|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2006 : 23:02:26 [Permalink]
|
Free will or not, I prefer rational thought to stupidity.
|
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
 Posted - 12/10/2006 : 01:13:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
No it is not an assumption, because we have observed it (see definition two). Also, you can equally say that the earth may stop spinning any minute. It has yet to occur but may just do it. Should we expect to find stars that do not contain helium? It is possible perhaps but probably we will not find such stars. Although, such possiblities may occur we are not required to entertain such theory without evidence. If we did, then we could use the same "logic" to say that god can exist therefore we should live as though he does just in case. The opposite is true we should live as though he doesn't until sufficient evidence is found. Therefore, I am basing my theory on what we know currently and I have not discovered conflicting evidence yet. If I do, I shall adapt it into my conclusions.
You are using induction to make the above conclusion. However, induction can not be applied to such a situation and still be logically valid.
For example, I measure the malleability of a piece of metal X, and find that it becomes more malleable when I heat it up. I do the same thing for a piece of metal Y, and I find the same results. Can I now conclude that all metals become more malleable when heated? I do so for a 3rd piece. And then a 4th. Then a 5th. Can I now conclude this? How about a 6th, 7th, and 8th? How many will it take. This is not to mention that we have no idea if any other factors will be involved. How is it that I can make the conclusion that all metals become more malleable when heated?
The answer is, in short, indeterminable. Certainly with more and more testing, you become more and more sure of that the claim is true. But how sure? Instead, we go more into detail behind the reason why metal becomes more malleable when heated. We understand how atoms work and how atoms in metals work. We understand how atoms react when heated. Because of all this, we are then able to make the conclusion that metal expands when heated, not because of any number of trials, but because we now know the reason it does.
Apply this to your example of the earth. We see all of the planets in our solar system spinning. Does this mean all planets in the universe spin? Are 9 (8) trials enough to make this conclusion? It is a pretty big conclusion after all. Again, we find it is not the number of trails that leads us to this conclusion, but rather a deeper understanding of what we study. We understand how solids work, how momentum is related to velocity and mass, and how it takes force to do work. We develop theories on planets and solar evolution.
Now go back to your original statement:
quote:
No matter how "random" any one interaction on a sub-molecular, molecular, cellular, or personal level may seem it was governed by something one step removed.
I have shown how your example of the earth spinning differs in your analogy. The reason we can conclude that the earth will keep spinning is because we know the reason as to why it spins in the first place. But do we know the reason as to why the universe is the way it is? Do we understand why or even how the universe is governed? Certainly not scientifically.
And please, don't insult me by posting the definition of an assumption. I really shouldn't even have to ask that.
quote:
Therefore, I am basing my theory on what we know currently and I have not discovered conflicting evidence yet. If I do, I shall adapt it into my conclusions.
But you are applying something you do know to something you don't. We do know that radioactivity is caused by a molecular event. Because other things on the molecular level are not random, does this mean this event is not random as well? You make no case as to why past reasoning should apply. It doesn't just apply by default. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 12/10/2006 01:19:10 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 07:46:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
You are confusing bodily reaction, desires, fears, etc. with the choice on how to act on them. Laughter is easy for me to control. I can refuse to laugh, no problem. Crying... I am a sap.... Anger, I get mad..... But when I cry I can control my actions when doing so. Same with anger. I can be mad as hell, and choose not to strike out at the object or person who has illicited that response.
Do you reconcile your line of thinking with Descartes? (mind distinct from body?)
Peace
Joe
Crying is an action. Duh! And no you cannot control your laughter. If you could you would never burst out laughing at somthing funny even if it is inappropriate to do so. Tickling is a perfect example. Do you know why we are ticklish? Look it up in a medical neurology textbook it will also explain to you what makes something funny (if you are unable I will explain it next post).
I cannot remember the last time I burst out laughing when I didn't choose to do so. The discipline came from inappropriate laughter, and the desire never, ever to do that again. I can have rather a flat afect(is that the word?).
Again, I wish I could develop the discipline over crying. I am such a sap sometimes......
quote:
Again, you miss the point entirely. I said nothing of being a rager (although some are). You make decisions no matter what they are, whether they are the normal expected response or any other, in your brain before you are consciously aware that you made them. This is the point. All decisions arise from the cellular chemical level up, never in reverse. Chemical cascades incite one another based on the strength of the previous pathways formed based on genetics (to what degree it is unclear, but it seems a good deal) and past experiences which build them chemically. The fear response is conditioned within you without any conscious involvement and whatever it is that you call consciousness is also conditioned in you physically the same way, being altered by your experience. Not the other way around.
Please entertain this illustration:
When you get angry you act in any manner of ways. The way you choose to act is based on what you have been programmed to do. If you believe it to be bad to blow up, you will not. If you cannot help it you will smash your car window. It doesn't matter what you do. The decision was programmed into you by socialization, and this competes with nature (actually several programs are always competing in our head, we call this guilt and conscience). Either way you follow the program. Also, as with the mice example, the natural program always trumps when it is reinforced no matter what program has been conditioned. The connections never die, they are simply rerouted.
Unless you use your will to change your reactions. People who get angry and assault other people had the choice on whether to assault them or not.
There are an infinite number of reactions I have to anger. I throw things (if noone s (hopefully) looking. I curse, too much sometimes, I may yell. I may fantasize about murder.
The throwing things usually dosen'y bother me The cursing does, and at times can be really hard to control. Still working on the discipline. I have yet to murder anyone.
When I was younger, I had a real rage issue. I blame it on my Nordic blood. If I fought, I could be overly brutal, and thankfully never seriously hurt anyone, and never killed anyone. The disciplined approach was to not fight. I let many things pass that I normally would not have, and I still hackle over memories.
Even though every fiber of my being may scream out to act on a natural reaction, I control it through will.
quote:
There is no difference between a robot that is programmed and you. We have even created simple robots that can program themselves through experience (although they are as about as advanced as a one year old, and really no where near as complex). This is how you are programmed also. And you cannot break this programming without reprogramming.
True, the reprogramming comes through the exercise of free-will.
quote:
As for Descartes. Mind is not distinct from body. End of story on that. The mind is an emmergent property of the brain, no brain no consciousness, or mind. (see phineas gage, and other examples of pre frontal ambutation)
From what I remember of Descartes, He deemd that mind and matter were seperate.
quote:
Also, desires are all we are. One desire may win out over the other. When we are socialized we are taught that good feelings come with doing good. Of course, we can substitute any action as a good action so long as it generates reward emotionally (which is chemically). Therefore we may decide to neglect one desire of ours in order to generate the emotional reward that we were conditioned to recieve by another. Of course, genetics are in place to pre-determine these rewards also. Sex for example is rewarding. Some creature will have sex in the face of immediate danger, or even have sex until they die. Others are more reserved. It is evolutionarily stable to for-go sex in order to survive and have more sex, so this is not surprising. Never the less a reward (emotional, chemical) must be recieved or this activity will be neglected in exchange for the other. Which is why you probably don't spend all day having sex or have sex in broad daylight etc.
Again, I am not saying that consciousness does not exist. I am saying that bottom up decision making fits the data, top down decisions do not.
I am unclear on what you mean by "fits the data." A theory that fits data dosen' seem that impressive to me. I want data that supports a theory. I want data on "normal-brained" human beings, not on animals.
I am not saying that there is no preprogramming by nature, and that that programming does not support/incite reaction. I am saying that the will on how to act is what makes us human.
Peace
Joe
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 12:11:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
You are using induction to make the above conclusion. However, induction can not be applied to such a situation and still be logically valid.
For example, I measure the malleability of a piece of metal X, and find that it becomes more malleable when I heat it up. I do the same thing for a piece of metal Y, and I find the same results. Can I now conclude that all metals become more malleable when heated? I do so for a 3rd piece. And then a 4th. Then a 5th. Can I now conclude this? How about a 6th, 7th, and 8th? How many will it take. This is not to mention that we have no idea if any other factors will be involved. How is it that I can make the conclusion that all metals become more malleable when heated?
Actually, your analogy does not match. Because we know that the definition of metal means that it is malleable, and the more heated the more liquid it becomes, again by the definition, the more fluid it becomes (meaning malleable). Also, If I tested every metal and they follow those characteristics, then I can safely work off the conclusion that the next metal, by definition, will have these characteristics. If they don't (see because I should test the new metal if I find it) then I probably will classify it as something other than a metal. What I should not do is expect to find such a metal, but also not close myself to that possibility. The reason is that it does not serve us to consider the untested possibilities (unless we can test them), and it does serve us to utilize the observations we have already made to form our conclusions. When more data is gathered we must then incorporate it into the conclusions, but not before. We cannot say well it could be "a" and not what we observed in all other cases, which is "b", without testing to show that it is "a".
quote:
The answer is, in short, indeterminable. Certainly with more and more testing, you become more and more sure of that the claim is true. But how sure?
Closer and closer to 100% without ever being able to reach it. Are you saying that since we can never prove anything with 100% certainty we cannot form conclusions or postulates based on what we do know and the suggestions made by the data? If this were true, there would be no science.
quote:
Instead, we go more into detail behind the reason why metal becomes more malleable when heated. We understand how atoms work and how atoms in metals work. We understand how atoms react when heated. Because of all this, we are then able to make the conclusion that metal expands when heated, not because of any number of trials, but because we now know the reason it does.
Apply this to your example of the earth. We see all of the planets in our solar system spinning. Does this mean all planets in the universe spin? Are 9 (8) trials enough to make this conclusion? It is a pretty big conclusion after all. Again, we find it is not the number of trails that leads us to this conclusion, but rather a deeper understanding of what we study. We understand how solids work, how momentum is related to velocity and mass, and how it takes force to do work. We develop theories on planets and solar evolution.
Again none of this fits. A better analogy would be. Imagine all of the data we ever gathered about how planets formed stated that they would be spinning when they formed. Does this mean that all planets we ever find will spin? No. Does the possibility that they could form without spinning, although we have never observed it and our math does not predict it mean, that our planetary formation theory was wrong and therefore useless? No again. The only theory we can postulate is the one that fits the data. I am doing the same. I am talking about the way the brain works. All of the data that tells us how the brain works, gives me the conclusions I have reached. When more, conflicting, data is gathered I will then and only then alter my conclusions, but until then I will simply work with the data. This is how science works. Is the force of gravity known to exist with 100% certainty? Can you prove that one trial out of a million trillion times you will jump right off the earth? No. Does it mean that its possible? Yes, actually. But should we ever consider that as a possibility until we have data to support it. No. This is our whole skeptics creed for crying out loud. Never assume anything is possible without data to support it, while never assuming anything is impossible, no matter how much data you gather. Instead, only draw conclusions and form theories based on the data we have gathered and never stop seeking more data to get a more and more perfect picture of what is happening, even though we can never know for sure any of our conclusions are right. Even your own existence cannot be proven with 100% accuracy, and not even to yourself.
quote:
I have shown how your example of the earth spinning differs in your analogy. The reason we can conclude that the earth will keep spinning is because we know the reason as to why it spins in the first place. But do we know the reason as to why the universe is the way it is? Do we understand why or even how the universe is governed? Certainly not scientifically.
Not true. Why does the earth spin? Please, tell me. No matter what you say I can counter it with "But it could stop spinning because of an unknown force we have yet to discover." You can never disprove this force. I am using what we know about how the brain works, and even chemically not simply in reference to the brain modal models.
Also, we "know", in the same way as we know anything else, that the universe has laws. Even if we do not know the laws, we know they are there because without them, nothing would be repeatable. Laws govern repeatablility. I could be wrong but no data said that I am. Please give me some data and evidence rather than a semantecal argument over whether I can know anything for sure. No one can. But this means nothing.
quote:
And please, don't insult me by posting the definition of an assumption. I really shouldn't even have to ask that.
I was not trying to be insulting. I expect you to post the definition any word that you use that can be ambiguous. Since, what you called an assumption is not based on its defition. The definition was the argument I used to prove it. You must prove everything you say with data. Nothing can ever be taken for granted. If I had just said. "It is not an assumption." Then you could say it is and we could go back an forth forever like toddlers. If anything I was acknowledging that we are at the same level of rational thought. I would have seen it as a compliment, but I apologize for the misunderstanding.
quote:
But you are applying something you do know to something you don't. We do know that radioactivity is caused by a molecular event. Because other things on the molecular level are not random, does this mean this event is not random as well? You make no case as to why past reasoning should apply. It doesn't just apply by default.
I am not saying that it must not be random because I know everything. I am saying that given our current data, our only conclusion can be that the other events are not random.
It is not possible for something to happen the same way twice under a set of restrictions and be "free", That statement would be self defeating because the restrictions are exactly that, restrictions.
Edited to fix quotes |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 12/10/2006 15:33:33 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 14:13:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
I cannot remember the last time I burst out laughing when I didn't choose to do so. The discipline came from inappropriate laughter, and the desire never, ever to do that again. I can have rather a flat afect(is that the word?).
Again, I wish I could develop the discipline over crying. I am such a sap sometimes......
Are you saying you are not ticklish? Also, being able to stop yourself from laughing is not the question. It is whether you can stop yourself from finding humor in funny things. Whether you can stop yourself from reacting emotionally to a stimulus by choice, or whether the emotions are caused by chemical reaction that are incited by stimuli. The latter is what the data shows.
The crying is a perfect example. You cry not because you choose it, but because the chemical reactions force you to.
quote:
Unless you use your will to change your reactions. People who get angry and assault other people had the choice on whether to assault them or not.
Is this really that complicated of a point to get across to you? Your reactions are emmergent properties of chemical reactions that follow the rules of chemistry. A stimulus causes a reaction, period. It may or may not be the usual reaction which depends on genetics and prior experience and programming. Even the programming is chemical. The same way that surface tension is caused by the interaction of hydrogen oxygen bonds and the surface tension does not effect the hydrogen oxygen bonds. It is one way. Simpler proceses cause emmergent properties. Those properties don't effect the simpler processes.
quote:
There are an infinite number of reactions I have to anger. I throw things (if noone s (hopefully) looking. I curse, too much sometimes, I may yell. I may fantasize about murder.
So... This is a red herring. You react the way you are programmed to react. You cannot take an infinite number of actions. You cannot take any action you are not programmed to consider. You will take the action you have been programmed to think is the best one.
quote:
The throwing things usually dosen'y bother me The cursing does, and at times can be really hard to control. Still working on the discipline. I have yet to murder anyone.
When I was younger, I had a real rage issue. I blame it on my Nordic blood. If I fought, I could be overly brutal, and thankfully never seriously hurt anyone, and never killed anyone. The disciplined approach was to not fight. I let many things pass that I normally would not have, and I still hackle over memories.
Even though every fiber of my being may scream out to act on a natural reaction, I control it through will.
If every fiber of your being screamed to do any action, there would nothing else to make an alternative decision. And yes you would follow those instructions blindly. What you are failing to consider is that you are not one person, but millions of neurons each secreting one chemical or another, if they contact the right neurons and get the majority then that "decision" wins, period. You are your neurons and nothing else. You are a product of chemical reactions and nothing else. You are a victim of chemical reactions, period. Becuse "you" are these reactions. Without them there is no you. Your brain can't do anything it does not already have the compacity to do. This does not mean you cannot learn, but learning is when one chemical chain replaces and out weighs another alternative.
quote:
True, the reprogramming comes through the exercise of free-will.
Wrong. The programming itself has no freedom. If I were to duplicate you, or clone you. And put the clone through the exact same situation as you it would be an exact copy of you. The same as if I flipped a coin the exact same way, and got heads twice. How you react to stimulus is genetic. What stimuli you recieve alter your brain chemistry. Basically, if you experience a before b, you are programmed one way. If you experience b before a, perhaps you would be programmed another way, but even this order is determined by something that is ultimately following rules without any freedom, thus everything that happens, including your experiences that reprogram you, are not free.
Therefore, if how you react depends on how you were fist programmed. Then the new programs effect each consecutive reaction,
And the first programmer was your DNA, and your parents and all preceeding ancestors, work as you do
Then they did what they were programmed to do, and therefore produced another offsping that did what is was programmed to do.
This of course continues in reverse and follows, true to form, all the way back to "the beginning" when those particle did what the rules made them do, thus all is programmed if there are laws of nature, and there are (we determine this, at least, from the data).
quote:
From what I remember of Descartes, He deemd that mind and matter were seperate.
True. And I think he was wrong. This is how I read the data. Feel free to show me contradicting data.
quote:
I am unclear on what you mean by "fits the data." A theory that fits data dosen' seem that impressive to me. I want data that supports a theory. I want data on "normal-brained" human beings, not on animals.
First we are animals. Second we have such data as far as what "normal" means. Third we cannot experiment on humans, that is unethical.
I also don't care what impresses you. Your opinions are insignificant to me. What fits the data is the hypothesis that is consistently being backed up by experiment. This is the scientific method.
quote:
I am not saying that there is no preprogramming by nature, and that that programming does not support/incite reaction. I am saying that the will on how to act is what makes us human.
Peace
Joe
No. Humans are not special, we simply have higher functioning in our PFC that allows us to have reason. The "will" is just another part of the programming. We can only choose from the choices we know about and the consequences we expect of those choices. But even the choice is inevitable, because we have been programmed to weight one outcome as more favorable than the other, by genetics and experience (which how we react to such experience, is also a consequence of genetics). Which is the same as robot does. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 15:03:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Free will or not, I prefer rational thought to stupidity.
Me too. I actually can't relate to people who say things like, "Even if its not true it gives me hope." Or "I can't accept it no matter what the evidence shows, its just too depressing." and etc. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 11:02:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
I cannot remember the last time I burst out laughing when I didn't choose to do so. The discipline came from inappropriate laughter, and the desire never, ever to do that again. I can have rather a flat afect(is that the word?).
Again, I wish I could develop the discipline over crying. I am such a sap sometimes......
Are you saying you are not ticklish? Also, being able to stop yourself from laughing is not the question. It is whether you can stop yourself from finding humor in funny things. Whether you can stop yourself from reacting emotionally to a stimulus by choice, or whether the emotions are caused by chemical reaction that are incited by stimuli. The latter is what the data shows.
The crying is a perfect example. You cry not because you choose it, but because the chemical reactions force you to.
I am ticklish, but I can choose not to laugh. It is the exact point. While I cannot help how my body reacts in chemistry, I can change how I react to these stimuli. It is not the humor, it is the reaction to it. It is not the sadness, but the reaction to it. My freedon to choose, to exercise my will.
quote:
quote:
Unless you use your will to change your reactions. People who get angry and assault other people had the choice on whether to assault them or not.
Is this really that complicated of a point to get across to you? Your reactions are emmergent properties of chemical reactions that follow the rules of chemistry. A stimulus causes a reaction, period. It may or may not be the usual reaction which depends on genetics and prior experience and programming. Even the programming is chemical. The same way that surface tension is caused by the interaction of hydrogen oxygen bonds and the surface tension does not effect the hydrogen oxygen bonds. It is one way. Simpler proceses cause emmergent properties. Those properties don't effect the simpler processes.
I see your point about chemistry, biology, genetics, etc...... I realize we are a product of these things and our experiences. Is it too simple to understand that people can choose to change their physical and mental reactions in the face of this?
quote:
quote:
There are an infinite number of reactions I have to anger. I throw things (if noone s (hopefully) looking. I curse, too much sometimes, I may yell. I may fantasize about murder.
So... This is a red herring. You react the way you are programmed to react. You cannot take an infinite number of actions. You cannot take any action you are not programmed to consider. You will take the action you have been programmed to think is the best one.
No, I choose to act any number of ways. Throwing things feels good, if their is no chance of embarrassing myself. Cursing is a hard reaction to tame, but I can and will overcome it. Smashing things with a hammer helps. Tossing it in the fire pit and watching it burn would be cool if I had one. I could punch a wall, but that would be pretty stupid. I could also just quit the aggravating activity, get a cup of java, and watcha movie.
quote:
quote:
The throwing things usually dosen'y bother me The cursing does, and at times can be really hard to control. Still working on the discipline. I have yet to murder anyone.
When I was younger, I had a real rage issue. I blame it on my Nordic blood. If I fought, I could be overly brutal, and thankfully never seriously hurt anyone, and never killed anyone. The disciplined approach was to not fight. I let many things pass that I normally would not have, and I still hackle over memories.
Even though every fiber of my being may scream out to act on a natural reaction, I control it through will.
If every fiber of your being screamed to do any action, there would nothing else to make an alternative decision. And yes you would follow those instructions blindly. What you are failing to consider is that you are not one person, but millions of neurons each secreting one chemical or another, if they contact the right neurons and get the majority then that "decision" wins, period. You are your neurons and nothing else. You are a product of chemical reactions and nothing else. You are a victim of chemical reactions, period. Becuse "you" are these reactions. Without them there is no you. Your brain can't do anything it does not already have the compacity to do. This does not mean you cannot learn, but learning is when one chemical chain replaces and out weighs another alternative.
And those connection do not die, as you have asserted. SO 100 difirent ways of doing things, 20 of which come to mind pretty darn quickly. I choose which is the best or worse way, or the funnest, or whatever.
quote:
quote:
True, the reprogramming comes through the exercise of free-will.
Wrong. The programming itself has no freedom. If I were to duplicate you, or clone you. And put the clone through the exact same situation as you it would be an exact copy of you. The same as if I flipped a coin the exact same way, and got heads twice. How you react to stimulus is genetic. What stimuli you recieve alter your brain chemistry. Basically, if you experience a before b, you are programmed one way. If you experience b before a, perhaps you would be programmed another way, but even this order is determined by something that is ultimately following rules without any freedom, thus everything that happens, including your experiences that reprogram you, are not free.
Therefore, if how you react depends on how you were fist programmed. Then the new programs effect each consecutive reaction,
And the first programmer was your DNA, and your parents and all preceeding ancestors, work as you do
Then they did what they were programmed to do, and therefore produced another offsping that did what is was programmed to do.
This of course continues in reverse and follows, true to form, all the way back to "the beginning" when those particle did what the rules made them do, thus all is programmed if there are laws of nature, and there are (we determine this, at least, from the data).
I can choose how that re-programming affects my actions. When I do something, I can choose whether to meditate on it, or just let it go.
No matter what is going on in my life, I have freedom of my will. I choose what action to take. All the other things can help me make choices, but I can choose how to react to them.
quote:
quote:
From what I remember of Descartes, He deemd that mind and matter were seperate.
True. And I think he was wrong. This is how I read the data. Feel free to show me contradicting data.
WHy did you bring him up?
quote:
quote:
I am unclear on what you mean by "fits the data." A theory that fits data dosen' seem that impressive to me. I want data that supports a theory. I want data on "normal-brained" human beings, not on animals.
First we are animals. Second we have such data as far as what "normal" means. Third we cannot experiment on humans, that is unethical.
I also don't care what impresses you. Your opinions are insignificant to me. What fits the data is the hypothesis that is consistently being backed up by experiment. This is the scientific method.
Seems like a wide net. It affects mice and humans with brain disabilities, so it must apply to everyone.
That is the problem with science, and one of the reasons there are so many people that do not look to science for answers. It seems backwards to me to collect data from a non-optimal group and from animals, then form a hypothesis, then call it fact without expermintation on an optimal group. For "normal", I would accept someone who has a brain that is unaffected by injury or illness, with an average IQ, and no mental disorders.
quote:
quote:
I am not saying that there is no preprogramming by nature, and that that programming does not support/incite reaction. I am saying that the will on how to act is what makes us human.
Peace
Joe
No. Humans are not special, we simply have higher functioning in our PFC that allows us to have reason. The "will" is just another part of the programming. We can only choose from the choices we know about and the consequences we expect of those choices. But even the choice is inevitable, because we have been programmed to weight one outcome as more favorable than the other, by genetics and experience (which how we react to such experience, is also a consequence of genetics). Which is the same as robot does.
I really wish you would explain to me what you think a human is. What makes it unethical to experiment on humans that are animals nad nothing special?
I CHOOSE. I can only choose from options I know about, and I can choose whatever action I desire, whether or not it s more favorable or not. The choice on how to react is mine. My will overrides my programming. I can choose between eating a piece of chocolate, or burning myself with a lighter.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 13:49:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
I am ticklish, but I can choose not to laugh. It is the exact point. While I cannot help how my body reacts in chemistry, I can change how I react to these stimuli. It is not the humor, it is the reaction to it. It is not the sadness, but the reaction to it. My freedon to choose, to exercise my will.
Squirming is reaction. Going to check the mail is a reaction. There is no difference between the two. That was my point. When you "decide" to check your mail, it is because your brain decided to make you do it. Try to see the big picture here. The emmergent property of conscious decision cannot effect the chemical reaction that brought about the emmergent property to begin with. This is my whole argument.
quote:
I see your point about chemistry, biology, genetics, etc...... I realize we are a product of these things and our experiences. Is it too simple to understand that people can choose to change their physical and mental reactions in the face of this?
Please define choice. What does it mean to choose something by your defition. By my definition it means that your brain had a chemical reaction that forced the body to comply, dispite the presence and onoings of another chemical reaction that was trying to cause another reaction. The one who won the "fight" was the most reinforced behavior (or strongest chemical reaction).
My point is that there is nothing besides the brain and the brain is a purely chemical computer. Please, show me how I am wrong in that conclusion.
quote:
No, I choose to act any number of ways. Throwing things feels good, if their is no chance of embarrassing myself. Cursing is a hard reaction to tame, but I can and will overcome it. Smashing things with a hammer helps. Tossing it in the fire pit and watching it burn would be cool if I had one. I could punch a wall, but that would be pretty stupid. I could also just quit the aggravating activity, get a cup of java, and watcha movie.
Again. What is a choice, if not a competing chemical reaction?
quote:
And those connection do not die, as you have asserted. SO 100 difirent ways of doing things, 20 of which come to mind pretty darn quickly. I choose which is the best or worse way, or the funnest, or whatever.
Again. What is a choice? I contend that it is a chemical reaction that is best reinforced.
quote:
I can choose how that re-programming affects my actions. When I do something, I can choose whether to meditate on it, or just let it go.
No matter what is going on in my life, I have freedom of my will. I choose what action to take. All the other things can help me make choices, but I can choose how to react to them.
Again. What is choice? Meditating on something reinforces that behavior by strengthing those chemical chains, but even the choice of meiditation must have first been reinforced. Initially the strength was genetic, then this positive reinforment behavior propulgated these simlar and more similar chains that may even override the intial genetic chain (one genetic predisposition overrides another).
quote:
quote:
quote:
From what I remember of Descartes, He deemd that mind and matter were seperate.
True. And I think he was wrong. This is how I read the data. Feel free to show me contradicting data.
WHy did you bring him up?
I didn't.
quote:
Seems like a wide net. It affects mice and humans with brain disabilities, so it must apply to everyone.
Not really. We do animal testing because of how similar we work. Not necessarily so, but probably. You seem to be claiming that if I smash a watch and look at its pieces I can't tell anything about how a working watch works. OR if a cog is missing and the second hand doesn't move, I cannot suppose from that data that particular cog must have moved the second hand in a working watch. Watches are similar and brains are similar.
quote:
That is the problem with science, and one of the reasons there are so many people that do not look to science for answers. It seems backwards to me to collect data from a non-optimal group and from animals, then form a hypothesis, then call it fact without expermintation on an optimal group. For "normal", I would accept someone who has a brain that is unaffected by injury or illness, with an average IQ, and no mental disorders.
First, look at my watch example. Second, science is the best method man has ever discovered. If you have a better way please tell us, and collect the millions (but do share). There is not really anything that can be called normal. We can open a watch up and look at it but not a brain. We do test alot of our data on "normal" people, but there are limits to this. We cannot purposefully damage a healthy individual. Or go very deep for fear of killing or permanently injuring the "normal" guy! I have not cited any data that is not already peer reviewed and verified in the medical community.
quote:
I really wish you would explain to me what you think a human is. What makes it unethical to experiment on humans that are animals nad nothing special?
Humans are: Animalian Chordates of the subphila Vertebrata, classed as Mammalia - subclass Theria (infraclass Eutheria). Order is Primates. Family is Hominidae. Genus and species Homo sapiens.
Ethics is a non scientific area however. The short and best data supported reason is I am a human and I would not like to be tested on therefore, I think it is wrong to test others. That is about it.
quote:
I CHOOSE. I can only choose from options I know about, and I can choose whatever action I desire, whether or not it s more favorable or not. The choice on how to react is mine. My will overrides my programming. I can choose between eating a piece of chocolate, or burning myself with a lighter.
Peace
Joe
Choice is chemical.
Will is programmed with positive reinforcement.
The choice between the two options is chemical and emotional. Chocolate has chemicals that induce the desire for chocolate and when you eat it you recieve the endorphines and want more. You will not eat yourself to death because another chemical chain will activate when you are "full" and make you stop. Burning yourself usually hurts and has an opposite effect, however, it can become cross wired and you may have a desire to burn yourself. Some people are tickled by pain for example. There are working explainations for this the best source on it easily off hand is probably Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind by Ramachandran. I also recommend The Emmerging Mind, Descartes' Error (which is not about Descartes, it is titled that way because Descartes was wrong perhaps that clears up the confusion. It is about how brain damage can generate strange properies in a person, and illustrate how consciousness is purely a brain phenomena) and Duane E. Haines texts and supplements. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 12/11/2006 13:51:16 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 12:56:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Not really. We do animal testing because of how similar we work. Not necessarily so, but probably.
???? Again, it affects mice and humans with brain disabilities, so it must affect us all.
quote:
quote:
That is the problem with science, and one of the reasons there are so many people that do not look to science for answers. It seems backwards to me to collect data from a non-optimal group and from animals, then form a hypothesis, then call it fact without expermintation on an optimal group. For "normal", I would accept someone who has a brain that is unaffected by injury or illness, with an average IQ, and no mental disorders.
First, look at my watch example. Second, science is the best method man has ever discovered. If you have a better way please tell us, and collect the millions (but do share). There is not really anything that can be called normal. We can open a watch up and look at it but not a brain. We do test alot of our data on "normal" people, but there are limits to this. We cannot purposefully damage a healthy individual. Or go very deep for fear of killing or permanently injuring the "normal" guy! I have not cited any data that is not already peer reviewed and verified in the medical community.
I defined "normal" for the purpose of the experimentation.
quote:
quote:
I really wish you would explain to me what you think a human is. What makes it unethical to experiment on humans that are animals nad nothing special?
Humans are: Animalian Chordates of the subphila Vertebrata, classed as Mammalia - subclass Theria (infraclass Eutheria). Order is Primates. Family is Hominidae. Genus and species Homo sapiens.
Ethics is a non scientific area however. The short and best data supported reason is I am a human and I would not like to be tested on therefore, I think it is wrong to test others. That is about it.
But there is no such thing as ethics, it is all chemical reactions, by your own defintion, it does not matter what you think you want, because you do not really think you want it. Your brain made the decision before you decided to think about it.
quote:
quote:
I CHOOSE. I can only choose from options I know about, and I can choose whatever action I desire, whether or not it s more favorable or not. The choice on how to react is mine. My will overrides my programming. I can choose between eating a piece of chocolate, or burning myself with a lighter.
Peace
Joe
Choice is chemical.
Will is programmed with positive reinforcement.
The choice between the two options is chemical and emotional. Chocolate has chemicals that induce the desire for chocolate and when you eat it you recieve the endorphines and want more. You will not eat yourself to death because another chemical chain will activate when you are "full" and make you stop. Burning yourself usually hurts and has an opposite effect, however, it can become cross wired and you may have a desire to burn yourself. Some people are tickled by pain for example. There are working explainations for this the best source on it easily off hand is probably Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind by Ramachandran. I also recommend The Emmerging Mind, Descartes' Error (which is not about Descartes, it is titled that way because Descartes was wrong perhaps that clears up the confusion. It is about how brain damage can generate strange properies in a person, and illustrate how consciousness is purely a brain phenomena) and Duane E. Haines texts and supplements.
Emotion is pure chemistry, the reaction to it is based on the strength of my will, my reason, and my whim.
Descartes..... Cleared up.... :)
I understand about the various ways the brain and the nerves work, crossed-wires, wtc. Whehter it be pain in legs that were long ago taken off, or atypical response to stimulis. I understand that the brain is a complex chemical computer that acts and reacts to stimuli, experience, etc.......
However, these instructions and programming can be overridden by the exercise of will. I would have to see a ton of proof, not hypothetics, to make me feel otherwise.
Peace
Joe
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 13:21:35 [Permalink]
|
Original Intent said:
quote:
these instructions and programming can be overridden by the exercise of will.
So where does "will" come from? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 13:28:38 [Permalink]
|
| I am soooo glad I'm not in on this year's free-will-versus-determinism thread. Last year I was the sole defender of "free will." I won zero converts, but I wasn't surprised at my failure to convince. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 15:19:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Original Intent said:
quote:
these instructions and programming can be overridden by the exercise of will.
So where does "will" come from?
Will is part of you. It just is. Sorta like the universe if you don't believe in the big-bang or the particles of nothingness that caused it. It is one of the biggest things that make us humans, and not just animals. I don't know how to explain it any better then that.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I am soooo glad I'm not in on this year's free-will-versus-determinism thread. Last year I was the sole defender of "free will." I won zero converts, but I wasn't surprised at my failure to convince.
Were you playing Devil's Advocate? Can you post a link to the discussion?
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 15:31:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Will is part of you. It just is. Sorta like the universe if you don't believe in the big-bang or the particles of nothingness that caused it. It is one of the biggest things that make us humans, and not just animals. I don't know how to explain it any better then that.
Is this a metaphysical/supernatural thing? Or maybe an emergent property of the complex chemical reactions? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 15:47:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Will is part of you. It just is. Sorta like the universe if you don't believe in the big-bang or the particles of nothingness that caused it. It is one of the biggest things that make us humans, and not just animals. I don't know how to explain it any better then that.
pleco seemed to be asking how "will" differs from any other process in the brain.quote:
Were you playing Devil's Advocate?
Not really, but the whole thing got started from a different spot than this current discussion.quote:
Can you post a link to the discussion?
It was only seven pages. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2006 : 06:45:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Will is part of you. It just is. Sorta like the universe if you don't believe in the big-bang or the particles of nothingness that caused it. It is one of the biggest things that make us humans, and not just animals. I don't know how to explain it any better then that.
Is this a metaphysical/supernatural thing? Or maybe an emergent property of the complex chemical reactions?
Irregardless of the origins, it is something that can be controlled. While you cannot control your bodily reaction to the chemicals (increased ADH flow, dopamanergic release, adreniline, etc.....) you can control your outward reaction to it.
How can anyone claim character, ethics or morality if it is mearly chemical reactions? How can it be unethical to do anything to anyone when it is not consciousness? If we are merely organisms of chemical reactions, then we must follow nature. But we don't follow nature.... We fight nature.
If we were to follow nature, wouldn't it be much better to kill every organism that has chemical reactions that are not within acceptable group practices. How could it be unethical to do so? If ethics are involved somehow, how could it be unethical not to? To follow nature, self-preservation is paramount. This means I should simply allow my chemicals to take their course and kill a lot of people who make my life more dificult.
All those questions are pretty moot anyway, because we do have freedom of choice in our actions. There are always a finite number of choices of reactions to a situation or chemical release. Each individual has a smaller set of these reactions to choose from based on their experience, heredity/genetcs, physical circumstances, the laws of nature, discipline, and their mental capacity. Barring overwhelming fright or pain (which is a point of discipline), the freedom of will allows them to choose what their outward reaction is.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
the definitive disproof of the free will argu
