Psychological Determinism vs Free Will

[unseenstrings]

@whitenightf3, whoops! I thought you wanted to know where I got the quote. It was Lawrence who made the statement. My previous information provides enough information so that you should be able to locate and download the 124 page free ebook (PDF) of quotations, should you be interested in doing so.

[whitenightf3]

@unseenstrings in the clip the voice attributes it to George Bernard Shaw, hence my confusion and question.

[laskji]

I like your point about a nebulous uncaused freewill being nonsensical. And the idea that determinism fosters a more compassionate attitude is enlightening.. To a point. What I'm saying is nobody 'tries' or 'learns' anything. Both of these are just illusory.We are marionettes bouncing to and fro at the behest of the puppetmaster of nature.. We become observers of a drama unfolding out of our control. The existential nausea gives way the determinist nausea

[unseenstrings]

Every human alive will eventually die. Of course, people imagine all sorts of ways to deny the reality of death. But that is besides the point. You're talking like a fatalist. And the inevitableness of death ought to give you more than sufficient reason to imagine life is indeed a vain undertaking. However, you don't. Why? At least if the future is causally determined, we really don't know for sure what the future holds. So why act like a fatalist under the supposition determinsim may be true?

[unseenstrings]

I suspect your feelings are based on false assumptions. Those who believe in a god assume the world would be amoral and basically criminally insane without the same belief. However, the facts bear witness to the falsity of such assumptions. Buddhism, Jainism, Unitarianism, Taoism, and Shintoism don't have a god per se, but adherents have some of the highest morals of any humans. I have a friend raised Hindu, but became atheist. Yet he retains his vegetarian morals. Morals develop from experience

[laskji]

Good point about recognition of causal factors. However "responsibility" "Try" "morality" "good" and "bad" simply have no meaning at all if determinism is true... Even arguing is an attempt to convince, and "convince" is a nonsense word without free will. Removing freewill isn't the same as removing God. God is only one of many 'motivations' to be good... Freewill is not a motivation to be good.. it is the 'means' to being good. I think you are oversimplifying the implications of determinism...

[unseenstrings]

Are you saying organisms do not "try" to survive? Or are you saying that the organism that "tries" to survive does so outside the laws of nature? Are you saying that when the bitch nips the needle-toothed pup to wean it from nursing, the pup does not learn that nursing is no longer permitted, i.e. "bad"? Are you saying that when a babe is pottytrained, the cognative processes somehow become magical but the cognative processes of the housebroken dog are not so? Please define an uncaused will?

[unseenstrings]

Free will has historically been defined as the ability to make choices "without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1975)) And this is what is commonly meant when the term "free will" is used. However, some people who know better believe the free will illusion is necessary for social control. I believe the free will illusion keeps people living in the dark ages. The term "free will" cannot help anyone truly understand human cognition.

[unseenstrings]

laskji said, "Even arguing is an attempt to convince, and 'convince' is a nonsense word without free will."

How in the world can you not see the contradiction? How in the world can you say such nonsense with a straight face. Then again, I cannot see your face. You may be LOL.

Silly, a person with free will could not be swayed with words, imagery, or anything. Don't you get it? Free will means mental processes would be free from the causal effect of words. Free will means unaffected by anything

[laskji]

Freewill does not have to be magic. It's a paradox that science doesn't understand (yet). I think there is a certain paradox in the human mind trying to understand itself. But if you push determinism I think you get a psychological situation of loss of self-efficacy and personal responsibility. This sets us up very nicely to be herded like cattle by 'practical men.' As they say, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

[unseenstrings]

Science can never understand free will because free will doesn't exist. Therefore, free will certainly isn't a paradox but it is an illusion. Dennett seems to think the individual has an "epistemic horizon" he cannot see over. So? Others can predict the behavior of the individual better than s/he can predict her/his own behavior. Also, the loss of "self-efficacy" and so called "personal responsibility" are equivalent to the amoral behavior that believers assume would rule without belief in a god

[unseenstrings]

The belief in free will sets individuals up very nicely to be like herded cattle. You see, when a human is ignorant of the factors that determine the development of the mindset he possesses--in fact when the free will delusion result in those factors being denied--then he shall assume he created his own mindset independent of any factor. If free will were true, we wouldn't need psychologists & behaviorists, since no causal factor could determine the development of the individual's mindset & will

[mcsaurus]

I can present an irrefutable argument in favor of free will but I choose not to.

[unseenstrings]

I reckon before you can prove something is true you must clearly define the "thing" you intend to prove. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1975) defines "free will" as "the power asserted of moral beings of choosing within limitations or with respect to some matters without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law." Pay special attention to the part about "choosing...without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law." You can prove such "free" will aye? Yeah right

[mcsaurus]

@unseenstrings: Freewill exists where physical or divine necessity or causal law doesn't necessitate a lack of choice.

[unseenstrings]

Yes, mcsaurus, that is as true a statement as can be made within the realm of science, & considering all the facts we are currently aware of. Every choice is the result of physical necessity or causal law. This inescapable fact applies to the choices of all animals, including humans. And to run one's mouth on and on about free will vs determinism when discussing human choices and decisions is irrational methodology unless the same approach is used when discussing non-human choices and decisions.

[mcsaurus]

@unseenstrings: Given that my entries have been minimal I take it that you're not suggesting that I run my mouth on and on.. In any case, your assumption that it's legitimate to extrapolate from nature in general and lesser animals in particular is questionable. Our self-awareness coupled with our analytical capabilities sets us apart from the world of simple reactions and reflexes. We can reflect on our choices and change them, then change them again, ad infinitum - as we will so.

[unseenstrings]

Why would you assume I think you were running your mouth on and on about irrelevant issues? You feel guilty?

You are oversimplifying the choices of nonhumans and over-complicating the choices of the human animal.

Oh, and by the way, your argument is irrelevant. No matter how complex choices are, and no matter what animal is doing the choosing (including humans), the choices are always the result of physical necessity or causal law. Free will is a figment of the imagination of the human animal

[mcsaurus]

@unseenstrings: Your comments page is a soliloquy. Where are the comments you're responding to? Do you just disallow any comment that contradicts you? We'll meet on neutral ground sometime.

[unseenstrings]

mcsaurus, obviously you're a liar and a deceiver. All one has to do is see your post and know you are intending to deceive. I reply to post I disagree with. Comments must be approved in order to give me time to reply to the comments. I don't censor unless the comment is spam or an attack on someone's character instead of the argument. Or unless the commenter keeps flooding the comment section the same argument I've already replied to. Quit telling me how to run my channel & worry about your own.

[YouWastesTube]

Wow, you discussed free will with your nephew and right after, he actually went out and acted against the virtues of free will, and acted like he took nothing from the discussion.

Amazing! Like a magic trick.

[unseenstrings]

No, it wasn't amazing. His behavior had statistic probability. I knew my nephew well enough--and was aware of some of the causal forces acting on him--to more or less guess what he'd do. Fad and fashion are no more amazing than stampeding cattle. Like the act of stampeding, fad and fashion are herd/pack phenomena. Fad and fashion result from instinctive mechanisms just as stampeding does. Trying to prevent cattle from stampeding during a thunderstorm, but them stampeding anyway, isn't amazing.

[jtan89]

We see this in the correlational data of twin studies, particularly any differences in behavior found for both twins raised in different environments and unrelated children raised in the same environment. Obviously, it's impossible to create totally identical exp. for those children raised in the same environment, but we might be able to assume that they do not vary greatly. I'm inclined to predict that genetic differences would play a much larger role than you seem to think they do.

[unseenstrings]

I recall the Major Media promoting the notion of genetic determinism to the extreme: they told of twin brothers who were raised apart but carried the same brand handmade Italian wallet. The thought that a specific gene could be responsible for someone carrying a particular wallet seems perfectly absurd to me. Why do some Non-Americans hold the same disrepute for two Americans raised a thousand miles apart? The answer is because both are the product of American Culture, i.e. similar environments!

[unseenstrings]

Yes, genes play a part but not as most people suspect. The herd instinct results in the individual striving for acceptance and for status. Abby and Brittany Hensel have acquired different tastes, even though they share the same body. Behavioral psychologists could probably explain all the factors involved using their jargon. I say the herd instinct make the behavioral differences possible. My son rejected the religion he had been taught and became an agnostic when he was told his father was one.

[jtan89]

Interesting idea about herd instinct. But it seems to me that not all people would obey such an idea. Some people seem to actively work against conformity and instead rebel, for whatever reason(s). In becoming an atheist, I've abandoned the beliefs of my entire family and the majority of my friends (all of them in my hometown).

[unseenstrings]

I think you'll find that those who are working against conformity and rebelling are sometimes doing so because they are part of a group that is expected to rebel and be nonconformists. Adolescents like to think of themselves as rebels without a cause and nonconformist, but the fact is, adolescents are the most restrictive conformists of any major group. Of course, other variables may be involved, but at least the two of us are in agreement that the nonconformity and rebellion does have a cause.

[jtan89]

Whether or not a person is inclined to act according to herd instinct or not, in addition to the reasons why they choose among those two options, can probably be attributed to a combination of nature and nurture.

[jtan89]

I'd be careful with reasoning that genetic influences on behavior differentiating one individual from another won't be as significant as environmental influences. Your idea of "radically difference" doesn't take into account the magnitude of effect that a very small change in a person's genetic makeup can cause.

[unseenstrings]

The current scientific view is that neither genetics nor environment are solely responsible for producing individual variation, and virtually all traits show gene-environment interaction. When one starts putting a "vs" (versus) between the word gene and the word environment, he is probably going to argue that the glass is half empty instead of half full, or vice versa. The differences between Abby & Brittany Hensel would be environmental, bearing in mind that genetic adaptability is responsible.

[jtan89]

I suppose you're right - we're not really going to get anywhere arguing over whether genetics or environment plays a larger role in the determination of a person's behavior. Reasonably thinking, it probably varies for each person. Perhaps you're correct in that most people assume genetics controls too much. I guess the important thing to do is to acknowledge the importance of both in such determination.

[jtan89]

Overall I agree with your ideas. A few objections though:

You say that "if humans really had free will, then their mental processes...couldn't be influenced by any factor". Do you really mean to say this? A decision made by a person that lacks any influences whatsoever is essentially random. Completely random decisions can't be ones freely made. The popular concept of free will seems to require both the lack and existence of causation.

[unseenstrings]

Yes, the popular concept of free will is one of an uncaused causer, or as you say, "the lack and existence of causation." The notion stems from more than one source. First a creation myth relates how the mother and father of humanity ate a apple that caused them to instantly become aware of "right" and "wrong" No training was involved, no School of Hard Knocks, just eating an apple. And supposedly all humanity has inherited this nonlearned knowledge

Another source of the concept is from (GoTo2)

[unseenstrings]

(2) the notion of a soul, which goes like this: The soul is an invisible and nonphysical entity that resides within each human. The soul can't be effected by anything physical but itself can effect the physical body. The soul has supernatural knowledge of "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil." And this uncaused soul is responsible for the thoughts and behavior of the individual (within which it resides). The indoctrination is so complete that many atheists retain the belief in noncaused cause

[jtan89]

I actually recently had a mini-debate with my philosophy teacher. He claimed that free will exists and is something inexplicable. This is because he admitted that he could not explain it - if anything attempting to explain it just showed flaws in such a concept.

[unseenstrings]

The people who like to keep the old free will illusion alive use some pretty underhanded tactics. Free will originally meant being able to make a choice "without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law." Now free will is being defined by some as something causally determined but similar to yet more "mysterious" than the Butterfly Effect of Chaos Theory. This is equivalent to redefining white to mean the color of coal as it is dug out of the ground. The general public may (GoTo2)

[unseenstrings]

(2) still think of white as the color of snow. While philosophers may imagine coal when thinking of the color white. Naturally, the tactic is an effective means to keep the old illusion of free will alive in the average person's mind.

Of course, the unsuitable part of my analogy is that both white snow and black coal actually exists, whereas free will doesn't.

[jtan89]

He then tried to talk to me about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Despite his lack of a science degree, he felt quite certain that this was solid evidence for completely random events.

[unseenstrings]

I don't know Youtube user elimisteve, but he presents himself as someone knowledgeable of the debate concerning Quantum Mechanics. He deals with the issues discussed between you and your philosophy teacher. Check it out. Title, "Free Will? Quantum Mechanics Clarified" (watch?v=o_2JeUegZd8) Also, Youtube user DarwinsHamster, who received his physics degree 30 years ago, gives an excellent summary to the problem titled, "Quantum Measurement and Consciousness" (watch?v=S5bdNuvhQ9E). Watch it first!

[YouWastesTube]

LOL. That made me laugh my ass off. The whole decorum of animations all creating a symphony -- the western societal commentary, danced to by the jingoistically trained girl who would normally move to the rythms of all the shallow western values that normally turn on people of her demographics.

Maybe I should be focused on saving the world but instead I am into this stuff for pure amusement nowdays. Yours was definitely one of the best.

[unseenstrings]

Jingoistically trained! A cartoon character? Who would normally move to the rhythm of all the "shallow" Western values! A cartoon character? That normally "turn on" people of her demographics! A cartoon character is "turning on" other Western Cultural cartoon characters? Wow you've got a wild imagination! Maybe you need to listen to the message. Maybe I'm trying to "save the world" too. The message: All humans are basically the same but differ mainly because of the difference in circumstance.

[unseenstrings]

(2) with no hands. Whales sing songs possibly to pass oral tradition along, just as humans did before writing was invented. Many aspects of nonhuman animals are analogous to ourselves. You apparently need to watch or to spend more time watching videos at TheScienceNetwork Org.

I remind you again. To say you do what you want certainly doesn't prove free will, because the want/desire you experience isn't something consciously created by you. You merely consciously experience the "want" (GoTo3)

[unseenstrings]

(3) or "desire" as a result of unconscious processes, and strive to satisfy it according to the mindset you have developed

The friends you choose are determined by who you feel most comfortable with, and/or who gains you the most status, or some other causal factor(s). Your genetic tendencies, your adaptation to situations, the experiences that have molded and shaped your mind, all combine to result in you making good and bad choices. But none of them are free. Free will is an illusion/delusion

[Reido2828]

i think this is better than free will lol

[josecordoba28]

I experienced the power of a deterministic universe. We have no control of ourselves and the nature of our instincts. Morality, belief, faith and many dogmas set by someone else to impose control over other people, have blinded humanity thoughout history. The truth is in every one of us; hidden from our own conscience. We are trying to justify our existence and put a purpose in it. Unfortunately, those are illusions as well. There is no meaning or purpose. We all know it, and many reject

[unseenstrings]

"We have no control of ourselves and the nature of our instincts."

Well, that is all according to how you look at it. You see, I don't rob banks. I'm not a thief. But it was the environmental circumstances to which I was exposed that caused me to develop an aversion/repugnance to robbing/theft.

"Morality, belief, faith and many dogmas set by someone else to impose control over other people, have blinded humanity throughout history"

And such factors still lead to blind adherence by the masses

[Theronguardaaah]

The face of evil is the face of need

I think we don't have any real free will.

If we did we would be able to completely see the future years eons ahead.

That would be free will.

Also I don't think evil is real its subjective and imposed by those who don't benifit from it.

[unseenstrings]

Free will is primitive religious dogma. Of course, the dogma most likely found its origins in an illusion. Likewise, every primitive story concerning the appearance of humans also found their origins in illusions. Yet, evolution is now taught in schools, though many teachers are unqualified to teach evolution because they are ignorant of the facts or disbelieve the theory. The factors hindering an understanding and teaching of psychological causality are much greater than those against evolution

[unseenstrings]

To us the Taliban is evil, whereas we look upon ourselves as good. To the Taliban we are evil, whereas they look upon themselves as good. The perception of good and evil is analogous the the perception of beauty; it is primarily the consequence of cultural forces.

For a god or a man to know the future would make free will impossible: No choice could be different than foreseen.

But just because we are not 100% certain what the weather is going to be does not mean it is free from causality.

[unseenstrings]

josecordoba28, I agree that there is no preordained/predestined purpose. But I believe every human has a purpose, even if it is nothing but to eat, drink, and be merry. I'm an old man and before I die, I want to tell as many people as I can to quit blaming their children for the psychological development of the child. Psychological causality is a reality the public is generally ignorant of. My "Dear Robin: An Open Letter" was made as a response to an argument about blame with my daughter-in-law.

[josecordoba28]

Acceptation of the fact that determinism rules over all material and non-material things is unacceptable for the average human mind. Although, they have been misproven many times by though-experiments they still fall under the illusion that they have control over their own actions. Believing that every thought is generated by their brain. The unificatioin of their cells to form a system complex enough for a human himself foreever will puzzle mankind. I myself have proven through my own...

[exDeathex]

This, by the way, is a really informing video, I must say, possibly the most informing and yet entertaining one on Psychological Determinism vs Free Will I have seen. Thankyou!

[unseenstrings]

I attempted to make the video entertaining, because "entertainment" is necessary to keep the viewer's attention while the message is learned. Yet, I was disappointed in the quality that resulted from an overloaded computer. I was using a 2.93 GHz with 2 GB RAM and a 128 MB AGP video card. You would think that would suffice. But between the scripts running to manipulate the characters and the open source program running to capture the screen and sound, it was too much for the processor. ThankU2!

[johnsmdm]

jewsfor you sirs..

[unseenstrings]

Nathan Sousa--a dear friend who was murdered by a would be robber turned murderer--was a Jew who was also an atheist. Being Jewish seems to be primarily a racial thing, because Nate was accepted as a Jew not because of what he believed but because his mother was Jewish. For a Non-Jew to join the Jewish Religion doesn't mean he shall be accepted by The Community as a Jew. Also interesting to me is the fact that Nate believed in an afterlife, though he didn't believe in the existence of any deity.

[exDeathex]

wow.... that's quite insane :P

[unseenstrings]

"Insane" is an oversimplification but grabs the gist of the event. Nate had used LSD before. And I think the experience resulted in him believing in other realms of reality. Also, he liked science fiction: Douglas Adams, Harry Harrison, Isaac Asimov, et cetera. And that factor too had an effect on what Nate believed. By the way it took 2000 years before the general public finally accepted the fact that the earth is round. It may be another 2000 years before psychological determinism is accepted.

[exDeathex]

Woah, I had no idea about the rounded earth acceptance. As for LSD, I'm guessing you don't believe then, in the fact that LSD breaks down barriers in the mind? I still have confusion about this, the fact that people who use LSD attain realisation of other realms of consciousness. Surely there has to be some truth to it. I myself have used it and really, it's quite something else. I just don't know to make sense of any of it.

[unseenstrings]

exDeathex - "Woah, I had no idea about the rounded earth acceptance." Yeah, right. LoL. I've never tried any hallucinogens, unless you want to classify ganja as an hallucinogen. The unconscious mind didn't evolve to distinguish between reality and such things as dreams, hallucinations, and the illusions of the silvery screen, radio, and publications. I was afraid LSD would contaminate my perception instead of enhance it. Besides, those I know who've tried LSD all believe in paranormal phenomena.

[exDeathex]

Hahahaha oh ok I see what you mean. Well fair enough. That's cool, damn the unconscious! Damn the shadow! I know of some people who became scarily less self-assured about, well, everything. Others of whom it enhanced their lives. :)

[unseenstrings]

Yes, I say that's cool too. I'm glad some people try/use LSD, even thought I wouldn't. Staunch conformity never advanced society. Deviancy is necessary to prevent society from becoming stagnant. Whether the deviancy of LSD use helps society progress or not will be determined by future generations. Oh, and yes, true enough, some people are always worried that something is lurking in the dark; they become scared about nearly everything/everyone different, mysterious, or unknown.

Naturalism Org

[Theronguardaaah]

Meditation its healthy and pretty cool.

If you don't have the time try lucid dreaming.

[Reido2828]

how do you lucid dream?

[unseenstrings]

Do an Internet search--or go to your local library and check out some books--concerning some of the findings of American psychiatrist and dream researcher Allan Hobson. (John Allan Hobson, M.D. (born June 3, 1933))

[Reido2828]

Are you an atheist?

[unseenstrings]

First you need to define exactly what you mean by "atheist." (Ronald Regan referred to Thomas Paine as, "That dirty little atheist," even though Paine was a Deist.) And secondly you have to tell me whether life's many and varied experiences have resulted in you acquiring a attitude that you consider "atheistic."

[Reido2828]

You keep bringing the church and media into my statements. I was not raised int he church. I have only been like 8 times my whole 21 years on this planet and I dont listen to the media anymore because I found out there way to biased for me. I do not agree with most of what my parents believe. I chose a different view on life and a different way of thinking of things. I will be honest. My parents gave me lots of love but never any proper advice on how to do things and if they did it was mostly

[unseenstrings]

You were not raised in the Church but your money has "In God We Trust" on it. You pledged allegiance to "One Nation Under God" no less than every day you went to school. Some of your peers and parents of peers were believers. You don't have to go to Church to receive subtle indoctrination.

You listened to the Major Media for a long time before you decided to quit listening. So it must have had some impact on the way you think.

Perception is developed, not chosen. To believe is to perceive.

[Reido2828]

I agree with this and i don`t see the point in avoiding it. But Dan dennett`s book is good. Freedom does evolve over time with humans and we become more and more aware.

[unseenstrings]

Evolution isn't an automatic process. It doesn't just happen. There has to be selective pressures. I am at a loss to imagine how "freedom" could "evolve," nor do I understand exactly what is meant by the vague term "freedom." I know it is spouted profusely by the Major Media. Also, a deterministic approach to life is necessary in order for organisms to function. Even our novels make no sense unless the portrayal is deterministic. Our language is likely a key factor. Ever hear of feral children?

[Reido2828]

Yes i have heard of them. Why? Also. a lot of evolutionary scientist's talk about freedom/free will evolving. give it a read before you judge it

[unseenstrings]

First let me point out that at one time feral children were thought by some individuals to be a different species. An unsocialized, untrained, ignorant, and language deficient human is little more than an animal. Now though feral children are simply considered "retarded." Do feral children have free will? They have the same genes as anyone else. "Freedom" has evolved in them too, right? Or does environmental circumstances effect them but not nonferal children?

Tom Clark, of Naturalism Org (2)

[unseenstrings]

(2) fell for the rhetoric of Compatibilism for awhile. Compatibilism is merely redefining an old superstition to make it acceptable in the scientific community. But the real problem with the redefinition is that the stratagem keeps the old illusion alive and well in the average person's mind. That is the problem I have with Dennett dancing around on his tippy toes insinuating that we have evolved free will. He has the backing of the Church and Major Media because they want to promote "free will"

[Reido2828]

Ok Basically I am asking you this. Are you a believer in a deity? Also. my upbringing was mostly love and not a lot of advice on life. Basically my parents are negative in a sense that they want to protect me. But I chose differently. I made a choice to not listen to anyone and do what I want to do. This is a conscious choice. How is it that this is determinism? What lead me to make these choices.

[unseenstrings]

You never answered my question of whether you were a believer or not. However I'll quote Einstein to give you some inking of what I believe:

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.

Belief is not a choice

[unseenstrings]

Adolescents, human and otherwise, go through a period of rebelliousness--questioning the established order, butting heads like young goats--trying to find your position in the "pecking order." Most of your rebelliousness was probably genetic. Some may have been the effect of peer pressure (part of the herd instinct). I don't know what causal influences acted on you every moment of your life. Again I remind you that you do not consciously create the WANT that you experience. My dog WANTS chicken.

[Reido2828]

Belief in your self is a choice brought up by your experiences by other inspirational people. Are you a scientist? Or some guy preaching scientific theories. What is the purpose in all of this? Some say we have free will others do not. it is still not a 100% proven fact my friend. And what question did I not answer. Ask it again and I will

[unseenstrings]

"Inspirational" aye? I reckon that means if during the time of your most active mental development you were repeatedly told you were not worth the powder and lead it would take to blow your brains out, and the treatment affected you in such a way you developed low self esteem and lacked confidence in yourself, then the ones treating you in such a way would be "inspirational?"

What is the purpose of all this what? The video here? Why not watch "Dear Robin: An open letter" in order to understand?

[unseenstrings]

I've already advised you that belief in free will is equivalent to belief in god/s and/or metaphysical unicorns. Prove there are or there are not invisible and immaterial unicorns flying around in the air. You can't. You can't prove or disprove free will my friend because it is impossible to 100% disprove a metaphysical claim. But not being able to disprove something does not mean it exists.

My question? You asked me if I was an atheist. I asked you the same and you didn't give me an answer.

[Reido2828]

freedom does evolve and as we become more aware we get to make better choices as our consciousness expands

[unseenstrings]

I have no idea what you mean by "freedom" as if it were a THING that could evolve. And as my Chihuahua lives life and learns from her experiences, she becomes more aware and thus makes better choices. However, consciousness is a lack of awareness. Consciousness is a filtering system evolved that prevents the organism from being aware of every minute detail of innumberable sensory input received by the brain, and from being aware of the many brain processes going on all the time.

Naturalism Org

[Reido2828]

I already told you my parents sheltered me with love. Im not worth poweder? Um I think I'll listen to the real scientist's and form my own belief. Not some 62 year old on youtube claiming this and that. is the right choice.

[unseenstrings]

I've come to realize I can learn from a snotty nose 11-year-old brat, or one who is a wee bit older but an arrogant and rebellious adolescent, or one who is wee bit older and hadn't changed a lot but 21. In fact, even a mere child could have learned from experiences I've never had, and can share that knowledge with me. That is, I've come to realize I can learn from practically anyone, regardless of that person's age, economic status, race, religion, education, sexual orientation, or supposed IQ.

[unseenstrings]

I like Richard Dawking as well as Dan Dennett. But I don't regard them as High Priests whose words have absolute authority in any and every matter. And since they are scientists, I'd imagine they'd expect me to hold them and other scientists under the same scrutiny. By the way, scientists are members of culture and as such, they are susceptible to some to the same misconceptions and prejudices as the general public. If one scientist believes in a god and another doesn't, they can't both be right

[unseenstrings]

I understand the Orientals hold their elders in high regard. I've noticed my Afro-American friends seem to hold their elders in high regard. But some where along the line the "whites" in the US started referring to the elders as "old farts." The years & years of learning from many of life's varied experiences are to no avail. White youths refuse to stand on the shoulders of the elders to see a bit further. As Doris Day sang in song, "Que Sera Sera." I've done what I can. Good luck in your quest.

[Reido2828]

So you think inspiration is something where people have been shut down all the time byothers?

[unseenstrings]

The word inspiration is commonly used to mean divinely influenced.Was that your meaning? Since you neglected to answer my question of whether you were atheist or not, I tend to suspect it was. Inspiration also means to breathe. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that. It could also mean encourage, animate, or influence. The word is vague. Why not use a word that is clear and concise? I used the word correctly but in an uncommon fashion. I'm sorry if I confused you as you confused me.

NaturalismOrg

[Reido2828]

No im not an atheist but I am not religious either. No such thing as an agnostic but I do believein a higher consciousness

[unseenstrings]

On the contrary my dear, there are more agnostics than there are atheists. Bertrand Russell portrayed himself as an atheist to the common man but philosophically was agnostic. The reason Russell represented himself as an atheist in public was so that he wouldn't have to listen to frivolous and nonsensical argument given by those who thought Russell "didn't know." Mark Twain said our world is but a speck on the eye of a being beloved by God on another world.

You've been subtly indoctrinated.

[Reido2828]

My dear? Im a male thanks. Actually when your an agnostic you have some bias b.s because no body truly knows but your always for sure taking the side of an atheist or theist even if you don't know. Your always inching towards one side or the other. No such thing as a true agnostic

[unseenstrings]

Your profile doesn't state what you are. The pic on profile is female.

One is less biased as an agnostic than as a staunch believer, regardless of whether the belief is in a god or a belief a god doesn't exists. An agnostic sides with the atheist when logical argument is given the show the gods invented by humans don't exists. What's wrong with that? The agnostic sides with the believer when logical argument is given to prove we really don't know enough to say something isn't so. ?That's wrong?

[Reido2828]

Choices is something we can choose freely. We can choose who to hang out with, who our teacher is, and what books/goals to set and read for our life.

[unseenstrings]

I hate to see that our conversation apparently has come to a dead end. I'm now having to state the same facts over and over, because you seem to be incapable of comprehending what I've stated, or incapable of remembering what we've previously discussed, or unrelentingly denying the facts before you.

Facts: Your awareness and your choice mechanism are always proceeded by the development of the neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry of your brain. That is, before awareness arose in your (GoTo2)

[unseenstrings]

(2) brain, it (your brain) was required to grow at least to a certain degree (state and structure). However, this growth process--this brain development--occurred at a time before you had "brains enough" to choose what was best for yourself. Therefore, you actually had no hand in who you are and what you think. You merely developed the mindset you now possess as a consequence of factors beyond your awareness and your ability to comprehend. And your existing mindset is always one step (GoTo3)

[unseenstrings]

(3) behind the previous sensory input and brain processes that made it as it is. And the ironic part is, a person will practically fight to the death to defend the mindset he possesses but had no hand in creating.

I suspect evolution has made the human in such a way that he tends to cling to notions acquired as a consequence of circumstance. Watching your mother attacked and eaten by a lion at the watering hole would have a tendency to fixate you with the notion that lions could be (GoTo4)

[unseenstrings]

(4) lurking unseen ready to pounce upon you when you went to drink. And such a notion would be near impossible to get rid of once you had been fixated. The unconscious mind cannot be reasoned with in such matters Unfortunately, in the modern world, the human can be fixated with a notion that is based on illusions. If the experience seems real enough, the unconscious mind cannot discriminate. The subtle God-belief you were fixated with is but a minor example

You don't choose your wants & desires

[Reido2828]

You still have not answered my question yet. How does one achieve goals if they do not have free will? How does one person who came from a poor neighborhood, or abused or have nothing come out on top? If they do not have any free will.

[unseenstrings]

What does an ape, or my Chihuahua for that matter, achieving a goal have to do with free will? Are you confusing the evolutionary advantage of a complex language and writing with "free will?" Sure the human has a will as free as the wind. But the wind is not free. The wind exists as a consequence of causal forces, exactly as human thoughts and behavior do. The mechanisms of the brain are not like a gear driving another gear. The brain is a dynamic system. You are not the same now as yesteryear.

[unseenstrings]

Coming from a poor neighborhood does not mean no one is going to have good influences in their life. There are some mighty good people who are poor; and they influence their children (and/or children of others) in a positive manner. And what do you mean by this vague term "abused?" Neglect? Beat? Screamed at? Fondle? What? You think a spanking or being cussed would automatically cause one to become a failure? And what does having nothing have to do with not striving to have something or succeed?

[Reido2828]

That is a terrible answer. Your comparing stuff to other animals that do not have as much complexity as the human race does. Im talking about those who truly came from nothing to be someone. The dream of a dream to go and achieve a popular goal. Animals cannot make goals like humans can whicn is why as we become more aware of our surroundings and the one that can adapt to change the best is the one who comes out on top. Hence freedom can evolve. It changes each decade we become better

[unseenstrings]

Too bad you couldn't relate to my analogy. Dogs have blood running through their veins as we do. Dogs have to eat and shit as we do. Dogs breathe air into lungs as we do. Dogs have a dynamic modular system referred to as the central nervous system, which is part of their body, and which allows them to function as individuals, as we do. Dogs dream, as we do. But dogs don't have a brain as large as ours (in comparison to body size). And dogs can't make sense of complex sounds and symbols as we can

[unseenstrings]

No one has ever come from nothing, period. No one had ever developed from the union of a sperm and egg without the nourishment and support of someone. No one has ever learned not to poop their pants without the input and feedback from someone. No one has ever learned a language--no one has ever learned to talk without the input and feed from someone. Even awareness is learned and not something that magically happens. Sure, water flows freely. But, freedom is a state, not a thing that can evolve.

[Reido2828]

Nope your assuming the end of the problem with out any proof. Comparing it to dogs is basically what a philosopher can do. Not a scientist. On the other hand As you learn from your parents and your environment you get to the point of consciousness awareness of these choices and that is what leads to your goals and choices in life. A lot of it is your environment but a lot of it is your experience and the choices you make. Some make bad choices and some make good.

[unseenstrings]

I'm not assuming anything. I merely made a statement of fact. You obviously know little about science. Researchers study the brains of fruit flies in order to better understand the human brain. We get along well with dogs because they are pack animals not unlike ourselves. Every animal on earth is related at least to some degree. Chimps/bonobos are our closest living relatives, sharing more than 98% of our DNA. Whales have a language nearly as complex as ours, but they are handicapped (GoTo2)

[Reido2828]

But life is random and we all don't quite see it. Im not denying your facts I know our environment plays a part in our up bringing but our ability to make choices is where we are "free" in a way becuase we set goals for our selves and try to accomplish them. And over time our ability to make these choices evolves as were more aware of our environment and our Cognitive ability becomes better. What I state is called Compatibilism. Also. were not free in a religious sense

[unseenstrings]

Maybe you are merely a bit confused. Do you think the weather is "random?" Life is analogous to the weather in the sense that it is highly unpredictable but not random in the least. Our ability to make choices is no different than the ability of a Chimpanzee to make choices, except our language and slightly larger brain gives us an awareness advantage and cognitive abilities the Chimp doesn't have. But that awareness and cognitive abilities are not equal from person, nor does such (GoTo2a)

[unseenstrings]

(2a) automatically happen (genetically determined). Therefore, the awareness would be relative to the environment the organism developed in and the type of cognitive stimulation received. A Chimp that grew up in the African jungle may be more aware than some "city slicker" and have more "cognitive" abilities in regard to factors necessary for survival in such an environment.

Oh, and by the way, do a Google for "Compatibilism: The Newfangled Religion" and see what I had to say about the matter.

[Reido2828]

Lets keep talking. I am not ending our conversation with your facts. I am just giving my opinion on the subject and other scientist's as well. One scientist claims she has discovered a part of the brain where we get to make all these choices and excercise the freedom to choose. I also think with your facts and the way you present them that your saying that its 100% true we do not have free will. But that is not the end of the theory yet so we both do not fully know. Do you believe in destiny?

[unseenstrings]

There can be no magical section of the brain that has control over other sections of the brain but functions without input and feedback. The input and feedback given to any section of the brain, combined with the neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry of that section, determines how that section functions. There is no soul within the human that can causally effect decision processes but itself is unaffected by causality. Our ancestors did not eat an apple that magically gave them and (GoTo2c)

[unseenstrings]

(2c) all their decedents universal awareness of "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "bad" (consider feral children). Although, humans have evolved a herd instinct (inborn universal knowledge of how to adapt to group behavior), and thus has sections of the brain dedicated to herd behavior and sections dedicated to functioning while alone. In that sense, you could say the human has split personalties, one he functions with while in a group, the other he functions with when peers are not around.

[unseenstrings]

As a herd animal, and based on previous personal experience, the human develops modes of behavior used while in the confines of the group. Likewise, as an organism, and based on previous personal experience, the human develops modes of behavior used while outside the confines of the group. If one thousand clones were made from your DNA at the time of your birth and scattered around the world, each individual might appear to be the same, but the difference in the environmental circumstances (To2d

[unseenstrings]

(2d) (sensory input and nutrition) of each individual would result in a difference in the neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry of the brains of each one. Individuals think differently, behave differently, and choose differently because of all the aforementioned reasons, not because of some magical thing called free will, and not because of a supernatural thing within us called a soul.

Oh, and I believe humans, like hurricanes, are causally determined, but not fated or destined in any way.

[Reido2828]

As I said to you before I appreciate your opinion but I will not take your science as fact rather I will listen to the sci entist's and philosophers discussing this topic. If oyur a staunch believer inc asuality I suppose the future cannot be changed and that destiny awaits us all?

[unseenstrings]

I appreciate your appreciation of the facts I've stated. And I appreciate trying to clarify matters for you

No, a belief in causal determinism does not mean everything is predestined. Although, admittedly, some scientists believe determinism inevitably leads to the belief. And Calvinists believe it too. But the Butterfly Effect of Chaos Theory, combined with supposed randomness of quantum mechanics, would mean that a slight amount of randomness could become part of the network of cause & effect

[Reido2828]

Interesting. I do think life is random but if looked at closely and with a very very open mind you can see a bit of determinism and a bit of reason in why events happen but then again it could be your brain telling you that is meaning. I still think freedom as a whole changes/evolves with us as our consciousness and awareness becomes better so we can now do a lot more. Lets us continue to talk. Your quite intelligent. Do you consider your self a free thinker?

[unseenstrings]

You don't have to look closely. And a person would have to be brainwashed or suffering from an illusion not to see something as obvious as determinism working in our daily lives. Even the stories you read have to be causally based or the stories makes no sense. Mechanics know there is nothing "random" happening within the machinery and electronics of your car. Doctors know there is not ghost in your body. Police detectives look for causal factors instead of random acts of supposed free will.

[unseenstrings]

Psychologists and psychiatrists certainly don't attribute the thought behavior (and thus behavior) of clients and patents to random processes in the brain. In fact, how could a science of the mind exist if mental processes were random instead of the result of psychological causality? Cars skidding out of control, the speed and velocity of the golf ball leaving the tee, a scaffold falling from a building, can all be understood because of causality. There is no such thing as an uncaused accident.

[Reido2828]

Your right and I do not deny that claim but as we become more aware of our actions and choices we can improve on them and better our selves because of it. Yes you need a good up bringing and a good environment around you but choices is what leads to the end result and you do have the freedom to choose what books to read, teachers (inspiration) And what friends you want to have. We do have freedom of will but only with in the environment we live in. If we change environments then our will changes

[unseenstrings]

You seem to keep forgetting that awareness and cognitive abilities result from an environmental-genetic interaction. There is no "you" improving yourself. Instead, there are environmental influences and instinctive mechanisms that stimulate you into trying to gain higher status within the community or trying to become more acceptable to your peers. You WANT to improve; but that very sensation, that is, the WANT/desire/feeling you experience, is not something you consciously create. Got it?

[unseenstrings]

Sure, the environment has a powerful influence on the individual's will (volition). But if we WANT to change our environment in order to change our will, one must bear in mind that we did not consciously create the WANT that stimulated us into changing our environment. Remember, the development of your awareness and cognitive abilities is always one step behind the processes that result in the developmental change. I did not freely choose to quit believing the Bible is the Word of God! Got it?

[Reido2828]

Like taking a child from a bad home life and putting them into a good life will benefit them and will grow up better. Like growing up in a family with out drugs or alcohol will give you better chances of avoiding that your self compared to growing up in one that does. And the same goes for choices of your surroundings. I don;t care what science you present in this conversation because this topic is not concluded yet. I respect the fact that you have read many books on the subject.

[Reido2828]

If I feel that I want to become smarter, healthier, stronger, powerful etc. I want it because I feel that I need to improve myself. Im not doing it to be accepted by my peers or to gain higher status. Why do some dedicate them selves to helping humanity? I am not denying any of your fact's but you seem to be saying that's all there is but its not. I can choose my own surrounding's and then the laws of the environment that I cannot change will act again based in the environment I am in. Cont.

[unseenstrings]

The human is a herd/pack/social animal. We sometimes claim that group expectation can't influence the way we dress, walk, talk, eat, and where we urinate; but when we make such a claim, we are only lying to ourselves. When we want to become smarter, healthier, stronger, more powerful, etc., what causal forces stimulated the desire into existence, or who fed us the "information" that resulted in us feeling inferior in regard to our existing smartness, health, strength, power, et cetera?

[Reido2828]

Our choices have. Some of us do not want that. We all want different things and the more stuff were aware of the more choices we get to make.

[unseenstrings]

Head wounds and brain disease change the way people think. Why? Because thought is the result of physical processes. Change the structure and state of the brain and consequently thought, which includes choice behavior, becomes different. We all want "different" things because the input received by our brains is not the same. Also, the awareness you have developed is not perfect and absolute. Two people having the same experience may have different reactions and thus develop different perception.

[Reido2828]

Ok then I ask you a philosophical question. Is some of the new thought sayings like Quantim Physics and Consciousness linked or there needs to be a mind to conceive anything in order for everything to work. Can the UNiverse have a creator/beginning instead of random acts of it spontaneously happening.

[unseenstrings]

Why don't you watch the following two videos and tell me watch?v=S5bdNuvhQ9E & watch?v=o_2JeUegZd8

The human animal is more curious than a cat. Thus books about "mysteries" are always bigger sellers than non-mysteries. A book written by a drunken bum who claimed to have seen little green men in an alley one night will sell better than a book written by a scientist discrediting UFO phenomena. Quantum mysteries sell better than non-mysteries too. Besides, the Church likes gaps in our knowledge.

[Reido2828]

I watched them and its nothing new to me. I am not referring to the What the bleep do we know or the secret. I barely watched those with out falling asleep and I never bought any books on the subject either. It is something I have read about on my own with Buddhist papers and theories it self. Plus watched some interesting video's on it. If you like we can talk about this but I think our free will conversation is not finished yet.

[unseenstrings]

The following Youtube video expresses my sentiments fairly well: "Debunked! - What the Bleep Do We Know?" (watch?v=rlPiXNlhKFo). Also watch "Criticisms to Functionalism : Quantum Fallacies" (watch?v=3MLc-c69wec) The human has more curiosity than a cat, and thus is naturally attracted by mystery. Combine this with the fact that the human is also easily befuddled and beguiled. Do a Youtube search and watch the master of befuddlement and beguilement at work, Derren Brown. Also, watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU

[unseenstrings]

Freethinker? Well, for the 1st 35 or so years of my life I considered myself a Christian. Then I read the Bible from cover to cover. I didn't take a Bible course that told me what to think. Peer pressure didn't result in me  accepting the interpretation of others. I read and prayed for the "Holy Spirit" to guide my understanding. I guess the "Holy Spirit" didn't want me to believe because reading the absurdities and contradictions in the Bible resulted in me recognizing that it is far from holy.

[Reido2828]

WHat do you believe in? I was not raised in a religious home. I was put into sunday school but left after a month because I was bored and missed my parents LOL. I however was raised to be spirtual and I chose to believe in casuality because of the experiences of my grandfather. I believe all of life and awareness it self is some how connected. I think we haven't experienced it yet because were limited with these 5 senses. We cannot percieve outside of this.

[unseenstrings]

Of course we are limited by our senses. But we have developed instruments to enhance those senses. We can detect radiation that is invisible to our eyes. We can see organisms that our senses unaided cannot see. However, we have no instrument that can detect the invisible playmates children sometimes play with. Likewise, we have no instrument that can detect the invisible god or gods that adults talk to. But that doesn't prevent children and adults from intuitively feeling invisible beings exist.

[Reido2828]

I also do not believe in any of the theories these crack pots say. One because yes they sell to people and two because they have a bias some of them and that is their faith. I do however believe in some of it because of what some ancient wisdom had to say about it. The vedic culture for example and the old buddhist disciples as well.

[Reido2828]

Hey. Is the conversation over? I take it you think im a religious christian or a believer in the paranormal by the video I sent you?

[unseenstrings]

I would suggest you check when I last logged in before you jump to conclusions. I was having computer woes. And I put the situation on the back burner because of priorities. Oh, I'll have to check on the video you sent. I may have overlooked it.

[Reido2828]

My bad. I wanted you to look at the video. Also. do you know of the prophecy of the popes?

[unseenstrings]

I checked my "Shared" folder: no video. Couldn't find it in my Inbox at all. Look in your sent folder to see if you sent it properly.

I never witnessed a real prophecy. I've witnessed what could have easily been coincidence (watch?v=98OTsYfTt-c). I've witnessed "prophecy" that was so vague that it could have meant near anything. I've witnessed prophecy that only came true because it was known and effort was made to make it come true. Prophecy: hurricane shall strike Florida in the next 5 years!

[Reido2828]

Have you watched the video's? Sorry it was kind of random for me to post it but I would like to see an opinion on the subject of Psychic's and visions of the bible.

[unseenstrings]

Derren Brown has a video in which he posed as a "psychic" and was able to fool other psychics. James Randi loves to expose "psychics" and "faith healers." If you want to know what I believe, watch every video on my Playlist, every video I've Favored, and every video I've uploaded. Then you'll know and won't be playing a guessing game.

[Reido2828]

Our brain makes decisions sub consciously before we make them consciously. Our brain is the organ that is making these decisions. You can consciously veto the action your about to make as well. Its still an ongoing process and the subject is still up in the air. Im ignoring some of your facts because I listen to the scientist's and philosopher's currently working on the law of cause and effect. Its still an ongoing debate

[unseenstrings]

Perhaps you can explain to me how you can consciously veto something you are totally unaware of? Can't you see that if a decision resulted from unconscious processes, then the veto of it could just as well have been the result of unconscious processes? And afterwards the conscious mind could be merely making up eloquent and sometimes even illogical excuses as to why the veto was made. Split brain experiments have shown examples of this phenomena happening

Fact (another you'll probably (GoTo2b)

[unseenstrings]

(2b) ignore): Philosophers are not currently working on the laws of cause and effect. They have never "worked on" the laws of cause and effect, because they are philosophers and not researchers. Some philosophers are still arguing as to whether there is or is not a god, because metaphysical claims cannot be proved or disproved. Some philosophers will likely always be around to argue over the existence of free will, because free will is a metaphysical claim, and metaphysical claims... Got it?

[Reido2828]

Nope im speaking purely from science. The ability to veto an action is a subconsciousness decision made by your brain. You are taught it and your environment is what teaches you what is right from wrong. I am not denying your claims i never did. I simply said that the choices and ability to make decisions changes over time because were more aware of that kind of stuff now. I go by science to specifically what physics says and Cognitive science. Philosophy still makes contributions to the mind.

[Reido2828]

Now something you are unaware of. We'll for me personally I am an intuitive thinker in most cases so me its a feeling I have. Growing up your exposed to things your not quite aware of and you get ot make veto decisions about it. Your environment plays a role as does your genetics which cannot be changed but what you choose to read and do is your choice. Many advise us on this and again it is our environment but we still get a choice. Were not free in the sense where we have complete control.

[unseenstrings]

We have "control." From a logical and scientific perspective, one should assume by default that the human is merely an animal like all the other animals in existence. And any difference between humans and other animals should be considered different because of one or more natural causes. Our larger brain (per brain/body ratio), our complex language, and our ability to record things learned during our lifetime for future generations perfectly fit the bill. Free will is an unnecessary assumption.

[dhushw]

I was only half serrious about my complaint, no need to apologise. anyway, good insight on the issue as far as the video goes.

[dhushw]

I have a beef with the old man, I have ADD and I am a determinist.

[unseenstrings]

My apologies. More often than not, we (in this case me) fail to realize how little or how much something like ADD would effect the individual. I've even ran across info that says ADD is more a product of conditioning than a disorder brought about by genetic malfunction or disease. This video (link) from my PlayList is an example of what I mean:

(watch?v=j-wMP2Q0Ifs&feature=P­layList&p=8C1C38D52ADB6C3A&ind­ex=14)

Left-handedness is adaptation but nevertheless wired into the brain by conditioning.

[unseenstrings]

My example of left-handedness was to show that a state of the brain that is indicative of ADD most likely is analogous to a state of the brain indicative of left-handedness. Therefore, even if neurological connections of a particular section of the brain can be shown to exists in a person with ADD, it wouldn't mean that the particular state of the brain couldn't have developed as a result of exposure to some environmental circumstance. In other words, ADD is no more insane than left-handedness.