I cannot comprehend the evolutionary value of us being "aware", as if we (sometimes) make choices. Humans would be humans today even if no awareness had ever existed. In the absence of some loose "free" will (in a purely naturalistic sense, i.e., the brain reprograms some of itself), the only thing that is needed is a functioning brain. There is no evolutionary advantage in having that brain generate an awareness, and that awareness feeling it is making choices. It only matters to MAKE choices.
One of my dogs was watching in a mirror the loitering and prowling of his mate. In other words, he was using a mirror to maintain an awareness of the other dogs movements in another room. We humans can give the word "aware" the definition of any animal having a vocabulary of over 500 distinct vocalizations. Thereby we, can make humans the only animals with so called awareness. The language we speak both affects and reflects our preconceived notions and foregone conclusions of reality. Awareness?
I don't belong to the category of people who think humans are special. There are only degrees of qualities. What can be called "free" will, if it exists, whatever it is, would belong to ants as well as humans (albeit to different degrees).
It is not a matter of language that we believe we had made a choice. You don't like to call it awareness? Fine, it's state of knowledge, perception, state of mind. Regardless, it's USELESS, so we shouldn't have it. Evolution would be violated.
Furthermore, I was referring to awareness in another sense. I'll call it knowledge. Are you willing to accept that we know that the universe and matter exist? If so, I maintain that knowledge of the existence of the universe is unjustified, because such knowledge bears no evolutionary gain. Unless you are willing to state that the universe might not exist. If you think it exists, you must explain why there's knowledge of its existence, if such knowledge does not differ from absence thereof.
I was merely clarifying what you had said for others. However, this time I am directly commenting on a particular misconception you have: Just because humans imagine and then sometimes symbolize a fanciful sequence of vocalizations doesn't mean the vocalizations offer evolutionary advantage. The science of memes was created to understand why this is true. Does every song imagined and/or sang by the Mockingbird give it evolutionary advantage? See: en.wikipedia . org/wiki/Meme
"Does every song imagined and/or sang by the Mockingbird give it evolutionary advantage?"
No, but some songs do. In other words, also "vestigial" (in a wide sense) features can be understood in terms of purposeful units. Do we have a reference one?
I was NOT referring to fanciful language. I was referring to the fact that the universe knows that it exists (I claim, many species know, but unfortunately I'm sure only about one). Computers don't need to "know" about the universe to function. WHY?
Agreed, some songs give the singer an evolutionary advantage via sexual selection, or via bluffing/scaring-away the opponent in a dispute. But I was wondering how the universe could know it exists, unless you are talking about biological organisms sensing their surroundings yet being part of the universe? Oh, and at this point, computers are merely human tools. But the day shall come when computers evolve into creatures that sense their surroundings, such as in "The Terminator," or "I, Robot."
Yes I am talking about biological organisms sensing their surroundings yet being part of the universe. Say, I accept your take, the dog and us have no awareness of our surrounding, nor anywhere there is in the universe. How do you explain the fact that we wouldn't deny that a universe exists? Shouldn't a universe without awareness remain oblivious?
Yes, we'll build robots that might manipulate or disobey to us. But not if we give up understanding what makes the brain special, what makes us lie
Some day we may send robots to explore places beyond the limited life-span and physical capabilities of humans. We could not expect a robot to survive if it did not have a survival mechanism similar to our own. Bluffing, which has evolved in many species of animals, is nothing more than lying. The amount of lying an animal does is determined by the amount of lying he/it is necessarily capable of doing. Mark Twain wrote an ironic essay for humans on the Art of Lying.
(cont) sense organs--i.e. computers, telescopes, radar, et cetera--have detected and analyzed specific phenomena. For the purpose of communication, names have been given to the phenomena such as space, galaxies, stars, planets, comets, asteroids, and dust. A name has also been given to all known phenomena collectively, which is, of course, the universe. Now, to say all known phenomena doesn't exist is to say the movie The Matrix is true, which I think is a bunch of bologna. Nevertheless, (cont2)
(cont2) we have to live our life as our sense organs and brain perceive it. We have to pretend the car speeding toward us is real, regardless of whether we are living in a Matrix or not. I have no idea whether the universe is only one of many universes, or only a product of our imagination. People's perception of the universe was different 2000 years ago than it is today. And in 2000 years people will probably visualize something entirely different when the word universe is spoken than we now do
Well said. The notion of non-causally dependent free will doesn't make sense, anyway. I agree with your deterministic viewpoint, and I've been supporting that view for quite a while, but I think there may be a problem with it that requires an answer. It involves qualia and consciousness- I'll post a vid fairly soon- once I can figure out a way to verbalize the concept.
When you think about it, the human animal probably developed the capacity for fanciful imagery before language evolved. (Neanderthals didn't have the capacity of language as Homosapiens) I personally feel language evolved as a direct consequence of the human ability to harmonize vocally. After all, even newborns seem to "feel" certain aspects of musical art. Maybe a good artist is one who is able to tap into his innate imagination and musical abilities. Does a great artist learn art from a book?
Language is not inate. Language has to be taught. And if the teacher was to speak through a speech synthesizer, so that emotional tonal pitch would be erased, and wear a mask, so that emotional gestures and grimaces couldn't be seen, then language wouldn't effect the student the way the average person is effected by language.
Teaching language is teaching a child to feel certain emotions and imagine certain things when certain utterances are heard.
Excellent point! I think this is what Chomsky missed when he critiqued behavioural accounts. Even if the capicity is innate (genetic) it is the environmental interaction that influences its development. I like your point about removing emotional tone impacting the meaning. Have you read any of the literature on Relational Frame Theory, regarding behavioural accounts of language and cognition. I suspect you have, but if not, it is well worth a read.
I've read some Chomsky and some Skinner and I felt that too much was being assumed in regard to language acquisition. I haven't read anything on Relational Frame Theory. I'll have to check it out. Thanks.
I know what you mean. Skinner's verbal behaviour was merely a set of hypothesis when published (something Chomsksy didnt seem to get - imho). However, RFT has approx 100+ empirical lab papers. There is a good intro paper by a guy called J.T Blackledge. I think it builds on the limitations of Skinner's inital account and accounts for Chomskys criticisms. there is a site for assicaition for contextual behavioural science. There is an online tutorial. I'd be interested to know what you think
Your problem here, is assuming that an intangible quality can be directly forced by the physical world. That is like saying that the only reason that anyone loves anyone, is because of electromagnetism.
I can take my two Chihuahuas on a picnic to the park. I spread the mat and set out the food. What do they do? Start off with the water? Chase the ducks and birds that have come to annoy us? Eat some chicken? Kill the lady picnicking near us? They have a choice in the matter. And that choice is no more or less the result of causal forces than the choice you would make.
The behavior of my Chihuahuas, including their choice behavior, is determined by a genetic endowment traceable to the (cont.1)
(cont1)evolutionary history of the species and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual each has been exposed. This law applies to every animal, including humans.
Of course, Rosy and Taz don't make the same choices, because of both the difference in their genes and their personal experiences. Today they were standing near me. I called them and Taz came running, but Rosy stuck her nose up and walked over and got in her bed. She is a fat bitch, a pregnant bitch in fact.(*2)
(*2) And she is spoiled rotten. Taz and Rosy have different personalities merely because the difference in their personal experiences caused their personalities to develop differently. Again, the same applies to the development of individual human personalities.
The problem here is you assume that there is some intangible quality within the brain that is independent of the physical world. That is like saying hormones, endorphins, previous optical and auditory input, and unconscious (cont.3)
(cont.3) neurological processes cannot cause an individual to experience the phenomena of love. To you, love can only occur by the magic of some intangible quality, which you call free will. How many animals have free will? How many animals are capable of feeling love?
Free will is omnipotence of the will, which is plumb ludicrous. Free will doesn't exist in reality. Free will is an illusion. Wise up. Give a little more thought to Spinoza's, Schopenhauer's and Einstein's postulation. (end)
Hi. I have a question. To what extent would you say that your interaction with or response to rhetoricalmonkey is truely free as opposed to being under the control of the youtube enviornment, your own learning history and you previous contact with similar subject matter?
Let me ask you a simple question. You go to a restaurant and look over the menu. Which could you do?
. Order the Steak
. Order the Salmon
. Kill your date with the dinner roll
. Start off with water.
If you can pick at least two as possibilities of what you would do, then you have free will. There is nothing physically binding you from making any other decision. You may like steak more than fish, but physically you could order the fish anyway. Free will is different from omnipotence.
...his choices would be different than the choices of his brothers and sisters in America. And any variation of decision behavior we see in any given society is a consequence of the difference in the personal experiences of the individual. Free will is nothing more than a bunch of egotistical and/or prejudical rhetoric spouted because the average human is unaware of the causal forces that have formed his (or her) existing mind-set. Oh, and you've obviously never had a dominate male Chihuahua.
Heh. Heres the thing. Of course enviroment and government influence decisions. But you have the capacity to break those laws. The fact that we have criminals is proof of free will. So is the fact that so many people who are obese lose weight out of a concious effort to do so. Just like teens who take up smoking despite the warnings, and teens who don't because the warnings.
The key word in decision is decide, which means to weigh matters to come up with a choice.
A homosexual's sexual attraction to a person of the same sex isn't something freely choosen. You cannot choose to feel one way or another about someone as a result of free will. Your feelings are a result of such factors as conscious memory, personal experiences that you've forgotten (consciously), and a host of other factors. The so called weight value you give in choice is similarly determined. Free will is an excuse you use to explain things you don't understand and forces you are unaware of.
And when a state of your brain, which you call curiosity, stimulates you into making what you assume is an arbitrary choice, the choice is still determinded by the mind-set you possess, which is something you developed as a consequence or your genetic endowment and the environmental circumstances to which you've been exposed as an individual. A Hindu doesn't eat meat because of the feelings he developed as a consequence of his personal experiences. Free will is a madeup excuse based on naïveté.
One - While you can't choose your sexual orientation, you most certainly can condition it. People aren't born with fetishes, they are created by poignant moments. And with the use of artificial hormones, you can alter how you percieve a given gender, even sexually.
Another thing you are intentionally dancing around, is that when you say that a Hindu doesn't eat meat because he doesn't have free will, means that the man is incapable of choosing to eat meat.
Believing that people do not have free will, is simply an attempt to justify living without claiming responsibility for your actions. But as all choices and non-choices carry with them consequenses that affect the world around us is proof of free will.
The human emotional world is very complex; but we respond to simple cues, things we don't notice or we don't pay attention to, such as forgotten memories or how someone moves. Scientist are attempting to build synthetic brains
The difference between man and machine is shrinking. Scientists have developed a robot that learns to walk like a toddler, improving with experience. Robots are learning to think and make choices
Lack of free will would mean that making any other choice would be impossible. So let me get this straight... you can make any choice you want, based on anything or nothing, and that somehow isn't free will?
So what if robots are becoming closer to humans? Animals can make decisions. The only difference in that respect is the level of intelligence separating the recognition of what options a choice really has.
The particular neurological connections and synaptic states of the brain at the exact moment a choice is made would mean that the choice couldn't have been otherwise. But the mind is more like the effect of a network than a single "me" within the brain. Thus, any moment before the choice is made, or any moment afterwards, causal forces could have resulted in a different choice. Free will doesn't exist and thus has nothing to do with choice behavior of whales, chimpanzees, humans, or AI machines.
Spinoza put it this way "Men think themselves free because they are conscious of their volitions and desires, but are ignorant of the causes by which they are led to wish and desire." And Schopenhauer put it this way "A man can surely do what he [wants] to do, but cannot determine what he [wants]." Einstein agreed stating "I don't believe in the freedom of the will."
Options in choice are determined by one's awareness and ability to process information, which have nothing to do with free will
In the Mid-East, when a Muslim man finds his sister downtown without a chaperone, he is obliged to kill her. The choice he makes in the matter has to do with the personal experiences he had previously been exposed to. An American wouldn't react like the Mid-Easterner simply because he hadn't been exposed to the same circumstances. But if an American baby were taken to the Mid-East immediately after birth and exposed to the same circumstances as the typical Mid-Easterner, then as an adult (cont)
Not exactly. the traffic light didn't make a choice, it simply performed an action, based on distance setpoints. Calling it a choice implies that it could CHOOSE to not change after setpoints have been reached. Which it can't. Can a traffic light refuse to change for a person because of teh person's race?
As humans, we can choose our enviroment. We can also choose our diet.
Choice implies conscious deliberation. Meaning it weighs consequences. Animals may not attack bigger animals
Another thing, is that advertising works like fishing bait. It creates a tempting lure that acts in an appealing way. But let me tell you something. Nobody just wakes up out of a trance to find that they spent their life's savings on Taco Bell, no matter how good that Chalupa looked on the commercial.
I like that analogy: fishing bait. In a world where free will exists, words like temptation and appeal wouldn't make any sense, because human choice behavior would be free from the laws of cause and effect. But humans can be influenced by advertising, since free will doesn't exist. And we do have people wake up wondering why they spent so much of their savings on a new car or television, et cetera. Plus, Americans are the fattest people in the world for a reason. Free will is extraneous.
I don't think so. Americans are fat due to lifestyle choices, and it simply happens to be the easiest choice.
But when I write a persuasive argument, it can be the most moving thing that you've ever heard. But no matter how moving the words were, I can't rob you of the ability to make a choice one way or the other.
I think you are mistaking free will with lack of consequence. Of course will is determined by what people want, but will is different in that people can and do ...
Choosing to live a lifestyle that promotes obesity is a choice. You can choose to monitor what you eat.
Temptation, cause and effect, in my opinion prove that there is free will. Temptation would be irrelevant if everything were predetermined, as people would simply end up with what they were destined to.
Free will would also be irrelevant without cause/ effect. Really, what is the point of being able to make a choice that affects nothing?
We have traffic lights with sensors that monitor the traffic flow at intersections. And the information is analyzed by computers in order for a computational choice to be made on keeping the traffic flowing as smoothly as possible. My Chihuahuas choose to go out of the doggy door when they need to potty. Hindus choose not to eat meat. The fact that a machine, or a dog, or a human made a choice does prove anything except that a choice was made. Fatness is a causal environment-genetic interaction.
top vid dude. 5 stars
AlmightScoop 3 years ago 2
I cannot comprehend the evolutionary value of us being "aware", as if we (sometimes) make choices. Humans would be humans today even if no awareness had ever existed. In the absence of some loose "free" will (in a purely naturalistic sense, i.e., the brain reprograms some of itself), the only thing that is needed is a functioning brain. There is no evolutionary advantage in having that brain generate an awareness, and that awareness feeling it is making choices. It only matters to MAKE choices.
schrodcat 4 years ago
One of my dogs was watching in a mirror the loitering and prowling of his mate. In other words, he was using a mirror to maintain an awareness of the other dogs movements in another room. We humans can give the word "aware" the definition of any animal having a vocabulary of over 500 distinct vocalizations. Thereby we, can make humans the only animals with so called awareness. The language we speak both affects and reflects our preconceived notions and foregone conclusions of reality. Awareness?
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
I don't belong to the category of people who think humans are special. There are only degrees of qualities. What can be called "free" will, if it exists, whatever it is, would belong to ants as well as humans (albeit to different degrees).
It is not a matter of language that we believe we had made a choice. You don't like to call it awareness? Fine, it's state of knowledge, perception, state of mind. Regardless, it's USELESS, so we shouldn't have it. Evolution would be violated.
schrodcat 4 years ago
Furthermore, I was referring to awareness in another sense. I'll call it knowledge. Are you willing to accept that we know that the universe and matter exist? If so, I maintain that knowledge of the existence of the universe is unjustified, because such knowledge bears no evolutionary gain. Unless you are willing to state that the universe might not exist. If you think it exists, you must explain why there's knowledge of its existence, if such knowledge does not differ from absence thereof.
schrodcat 4 years ago
I was merely clarifying what you had said for others. However, this time I am directly commenting on a particular misconception you have: Just because humans imagine and then sometimes symbolize a fanciful sequence of vocalizations doesn't mean the vocalizations offer evolutionary advantage. The science of memes was created to understand why this is true. Does every song imagined and/or sang by the Mockingbird give it evolutionary advantage? See: en.wikipedia . org/wiki/Meme
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
"Does every song imagined and/or sang by the Mockingbird give it evolutionary advantage?"
No, but some songs do. In other words, also "vestigial" (in a wide sense) features can be understood in terms of purposeful units. Do we have a reference one?
I was NOT referring to fanciful language. I was referring to the fact that the universe knows that it exists (I claim, many species know, but unfortunately I'm sure only about one). Computers don't need to "know" about the universe to function. WHY?
schrodcat 4 years ago
Agreed, some songs give the singer an evolutionary advantage via sexual selection, or via bluffing/scaring-away the opponent in a dispute. But I was wondering how the universe could know it exists, unless you are talking about biological organisms sensing their surroundings yet being part of the universe? Oh, and at this point, computers are merely human tools. But the day shall come when computers evolve into creatures that sense their surroundings, such as in "The Terminator," or "I, Robot."
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
Yes I am talking about biological organisms sensing their surroundings yet being part of the universe. Say, I accept your take, the dog and us have no awareness of our surrounding, nor anywhere there is in the universe. How do you explain the fact that we wouldn't deny that a universe exists? Shouldn't a universe without awareness remain oblivious?
Yes, we'll build robots that might manipulate or disobey to us. But not if we give up understanding what makes the brain special, what makes us lie
schrodcat 4 years ago
Some day we may send robots to explore places beyond the limited life-span and physical capabilities of humans. We could not expect a robot to survive if it did not have a survival mechanism similar to our own. Bluffing, which has evolved in many species of animals, is nothing more than lying. The amount of lying an animal does is determined by the amount of lying he/it is necessarily capable of doing. Mark Twain wrote an ironic essay for humans on the Art of Lying.
The extensions of our (cont)
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
(cont) sense organs--i.e. computers, telescopes, radar, et cetera--have detected and analyzed specific phenomena. For the purpose of communication, names have been given to the phenomena such as space, galaxies, stars, planets, comets, asteroids, and dust. A name has also been given to all known phenomena collectively, which is, of course, the universe. Now, to say all known phenomena doesn't exist is to say the movie The Matrix is true, which I think is a bunch of bologna. Nevertheless, (cont2)
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
(cont2) we have to live our life as our sense organs and brain perceive it. We have to pretend the car speeding toward us is real, regardless of whether we are living in a Matrix or not. I have no idea whether the universe is only one of many universes, or only a product of our imagination. People's perception of the universe was different 2000 years ago than it is today. And in 2000 years people will probably visualize something entirely different when the word universe is spoken than we now do
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
Well said. The notion of non-causally dependent free will doesn't make sense, anyway. I agree with your deterministic viewpoint, and I've been supporting that view for quite a while, but I think there may be a problem with it that requires an answer. It involves qualia and consciousness- I'll post a vid fairly soon- once I can figure out a way to verbalize the concept.
Adambiswanger1 4 years ago
As your animate has provided clarity to your words.
andreadawson08 4 years ago
Comment removed
andreadawson08 4 years ago
When you think about it, the human animal probably developed the capacity for fanciful imagery before language evolved. (Neanderthals didn't have the capacity of language as Homosapiens) I personally feel language evolved as a direct consequence of the human ability to harmonize vocally. After all, even newborns seem to "feel" certain aspects of musical art. Maybe a good artist is one who is able to tap into his innate imagination and musical abilities. Does a great artist learn art from a book?
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
Comment removed
andreadawson08 4 years ago
Agreed: a faulty tool of communication.
Language is not inate. Language has to be taught. And if the teacher was to speak through a speech synthesizer, so that emotional tonal pitch would be erased, and wear a mask, so that emotional gestures and grimaces couldn't be seen, then language wouldn't effect the student the way the average person is effected by language.
Teaching language is teaching a child to feel certain emotions and imagine certain things when certain utterances are heard.
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
Excellent point! I think this is what Chomsky missed when he critiqued behavioural accounts. Even if the capicity is innate (genetic) it is the environmental interaction that influences its development. I like your point about removing emotional tone impacting the meaning. Have you read any of the literature on Relational Frame Theory, regarding behavioural accounts of language and cognition. I suspect you have, but if not, it is well worth a read.
therealresistance 4 years ago
I've read some Chomsky and some Skinner and I felt that too much was being assumed in regard to language acquisition. I haven't read anything on Relational Frame Theory. I'll have to check it out. Thanks.
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
I know what you mean. Skinner's verbal behaviour was merely a set of hypothesis when published (something Chomsksy didnt seem to get - imho). However, RFT has approx 100+ empirical lab papers. There is a good intro paper by a guy called J.T Blackledge. I think it builds on the limitations of Skinner's inital account and accounts for Chomskys criticisms. there is a site for assicaition for contextual behavioural science. There is an online tutorial. I'd be interested to know what you think
therealresistance 4 years ago
Your problem here, is assuming that an intangible quality can be directly forced by the physical world. That is like saying that the only reason that anyone loves anyone, is because of electromagnetism.
melancholyid 4 years ago
I can take my two Chihuahuas on a picnic to the park. I spread the mat and set out the food. What do they do? Start off with the water? Chase the ducks and birds that have come to annoy us? Eat some chicken? Kill the lady picnicking near us? They have a choice in the matter. And that choice is no more or less the result of causal forces than the choice you would make.
The behavior of my Chihuahuas, including their choice behavior, is determined by a genetic endowment traceable to the (cont.1)
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
(cont1)evolutionary history of the species and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual each has been exposed. This law applies to every animal, including humans.
Of course, Rosy and Taz don't make the same choices, because of both the difference in their genes and their personal experiences. Today they were standing near me. I called them and Taz came running, but Rosy stuck her nose up and walked over and got in her bed. She is a fat bitch, a pregnant bitch in fact.(*2)
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
(*2) And she is spoiled rotten. Taz and Rosy have different personalities merely because the difference in their personal experiences caused their personalities to develop differently. Again, the same applies to the development of individual human personalities.
The problem here is you assume that there is some intangible quality within the brain that is independent of the physical world. That is like saying hormones, endorphins, previous optical and auditory input, and unconscious (cont.3)
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
(cont.3) neurological processes cannot cause an individual to experience the phenomena of love. To you, love can only occur by the magic of some intangible quality, which you call free will. How many animals have free will? How many animals are capable of feeling love?
Free will is omnipotence of the will, which is plumb ludicrous. Free will doesn't exist in reality. Free will is an illusion. Wise up. Give a little more thought to Spinoza's, Schopenhauer's and Einstein's postulation. (end)
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
Hi. I have a question. To what extent would you say that your interaction with or response to rhetoricalmonkey is truely free as opposed to being under the control of the youtube enviornment, your own learning history and you previous contact with similar subject matter?
therealresistance 4 years ago
oops this has gone in the wrong place. it was a question for melancholyd
therealresistance 4 years ago
Let me ask you a simple question. You go to a restaurant and look over the menu. Which could you do?
. Order the Steak
. Order the Salmon
. Kill your date with the dinner roll
. Start off with water.
If you can pick at least two as possibilities of what you would do, then you have free will. There is nothing physically binding you from making any other decision. You may like steak more than fish, but physically you could order the fish anyway. Free will is different from omnipotence.
melancholyid 4 years ago
...his choices would be different than the choices of his brothers and sisters in America. And any variation of decision behavior we see in any given society is a consequence of the difference in the personal experiences of the individual. Free will is nothing more than a bunch of egotistical and/or prejudical rhetoric spouted because the average human is unaware of the causal forces that have formed his (or her) existing mind-set. Oh, and you've obviously never had a dominate male Chihuahua.
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
Heh. Heres the thing. Of course enviroment and government influence decisions. But you have the capacity to break those laws. The fact that we have criminals is proof of free will. So is the fact that so many people who are obese lose weight out of a concious effort to do so. Just like teens who take up smoking despite the warnings, and teens who don't because the warnings.
The key word in decision is decide, which means to weigh matters to come up with a choice.
melancholyid 4 years ago
I mean seriously, are you trying to say that you have never made an arbitrarily odd choice based solely off of curiousity?
melancholyid 4 years ago
A homosexual's sexual attraction to a person of the same sex isn't something freely choosen. You cannot choose to feel one way or another about someone as a result of free will. Your feelings are a result of such factors as conscious memory, personal experiences that you've forgotten (consciously), and a host of other factors. The so called weight value you give in choice is similarly determined. Free will is an excuse you use to explain things you don't understand and forces you are unaware of.
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
And when a state of your brain, which you call curiosity, stimulates you into making what you assume is an arbitrary choice, the choice is still determinded by the mind-set you possess, which is something you developed as a consequence or your genetic endowment and the environmental circumstances to which you've been exposed as an individual. A Hindu doesn't eat meat because of the feelings he developed as a consequence of his personal experiences. Free will is a madeup excuse based on naïveté.
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
One - While you can't choose your sexual orientation, you most certainly can condition it. People aren't born with fetishes, they are created by poignant moments. And with the use of artificial hormones, you can alter how you percieve a given gender, even sexually.
melancholyid 4 years ago
Another thing you are intentionally dancing around, is that when you say that a Hindu doesn't eat meat because he doesn't have free will, means that the man is incapable of choosing to eat meat.
Believing that people do not have free will, is simply an attempt to justify living without claiming responsibility for your actions. But as all choices and non-choices carry with them consequenses that affect the world around us is proof of free will.
melancholyid 4 years ago
The human emotional world is very complex; but we respond to simple cues, things we don't notice or we don't pay attention to, such as forgotten memories or how someone moves. Scientist are attempting to build synthetic brains
The difference between man and machine is shrinking. Scientists have developed a robot that learns to walk like a toddler, improving with experience. Robots are learning to think and make choices
A future Terminator is possible
Free will is an extraneous illusion
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
Lack of free will would mean that making any other choice would be impossible. So let me get this straight... you can make any choice you want, based on anything or nothing, and that somehow isn't free will?
So what if robots are becoming closer to humans? Animals can make decisions. The only difference in that respect is the level of intelligence separating the recognition of what options a choice really has.
melancholyid 4 years ago
The particular neurological connections and synaptic states of the brain at the exact moment a choice is made would mean that the choice couldn't have been otherwise. But the mind is more like the effect of a network than a single "me" within the brain. Thus, any moment before the choice is made, or any moment afterwards, causal forces could have resulted in a different choice. Free will doesn't exist and thus has nothing to do with choice behavior of whales, chimpanzees, humans, or AI machines.
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
Spinoza put it this way "Men think themselves free because they are conscious of their volitions and desires, but are ignorant of the causes by which they are led to wish and desire." And Schopenhauer put it this way "A man can surely do what he [wants] to do, but cannot determine what he [wants]." Einstein agreed stating "I don't believe in the freedom of the will."
Options in choice are determined by one's awareness and ability to process information, which have nothing to do with free will
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
In the Mid-East, when a Muslim man finds his sister downtown without a chaperone, he is obliged to kill her. The choice he makes in the matter has to do with the personal experiences he had previously been exposed to. An American wouldn't react like the Mid-Easterner simply because he hadn't been exposed to the same circumstances. But if an American baby were taken to the Mid-East immediately after birth and exposed to the same circumstances as the typical Mid-Easterner, then as an adult (cont)
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
Not exactly. the traffic light didn't make a choice, it simply performed an action, based on distance setpoints. Calling it a choice implies that it could CHOOSE to not change after setpoints have been reached. Which it can't. Can a traffic light refuse to change for a person because of teh person's race?
As humans, we can choose our enviroment. We can also choose our diet.
Choice implies conscious deliberation. Meaning it weighs consequences. Animals may not attack bigger animals
melancholyid 4 years ago
Another thing, is that advertising works like fishing bait. It creates a tempting lure that acts in an appealing way. But let me tell you something. Nobody just wakes up out of a trance to find that they spent their life's savings on Taco Bell, no matter how good that Chalupa looked on the commercial.
melancholyid 4 years ago
I like that analogy: fishing bait. In a world where free will exists, words like temptation and appeal wouldn't make any sense, because human choice behavior would be free from the laws of cause and effect. But humans can be influenced by advertising, since free will doesn't exist. And we do have people wake up wondering why they spent so much of their savings on a new car or television, et cetera. Plus, Americans are the fattest people in the world for a reason. Free will is extraneous.
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
I don't think so. Americans are fat due to lifestyle choices, and it simply happens to be the easiest choice.
But when I write a persuasive argument, it can be the most moving thing that you've ever heard. But no matter how moving the words were, I can't rob you of the ability to make a choice one way or the other.
I think you are mistaking free will with lack of consequence. Of course will is determined by what people want, but will is different in that people can and do ...
melancholyid 4 years ago
Choosing to live a lifestyle that promotes obesity is a choice. You can choose to monitor what you eat.
Temptation, cause and effect, in my opinion prove that there is free will. Temptation would be irrelevant if everything were predetermined, as people would simply end up with what they were destined to.
Free will would also be irrelevant without cause/ effect. Really, what is the point of being able to make a choice that affects nothing?
melancholyid 4 years ago
We have traffic lights with sensors that monitor the traffic flow at intersections. And the information is analyzed by computers in order for a computational choice to be made on keeping the traffic flowing as smoothly as possible. My Chihuahuas choose to go out of the doggy door when they need to potty. Hindus choose not to eat meat. The fact that a machine, or a dog, or a human made a choice does prove anything except that a choice was made. Fatness is a causal environment-genetic interaction.
rhetoricalmonkey 4 years ago
you are spouting blandness, and whith a computer voice it doesnt help any
OrangeBananaPants 4 years ago
Fail. Epic, Epic Fail.
chubbywookie 4 years ago