The error made here is to neglect the fact that physics, which currently only allows determinism (or randomness), is not quite complete. Agreed that there is no ghost in the machine but the conscious part of the machine (the brain) is not deterministic: we do have free will, it is no illusion.
@slartibartfats, no, your error is making a sweeping generalization without proving your point. In fact, the definition of free will would need to be given before you can claim it exists. I have stated the definition a number of times herein; and I have given valid argument to show why such "free will" cannot exist. Besides, consciousness is the consequence of processes that you are not conscious of. That fact alone pops your imaginary bubble of free will.
@unseenstrings So does this theory reject any form of enviromental impact on the person? I'm not a science major but from what I've experienced I feel as if nurture and enviroment has more of an impact on a person, does this coincide with dawkins theory?
@pandasftuw if you're interested in Dawkins' perspective on whether or how much environment should be considered, then listen to some lectures by Dr. Robert Sapolsky, Professor of Neurological Sciences, SU, which can be found at YT, StanfordUniversity Channel. Or watch him speaking, starting at 9:14 in the video, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward | Official Release | 2011 (watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w). I would imagine Dawkins and Sapolsky see eye to eye in the regard to what causes the brain and thus the person
And allow me to add this fact: No gene created itself. It was created and evolved as the result of environmental factors. The process is called "natural selection." The story doesn't stop there. Add that fact to what Jesus had to say in Mark 4:3-9. "Weeds" in the vicinity of a seed, the nourishment available during critical stages of growth, and other environmental factors--inevitably determine the specific development of the seed, regardless of whether it is of plant or human origin. Epigenetic
Well... why exactly should I believe these two guys if what their saying is nothing more than the result of neurons firing in their brain? And how could their words be anything beyond vibration of vocal cords, let alone have meaning?
@patrckhh20, your rhetorical question is logically equivalent to "Why exactly should I believe the car is really moving down the road when at the most basic level the movement is nothing more than the consequence of exploding gas?"
You might not WANT to accept that an internal-combustion-engine car moves as the result of exploding gas, but it does.
At the most basic level, thoughts and movement of the individual are the consequence of neurons firing in the brain. The brain is but an organ.
@unseenstrings I don't think that is the equivalent to my question, because we both know that that is NOT all that makes a car go, it takes an intelligent human being to cause the explosion. If perhaps a car caused its own explosion, and drove itself down the road, you might have a point, otherwise, you're perilously close to making a theistic argument.
@patrckhh20, YT User, Dom0nePhilosophy used the analogy of a car when he argued determinism from an atheistic perspective (watch?v=-BAXswgpVmM)
OK here is another example of your rhetorical question: "Why exactly should I believe the fruitfly navigated over to a banana and laid eggs when at the most basic level the activity was the consequence of neurons firing in the brain?"
BTW, neurologists study the brain of fruitflies in order to get a better understanding of how the human brain works
@unseenstrings Ok, that one makes a little more sense. But my point was not to question that the fact that an event happened by neurons firing in the brain. Your example of the butterfly makes my case for me; it is just a butterfly doing what its instincts tell it. If this is all humans have then you cannot attach to it any transcendent meaning or worth.
@patrckhh20 the fruitfly commonly used is Drosophila. Butterflies are impractical.
Also, you seem to misunderstand what instinct is. Instinct is not like a gearbox with only one possible direction of movement. Instinct is internal stimulation. It is a feeling; a desire. When a girl says she is horney, she is being stimulated by her sexual instinct. The degree of that internal stimulation (WANT) determine her intensity of striving and her awareness of available options determine the path taken
Likewise, the degree of internal stimulation being experienced by the fruitfly and the awareness of available options (from previous learning experiences) determines the path the fruitfly takes to get whatever it might WANT. Even an organism as simple as a fruitfly can adapt to varying and sometime unusual circumstances. My dogs don't automatically poop on the floor for the same reason a baby learns not to poop in his pants. Yet both my Chihuahuas and the baby poop as a consequence of instinct.
@patrckhh20, and as far as "transcendent meaning or worth" is concerned, you must ask by what criterion you are judging meaning or worth. And you must ask whether this criterion is the boundaries established by some ideology you have acquired because of your particular indoctrinations or other experiences. And you must ponder whether someone with a different ideology--say for instance Buddhism--would have the same limitations as you in regard to "transcendent meaning or worth."
@patrckhh20, one last tidbit: In the great majority of cases, individuals don't have sex to have babies. They have sex because of a specific WANT being experienced. And they do not choose to experience the WANT. The WANT is the consequence of instinctive mechanisms, with babies following as a consequence of striving to satisfy the WANT. In fact, the human race would go extinct without instinct. But, of course, we pretend that only nonhumans have instinct. We paint imaginary pictures with words.
@stewboz83, "forced," in a sense, implies your arm is being twisted. And yes, you WANT to do what you WANT not to do rather than suffer pain. But that choice isn't what is commonly meant by "doing what one WANTS." Nevertheless, in no sense do you predetermine what WANT you shall experience. The WANT is created by unconscious processes. Schopenhauer said it this way, "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills." We are like biological robots driven by the WANTS that we experience.
@stewboz83, be aware that two individuals exposed to the same environmental circumstances don't necessarily experience the same WANT. Say for instance you & a friend attend Super Bowl XLVI on Feb. 5, 2012 in Indianapolis. Suppose while watching the game, you got cold but your friend didn't. Thus your friend wouldn't experience a WANT to get warm like you. And your response to the WANT would be determined by the nature you'd previously developed & how strong the WANT is to stay and watch the game
Obviously humans are organisms that have a biological and genetic structure which makes them what they are. But, it is entirely conceivable that free will is a mechanism to make an organism's behavior unpredictable and adaptable to new circumstances, enabling them to outwit opponents and respond with behavioral flexibility. An organism with fixed biologically determined responses would be easier to outwit. Hence our large brains.
@usr1000x, you seem to have given the matter some thought, but you don't seem to have really dwelt deeply on the issue. First, I know of no organism that has purely fixed biological responses. (By "fixed" I assume you mean genetically determined.) Also, maybe you'd like to tell me how a causal process, such as natural selection, can give rise to a will that is free from the laws of cause and effect? Seems nonsensical to me. And what good is the "big brain" when the human never learned language?
Next you seemed to have ignored the fact that philosophers are trained in logic and consider themselves among the elite of intelligentsia, but they are all the time vehemently disagreeing with one another.
And what is unpredictable behavior? Is that behavior you can't predict because you don't know all the causal factors involved? Or is that behavior that is "random" in the truest sense of the term?
And what does intelligence have to do with one person experiencing a WANT another doesn't?
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
@SpencerBenedict2nd, wow! I'll bet Jesus Camp would love to have you as one of their staff.
Now your conspiracy theories are really quite far fetched. This is coming from someone who doesn't appreciate the way newscasters roll their eyes and say, "Oh, another conspiracy theory," because I know the tactic can cause the public to reject an idea that deserves serious consideration. However, in this case you have me rolling my eyes saying, "WTF? Another delusional freak with a conspiracy theory."
@unseenstrings It's no theory friend. This 450 year old Vatican/Jesuit plot was hatched in the Council of Trent as part of Rome's Counter Reformation and your mind has been caught up in it and fallen victim to it. You can find solace in the fact that you are not alone. It's documented history.
@SpencerBenedict2nd, Ecclesiastes 8:15 and Isaiah 22:13 both say essentially to eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you may die. And that is the essence of "do what thou wilt," which has been said many times throughout history, most famously in modern times by a prolific British writer named, Aleister Crowley.
Lots of "conspiracy theories" exist--each neatly fitting the biases of the person imagining the conspiracy. And most attribute too many results from the efforts of some obscure group.
"Lots of "conspiracy theories" exist--each neatly fitting the biases of the person imagining the conspiracy. And most attribute too many results from the efforts of some obscure group."-unseenPlotStrings
>Rome's Council of Trent Counter Reformation is no conspiracy "theory" my friend. It is a very well known and documented PLOT of Vatican Rome and her Jesuit military. Hardly an "obscure group".
Your obviously way outside the loop of knowledge in regards to world machinations.
You sound like you've been reading too many Jack T. Chick tracts.
Aren't you aware of obvious propaganda when you see it?
Satan is an imaginary being you've been taught to believe exist so that you will acquire unquestioning and unlimited hatred. Then the hatred can be transfered to real people by means of subtle ploys, such as those employed in JTC tracts.
No doubt the elite of the Catholic Church conspire to further their agenda, just as do executives of JTC Pub. & other corporations.
@unseenstrings "Aren't you aware of obvious propaganda when you see it?"-unseen
I'm familiar with Jack Chick but not read his "tracts" and i believe I'm keen to propaganda when i see it, but I don't expect everyone to be aware of this Universal truth when they see it.
"Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many; the intelligence of a few perceives what has been carefully hidden." — Phaedrus
There is an epic millennia old battle with a central figure quite real.
@SpencerBenedict2nd, watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is if you are sincerely interested in absolute certainty and what the intelligence of a few true intellectuals really perceive.
Ironic how you quote a NonChristian to support the biases of your particular system of belief.
The epic millennium old battle with a central figure exists in your mind as a result of delusion and illusion. You have been deluded and that causes you to have erroneous mental representations and thus misinterpret your experiences.
@SpencerBenedict2nd, LOL, oh my! Are you being silly? Don't you get it? Feynman perceives that we are lost in a mysterious universe with no purpose other than the purpose initialized by genetic tendencies and the purpose inspired by life's many and varied experiences.
Science has taught Feynman a little humility. He no longer has the absolute certainty that is a prerequisite to religious belief.
I'll bet you are absolutely certain about lots of things. Right? Satan? God? Catholicism? Etc?
"I'll bet you are absolutely certain about lots of things. Right? Satan? God? Catholicism? Etc?"-unseeing
I am certain of the existence of God. I am certain that Satan is alive and doing well. I am certain that through the course of history Roman Catholicism and all its various societies has been his tool to achieve his goal.
Yes. Regarding things that matter, i am certain. And this is why fate brought you and i together. So that you may gain from my wisdom.
@SpencerBenedict2nd, you are off topic within the comments of my video. Stay on topic or I'll be forced to delete your BS.
All humans--including you--are cursed with cognitive & confirmation biases. (Wiki the terms.) Science functions to diminish/overcome biases built into the researcher. Nothing about your system of belief has that capacity. Appearances are deceiving. You have been deceived because you are unaware of your built in biases, and because your group tends to be like the Catholics
"Stay on topic or I'll be forced to delete your BS"-unseeing
>Ooooooo... feel the POWER. lol. Tell me-More empowering than having control of the t.v. remote?
A quick review will reveal that you were the one steering the wheel, not me.
Whether its the person Dawkins or what it is he says within the video, both are viable topics of discussion and my very first comment left on YOUR video was about Dawkins the man & his character and if that is questionable then to are his words.
@SpencerBenedict2nd, you did not comment on the video. You launched an ad hominem attack against Dawkins. That was worst than drifting off topic. I stated that on the main page of my Channel. If you haven't got any logical argument or any constructive criticism, then bear in mind this is my Channel. BTW, I've noted the same exact attack on Dawkins by you elsewhere.
The next thing you did after launching a personal attack against Dawkins was to start spouting a bunch of conspiracy-theory BS.
@JLeeMagnetic, yes, I replied to your comment on by blog yesterday. Now note that when you go to unseenstrings wordpress com, you'll see all the blogs in the order they were posted; but you won't see comments. In order to see the comments, you have to click the title of the blog. That opens up the blog separate from the other material. And the comments will be on the bottom.
Let me know if you have any more concerns or if I can be of any more help (providing you consider my blog helpful).
@unseenstrings Yes i did actually just make another reply on your blog. I suppose you did make it seem a little more better. I liked your video how you said ''correct'' your child don't punish. See the thing is i see a lot of determinist who's perspective does not change, they still act the same way as if they are pretending to have free will and it seems like they haven't ''shifted''. I would think they should also see things like you.
Forget about causation for a moment. Outside of that, I feel that most people on YT preaching determinism/singularity seem to be pretty negative about it. They don't seem happy and when they see someone believing in free will, they seem even less happy. I don't really understand the point of trying to prove determinism. What are the benefits of that? On the other hand, people who talk about free will do seem atleast happier. That's from what i have observed.
@JLeeMagnetic, you are so deluded by a belief in free will that you assume a "determinist" can freely choose to act as you presume he would--instead of as nature has made him. The fact is, a person's behavior is determined his genetic endowment, which is traceable to the evolutionary history of the species, and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed.
Also, anecdotal evidence is often more fantasy than fact; therefore, such is not accepted by science.
Have you ever heard the adage, "ignorance is bliss." There is much truth in the statement. In fact, some of the writers of the Old Testament noted the same phenomena in The Book of Ecclesiastes. The author(/s) went on to say that it is better to be wise and miserable than to be a fool living in bliss. And I'll agree. But of course, one can not freely choose to be wise. Wisdom is determined by the same factors that determine a person's behavior, mentioned above (genetic-environmental interaction)
@unseenstrings I also don't get that. If the dog was killed based on determinism, then yea i can see determinists people determined to not get mad at all, but instead understand that it was out of anybodies control. If i were a determinists i don't think i would get mad about the dog. Instead, i would be like a robot because i would understand this was the only thing that could have happened. So i still find humor in the fact that determinists people still act like they have free will.
@JLeeMagnetic you keep harping on and on about determinism and I've already pointed out that determinism is a complex philosophical position with much variation. I couldn't imagine you rambling on and on about determinism if we were trying to ascertain the innerworkings of a porpoise brain. So why do you bring so much irrelevancy into discussions concerning the complex physical system that is commonly referred to as the "human" brain? Free will is a pseudoexplanation. Define free will if you can
How do you suppose a robot with AI on par with human intelligence is suppose to act? The same survival mechanism evolution built into humans would need to be built into a "Terminator" type robot in order for it to function efficiently. Suppose the human brain were reverse engineered. Suppose nano-technology and new discoveries in quantum mechanics allowed AI researchers to built a robot with a quantum computer brain as intelligent as you. Would you claim the machine had free will or just humans?
@unseenstrings see that's what i don't get about determinists. They choose to continue to argue and act like they have free will. Then they say well it's only because something caused me to get mad. But then it's like you can use that excuse every time and it's just that, an excuse. After a while who cares if you say something caused it or i say you caused it, still an excuse.
@JLeeMagnetic, you cannot logically assert "They continue to argue and act like they have free will." You can say that in your blissful state of ignorance and limited awareness they seem to you to have free will. And I couldn't argue against that point. But of course, I could try to point out some the the causal factors involved
In split-brain research, individuals have made choices with one side of the brain that the other was ignorant of. The ignorant side makes up excuses (reasons) for why
@unseenstrings Well you can say that there anger is caused by something, but like i said i thought u were gonna say that, seems to me like an excuse either way. If i were a ''determinist'' i would accept everything and never get mad at other peoples opinions. Disproving determinism doesn't prove free will, but in order to have free will you have to have atleast these 2 things, which are the ''feeling'' of free will and we have to have indeterminism. So with that said, atleast it's better..
@JLeeMagnetic, let me see if I have this correct: if a nonhuman animal gets angry, then the anger has a cause? But if the human animal gets angry, then you say we cannot say there was a cause because you would then say that is an excuse and not a reason why. Interesting. I think your state of confusion is primarily caused by your blind belief in free will.
A feeling you are God doesn't make you God. A feeling you have free will doesn't mean you do. Indeterminism doesn't prove free will.
Einstein said, "Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me." And Richard Dawkins pointed out that we are "inconsistent," which I referred to as hypocrites. Your sweeping generalization about all "determinists" is quite illogical. Some "determinists" TRY not to get mad because of their awareness that free will is an illusion.
@unseenstrings Oh come on. Most animals are not as smart as humans. A human has an ability to rationalize. Im saying humans can make excuses. Animals are not even smart enough to make excuses. I didn't say indeterminism doesn't prove free will. But neither does determinism. Im saying it opens the gate for free will. Determinism would completely rule it out. And in order to have free will, you have to at the very least feel it. If you feel like a robot, you don't have it for sure.
@JLeeMagnetic, I'm "rationalizing." You're "rationalizing." But we don't agree. Philosophers are the best "rationalizers" in the world and they vehemently differ in their rationalizations. Seems you put too much faith in the human ability to be rational. In fact, I've already mentioned that the findings of split-brain research indicate patents use the linguistic side of their brain to "rationalize" behavior initiated by the opposite side--behavior that the linguistic side was wholly ignorant of.
No doubt one person will "rationalize" homosexual behavior & another will "rationalize" heterosexuality. The Christian will "rationalize" a belief in "God." And the atheist will rationalize just the opposite. What you really mean is the human robot experiences particular feelings--feelings that it did not freely choose. And this biological robot is driven to & fro by the feeling, but makes up excuses for the ensuing behavior. Yet he calls his own excuses, rational, & claims others invent excuses
@JLeeMagnetic, 2 points invalidate your argument. 1) You can not logically state what being a robot would feel like unless you were a robot. (This is besides the fact that, in a sense, you are a biological robot created by natural selection.) 2) Awareness of possible threats and awareness of available options determine choice behavior more-so in certain instances than so called, "intelligence." (We humans have learned to use the greater awareness of our dogs to our advantage.)
@unseenstrings Robot? I never said anything about being a robot. I am not sure what you are trying to say. I don't think you read what i wrote and just started to write whatever you felt like.
@JLeeMagnetic, you said, "If you feel like a robot, you don't have it for sure." You insinuated that a robot would feel like a robot. I stated that unless you were a robot then you cannot state what it would feel like to be a robot. And since you are a biological robot of sorts created by natural selection, and since you've developed the feeling of having free will, then a robot can be programmed to feel as if it had free will. You don't seem to understand what you said or what I stated in reply
@unseenstrings Yea but if i was determined to say that, then there was no other possibility. So I really believe that it is completely insane for a determinists to judge anyone for there actions. It is insane. Because it's like interacting with a rock. Im a rock. There is nothing that is going to change my path. Knowing that, you should agree and say hmm he's right. That motherfucker.
@JLeeMagnetic, you're a dynamic physical system. A rock isn't. A very sophisticated robot with AI would also be a dynamic physical system. A rock can't do what such a robot could do. But that doesn't mean the robot would have free will any more than it means you have free will.
The fact that causality is true means that our conversation could effect the way each of us think. Free will would mean that you are not only free from such influences but from all influences--even "supernatural" ones.
If you had free will then you would be more like a rock rolling down a hill than the dynamic physical system that you are. No words could alter your path. No threats of hell-fire could make you afraid to think certain thoughts or question what you'd been taught. You could decide today to believe in a different god every day of the year. And you could start off the New Year as an atheist. Your mind would be free from the psychological ploys of salesmen, politicians and preachers alike. Free will?
@unseenstrings Yes a complex rock. You are no more free than a rock. Even if you are more complex and move around, you are no more free. If causality is true, you cannot affect the way one thinks. The reason is because that was predetermined and was supposed to happen that way. You did not change anything. you feel like you did. You are still a rock. Just like rocks bouncing off each other. There is no error.
@JLeeMagnetic, earlier you stated that if someone keeps using the same excuse then he is immature. I found the word usage a bit unsophisticated. Now I suspect your reasoning and word usage may have revealed a bit about you. You're a kid--a rebellious adolescent who thinks he has everything figured out. Now I could be wrong because naiveness isn't exclusive to youth. I've met older people who had lived sheltered lives that seemed to be as naive as you
So far seems every time you open your mouth you puke out a logical fallacy. I see an argument from ignorance. I see an argument from repetition. I see a continuum fallacy. I see an equivocation fallacy. I see a circular cause and consequence fallacy (free will). I see a false dilemma fallacy. I see fallacy of the single cause. I see an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. I see a mind projection fallacy. I see the hasty generalization fallacy. I see an appeal to ridicule fallacy & exaggeration fallacy
@JLeeMagnetic a dog isn't a rock. He is a dynamic physical system. I can use vocalizations to have a causal effect on a dog's mind. I can use vocalizations (words) to have a causal effect on the human mind too. But you want to call the human "a rock." And you want to deny the fact that words can causally effect the human mind. I pointed out that a person with free will would be more akin to a rock than we are. Free will could not be influenced by anything. But you seemed to have ignored the fact
@unseenstrings And you just said that im in a state of confusion. Im not because you haven't got me understood. Im saying once you know better, you can't keep making the same excuse over and over. Otherwise that is being immature.
@JLeeMagnetic, wow, you keep making up the same excuse over and over for human behavior. Now you're saying the person who does so is immature. I say you are merely being illogical for repeating that human behavior is caused by a magic thing that you call free will. And I say your actual maturity has nothing to do with whether your "premise" is logical or not.
Free will is superfluous. It adds nothing to our understanding of the way the human brain functions in the real world
@JLeeMagnetic, so you're saying you're personally driven by nature to feel equal attraction regarding both homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships. But you choose to have one type of relationship instead of the other. Interesting. Maybe you're bisexual. That would explain why you feel attracted to men and women, but choose--for whatever reason (I still cannot imagine a human choosing to do something without feeling the choice was necessary or desirable)--one over the other.
Once I felt a need to make a decision but was in the dilemma of indecision. The necessary strength of feeling didn't bubble into conscious awareness to stimulate me into choosing. So, to fulfill the choice requirement, I flipped a coin. Now be aware that just because a person cannot predict the outcome of a coin toss with over what is considered pure chance, the outcome of the coin toss is causally determined. A lack to predict outcome does not mean the phenomena was free from causality.
@JLeeMagnetic, your apparent ignorance and denial of the facts is sad. You see, I can do anything I WANT, providing it is within my physical limitations. However--and this is extremely important--I do not consciously create the WANT that I experience. Why did I WANT butter pecan ice cream in one instance but strawberry cheese-cake flavor in another? I did not choose to WANT one or the other. I merely experienced the want and chose accordingly. Now I WANT more to keep my blood glucose level down.
@JLeeMagnetic, would you make all the same choices that you now make, providing you'd never been taught language? No, you wouldn't, because language and how you've learned to use it is a causal factor that has an effect on the way you think. You can do what you will, but you cannot will yourself to experience a particular will without first experiencing the will to do so, i.e., you can do what you WANT, but you can not freely choose the WANT before it is experienced. watch?v=v6fk8m3WxwI (my vid)
@JLeeMagnetic, free will is akin to God in the sense that it is a metaphysical claim. And such claims cannot be proved nor disproved by physical beings functioning in a physical world according to physical laws. However, love, pain, learning, hunger, thirst, fear, are a few of many words that make no sense in a world ruled by free will. Your choices are determined by such factors in combination with "who you are." And, like a robot, you had to develop into "who you are" before you could choose.
@JLeeMagnetic, yes its sad that you are so naive and represent determinism in such a distorted fashion. But, I do realize that if you are a young person as I suspect, then maybe life will teach you some important lessons as you continue to grow and get older--thereby increasing your awareness. However, if you happen to be a naive older person, then that would be really sad. Well, I guess if you died at a ripe old age in a blissful state of ignorance, it wouldn't be so very sad for you personally
@unseenstrings Unseenstrings, you're saying i represent determinism in a distorted fashion? With all due respect, isn't determinism just determinism? I mean aren't I correct that if determinism is true, then that means i was determined to act naive? So how is that sad if I can't do anything about it? You understand what Im saying? Say it in a way that makes sense to me.
@JLeeMagnetic, well if you have a reading comprehension problem and couldn't quite grasp the Wikipedia article, then why didn't you say so. I'll try to explain as simply as possible. Determinism is an idea with variations that are hotly debated in philosophical circles. Are you a academic philosopher? I'm not. And I cannot imagine entering into a argument about something that even professional philosophers can't agree on. However, causality is a simplified form of determinism used by everyone.
You use it. I use it. Science uses it. The doctor, when you go for a check up, uses it. Police investigators use it. The school cook uses it. When you set your alarm to awake in the morn, you assume causality. When I press the brake-pedal in my car, I'm assuming causality. When the doctor finds a disease, he assumes causality. When the police investigate a robbery, they look for profile, motive and other causal factors. Pretending the robber had free will is reserved mainly for court-room drama.
No one starts engaging into deep philosophical disputes concerning determinism when we discuss the functions of a car. No one engages into deep philosophical disputes concerning determinism when he wonders about the disease he has be diagnosed with. In fact, we can talk about the universe and the formation of our sun and solar system, yet no one starts engaging into hotly debated philosophical issues. The human brain is the only issue that gets infected with hotly debated philosophical disputes.
The logic boils down to this: If hotly debated philosophical issues are irrelevant to the scientific study of all other complex physical systems then it is irrelevant to the study of the human brain. In fact you can never truly understand any system when disputes abound. Science lets philosophers hammer out disputes between each other and science gets down to being scientific. Science has even been able to provide empirical data that contradicted long held philosophical beliefs
@JLeeMagnetic, one last causal factor relevant to why you appear like a rock, seemingly unaffected by my words: when a gazelle sees a lion attack and kill another gazelle, the imagery stored in memory is long-lasting and hard to erase. The human had an evolutionary history that also resulted in such terrifying memories being long-lasting and hard to erase. Furthermore, once the human has been effectively taught language, words can be used to create terrifying imagery and even illusions, etc, etc
@JLeeMagnetic, remember what I said about the word, "fault?" Of course it is your fault, providing you consider the way you are a fault. The San Andreas Fault is the earth's fault. If you had brown eyes and considered that a "fault," then that would be your fault too. Yet I must ask, why do you want to use a word that isn't clear and concise? It can only cause confusion. How about instead the word defect? Of course you have a defect, providing you consider yourself defective. Thats your opinion.
However, as I've pointed out before: Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. And they don't pop into existence by magic but develop according to physical laws.
You really don't seem to be reading or absorbing my previous replies. I guess that is another defect.
Are you insinuating that if you'd been placed in a sterile room at birth and attended by masked caretakers, never taught language or how to potty, and let out yesterday, then all your choices would be exactly as they now are?
@JLeeMagnetic, of course it is your fault just as much as the continental plates colliding are the earth's fault. The San Andreas Fault isn't a fault that I have or that you have, it is the earth's fault. Likewise, your faults are none other than your own.
But I must ask, "Are you wanting to play the blame game?" Is it the metaphysical and ignorantly moralistic sense of the word that you mean? If so, then why not come out and state the fact clearly, concisely, and coherently? Why be vague?
There you go again trying to inject your superfluous belief in predestination. Practicality requires you to be practical. Trying to figure out the infinite regress of causes and effects for any physical system is not only impractical, it can prevent one from learning the immediate aspects of what causes the system to function. In fact, since all the causal factors that have acted on any given system are more like a network than a chain, backtracing each to the starting point would be impossible.
@unseenstrings Let me ask you a question. Do you talk like this in your everyday life with your peers/coworkers? I have to admit that I am really really really confused with most of the things you are pointing out. I cannot wrap my head around it. Now your confusing me with ''fault.'' And talking about lions. Do you think like this all day long?
@JLeeMagnetic I find it ironic that you want to ask me another question but you've failed to answer any of the questions I've asked
At one time I was trying to keep up with the Joneses and didn't have time to ponder life's experience. All my conversations with peers/coworkers were rather superficial. Now I don't have coworkers. I'm an elder. I've retired. I have no peers, per se. I didn't move into a retirement community nor am I a socializer. I can sit back and take a look at the big picture
Most of my friends are Christian, which is understandable, since personal experience determines perception. And this is a country that at one time provided primarily only experiences conducive to developing Christians. Times change. Christians have boycotted corporations in the past and in turn corporations have become less friendly toward Fundamentalism.
When I read Einstein, Sam Harris, d'Holbach, and other intellectuals, I realize I'm in good company. They too saw free will as an illusion.
@unseenstrings Because im lost in the questions you asked. Ok let me ask you this. If you just met your grandaughters friend. Are you going to start talking to her about determinism right away? Say this is when she's older. Also, you sound semi convincing when you wrote that letter. But i believe that if you were to pretend to believe in something else, you would also sound just as convincing.
@JLeeMagnetic, you don't even realize you are contradicting the notion of free will when you say I sound "convincing." Remember, free will would mean the will is free from any influence, regardless of whether that influence is natural or supernatural
If I just met my granddaughter's friend, and she was having a problem with self-acceptance, then I may mention some of the causal factors involved. Otherwise, the belief in free will is tied to too many other concepts for me to tackle all at once
Just be aware that the open letter to my granddaughter wasn't just to my granddaughter. It was directed toward anyone who now has children or who may one day have some.
The people who play the blame game with their children are not acting in the child's best interest. When the child misbehaves, then the parent should wonder why--not blame the child for being as any normal child would under the circumstances. And attempts should be made to "correct" the child without playing the blame game.
I probably couldn't "pretend" to believe in something I didn't believe and be convincing. But no doubt some actors and actresses can. Mirror neurons in your brain can make you feel and thus react to the emotional displays of others. That is the reason drama is such an effective tool in the hands of the propagandist.
Note that nowhere have I attributed the thoughts or behavior of individuals to free will. That is because the notion of free will effectively stops one from wondering about causes
@unseenstrings Also I realized if randomness comes into play, then it means that you have a free will. You did say so yourself that it might come into pay. I myself believe that randomness in its whole is the same thing as free will or partly. Determinists have yet to figure everything out and it doesn't look like they will disprove free will anytime soon. If I believe something, you can't prove me wrong because it's just a belief. I can believe in unicorns and if i do it's a true statement.
@JLeeMagnetic, causal determinism would mean you don't have free will. And causal indeterminacy would mean you don't have free will. I've already pointed those facts out. Sam Harris put it something like this: If you are magically in charge of your actions, somehow separated from your physical brain, but every once in awhile some form of randomness enter the equation, then that wouldn't be free will but insanity. I gave the example of choosing to change the baby but instead killing the president
Should you happen to believe in unicorns then a true statement would be that you BELIEVE in unicorns. No statement of the truth or falsity of your belief is possible merely based on your firm conviction that it is true. The same applies to any metaphysical claim--even if it happens to be claims of a soul or of free will
When you say "determinists," do you mean philosophers? Please define the word since you keep using it
Also, no one has "everything figured out" and I doubt such can ever be
@unseenstrings The thing is if somehow hypothetically speaking, more evidence suggested a soul or free will (Im not saying it is) But if it did and your logic was not in favor, I think you would get pissed. You do not want people to have freedom. You want them to be spectators, but not have a say in anything. Your whole joy in life is debunking free will and if you couldn't do it, you would probably become suicidal im guessing. On other hand if determinism is true, then i don't feel shame.
@JLeeMagnetic, you're thinking is a false presumption. I believed in free will for many years, because that is what I had been taught. But when I stepped back and saw that Iran was creating Muslims, India was creating Hindus, and Tibet had for many years created Buddhists, then I started wondering. The more I looked into the issue the more I saw that free will was an illusion. Why would I get pissed if suddenly scientific evidence were produced proving free will is true? Thats silly for sure.
No doubt I would experience a very unsettling paradigm shift similar to the one I experienced when I realized free will is an illusion. And likewise the adjustment might be a bit painful to me. But I don't see where it would make me suicidal, unless you mean it would make me start playing the blame game. And the blame game might make me experience so much resentment and rage that I may become suicidal. Is that what you mean? Is that what you feel? Would you like to kill all the "bad" people?
@unseenstrings But there r many smart people who also believe every bit as much as u, but they believe free will isnt an illusion. I cant say that your more convincing then them, although your convincing. So i can't be on your side just like that. The reason y u might get pissed if scientific evidence suggested free will, is cuz u would think you wasted your time and maybe taught your grand daughter the wrong thing in the letter, when you could have chose otherwise. That's what im guessing.
@JLeeMagnetic, but I couldn't have chosen otherwise, not based on my character and the fact I realize free will is an illusion. I was compelled to do what I felt was best for my granddaughter. It made me feel good to teach her something that could give her an edge in life.
"Most scientists today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind." - Richard Dawkins
You may know some smart people who are ignorant about the most recent findings of science. Free will is a belief based on ignorance.
@JLeeMagnetic, the primary reason you feel, " i can't be on your side just like that" is because evolutionary forces have not fashioned your mind to flip-flop back and to between contradictory beliefs. I already covered that. I covered that also in my video, "What Caused TheWoodsOfJordan?" (watch?v=Vriw4vIntBQ). Bear in mind that YT User, TheWoodsOfJordan was flip-flopping back and to between different versions of Christianity (not perfectly contradictory), and he was also on psychotropic drugs.
@JLeeMagnetic, I've copied our conversation to "unseenstrings wordpress com" and given it the title, 'JLeeMagnetic comments on YT video, "Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will, and Unseenstrings replies."' I didn't copy any part of your PM to me. That is up to you whether you want to carry on that conversation or not. I would appreciate you going over there to continue this conversation, since I can't PM through YT. Besides, I can provide links, which is near impossible in YT comments.
@unseenstrings Here's my next question. can the future be predictable? Why or why not? My friend says everything can be calculated, even knowing what your gonna eat at what time tomorrow, lets say its tuna. He said i could not prove the prediction wrong. The scary thing is EVEN if i TRIED, i would lost control of my body and i would be forced to eat the tuna. Now that is ANTI free will to me. Can that happen? If you could calculate the future, you can't eat something else? HOW SCARY. explain.
@JLeeMagnetic, the future may be predictable providing all causal factors are known. However, we are too ignorant to make an absolute prediction of the future. We can say the future will turn out like so-and-so providing such-and-such factors don't change. And we may make some fairly accurate prediction about the future of one small segment, such as the future of space research. Otherwise, accurate prediction concerning every future state and event is impossible.
Now in order to predict what you are going to eat tomorrow, one would need to know your eating habits, what time you usually get hungry, what food is available, and whether you will be subjected to anything that could effect your appetite, such as medications or stimulating advertisements. I doubt your friend would have enough knowledge to make an accurate prediction.
The only way you could be forced to eat tuna is if you were literally forced, or if you couldn't get anything to eat but tuna.
By the way, I cannot read but 961 characters of the personal message you sent (the portion that was sent along with notification of the personal message to my email address). You see, I can login to reply to comments. But when I try to view my YT Channel or my Inbox, I get the message that I MUST create a Google account and link it to my You Tube account. Fuck Google.
Google's motto is to "do no evil." But more people have been killed and tortured in the name of "good" than any other reason.
@JLeeMagnetic, when I stated some common causal factors that have an influence on choice behavior, you said, "but that is common sense..." And you went on to deny the factors contradicted free will. WTF? Now, that's sad.
Yes, its true that the facts I stated are common sense. But here is another fact for you: Free will is common nonsense. It is an illusion passed down to us from our ignorant ancestors.
Very much intelligence can be wasted in ignorance when the need for illusion is great.
@unseenstrings Unseenstrings, you are absolutely insane. The reason is because whatever i thought, was not my fault. Therefore for you to say stuff like wtf? and that's sad, is insane. I am just like a rock bouncing down a hill, i have no control over what i do. You should be the person to understand that. You keep pulling a switch on me and saying but, if, yea. There is no butt. It is the way it is. You are doomed my friend. so am i.
@JLeeMagnetic, "insane," now there you go with the ad hominem fallacy. And if any fallacy can be construed as evil in the world of logic, the ad hominem fallacy would be at the top of the list. You see, the ad hominem is an attack on the person instead of the argument being presented. It is quite irrelevant whether you are a naive bisexual young man or not. It is quite irreverent whether you are under psychiatric care. What matters in the world of logic is the argument you present, nothing else.
I can ask "WTF?" when I notice how my statements are being misrepresented. Did you read the Wiki article on determinism as I suggested. You are still spouting the same fallacious BS. Knowing the facts increases your awareness. You seem to be afraid to face up with the facts. What causes you to call a complex dynamic physical system a "rock." A rock isn't a complex dynamic physical system. Dogs are. Humans are. But not rocks. What causal factors have you in a state of denial? Its all your fault.
The San Andreas Fault is the earth's fault. But I try to avoid use of the word "fault" because it is incompatible with reality. You see, one sense of the word requires "free will" to be assumed. And I already know free will is an illusion. Therefore, one meaning of the word promotes an illusion.
I'll remind you again: when people talk about an event being causally determined, most don't mean that "fate" or "God" predestination the event. Read the Wikipedia article as suggested please.
what blows me away about determinists is the countless amount of times they argue over and over and call other people stupid for not believing them. I mean if it was determined, you would think they would understand to accept people for following their own destiny. It's so funny. Then you have people who say oh no, it was determined they would get mad at the people who believe in free will. But then again... GIVE me a break!! hahaha the typical destiny excuse..
@JLeeMagnetic, when people talk about an event being causally determined, most don't mean that "fate" or "God" predestination the event. They simply mean that the oil-spill on curve of the busy road meant that an accident was inevitable. To take the position that The Big Bang or God predestined the spill and ensuing accident is a religious position, because it is unfalsifiable, thus unscientific
Also, determinism is a general philosophical thesis with variation. Read the Wikipedia article
Also, it can be argued that the "determinists" who get mad do so because the anger was caused by something, just like the ignorance of individuals has a cause
Hairy, my son's 5 lb Chihuahua was murdered by the 90 lb pit bull next door. Neither talking about free will nor determinism will cause our anger and grief to go away. Humans are animals and feel an intense desire to bite back in such situations.
Disproving determinism does not prove free will. Quantum randomness isn't freely chosen.
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@lundymaphone--condescending--that is an interesting word. Now that I think about it, the person who accuses another of being condescending usually does so in a condescending manner. In other words, accusations and insinuations of condescension is usually accomplished by a person using a condescending manner. Why? Well, Richard Dawkins says it is because we are inconsistent. I'm a little more blunt. I say it is because the human race is a race of hypocrites. We are pots calling the kettle black.
@unseenstrings.. Your attempt to add social commentary is interesting, but.... 1) It assumes I meant to be condescending (which I did not), 2) You used your opinion and attempted to "attach" it to a more respected persons opinion and use it as though it is a proper theory. 3) Your point on hypocrisy , while I agree with it, is not relevant given 1. Also the reason Dawkins avoided the word hypocrisy is because inconsistent is more accurate as hypocrisy is generally perceived as absolute.
@lundymaphone, my point on hypocrisy was tongue-in-cheek. The word "hypocrisy" carries negative connotations with it. Dawkins used the much more appropriate term. I would do well to avoid use of the word as I do the word fault. You know, as in Earth has faults that are not Earth's fault, but they are. The word adds negativity and ambiguity to conversations.
@unseenstrings One thing I would ask (in genuine curiousity) is where your statement "Now that I think about it, the person who accuses another of being condescending usually does so in a condescending manner" comes from, ie which academic papers, journals, etc. Or is it from pop science? Or is it simply opinion? It is a rather interesting concept itself worthy of study. Also I need actual names of documents otherwise it doesn't actually help me.
@lundymaphone, you apparently assumed I meant to be condescending. I did not. And if you thought I was, then that is your opinion. And opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. And they all develop according to physical laws.
This is YouTube, not an elite scholarly forum where one must abide by the manners of formal debate and write scholarly theses. You think my asshole stinks? Well yours smells no better.
Tongue in cheek is a nauseating thought for some reason. But it is there.
@lundymaphone, if you are interested in reading the paper concerning the matter we are presently discussing, then when you go to the bathroom and wipe your butt with toilet tissue, read what is written on the tissue afterwards and maybe you'll get some vague idea of what the basis is for our current conversation.
@unseenstrings Are you one of these angry pseudo-intellectuals who takes pleasure in pointing out the painfully obvious? Are you perhaps retired or unemployed and simply have too much time on your hands? You were mildly entertaining before, now I have grown bored of your repetitive and unimaginative antics and humor, I will allow you the last word should it make you feel more secure, if you do not require such a gift then by all means refuse with silence.
@lundymaphone, "pseudo-intellectual." Now that is another interesting term. Seems my analogy comparing opinions to assholes was very fitting, since you are apparently still excreting crap (the virtual effect of the words) all over the place.
Does using ad hominem attacks against your debate opponent (by calling him/her a pseudo-intellectual) help you feel superior in intellect? Does calling the opponent a pseudo-intellectual invalidate any argument put forth by the person? Why do you do it?
Are you slinging crap for the same reason politicians do during political campaigns?
And what is "superior intellect?" Would the wisest elder in an African tribe have "superior intellect?" Or do you suppose "superior intellect" is only the result of formal Western indoctrination and/or education? Does anyone with "superior intellect" disagree with you? Or do you imagine that "superior intellect" would be indicated by those who you were in agreement with?
@unseenstrings Okay I am going to level with you, I have been "trolling" you, ie I was getting a rise out of you for my own amusement. I was sort of hoping you were counter-trolling me but I did 30 seconds of research on you and it seems casual internet spats are something you use to fill some sort of void in your life (I use sex myself). If you are curious I am a math major with strong AI design interest so being on the internet is my "not so serious" time.
@unseenstrings Oh and just so you know I really don't want to continue this spat as it is no longer amusing, I just thought that on the off chance you were attempting a semi-serious conversation that it was only fair that I informed you of my position (ie troll). That being said a word of advice, you are overusing the feces related insults, the first one was quite serviceable actually but your continued use removed their novelty and took away from the rest of your post.
@unseenstrings Oh and another thing, don't take my trolling as a personal insult, if it makes you feel better I don't troll obviously incompetent people as that is no challenge whatsoever. So although I am sure you are mildly annoyed (or hell maybe you are always annoyed) right now take pride in the fact that I found you a worthy target.
@lundymaphone, LOL, yeah, OK. As an old retired senior citizen, I feel compelled to advise the future generation of the fact that free will is an illusion. (An audio of Frank Harris in my Freewill vs Nonfreewill Playlist states the facts I have been trying to present.) So I guess we were both driven either out of awareness or to escape boredom.
And BTW, when one takes mirror neurons into consideration, "shit" is relevant when the feeling toward shit can be associated with (and evoked by) words.
@unseenstrings I actually read your blog, and as someone studying AI you HAVE to study neuroscience as well (easier to recreate then create sort of thing), and I do more or less agree with you (and others) on the subject, I guess what I am saying even if you feel alone remember that you are not ;), have a good day (or night?).
@lundymaphone, as a teenager I had read enough Popular Science that I knew the limitations on the size of a CRT. So when the comic character, Dick Tracy got a watch with a monitor built into it, I laughed. Some people laugh when the statement is made that one day we will have AI on par with human intelligence. I learned my lesson. I no longer laugh at possible scientific & technological achievements.
I felt in good company when Richard Dawkins & Sam Harris also said free will is an illusion.
@unseenstrings It is nice that someone says that, most discount my future area of work as meaningless time "wasted", and that there is something about humans that is especially special in that it cannot be recreated (or dare I say "improved"). Anyway, peace out as the kids say.
@lundymaphone, yeah, you hear stated that complexity gives rise to new function, like a bolt can't fly but a 747 can. However, the same ones that use the complexity argument to insinuate free will (even though complexity can't override natural laws) seem to be the first ones to say AI on par with HI (H for human) can never exist. I suspect nano-technology and new scientific discoveries will prove them wrong.
Of course, since free will doesn't exist, their thoughts about the matter are caused.
@lundymaphone, no need reply. I wanted to emphasize your comment:
Natural selection is efficient, not perfect. And sexual selection is a form of natural selection, as is the relationship between aphids and ants, and humans and domesticated animals. Animal husbandry, whether by ants or humans, should be categorized along side sexual selection.
Very possibly AI research will be able to decompile the brain and "improve" upon the "design," bearing in mind any "improvement" would be relative.
@lundymaphone our conversation about the opinions of the average person concerning the possible future of artificial intelligence must have "inspired" me, because afterwards I felt motivated to write another essay on my WordPress Blog. The title is, The Black-Box of Free Will.
And BTW, ignorant people are easier to control and manipulate than individuals with knowledge. A belief in free will is a form of ignorance. People's thoughts about free will are cause. Question: is it mere coincidence?
If they did stem from prior causal factors, then those factors could be identified. Another important consideration is that Pinker limits his analysis of free will to technical decisions - such as whether to fulfil a biologically necessary function such as eating in a certain way. This is misleading. The real test of free will is in situations where decide to contradict a biological impulse towards behaving in a certain way.
@stalinist666, my dogs decide to contradict certain biological impulses toward acting in a certain way. But the contradiction is biological also, just as it is in humans. My dogs would like instant gratification when the biological urge to defecate is experienced. But they whine and scratch on the door to go outside. They have learned from previous experience that their world is a better place when they resist certain urges
Pinker limits his analysis to falsifiable scientific theories & facts
@unseenstrings Good point, I should clarify my position. Your dog's behaviour was determined by the conflict between two inputs - first of all an innate biological urge to defecate, and secondly, to conditioning which says it should not. It did not in any sense 'decide' or 'choose' one or the other - the stronger input simply won out. Human beings, however, can transcend any inputs we have and choose a different course based on reason or morality, or both. That is the essence of free will.
@stalinist666, so you have evidence to prove the internal mechanism of choice in dogs are merely the conflict between only two inputs while human beings "transcend" any inputs to magically reach decisions not based on the mechanisms of the brain? Seems like you have a very limited idea of the mechanisms involved in both human and canine choice behavior.
If you are a person who has developed a taste for eating your boogers, your confirmation bias will have you "reasoning" eating boogers is OK.
I cannot prove it through internal observation - our biological machinery is the same as that of an animal - but it can be shown through external observation. Set up to inputs, one incredibly strong and the other weak. In dogs, the stronger impulse would always win out, and they have no choice in the matter. In a human, however, we remain capable of choosing the weaker option despite being immeasurably compelled to the other. That is the true definition of free will.
@stalinist666, you cannot ascertain the inner working of the brain via external observation
Behaviorists are supposed to try to be as scientific about behavior as possible; thus they observe external conditions and stimulations and the responses of organisms to those factors. Yet, contrary to what you seem should be expected, behaviorists do not believe in free will.
You admitted the fact yourself. You cannot prove the wild, unsubstantiated, nonsensical claims that you are presently making
How can the strength of an impulse be measured, whether in humans or dogs? How can we ascertain that a weaker "option" is being chosen over a "stronger" impulse? You can't. You are dancing around throwing words on this page and hoping your words causally effect the reader in a persuasive manner.
The Mars rover makes decisions based on prior learning experiences. So do dogs. And so do humans. Human behavior is predictable. The better you know someone, the easier his/her behavior is to predict.
Human behaviour is generally mechanistic, like a dog or a machine, but the fact that the possibility of changing it always exists in any situation if we will it to be so. If you are incapable of deciphering whether an impulse to do something is strong or weak, I think something may be seriously wrong with your own cognitive apparatus. A basic example would be a drug addict. Despite massive urges to use the addictive substance, they could always choose not to, making a choice.
@stalinist666, repeating over and over and over wild, unsubstantiated, nonsensical claims does not make the claims true. Also, you must prove something besides the physical brain is choosing. As it stands, no reason exists to assume anything but the brain is involved in choice behavior. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
"...our biological machinery is the same as that of an animal." That is because we are animals. But we have evolved complex language and writing skills.
The overweight person's choice is not free from the ideas that have formed in his mind about being overweight. A man or woman's choice to be heterosexual or homosexual is not free from the tendencies he or she has developed and the inhibitions and attractions he or she feels. And the drug users mind is not free from similar casual factors.
The human brain is a dynamic physical system. A moment before one choice is made, an event could change the choice. But no choice is free from causality.
Again you must be misunderstanding. No choice is free from causality, of course - all of the inputs, the addiction, the genetic tendency towards homosexuality etc, are very real and do play a role in most decisions. Human behaviour is largely determined by these things. But in the face of even the strongest causal factors, we have the choice to choose a weaker option. My drug addict example is still relevant. As would be the choice to behave heterosexually even if one was not.
@stalinist666, you are contradicting yourself again: When you agree with me and say, "No choice is free from causality..." and then claim an exception to the rule, that is a contradiction. The mechanism of choice is either free from causality or it is not, there is no middle-ground.
Again you making a nonsensical claim. How can it be tested that the homosexual is choosing a "weaker" social conformity option over "stronger" sexual preference? How can internal stimulation/inhibitions be tested?
A truism for basic electricity is "Current always flows in the path of least resistance." This truism is analogous to thought in the human brain. Thought always flows in the path of least resistance. Resistance can be thought of as being inhibitions resulting from previous learning experience. Not everyone has precisely the same learning experiences. Nor does everyone learn precisely the same lesson. Thus we see one homosexual choosing to date the same sex and another refraining from such acts.
What unsubstantiated claims? I didn't claim a soul, though it would be a possible logical consequence of what I am saying. But even if that were the case, does that mean that you would dispense with knowledge of something just because you cannot prove it? We cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I have no doubt that it will. I cannot prove that I exist, but I have no doubt that I do. Logical positivism died a long time ago for these same deficiencies.
@stalinist666, your comparison is illogical, just like most of the other statements you've made. You see, the sun can be tested and shown to exist. The earth orbits the sun, giving the illusion that the sun rises. Past experience indicates the earth is not going to magically quit rotating, nor is the sun going to magically disappear. Little imps are not making the earth rotate. Nor is anything separate from your brain doing the choosing for your brain. You are spouting lots and lots of nonsense.
@stalinist666, let me see if I have this correct. First you say, "I think something may be seriously wrong with your own cognitive apparatus." Then you spout a bunch of hypocritical BS about me improving my manners when I communicate with you.
Schopenhauer's words: "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills," accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. An illusion causes you to be unkind
I think you are a good intellectual opponent, and I appreciate your rigour - however we must choose to behave with manners towards one another. I have not read Schopenhauer, so I cannot comment comprehensively on this, but from this statement I do not think he is dispensing with free will in the way you seem to be. He seems to recognise, as I do, that we are all in a sense determined by circumstances, inputs and predispositions. Despite this, we have a limited domain of choice.
@stalinist666 actually my statement was a quote from Einstein's, My Credo (1932). He started off the statement with, "I do not believe in freedom of the will." Now that is clear enough
But as far as what Schopenhauer meant, he wrote in German. If you can read German then you're in luck. Otherwise, Schopenhauer's meaning may be somewhat distorted by an interperter's translation. According to Wikiquote org, the quote came from Prize Essay On The Freedom Of The Will (1839). watch?v=dodTNPp12rg
I wasn't trying to ascertain the workings of the brain through external observation, I was merely pointing out that we choose our behaviour. This is an external fact, and the mechanisms of the brain are relevant in as much as they facilitate the materialization of our choices. It is not wild to say that we have free will - if the opposite was seriously true, none of us would be responsible for our behaviour, and any notion of justice would be out the window.
dawkins you are a bell end. simple as that.
oliveguss 3 months ago
@oliveguss His science books are really, very interesting you know.
NightmareCinemaChild 3 months ago
The error made here is to neglect the fact that physics, which currently only allows determinism (or randomness), is not quite complete. Agreed that there is no ghost in the machine but the conscious part of the machine (the brain) is not deterministic: we do have free will, it is no illusion.
slartibartfats 3 months ago
@slartibartfats, no, your error is making a sweeping generalization without proving your point. In fact, the definition of free will would need to be given before you can claim it exists. I have stated the definition a number of times herein; and I have given valid argument to show why such "free will" cannot exist. Besides, consciousness is the consequence of processes that you are not conscious of. That fact alone pops your imaginary bubble of free will.
Naturalism Org
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings So does this theory reject any form of enviromental impact on the person? I'm not a science major but from what I've experienced I feel as if nurture and enviroment has more of an impact on a person, does this coincide with dawkins theory?
pandasftuw 3 months ago
@pandasftuw if you're interested in Dawkins' perspective on whether or how much environment should be considered, then listen to some lectures by Dr. Robert Sapolsky, Professor of Neurological Sciences, SU, which can be found at YT, StanfordUniversity Channel. Or watch him speaking, starting at 9:14 in the video, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward | Official Release | 2011 (watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w). I would imagine Dawkins and Sapolsky see eye to eye in the regard to what causes the brain and thus the person
unseenstrings 3 months ago
And allow me to add this fact: No gene created itself. It was created and evolved as the result of environmental factors. The process is called "natural selection." The story doesn't stop there. Add that fact to what Jesus had to say in Mark 4:3-9. "Weeds" in the vicinity of a seed, the nourishment available during critical stages of growth, and other environmental factors--inevitably determine the specific development of the seed, regardless of whether it is of plant or human origin. Epigenetic
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@slartibartfats wrong
FIGHTFANNERD3 3 months ago
Well... why exactly should I believe these two guys if what their saying is nothing more than the result of neurons firing in their brain? And how could their words be anything beyond vibration of vocal cords, let alone have meaning?
patrckhh20 3 months ago
@patrckhh20, your rhetorical question is logically equivalent to "Why exactly should I believe the car is really moving down the road when at the most basic level the movement is nothing more than the consequence of exploding gas?"
You might not WANT to accept that an internal-combustion-engine car moves as the result of exploding gas, but it does.
At the most basic level, thoughts and movement of the individual are the consequence of neurons firing in the brain. The brain is but an organ.
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings I don't think that is the equivalent to my question, because we both know that that is NOT all that makes a car go, it takes an intelligent human being to cause the explosion. If perhaps a car caused its own explosion, and drove itself down the road, you might have a point, otherwise, you're perilously close to making a theistic argument.
patrckhh20 3 months ago
@patrckhh20, YT User, Dom0nePhilosophy used the analogy of a car when he argued determinism from an atheistic perspective (watch?v=-BAXswgpVmM)
OK here is another example of your rhetorical question: "Why exactly should I believe the fruitfly navigated over to a banana and laid eggs when at the most basic level the activity was the consequence of neurons firing in the brain?"
BTW, neurologists study the brain of fruitflies in order to get a better understanding of how the human brain works
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings Ok, that one makes a little more sense. But my point was not to question that the fact that an event happened by neurons firing in the brain. Your example of the butterfly makes my case for me; it is just a butterfly doing what its instincts tell it. If this is all humans have then you cannot attach to it any transcendent meaning or worth.
patrckhh20 3 months ago
@patrckhh20 the fruitfly commonly used is Drosophila. Butterflies are impractical.
Also, you seem to misunderstand what instinct is. Instinct is not like a gearbox with only one possible direction of movement. Instinct is internal stimulation. It is a feeling; a desire. When a girl says she is horney, she is being stimulated by her sexual instinct. The degree of that internal stimulation (WANT) determine her intensity of striving and her awareness of available options determine the path taken
unseenstrings 3 months ago
Likewise, the degree of internal stimulation being experienced by the fruitfly and the awareness of available options (from previous learning experiences) determines the path the fruitfly takes to get whatever it might WANT. Even an organism as simple as a fruitfly can adapt to varying and sometime unusual circumstances. My dogs don't automatically poop on the floor for the same reason a baby learns not to poop in his pants. Yet both my Chihuahuas and the baby poop as a consequence of instinct.
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@patrckhh20, and as far as "transcendent meaning or worth" is concerned, you must ask by what criterion you are judging meaning or worth. And you must ask whether this criterion is the boundaries established by some ideology you have acquired because of your particular indoctrinations or other experiences. And you must ponder whether someone with a different ideology--say for instance Buddhism--would have the same limitations as you in regard to "transcendent meaning or worth."
Naturalism Org
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@patrckhh20, one last tidbit: In the great majority of cases, individuals don't have sex to have babies. They have sex because of a specific WANT being experienced. And they do not choose to experience the WANT. The WANT is the consequence of instinctive mechanisms, with babies following as a consequence of striving to satisfy the WANT. In fact, the human race would go extinct without instinct. But, of course, we pretend that only nonhumans have instinct. We paint imaginary pictures with words.
unseenstrings 3 months ago
We are free to do what we want.
We are forced to do what we want.
Either way, we do what we want.
stewboz83 3 months ago
@stewboz83, "forced," in a sense, implies your arm is being twisted. And yes, you WANT to do what you WANT not to do rather than suffer pain. But that choice isn't what is commonly meant by "doing what one WANTS." Nevertheless, in no sense do you predetermine what WANT you shall experience. The WANT is created by unconscious processes. Schopenhauer said it this way, "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills." We are like biological robots driven by the WANTS that we experience.
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@stewboz83, be aware that two individuals exposed to the same environmental circumstances don't necessarily experience the same WANT. Say for instance you & a friend attend Super Bowl XLVI on Feb. 5, 2012 in Indianapolis. Suppose while watching the game, you got cold but your friend didn't. Thus your friend wouldn't experience a WANT to get warm like you. And your response to the WANT would be determined by the nature you'd previously developed & how strong the WANT is to stay and watch the game
unseenstrings 3 months ago
Obviously humans are organisms that have a biological and genetic structure which makes them what they are. But, it is entirely conceivable that free will is a mechanism to make an organism's behavior unpredictable and adaptable to new circumstances, enabling them to outwit opponents and respond with behavioral flexibility. An organism with fixed biologically determined responses would be easier to outwit. Hence our large brains.
usr1000x 3 months ago
@usr1000x, you seem to have given the matter some thought, but you don't seem to have really dwelt deeply on the issue. First, I know of no organism that has purely fixed biological responses. (By "fixed" I assume you mean genetically determined.) Also, maybe you'd like to tell me how a causal process, such as natural selection, can give rise to a will that is free from the laws of cause and effect? Seems nonsensical to me. And what good is the "big brain" when the human never learned language?
unseenstrings 3 months ago
Next you seemed to have ignored the fact that philosophers are trained in logic and consider themselves among the elite of intelligentsia, but they are all the time vehemently disagreeing with one another.
And what is unpredictable behavior? Is that behavior you can't predict because you don't know all the causal factors involved? Or is that behavior that is "random" in the truest sense of the term?
And what does intelligence have to do with one person experiencing a WANT another doesn't?
unseenstrings 3 months ago
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd, wow! I'll bet Jesus Camp would love to have you as one of their staff.
Now your conspiracy theories are really quite far fetched. This is coming from someone who doesn't appreciate the way newscasters roll their eyes and say, "Oh, another conspiracy theory," because I know the tactic can cause the public to reject an idea that deserves serious consideration. However, in this case you have me rolling my eyes saying, "WTF? Another delusional freak with a conspiracy theory."
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings It's no theory friend. This 450 year old Vatican/Jesuit plot was hatched in the Council of Trent as part of Rome's Counter Reformation and your mind has been caught up in it and fallen victim to it. You can find solace in the fact that you are not alone. It's documented history.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd, Ecclesiastes 8:15 and Isaiah 22:13 both say essentially to eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you may die. And that is the essence of "do what thou wilt," which has been said many times throughout history, most famously in modern times by a prolific British writer named, Aleister Crowley.
Lots of "conspiracy theories" exist--each neatly fitting the biases of the person imagining the conspiracy. And most attribute too many results from the efforts of some obscure group.
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings
"Lots of "conspiracy theories" exist--each neatly fitting the biases of the person imagining the conspiracy. And most attribute too many results from the efforts of some obscure group."-unseenPlotStrings
>Rome's Council of Trent Counter Reformation is no conspiracy "theory" my friend. It is a very well known and documented PLOT of Vatican Rome and her Jesuit military. Hardly an "obscure group".
Your obviously way outside the loop of knowledge in regards to world machinations.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
You sound like you've been reading too many Jack T. Chick tracts.
Aren't you aware of obvious propaganda when you see it?
Satan is an imaginary being you've been taught to believe exist so that you will acquire unquestioning and unlimited hatred. Then the hatred can be transfered to real people by means of subtle ploys, such as those employed in JTC tracts.
No doubt the elite of the Catholic Church conspire to further their agenda, just as do executives of JTC Pub. & other corporations.
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings "Aren't you aware of obvious propaganda when you see it?"-unseen
I'm familiar with Jack Chick but not read his "tracts" and i believe I'm keen to propaganda when i see it, but I don't expect everyone to be aware of this Universal truth when they see it.
"Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many; the intelligence of a few perceives what has been carefully hidden." — Phaedrus
There is an epic millennia old battle with a central figure quite real.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd, watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is if you are sincerely interested in absolute certainty and what the intelligence of a few true intellectuals really perceive.
Ironic how you quote a NonChristian to support the biases of your particular system of belief.
The epic millennium old battle with a central figure exists in your mind as a result of delusion and illusion. You have been deluded and that causes you to have erroneous mental representations and thus misinterpret your experiences.
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings I watched the video and found that the individual in the video, who you allude to as an"intellectual", is void of intelligence.
"... what the intelligence of a few true intellectuals really perceive."-unseeing
"I think its much more interesting to live not knowing"-Feynman
"Lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it is, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL"-Feynman
See any irony here between what the both of you said? Feynman perceives nothing.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd, LOL, oh my! Are you being silly? Don't you get it? Feynman perceives that we are lost in a mysterious universe with no purpose other than the purpose initialized by genetic tendencies and the purpose inspired by life's many and varied experiences.
Science has taught Feynman a little humility. He no longer has the absolute certainty that is a prerequisite to religious belief.
I'll bet you are absolutely certain about lots of things. Right? Satan? God? Catholicism? Etc?
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings
"I'll bet you are absolutely certain about lots of things. Right? Satan? God? Catholicism? Etc?"-unseeing
I am certain of the existence of God. I am certain that Satan is alive and doing well. I am certain that through the course of history Roman Catholicism and all its various societies has been his tool to achieve his goal.
Yes. Regarding things that matter, i am certain. And this is why fate brought you and i together. So that you may gain from my wisdom.
peace
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd, you are off topic within the comments of my video. Stay on topic or I'll be forced to delete your BS.
All humans--including you--are cursed with cognitive & confirmation biases. (Wiki the terms.) Science functions to diminish/overcome biases built into the researcher. Nothing about your system of belief has that capacity. Appearances are deceiving. You have been deceived because you are unaware of your built in biases, and because your group tends to be like the Catholics
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings
"Stay on topic or I'll be forced to delete your BS"-unseeing
>Ooooooo... feel the POWER. lol. Tell me-More empowering than having control of the t.v. remote?
A quick review will reveal that you were the one steering the wheel, not me.
Whether its the person Dawkins or what it is he says within the video, both are viable topics of discussion and my very first comment left on YOUR video was about Dawkins the man & his character and if that is questionable then to are his words.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd, you did not comment on the video. You launched an ad hominem attack against Dawkins. That was worst than drifting off topic. I stated that on the main page of my Channel. If you haven't got any logical argument or any constructive criticism, then bear in mind this is my Channel. BTW, I've noted the same exact attack on Dawkins by you elsewhere.
The next thing you did after launching a personal attack against Dawkins was to start spouting a bunch of conspiracy-theory BS.
unseenstrings 3 months ago
Unseenstrings i never got a reply from my letter to u, was it replied to on your blog?
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, yes, I replied to your comment on by blog yesterday. Now note that when you go to unseenstrings wordpress com, you'll see all the blogs in the order they were posted; but you won't see comments. In order to see the comments, you have to click the title of the blog. That opens up the blog separate from the other material. And the comments will be on the bottom.
Let me know if you have any more concerns or if I can be of any more help (providing you consider my blog helpful).
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Yes i did actually just make another reply on your blog. I suppose you did make it seem a little more better. I liked your video how you said ''correct'' your child don't punish. See the thing is i see a lot of determinist who's perspective does not change, they still act the same way as if they are pretending to have free will and it seems like they haven't ''shifted''. I would think they should also see things like you.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
Forget about causation for a moment. Outside of that, I feel that most people on YT preaching determinism/singularity seem to be pretty negative about it. They don't seem happy and when they see someone believing in free will, they seem even less happy. I don't really understand the point of trying to prove determinism. What are the benefits of that? On the other hand, people who talk about free will do seem atleast happier. That's from what i have observed.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, you are so deluded by a belief in free will that you assume a "determinist" can freely choose to act as you presume he would--instead of as nature has made him. The fact is, a person's behavior is determined his genetic endowment, which is traceable to the evolutionary history of the species, and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed.
Also, anecdotal evidence is often more fantasy than fact; therefore, such is not accepted by science.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
Have you ever heard the adage, "ignorance is bliss." There is much truth in the statement. In fact, some of the writers of the Old Testament noted the same phenomena in The Book of Ecclesiastes. The author(/s) went on to say that it is better to be wise and miserable than to be a fool living in bliss. And I'll agree. But of course, one can not freely choose to be wise. Wisdom is determined by the same factors that determine a person's behavior, mentioned above (genetic-environmental interaction)
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings I also don't get that. If the dog was killed based on determinism, then yea i can see determinists people determined to not get mad at all, but instead understand that it was out of anybodies control. If i were a determinists i don't think i would get mad about the dog. Instead, i would be like a robot because i would understand this was the only thing that could have happened. So i still find humor in the fact that determinists people still act like they have free will.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic you keep harping on and on about determinism and I've already pointed out that determinism is a complex philosophical position with much variation. I couldn't imagine you rambling on and on about determinism if we were trying to ascertain the innerworkings of a porpoise brain. So why do you bring so much irrelevancy into discussions concerning the complex physical system that is commonly referred to as the "human" brain? Free will is a pseudoexplanation. Define free will if you can
unseenstrings 4 months ago
How do you suppose a robot with AI on par with human intelligence is suppose to act? The same survival mechanism evolution built into humans would need to be built into a "Terminator" type robot in order for it to function efficiently. Suppose the human brain were reverse engineered. Suppose nano-technology and new discoveries in quantum mechanics allowed AI researchers to built a robot with a quantum computer brain as intelligent as you. Would you claim the machine had free will or just humans?
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings see that's what i don't get about determinists. They choose to continue to argue and act like they have free will. Then they say well it's only because something caused me to get mad. But then it's like you can use that excuse every time and it's just that, an excuse. After a while who cares if you say something caused it or i say you caused it, still an excuse.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, you cannot logically assert "They continue to argue and act like they have free will." You can say that in your blissful state of ignorance and limited awareness they seem to you to have free will. And I couldn't argue against that point. But of course, I could try to point out some the the causal factors involved
In split-brain research, individuals have made choices with one side of the brain that the other was ignorant of. The ignorant side makes up excuses (reasons) for why
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Well you can say that there anger is caused by something, but like i said i thought u were gonna say that, seems to me like an excuse either way. If i were a ''determinist'' i would accept everything and never get mad at other peoples opinions. Disproving determinism doesn't prove free will, but in order to have free will you have to have atleast these 2 things, which are the ''feeling'' of free will and we have to have indeterminism. So with that said, atleast it's better..
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, let me see if I have this correct: if a nonhuman animal gets angry, then the anger has a cause? But if the human animal gets angry, then you say we cannot say there was a cause because you would then say that is an excuse and not a reason why. Interesting. I think your state of confusion is primarily caused by your blind belief in free will.
A feeling you are God doesn't make you God. A feeling you have free will doesn't mean you do. Indeterminism doesn't prove free will.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
Einstein said, "Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me." And Richard Dawkins pointed out that we are "inconsistent," which I referred to as hypocrites. Your sweeping generalization about all "determinists" is quite illogical. Some "determinists" TRY not to get mad because of their awareness that free will is an illusion.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Oh come on. Most animals are not as smart as humans. A human has an ability to rationalize. Im saying humans can make excuses. Animals are not even smart enough to make excuses. I didn't say indeterminism doesn't prove free will. But neither does determinism. Im saying it opens the gate for free will. Determinism would completely rule it out. And in order to have free will, you have to at the very least feel it. If you feel like a robot, you don't have it for sure.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, I'm "rationalizing." You're "rationalizing." But we don't agree. Philosophers are the best "rationalizers" in the world and they vehemently differ in their rationalizations. Seems you put too much faith in the human ability to be rational. In fact, I've already mentioned that the findings of split-brain research indicate patents use the linguistic side of their brain to "rationalize" behavior initiated by the opposite side--behavior that the linguistic side was wholly ignorant of.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
No doubt one person will "rationalize" homosexual behavior & another will "rationalize" heterosexuality. The Christian will "rationalize" a belief in "God." And the atheist will rationalize just the opposite. What you really mean is the human robot experiences particular feelings--feelings that it did not freely choose. And this biological robot is driven to & fro by the feeling, but makes up excuses for the ensuing behavior. Yet he calls his own excuses, rational, & claims others invent excuses
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, 2 points invalidate your argument. 1) You can not logically state what being a robot would feel like unless you were a robot. (This is besides the fact that, in a sense, you are a biological robot created by natural selection.) 2) Awareness of possible threats and awareness of available options determine choice behavior more-so in certain instances than so called, "intelligence." (We humans have learned to use the greater awareness of our dogs to our advantage.)
Naturalism Org
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Robot? I never said anything about being a robot. I am not sure what you are trying to say. I don't think you read what i wrote and just started to write whatever you felt like.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, you said, "If you feel like a robot, you don't have it for sure." You insinuated that a robot would feel like a robot. I stated that unless you were a robot then you cannot state what it would feel like to be a robot. And since you are a biological robot of sorts created by natural selection, and since you've developed the feeling of having free will, then a robot can be programmed to feel as if it had free will. You don't seem to understand what you said or what I stated in reply
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Yea but if i was determined to say that, then there was no other possibility. So I really believe that it is completely insane for a determinists to judge anyone for there actions. It is insane. Because it's like interacting with a rock. Im a rock. There is nothing that is going to change my path. Knowing that, you should agree and say hmm he's right. That motherfucker.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, you're a dynamic physical system. A rock isn't. A very sophisticated robot with AI would also be a dynamic physical system. A rock can't do what such a robot could do. But that doesn't mean the robot would have free will any more than it means you have free will.
The fact that causality is true means that our conversation could effect the way each of us think. Free will would mean that you are not only free from such influences but from all influences--even "supernatural" ones.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
If you had free will then you would be more like a rock rolling down a hill than the dynamic physical system that you are. No words could alter your path. No threats of hell-fire could make you afraid to think certain thoughts or question what you'd been taught. You could decide today to believe in a different god every day of the year. And you could start off the New Year as an atheist. Your mind would be free from the psychological ploys of salesmen, politicians and preachers alike. Free will?
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Yes a complex rock. You are no more free than a rock. Even if you are more complex and move around, you are no more free. If causality is true, you cannot affect the way one thinks. The reason is because that was predetermined and was supposed to happen that way. You did not change anything. you feel like you did. You are still a rock. Just like rocks bouncing off each other. There is no error.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, earlier you stated that if someone keeps using the same excuse then he is immature. I found the word usage a bit unsophisticated. Now I suspect your reasoning and word usage may have revealed a bit about you. You're a kid--a rebellious adolescent who thinks he has everything figured out. Now I could be wrong because naiveness isn't exclusive to youth. I've met older people who had lived sheltered lives that seemed to be as naive as you
You are spouting lots of logical fallacies
unseenstrings 4 months ago
So far seems every time you open your mouth you puke out a logical fallacy. I see an argument from ignorance. I see an argument from repetition. I see a continuum fallacy. I see an equivocation fallacy. I see a circular cause and consequence fallacy (free will). I see a false dilemma fallacy. I see fallacy of the single cause. I see an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. I see a mind projection fallacy. I see the hasty generalization fallacy. I see an appeal to ridicule fallacy & exaggeration fallacy
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic a dog isn't a rock. He is a dynamic physical system. I can use vocalizations to have a causal effect on a dog's mind. I can use vocalizations (words) to have a causal effect on the human mind too. But you want to call the human "a rock." And you want to deny the fact that words can causally effect the human mind. I pointed out that a person with free will would be more akin to a rock than we are. Free will could not be influenced by anything. But you seemed to have ignored the fact
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings And you just said that im in a state of confusion. Im not because you haven't got me understood. Im saying once you know better, you can't keep making the same excuse over and over. Otherwise that is being immature.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, wow, you keep making up the same excuse over and over for human behavior. Now you're saying the person who does so is immature. I say you are merely being illogical for repeating that human behavior is caused by a magic thing that you call free will. And I say your actual maturity has nothing to do with whether your "premise" is logical or not.
Free will is superfluous. It adds nothing to our understanding of the way the human brain functions in the real world
Naturalism Org
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings I also believe you have the free will for what your sexual orientation is.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, so you're saying you're personally driven by nature to feel equal attraction regarding both homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships. But you choose to have one type of relationship instead of the other. Interesting. Maybe you're bisexual. That would explain why you feel attracted to men and women, but choose--for whatever reason (I still cannot imagine a human choosing to do something without feeling the choice was necessary or desirable)--one over the other.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
Once I felt a need to make a decision but was in the dilemma of indecision. The necessary strength of feeling didn't bubble into conscious awareness to stimulate me into choosing. So, to fulfill the choice requirement, I flipped a coin. Now be aware that just because a person cannot predict the outcome of a coin toss with over what is considered pure chance, the outcome of the coin toss is causally determined. A lack to predict outcome does not mean the phenomena was free from causality.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings You are not free to do anything unseenstrings.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, your apparent ignorance and denial of the facts is sad. You see, I can do anything I WANT, providing it is within my physical limitations. However--and this is extremely important--I do not consciously create the WANT that I experience. Why did I WANT butter pecan ice cream in one instance but strawberry cheese-cake flavor in another? I did not choose to WANT one or the other. I merely experienced the want and chose accordingly. Now I WANT more to keep my blood glucose level down.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, would you make all the same choices that you now make, providing you'd never been taught language? No, you wouldn't, because language and how you've learned to use it is a causal factor that has an effect on the way you think. You can do what you will, but you cannot will yourself to experience a particular will without first experiencing the will to do so, i.e., you can do what you WANT, but you can not freely choose the WANT before it is experienced. watch?v=v6fk8m3WxwI (my vid)
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings but that is common sense, has nothing to do with free will. that paragraph you wrote does not prove or disprove anything.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, free will is akin to God in the sense that it is a metaphysical claim. And such claims cannot be proved nor disproved by physical beings functioning in a physical world according to physical laws. However, love, pain, learning, hunger, thirst, fear, are a few of many words that make no sense in a world ruled by free will. Your choices are determined by such factors in combination with "who you are." And, like a robot, you had to develop into "who you are" before you could choose.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings you are insane to even try to convince me since im a rock.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, yes its sad that you are so naive and represent determinism in such a distorted fashion. But, I do realize that if you are a young person as I suspect, then maybe life will teach you some important lessons as you continue to grow and get older--thereby increasing your awareness. However, if you happen to be a naive older person, then that would be really sad. Well, I guess if you died at a ripe old age in a blissful state of ignorance, it wouldn't be so very sad for you personally
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Unseenstrings, you're saying i represent determinism in a distorted fashion? With all due respect, isn't determinism just determinism? I mean aren't I correct that if determinism is true, then that means i was determined to act naive? So how is that sad if I can't do anything about it? You understand what Im saying? Say it in a way that makes sense to me.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, well if you have a reading comprehension problem and couldn't quite grasp the Wikipedia article, then why didn't you say so. I'll try to explain as simply as possible. Determinism is an idea with variations that are hotly debated in philosophical circles. Are you a academic philosopher? I'm not. And I cannot imagine entering into a argument about something that even professional philosophers can't agree on. However, causality is a simplified form of determinism used by everyone.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
You use it. I use it. Science uses it. The doctor, when you go for a check up, uses it. Police investigators use it. The school cook uses it. When you set your alarm to awake in the morn, you assume causality. When I press the brake-pedal in my car, I'm assuming causality. When the doctor finds a disease, he assumes causality. When the police investigate a robbery, they look for profile, motive and other causal factors. Pretending the robber had free will is reserved mainly for court-room drama.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
No one starts engaging into deep philosophical disputes concerning determinism when we discuss the functions of a car. No one engages into deep philosophical disputes concerning determinism when he wonders about the disease he has be diagnosed with. In fact, we can talk about the universe and the formation of our sun and solar system, yet no one starts engaging into hotly debated philosophical issues. The human brain is the only issue that gets infected with hotly debated philosophical disputes.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
The logic boils down to this: If hotly debated philosophical issues are irrelevant to the scientific study of all other complex physical systems then it is irrelevant to the study of the human brain. In fact you can never truly understand any system when disputes abound. Science lets philosophers hammer out disputes between each other and science gets down to being scientific. Science has even been able to provide empirical data that contradicted long held philosophical beliefs
Naturalism Org
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, one last causal factor relevant to why you appear like a rock, seemingly unaffected by my words: when a gazelle sees a lion attack and kill another gazelle, the imagery stored in memory is long-lasting and hard to erase. The human had an evolutionary history that also resulted in such terrifying memories being long-lasting and hard to erase. Furthermore, once the human has been effectively taught language, words can be used to create terrifying imagery and even illusions, etc, etc
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings So then it's not my fault then right Unseenstrings? Im just a victim of the history of humans.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, remember what I said about the word, "fault?" Of course it is your fault, providing you consider the way you are a fault. The San Andreas Fault is the earth's fault. If you had brown eyes and considered that a "fault," then that would be your fault too. Yet I must ask, why do you want to use a word that isn't clear and concise? It can only cause confusion. How about instead the word defect? Of course you have a defect, providing you consider yourself defective. Thats your opinion.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
However, as I've pointed out before: Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. And they don't pop into existence by magic but develop according to physical laws.
You really don't seem to be reading or absorbing my previous replies. I guess that is another defect.
Are you insinuating that if you'd been placed in a sterile room at birth and attended by masked caretakers, never taught language or how to potty, and let out yesterday, then all your choices would be exactly as they now are?
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings But from a practical sense, it is not my fault. If it was preordained it was not my fault. Just agree with me dammit.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, of course it is your fault just as much as the continental plates colliding are the earth's fault. The San Andreas Fault isn't a fault that I have or that you have, it is the earth's fault. Likewise, your faults are none other than your own.
But I must ask, "Are you wanting to play the blame game?" Is it the metaphysical and ignorantly moralistic sense of the word that you mean? If so, then why not come out and state the fact clearly, concisely, and coherently? Why be vague?
unseenstrings 4 months ago
There you go again trying to inject your superfluous belief in predestination. Practicality requires you to be practical. Trying to figure out the infinite regress of causes and effects for any physical system is not only impractical, it can prevent one from learning the immediate aspects of what causes the system to function. In fact, since all the causal factors that have acted on any given system are more like a network than a chain, backtracing each to the starting point would be impossible.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Let me ask you a question. Do you talk like this in your everyday life with your peers/coworkers? I have to admit that I am really really really confused with most of the things you are pointing out. I cannot wrap my head around it. Now your confusing me with ''fault.'' And talking about lions. Do you think like this all day long?
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic I find it ironic that you want to ask me another question but you've failed to answer any of the questions I've asked
At one time I was trying to keep up with the Joneses and didn't have time to ponder life's experience. All my conversations with peers/coworkers were rather superficial. Now I don't have coworkers. I'm an elder. I've retired. I have no peers, per se. I didn't move into a retirement community nor am I a socializer. I can sit back and take a look at the big picture
unseenstrings 4 months ago
Most of my friends are Christian, which is understandable, since personal experience determines perception. And this is a country that at one time provided primarily only experiences conducive to developing Christians. Times change. Christians have boycotted corporations in the past and in turn corporations have become less friendly toward Fundamentalism.
When I read Einstein, Sam Harris, d'Holbach, and other intellectuals, I realize I'm in good company. They too saw free will as an illusion.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Because im lost in the questions you asked. Ok let me ask you this. If you just met your grandaughters friend. Are you going to start talking to her about determinism right away? Say this is when she's older. Also, you sound semi convincing when you wrote that letter. But i believe that if you were to pretend to believe in something else, you would also sound just as convincing.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, you don't even realize you are contradicting the notion of free will when you say I sound "convincing." Remember, free will would mean the will is free from any influence, regardless of whether that influence is natural or supernatural
If I just met my granddaughter's friend, and she was having a problem with self-acceptance, then I may mention some of the causal factors involved. Otherwise, the belief in free will is tied to too many other concepts for me to tackle all at once
unseenstrings 4 months ago
Just be aware that the open letter to my granddaughter wasn't just to my granddaughter. It was directed toward anyone who now has children or who may one day have some.
The people who play the blame game with their children are not acting in the child's best interest. When the child misbehaves, then the parent should wonder why--not blame the child for being as any normal child would under the circumstances. And attempts should be made to "correct" the child without playing the blame game.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
I probably couldn't "pretend" to believe in something I didn't believe and be convincing. But no doubt some actors and actresses can. Mirror neurons in your brain can make you feel and thus react to the emotional displays of others. That is the reason drama is such an effective tool in the hands of the propagandist.
Note that nowhere have I attributed the thoughts or behavior of individuals to free will. That is because the notion of free will effectively stops one from wondering about causes
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Also I realized if randomness comes into play, then it means that you have a free will. You did say so yourself that it might come into pay. I myself believe that randomness in its whole is the same thing as free will or partly. Determinists have yet to figure everything out and it doesn't look like they will disprove free will anytime soon. If I believe something, you can't prove me wrong because it's just a belief. I can believe in unicorns and if i do it's a true statement.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, causal determinism would mean you don't have free will. And causal indeterminacy would mean you don't have free will. I've already pointed those facts out. Sam Harris put it something like this: If you are magically in charge of your actions, somehow separated from your physical brain, but every once in awhile some form of randomness enter the equation, then that wouldn't be free will but insanity. I gave the example of choosing to change the baby but instead killing the president
unseenstrings 4 months ago
Should you happen to believe in unicorns then a true statement would be that you BELIEVE in unicorns. No statement of the truth or falsity of your belief is possible merely based on your firm conviction that it is true. The same applies to any metaphysical claim--even if it happens to be claims of a soul or of free will
When you say "determinists," do you mean philosophers? Please define the word since you keep using it
Also, no one has "everything figured out" and I doubt such can ever be
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings The thing is if somehow hypothetically speaking, more evidence suggested a soul or free will (Im not saying it is) But if it did and your logic was not in favor, I think you would get pissed. You do not want people to have freedom. You want them to be spectators, but not have a say in anything. Your whole joy in life is debunking free will and if you couldn't do it, you would probably become suicidal im guessing. On other hand if determinism is true, then i don't feel shame.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, you're thinking is a false presumption. I believed in free will for many years, because that is what I had been taught. But when I stepped back and saw that Iran was creating Muslims, India was creating Hindus, and Tibet had for many years created Buddhists, then I started wondering. The more I looked into the issue the more I saw that free will was an illusion. Why would I get pissed if suddenly scientific evidence were produced proving free will is true? Thats silly for sure.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
No doubt I would experience a very unsettling paradigm shift similar to the one I experienced when I realized free will is an illusion. And likewise the adjustment might be a bit painful to me. But I don't see where it would make me suicidal, unless you mean it would make me start playing the blame game. And the blame game might make me experience so much resentment and rage that I may become suicidal. Is that what you mean? Is that what you feel? Would you like to kill all the "bad" people?
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings But there r many smart people who also believe every bit as much as u, but they believe free will isnt an illusion. I cant say that your more convincing then them, although your convincing. So i can't be on your side just like that. The reason y u might get pissed if scientific evidence suggested free will, is cuz u would think you wasted your time and maybe taught your grand daughter the wrong thing in the letter, when you could have chose otherwise. That's what im guessing.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, but I couldn't have chosen otherwise, not based on my character and the fact I realize free will is an illusion. I was compelled to do what I felt was best for my granddaughter. It made me feel good to teach her something that could give her an edge in life.
"Most scientists today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind." - Richard Dawkins
You may know some smart people who are ignorant about the most recent findings of science. Free will is a belief based on ignorance.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, the primary reason you feel, " i can't be on your side just like that" is because evolutionary forces have not fashioned your mind to flip-flop back and to between contradictory beliefs. I already covered that. I covered that also in my video, "What Caused TheWoodsOfJordan?" (watch?v=Vriw4vIntBQ). Bear in mind that YT User, TheWoodsOfJordan was flip-flopping back and to between different versions of Christianity (not perfectly contradictory), and he was also on psychotropic drugs.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, I've copied our conversation to "unseenstrings wordpress com" and given it the title, 'JLeeMagnetic comments on YT video, "Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will, and Unseenstrings replies."' I didn't copy any part of your PM to me. That is up to you whether you want to carry on that conversation or not. I would appreciate you going over there to continue this conversation, since I can't PM through YT. Besides, I can provide links, which is near impossible in YT comments.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Here's my next question. can the future be predictable? Why or why not? My friend says everything can be calculated, even knowing what your gonna eat at what time tomorrow, lets say its tuna. He said i could not prove the prediction wrong. The scary thing is EVEN if i TRIED, i would lost control of my body and i would be forced to eat the tuna. Now that is ANTI free will to me. Can that happen? If you could calculate the future, you can't eat something else? HOW SCARY. explain.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, the future may be predictable providing all causal factors are known. However, we are too ignorant to make an absolute prediction of the future. We can say the future will turn out like so-and-so providing such-and-such factors don't change. And we may make some fairly accurate prediction about the future of one small segment, such as the future of space research. Otherwise, accurate prediction concerning every future state and event is impossible.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
Now in order to predict what you are going to eat tomorrow, one would need to know your eating habits, what time you usually get hungry, what food is available, and whether you will be subjected to anything that could effect your appetite, such as medications or stimulating advertisements. I doubt your friend would have enough knowledge to make an accurate prediction.
The only way you could be forced to eat tuna is if you were literally forced, or if you couldn't get anything to eat but tuna.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
By the way, I cannot read but 961 characters of the personal message you sent (the portion that was sent along with notification of the personal message to my email address). You see, I can login to reply to comments. But when I try to view my YT Channel or my Inbox, I get the message that I MUST create a Google account and link it to my You Tube account. Fuck Google.
Google's motto is to "do no evil." But more people have been killed and tortured in the name of "good" than any other reason.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, when I stated some common causal factors that have an influence on choice behavior, you said, "but that is common sense..." And you went on to deny the factors contradicted free will. WTF? Now, that's sad.
Yes, its true that the facts I stated are common sense. But here is another fact for you: Free will is common nonsense. It is an illusion passed down to us from our ignorant ancestors.
Very much intelligence can be wasted in ignorance when the need for illusion is great.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Unseenstrings, you are absolutely insane. The reason is because whatever i thought, was not my fault. Therefore for you to say stuff like wtf? and that's sad, is insane. I am just like a rock bouncing down a hill, i have no control over what i do. You should be the person to understand that. You keep pulling a switch on me and saying but, if, yea. There is no butt. It is the way it is. You are doomed my friend. so am i.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, "insane," now there you go with the ad hominem fallacy. And if any fallacy can be construed as evil in the world of logic, the ad hominem fallacy would be at the top of the list. You see, the ad hominem is an attack on the person instead of the argument being presented. It is quite irrelevant whether you are a naive bisexual young man or not. It is quite irreverent whether you are under psychiatric care. What matters in the world of logic is the argument you present, nothing else.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
I can ask "WTF?" when I notice how my statements are being misrepresented. Did you read the Wiki article on determinism as I suggested. You are still spouting the same fallacious BS. Knowing the facts increases your awareness. You seem to be afraid to face up with the facts. What causes you to call a complex dynamic physical system a "rock." A rock isn't a complex dynamic physical system. Dogs are. Humans are. But not rocks. What causal factors have you in a state of denial? Its all your fault.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
The San Andreas Fault is the earth's fault. But I try to avoid use of the word "fault" because it is incompatible with reality. You see, one sense of the word requires "free will" to be assumed. And I already know free will is an illusion. Therefore, one meaning of the word promotes an illusion.
I'll remind you again: when people talk about an event being causally determined, most don't mean that "fate" or "God" predestination the event. Read the Wikipedia article as suggested please.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
what blows me away about determinists is the countless amount of times they argue over and over and call other people stupid for not believing them. I mean if it was determined, you would think they would understand to accept people for following their own destiny. It's so funny. Then you have people who say oh no, it was determined they would get mad at the people who believe in free will. But then again... GIVE me a break!! hahaha the typical destiny excuse..
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic, when people talk about an event being causally determined, most don't mean that "fate" or "God" predestination the event. They simply mean that the oil-spill on curve of the busy road meant that an accident was inevitable. To take the position that The Big Bang or God predestined the spill and ensuing accident is a religious position, because it is unfalsifiable, thus unscientific
Also, determinism is a general philosophical thesis with variation. Read the Wikipedia article
unseenstrings 4 months ago
Also, it can be argued that the "determinists" who get mad do so because the anger was caused by something, just like the ignorance of individuals has a cause
Hairy, my son's 5 lb Chihuahua was murdered by the 90 lb pit bull next door. Neither talking about free will nor determinism will cause our anger and grief to go away. Humans are animals and feel an intense desire to bite back in such situations.
Disproving determinism does not prove free will. Quantum randomness isn't freely chosen.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 4 months ago
Know what I am getting tired of? The condescending pop ups on videos explaining what is being told...
lundymaphone 4 months ago
@lundymaphone--condescending--that is an interesting word. Now that I think about it, the person who accuses another of being condescending usually does so in a condescending manner. In other words, accusations and insinuations of condescension is usually accomplished by a person using a condescending manner. Why? Well, Richard Dawkins says it is because we are inconsistent. I'm a little more blunt. I say it is because the human race is a race of hypocrites. We are pots calling the kettle black.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings.. Your attempt to add social commentary is interesting, but.... 1) It assumes I meant to be condescending (which I did not), 2) You used your opinion and attempted to "attach" it to a more respected persons opinion and use it as though it is a proper theory. 3) Your point on hypocrisy , while I agree with it, is not relevant given 1. Also the reason Dawkins avoided the word hypocrisy is because inconsistent is more accurate as hypocrisy is generally perceived as absolute.
lundymaphone 4 months ago
@lundymaphone, my point on hypocrisy was tongue-in-cheek. The word "hypocrisy" carries negative connotations with it. Dawkins used the much more appropriate term. I would do well to avoid use of the word as I do the word fault. You know, as in Earth has faults that are not Earth's fault, but they are. The word adds negativity and ambiguity to conversations.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings One thing I would ask (in genuine curiousity) is where your statement "Now that I think about it, the person who accuses another of being condescending usually does so in a condescending manner" comes from, ie which academic papers, journals, etc. Or is it from pop science? Or is it simply opinion? It is a rather interesting concept itself worthy of study. Also I need actual names of documents otherwise it doesn't actually help me.
lundymaphone 4 months ago
@lundymaphone, you apparently assumed I meant to be condescending. I did not. And if you thought I was, then that is your opinion. And opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. And they all develop according to physical laws.
This is YouTube, not an elite scholarly forum where one must abide by the manners of formal debate and write scholarly theses. You think my asshole stinks? Well yours smells no better.
Tongue in cheek is a nauseating thought for some reason. But it is there.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@lundymaphone, if you are interested in reading the paper concerning the matter we are presently discussing, then when you go to the bathroom and wipe your butt with toilet tissue, read what is written on the tissue afterwards and maybe you'll get some vague idea of what the basis is for our current conversation.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Are you one of these angry pseudo-intellectuals who takes pleasure in pointing out the painfully obvious? Are you perhaps retired or unemployed and simply have too much time on your hands? You were mildly entertaining before, now I have grown bored of your repetitive and unimaginative antics and humor, I will allow you the last word should it make you feel more secure, if you do not require such a gift then by all means refuse with silence.
lundymaphone 4 months ago
@lundymaphone, "pseudo-intellectual." Now that is another interesting term. Seems my analogy comparing opinions to assholes was very fitting, since you are apparently still excreting crap (the virtual effect of the words) all over the place.
Does using ad hominem attacks against your debate opponent (by calling him/her a pseudo-intellectual) help you feel superior in intellect? Does calling the opponent a pseudo-intellectual invalidate any argument put forth by the person? Why do you do it?
unseenstrings 4 months ago
Are you slinging crap for the same reason politicians do during political campaigns?
And what is "superior intellect?" Would the wisest elder in an African tribe have "superior intellect?" Or do you suppose "superior intellect" is only the result of formal Western indoctrination and/or education? Does anyone with "superior intellect" disagree with you? Or do you imagine that "superior intellect" would be indicated by those who you were in agreement with?
Naturalism Org
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Okay I am going to level with you, I have been "trolling" you, ie I was getting a rise out of you for my own amusement. I was sort of hoping you were counter-trolling me but I did 30 seconds of research on you and it seems casual internet spats are something you use to fill some sort of void in your life (I use sex myself). If you are curious I am a math major with strong AI design interest so being on the internet is my "not so serious" time.
lundymaphone 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Oh and just so you know I really don't want to continue this spat as it is no longer amusing, I just thought that on the off chance you were attempting a semi-serious conversation that it was only fair that I informed you of my position (ie troll). That being said a word of advice, you are overusing the feces related insults, the first one was quite serviceable actually but your continued use removed their novelty and took away from the rest of your post.
lundymaphone 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Oh and another thing, don't take my trolling as a personal insult, if it makes you feel better I don't troll obviously incompetent people as that is no challenge whatsoever. So although I am sure you are mildly annoyed (or hell maybe you are always annoyed) right now take pride in the fact that I found you a worthy target.
lundymaphone 4 months ago
@lundymaphone, LOL, yeah, OK. As an old retired senior citizen, I feel compelled to advise the future generation of the fact that free will is an illusion. (An audio of Frank Harris in my Freewill vs Nonfreewill Playlist states the facts I have been trying to present.) So I guess we were both driven either out of awareness or to escape boredom.
And BTW, when one takes mirror neurons into consideration, "shit" is relevant when the feeling toward shit can be associated with (and evoked by) words.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings I actually read your blog, and as someone studying AI you HAVE to study neuroscience as well (easier to recreate then create sort of thing), and I do more or less agree with you (and others) on the subject, I guess what I am saying even if you feel alone remember that you are not ;), have a good day (or night?).
lundymaphone 4 months ago
@lundymaphone, as a teenager I had read enough Popular Science that I knew the limitations on the size of a CRT. So when the comic character, Dick Tracy got a watch with a monitor built into it, I laughed. Some people laugh when the statement is made that one day we will have AI on par with human intelligence. I learned my lesson. I no longer laugh at possible scientific & technological achievements.
I felt in good company when Richard Dawkins & Sam Harris also said free will is an illusion.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings It is nice that someone says that, most discount my future area of work as meaningless time "wasted", and that there is something about humans that is especially special in that it cannot be recreated (or dare I say "improved"). Anyway, peace out as the kids say.
lundymaphone 4 months ago
@lundymaphone, yeah, you hear stated that complexity gives rise to new function, like a bolt can't fly but a 747 can. However, the same ones that use the complexity argument to insinuate free will (even though complexity can't override natural laws) seem to be the first ones to say AI on par with HI (H for human) can never exist. I suspect nano-technology and new scientific discoveries will prove them wrong.
Of course, since free will doesn't exist, their thoughts about the matter are caused.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@lundymaphone, no need reply. I wanted to emphasize your comment:
Natural selection is efficient, not perfect. And sexual selection is a form of natural selection, as is the relationship between aphids and ants, and humans and domesticated animals. Animal husbandry, whether by ants or humans, should be categorized along side sexual selection.
Very possibly AI research will be able to decompile the brain and "improve" upon the "design," bearing in mind any "improvement" would be relative.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@lundymaphone our conversation about the opinions of the average person concerning the possible future of artificial intelligence must have "inspired" me, because afterwards I felt motivated to write another essay on my WordPress Blog. The title is, The Black-Box of Free Will.
And BTW, ignorant people are easier to control and manipulate than individuals with knowledge. A belief in free will is a form of ignorance. People's thoughts about free will are cause. Question: is it mere coincidence?
unseenstrings 4 months ago
If they did stem from prior causal factors, then those factors could be identified. Another important consideration is that Pinker limits his analysis of free will to technical decisions - such as whether to fulfil a biologically necessary function such as eating in a certain way. This is misleading. The real test of free will is in situations where decide to contradict a biological impulse towards behaving in a certain way.
stalinist666 5 months ago
@stalinist666, my dogs decide to contradict certain biological impulses toward acting in a certain way. But the contradiction is biological also, just as it is in humans. My dogs would like instant gratification when the biological urge to defecate is experienced. But they whine and scratch on the door to go outside. They have learned from previous experience that their world is a better place when they resist certain urges
Pinker limits his analysis to falsifiable scientific theories & facts
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@stalinist666, are the ideas you seem to be hinting at falsifiable?
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings Good point, I should clarify my position. Your dog's behaviour was determined by the conflict between two inputs - first of all an innate biological urge to defecate, and secondly, to conditioning which says it should not. It did not in any sense 'decide' or 'choose' one or the other - the stronger input simply won out. Human beings, however, can transcend any inputs we have and choose a different course based on reason or morality, or both. That is the essence of free will.
stalinist666 4 months ago
@stalinist666, so you have evidence to prove the internal mechanism of choice in dogs are merely the conflict between only two inputs while human beings "transcend" any inputs to magically reach decisions not based on the mechanisms of the brain? Seems like you have a very limited idea of the mechanisms involved in both human and canine choice behavior.
If you are a person who has developed a taste for eating your boogers, your confirmation bias will have you "reasoning" eating boogers is OK.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings
I cannot prove it through internal observation - our biological machinery is the same as that of an animal - but it can be shown through external observation. Set up to inputs, one incredibly strong and the other weak. In dogs, the stronger impulse would always win out, and they have no choice in the matter. In a human, however, we remain capable of choosing the weaker option despite being immeasurably compelled to the other. That is the true definition of free will.
stalinist666 4 months ago
@stalinist666, you cannot ascertain the inner working of the brain via external observation
Behaviorists are supposed to try to be as scientific about behavior as possible; thus they observe external conditions and stimulations and the responses of organisms to those factors. Yet, contrary to what you seem should be expected, behaviorists do not believe in free will.
You admitted the fact yourself. You cannot prove the wild, unsubstantiated, nonsensical claims that you are presently making
unseenstrings 4 months ago
How can the strength of an impulse be measured, whether in humans or dogs? How can we ascertain that a weaker "option" is being chosen over a "stronger" impulse? You can't. You are dancing around throwing words on this page and hoping your words causally effect the reader in a persuasive manner.
The Mars rover makes decisions based on prior learning experiences. So do dogs. And so do humans. Human behavior is predictable. The better you know someone, the easier his/her behavior is to predict.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings
Human behaviour is generally mechanistic, like a dog or a machine, but the fact that the possibility of changing it always exists in any situation if we will it to be so. If you are incapable of deciphering whether an impulse to do something is strong or weak, I think something may be seriously wrong with your own cognitive apparatus. A basic example would be a drug addict. Despite massive urges to use the addictive substance, they could always choose not to, making a choice.
stalinist666 4 months ago
@stalinist666, repeating over and over and over wild, unsubstantiated, nonsensical claims does not make the claims true. Also, you must prove something besides the physical brain is choosing. As it stands, no reason exists to assume anything but the brain is involved in choice behavior. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
"...our biological machinery is the same as that of an animal." That is because we are animals. But we have evolved complex language and writing skills.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
The overweight person's choice is not free from the ideas that have formed in his mind about being overweight. A man or woman's choice to be heterosexual or homosexual is not free from the tendencies he or she has developed and the inhibitions and attractions he or she feels. And the drug users mind is not free from similar casual factors.
The human brain is a dynamic physical system. A moment before one choice is made, an event could change the choice. But no choice is free from causality.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings
Again you must be misunderstanding. No choice is free from causality, of course - all of the inputs, the addiction, the genetic tendency towards homosexuality etc, are very real and do play a role in most decisions. Human behaviour is largely determined by these things. But in the face of even the strongest causal factors, we have the choice to choose a weaker option. My drug addict example is still relevant. As would be the choice to behave heterosexually even if one was not.
stalinist666 4 months ago
@stalinist666, you are contradicting yourself again: When you agree with me and say, "No choice is free from causality..." and then claim an exception to the rule, that is a contradiction. The mechanism of choice is either free from causality or it is not, there is no middle-ground.
Again you making a nonsensical claim. How can it be tested that the homosexual is choosing a "weaker" social conformity option over "stronger" sexual preference? How can internal stimulation/inhibitions be tested?
unseenstrings 4 months ago
A truism for basic electricity is "Current always flows in the path of least resistance." This truism is analogous to thought in the human brain. Thought always flows in the path of least resistance. Resistance can be thought of as being inhibitions resulting from previous learning experience. Not everyone has precisely the same learning experiences. Nor does everyone learn precisely the same lesson. Thus we see one homosexual choosing to date the same sex and another refraining from such acts.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings
What unsubstantiated claims? I didn't claim a soul, though it would be a possible logical consequence of what I am saying. But even if that were the case, does that mean that you would dispense with knowledge of something just because you cannot prove it? We cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I have no doubt that it will. I cannot prove that I exist, but I have no doubt that I do. Logical positivism died a long time ago for these same deficiencies.
stalinist666 4 months ago
@stalinist666, your comparison is illogical, just like most of the other statements you've made. You see, the sun can be tested and shown to exist. The earth orbits the sun, giving the illusion that the sun rises. Past experience indicates the earth is not going to magically quit rotating, nor is the sun going to magically disappear. Little imps are not making the earth rotate. Nor is anything separate from your brain doing the choosing for your brain. You are spouting lots and lots of nonsense.
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings
If we are to continue to talk, I suggest you use your own free will to improve your manners when you communicate with me.
stalinist666 4 months ago
@stalinist666, let me see if I have this correct. First you say, "I think something may be seriously wrong with your own cognitive apparatus." Then you spout a bunch of hypocritical BS about me improving my manners when I communicate with you.
Schopenhauer's words: "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills," accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. An illusion causes you to be unkind
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings
I think you are a good intellectual opponent, and I appreciate your rigour - however we must choose to behave with manners towards one another. I have not read Schopenhauer, so I cannot comment comprehensively on this, but from this statement I do not think he is dispensing with free will in the way you seem to be. He seems to recognise, as I do, that we are all in a sense determined by circumstances, inputs and predispositions. Despite this, we have a limited domain of choice.
stalinist666 4 months ago
@stalinist666 actually my statement was a quote from Einstein's, My Credo (1932). He started off the statement with, "I do not believe in freedom of the will." Now that is clear enough
But as far as what Schopenhauer meant, he wrote in German. If you can read German then you're in luck. Otherwise, Schopenhauer's meaning may be somewhat distorted by an interperter's translation. According to Wikiquote org, the quote came from Prize Essay On The Freedom Of The Will (1839). watch?v=dodTNPp12rg
unseenstrings 4 months ago
@unseenstrings
I wasn't trying to ascertain the workings of the brain through external observation, I was merely pointing out that we choose our behaviour. This is an external fact, and the mechanisms of the brain are relevant in as much as they facilitate the materialization of our choices. It is not wild to say that we have free will - if the opposite was seriously true, none of us would be responsible for our behaviour, and any notion of justice would be out the window.
stalinist666 4 months ago