conception of human life turns out to be profoundly destructive to our economy itself. If thinking of ourselves as members of a community made us poorer, there would still be many reasons to advocate it; but the fact is that commitment to a community turns out to be a much stronger basis for an effective economy than the individualistic pursuit of self-interest. We have only to look at the case of Japan to see that. Our individualistic heritage taught us that there is no such thing as the common good but only the sum of individual goods. But in our complex, interdependent world, the sum of individual goods, organized only under the tyranny of the market, often produces a common bad that eventually erodes our personal satisfactions as well."

 

[Auster]

I am always amazed at how religion has changed from a cooperative, charitable institution to a survival of the fittest? When did helping our neighbor, whether it be locally, personally, or by the state become a wrong? Jesus needs to come back and revise the Sermon on the Mount and especially leave out the loaves and fishes.

I do believe in charity, in fact I wish for most aide to the poor be in the form of private donations. But that is not the purpose of this thread. I do not think conservatives lack freewill, or that they believe they do.

 

[Minister of Truth]

You continue to prove my point. Those ideas are the work of the conservative thought control machine, every conservative shares them - I see them everywhere. You just proved you cannot think outside them. So far you have proved, the premise holds...

I don't support abolishing the Fed or the income tax. Alexander Hamilton, conservative, orchestrated the First National Bank, and the Fed was being created as a response to the Panic of 1908, and was incoming right as Taft was leaving office (along with the income tax).

Nice try, though...

 

[midcan5]

I don't support abolishing the Fed or the income tax. Alexander Hamilton, conservative, orchestrated the First National Bank, and the Fed was being created as a response to the Panic of 1908, and was incoming right as Taft was leaving office (along with the income tax).

Nice try, though...

Once in the winter it was eighty degrees, so it must be that winter is warm? Hello Threedee, glad to see your old name, it is always nice to know to whom you are speaking. Exceptions mean little, I have many values that would be considered conservative, doesn't make me conservative. The human mind is a complex thing and the human experience equally so. My point is, and it is demonstrated daily, American conservatives are a bunch of robots today. The ACA is a prime example of money pulling strings and the puppets dancing. The power is so strong even the religious conservative contradicts their own presumed values.

"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous." David Hume

 

[cawacko]

That isn't change...that's reverting....going backwards. To some imagined "good old days" that Conservatives have created in their minds and made it their platform.

Let me ask this Steelplate. We often hear the call for stronger labor unions (such as in the past). Wouldn't your statement ring the same for progressives who supposedly want to move forward?


""That isn't change...that's reverting....going backwards. To some imagined "good old days" that Liberal have created in their minds and made it their platform."

 

[midcan5]

Let me ask this Steelplate. We often hear the call for stronger labor unions (such as in the past). Wouldn't your statement ring the same for progressives who supposedly want to move forward?

""That isn't change...that's reverting....going backwards. To some imagined "good old days" that Liberal have created in their minds and made it their platform."

That could be a valid point, but unions have never been strong in America. Look at the South and consider Walmart as another example. Corporations and the wealthy have always fought unions as they create a balance of power the powerful do not want. (I was in a union in my early days in corporate America and everything in their power was done to destroy union strength.)

"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey 'Taking the Risk out of Democracy' [see also http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/827 ]

 

[cawacko]

That could be a valid point, but unions have never been strong in America. Look at the South and consider Walmart as another example. Corporations and the wealthy have always fought unions as they create a balance of power the powerful do not want. (I was in a union in my early days in corporate America and everything in their power was done to destroy union strength.)

"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey 'Taking the Risk out of Democracy' [see also http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/827 ]

If i'm not mistaken over 40% of U.S. workers were unionized at their peak during the 1950's (including over 30% of private workers). That is what I believe most people refer to as the time when Unions were at their zenith.

 

[Steelplate]

Let me ask this Steelplate. We often hear the call for stronger labor unions (such as in the past). Wouldn't your statement ring the same for progressives who supposedly want to move forward?


""That isn't change...that's reverting....going backwards. To some imagined "good old days" that Liberal have created in their minds and made it their platform."

Funny....when unions were strong, we had a better standard of living for a lot more of our citizens.

Even non-union employers paid better because they didn't want unions in their establishments....so they were competitive with the union shops.

Now.....that being said, unions got too big for their britches in the 70's. Which brought us Reagan and his union busting tactics.

I believe in unions, but I also believe in fair and open negotiation....from both sides. Transparency is the key. If business is good, the workers should benefit. If business is down, then unions(and their members) need to back off.

 

[midcan5]

Except for the fact conservatives are repeating a myth, this time about unions, proving my point that their ability to think on their own is missing - we are off topic.

Unions were once bigger in America, they helped make the middle class. That is no longer true with the obvious death of the middle class. The right wing puppets are programmed to think the opposite. Check the numbers in Europe for real union strength.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States

"The percentage of workers belonging to a union (or "density") in the United States peaked in 1954 at almost 35% and the total number of union members peaked in 1979 at an estimated 21.0 million. Membership has declined since (currently 14.8 million and 12% of the labor force[2]). Private sector union membership then began a steady decline that continues into the 2010s, but the membership of public sector unions grew steadily (now 37%).[10]
After 1960 public sector unions grew rapidly and secured good wages and high pensions for their members. While manufacturing and farming steadily declined, state- and local-government employment quadrupled from 4 million workers in 1950 to 12 million in 1976 and 16.6 million in 2009.[11] Adding in the 3.7 million federal civilian employees, in 2010 8.4 million government workers were represented by unions,[12] including 31% of federal workers, 35% of state workers and 46% of local workers.[13] As Daniel Disalvo notes, "In today's public sector, good pay, generous benefits, and job security make possible a stable middle-class existence for nearly everyone from janitors to jailors."[14]
By the 1970s, a rapidly increasing flow of imports (such as automobiles and steel from Germany and Japan, and clothing and shoes from Asia) undercut the market share of corporations with high wage rates.[15] Many companies closed or moved factories to Southern states (where unions were weak),[16] or offshore to low-wage countries.[17] or offshore to low-wage countries. The effectiveness of strikes declined sharply. On the political front, the shrinking unions lost influence in the Democratic Party, and pro-Union liberal Republicans faded away.[citation needed] Union membership among workers in private industry shrank dramatically, though after 1970 there was growth in employees unions of federal, state and local governments.[18][19] The intellectual mood in the 1970s and 1980s favored deregulation and free competition.[15] Numerous industries were deregulated, including airlines, trucking, railroads and telephones, over the objections of the unions involved.[20] The climax came when President Ronald Reagan--a former union president in his younger days--broke the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) strike in 1981.[21]
Republicans, using conservative think tanks as idea farms, began to push through legislative blueprints to curb the power of public employee unions as well as eliminate business regulations."

 

[Damocles]

It isn't worth consideration, it is simply poor conjecture hoping to make you feel better about yourself.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Once in the winter it was eighty degrees, so it must be that winter is warm? Hello Threedee, glad to see your old name, it is always nice to know to whom you are speaking. Exceptions mean little, I have many values that would be considered conservative, doesn't make me conservative. The human mind is a complex thing and the human experience equally so. My point is, and it is demonstrated daily, American conservatives are a bunch of robots today. The ACA is a prime example of money pulling strings and the puppets dancing. The power is so strong even the religious conservative contradicts their own presumed values.

"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous." David Hume

This entire thread has been an exercise in mindlessly following talking points. As for Hume, modern history has proven him wrong about errors in philosophy. Jacobism, Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, and other deeply flawed philosophies have combined to be extremely deadly, killing in the tens of millions. Also, Hume specialized in making a mockery of contemporary philosophy, so it's only fitting that he viewed the extraction of flaws to be a study in ridiculousness.

 

[midcan5]

Whenever conservative republicans mention freedom think of those ten hands. http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles/If_Conservatism_Is_The_Ideology_of_Freedom.html

"The focus here is on ignorance or doubt or uncertainty as something that is made, maintained, and manipulated by means of certain arts and sciences, The idea is one that easily lends itself to paranoia: namely, that certain people don't want you to know certain things, or will actively work to organize doubt or uncertainty or misinformation to help maintain (your) ignorance. They know, and may or may not want you to know they know, but you are not to be privy to the secret. This is an idea insufficiently explored by philosophers, that ignorance should not be viewed as a simple omission or gap, but rather as an active production. Ignorance can be an actively engineered part of a deliberate plan. I'll begin with trade secrets, moving from there in the next three sections to tobacco agnotology, military secrecy, and the example of ignorance making (or maintenance) as moral resistance." Robert N. Proctor 'Agnotology'

I guess I missed the talking points? More food for thought. Culture and sociobiology are powerful forces.

"Perhaps the most influential of these were carried out by Benjamin Libet in 1986. Libet used as his starting point a discovery made by the German neurologist Hans Kornhuber. Kornhuber asked volunteers to move their right index finger. He then measured this voluntary movement with a strain gauge while at the same time recording the electrical activity of the brain by means of an electrode on the skull. After hundreds of trials, Kornhuber found that invariably each movement was preceded by a little blip in the electrical record from the brain, a spark of free will! He called this potential in the brain the "readiness potential" and found that it occurred one second before the voluntary movement.

Libet followed up on Kornhuber's finding with an experiment in which he asked volunteers to lift a finger whenever they felt the urge to do so. He placed an electrode on a volunteer's skull and confirmed a readiness potential about one second before the person lifted his or her finger. He then' compared the time it took for the person to will the movement with the time of the readiness potential. Amazingly, he found that the readiness potential appeared not after but 200 milliseconds before a person felt the urge to move his or her finger! Thus by merely observing the electrical activity of the brain, Libet could predict what the subject would do before the subject was aware of having decided to do it.

These experiments have caused philosophers of mind to ask:

If the choice is determined in the brain unconsciously before we decide to act, where is free will?

Are these choices predetermined? Is our experience of freely willing our actions only an illusion, a rationalization after the fact? Freud, Helmholtz, and Libet would disagree and argue that the choice is freely made but that it is made without our awareness. Libet, for example, proposes that the process of initiating a voluntary action occurs in an unconscious part of the brain but that just before the action is initiated, consciousness is recruited to approve or veto the action. In the 200 milliseconds before a finger is lifted, consciousness determines whether it moves or not.

Whatever the reasons for the delay between decision and awareness, Libet's findings now raise the moral question: Is one to be held responsible for decisions that are made without conscious awareness?"

Eric R. Kandel is a biochemist and university professor at Columbia University. The excerpt [bold added] is from an essay taken from his recent book, 'In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind.'

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Except for the fact conservatives are repeating a myth, this time about unions, proving my point that their ability to think on their own is missing - we are off topic.

Unions were once bigger in America, they helped make the middle class. That is no longer true with the obvious death of the middle class. The right wing puppets are programmed to think the opposite. Check the numbers in Europe for real union strength.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States

"The percentage of workers belonging to a union (or "density") in the United States peaked in 1954 at almost 35% and the total number of union members peaked in 1979 at an estimated 21.0 million. Membership has declined since (currently 14.8 million and 12% of the labor force[2]). Private sector union membership then began a steady decline that continues into the 2010s, but the membership of public sector unions grew steadily (now 37%).[10]
After 1960 public sector unions grew rapidly and secured good wages and high pensions for their members. While manufacturing and farming steadily declined, state- and local-government employment quadrupled from 4 million workers in 1950 to 12 million in 1976 and 16.6 million in 2009.[11] Adding in the 3.7 million federal civilian employees, in 2010 8.4 million government workers were represented by unions,[12] including 31% of federal workers, 35% of state workers and 46% of local workers.[13] As Daniel Disalvo notes, "In today's public sector, good pay, generous benefits, and job security make possible a stable middle-class existence for nearly everyone from janitors to jailors."[14]
By the 1970s, a rapidly increasing flow of imports (such as automobiles and steel from Germany and Japan, and clothing and shoes from Asia) undercut the market share of corporations with high wage rates.[15] Many companies closed or moved factories to Southern states (where unions were weak),[16] or offshore to low-wage countries.[17] or offshore to low-wage countries. The effectiveness of strikes declined sharply. On the political front, the shrinking unions lost influence in the Democratic Party, and pro-Union liberal Republicans faded away.[citation needed] Union membership among workers in private industry shrank dramatically, though after 1970 there was growth in employees unions of federal, state and local governments.[18][19] The intellectual mood in the 1970s and 1980s favored deregulation and free competition.[15] Numerous industries were deregulated, including airlines, trucking, railroads and telephones, over the objections of the unions involved.[20] The climax came when President Ronald Reagan--a former union president in his younger days--broke the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) strike in 1981.[21]
Republicans, using conservative think tanks as idea farms, began to push through legislative blueprints to curb the power of public employee unions as well as eliminate business regulations."

Yeah we get it. You liberals are the smartest coolest kids in class and conservatives with their crazy notions of individual liberty and personal responsibility are just CRAZY.

I mean look at all te shining examples of liberal greatness that we can point to. You have Detroit with its impending bankruptcy and hand out to the federal gobblement. You have Chicago where people are being slaughtered.

You have a right to be proud. Embrace it.

I mean you liberals are all such free thinkers. It is probably just random chance that you come to the same ideas about healthcare, taxes and killing of the unborn.

I am sure this thread makes you feel very good about yourself.