I have noticed you use the expression "deterministic" a few times, which I interpret as " obeying or acting in accordance with a describable set of rules" . Are you familiar with teh concept of an "emergent system", which is a system which operates by rules, but where teh complexity of the system is such that it is impossible to determine what outcome will actually occur, rather, we have to wait and see what happens, or emerges ?? Weather is an example of this, so really is poker, even though the probablities are a lot simpler.
With your poker analogy, I thnk what you are saying is that even though teh probability of a royal flush is low, it is not zero, but even knowing that, there is no way to predict or control when one will occur.
So it is more an emergent system than a deterministic one, as I undersatnd it.
What you are talking about is what I call a "Chaotic System" as it follows the principles of chaos theory. Like the bingo ball machine, or the weather. In-fact, if you look up Butterfly Effect, it's a direct reference to chaos theory and the atmosphere. The outcome of a chaotic system is predictable given knowledge of all the determinents. Another example is a gun that is fixed to a solid surface and does not move, yet every bullet exiting the chamber fires in a different angle. A tiny speck of dust in the guns chamber can drastically affect the angle of the bullet. That's chaos theory. Not knowing the position of the speck of dust makes it impossible to predict the precise angle of the bullet, but if you knew the exact position and properties of the dust particle, you could predict with 100% efficiency the angle of the bullet. That is an over-simplification of course because you'd need to know the exact wind patterns at that precise moment as well. It all comes down to knowledge of the determining factors. Many scientists of the past stumbled upon problems they couldn't answer for lack of knowledge and attributed the emergence to God, but were later proven ignorant on the subject.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What you are talking about is what I call a "Chaotic System" as it follows the principles of chaos theory. Like the bingo ball machine, or the weather. In-fact, if you look up Butterfly Effect, it's a direct reference to chaos theory and the atmosphere. The outcome of a chaotic system is predictable given knowledge of all the determinents. Another example is a gun that is fixed to a solid surface and does not move, yet every bullet exiting the chamber fires in a different angle. A tiny speck of dust in the guns chamber can drastically affect the angle of the bullet. That's chaos theory. Not knowing the position of the speck of dust makes it impossible to predict the precise angle of the bullet, but if you knew the exact position and properties of the dust particle, you could predict with 100% efficiency the angle of the bullet. That is an over-simplification of course because you'd need to know the exact wind patterns at that precise moment as well. It all comes down to knowledge of the determining factors. Many scientists of the past stumbled upon problems they couldn't answer for lack of knowledge and attributed the emergence to God, but were later proven ignorant on the subject.
I think there is a bit of cross-over between these two concepts. Weather can be described in accordance with chaos theory, but it is also an emergent system, in that while it acts in accordance with physical rules, teh complexity is such that you have to wait until you see what happens, much like your gun. Chaos theory also predicts that if you run a system a sufficiently large number of times, eventually an unpredictable result will occur. I ascribe this reason as to why computers do weird shit at times. They run innumerable large numbers of calculations, then occasionally just crash for no apparent reason. There is a lot of intersting stuff like this in the Terry Pratchett books called "The Globe, or The Disc, I can''t remember hich at this headache filled moment.
BTW, I'm with you on the "there is no big plan" thing, eg there is no consequence of significane behind my keyboard chat here
I think there is a bit of cross-over between these two concepts. Weather can be described in accordance with chaos theory, but it is also an emergent system, in that while it acts in accordance with physical rules, teh complexity is such that you have to wait until you see what happens, much like your gun. Chaos theory also predicts that if you run a system a sufficiently large number of times, eventually an unpredictable result will occur. I ascribe this reason as to why computers do weird shit at times. They run innumerable large numbers of calculations, then occasionally just crash for no apparent reason. There is a lot of intersting stuff like this in the Terry Pratchett books called "The Globe, or The Disc, I can''t remember hich at this headache filled moment.
BTW, I'm with you on the "there is no big plan" thing, eg there is no consequence of significane behind my keyboard chat here
Interesting. I'm aware of that concept, it was the basis for the "I, Robot" movie. It may very well be true that this emergence gives rise to consciousness. Though I think that would be a far more chaotic experience than what we have. There is far too much consistency in consciousness, and many neural correlates have been found. There are many theories out there about consciousness that are intriguing, but very few hold any water when investigated. My concern with all of this is speculation vs skepticism. Skepticism is far more truth dependent. It's very simple to suggest that things occur because of things which cannot be known. But it doesn't actually produce any results. Skepticism looks at any theory and suggests it may be wrong. Skeptics test the theories.
Sometimes, you can throw a stone farther than you can test a theory. Other times it takes some seriously critical thought. I tried explaining the concept of free-will to a gentleman today and he did not understand at all. He kept saying "freedom of choice" or "freedom to choose" and suggesting "We absolutely have the freedom to choose" and I wasn't arguing that, I tried explaining the difference between "freedom of choice" and "free choice" but he didn't get it. So explaining how he doesn't have free-choice was absolutely useless because he couldn't understand what it is. So, trying to debate something with this guy when choice is involved is pointless. If it was a moral issue of a rapist or murderer and I was suggesting more lenient punishment and of course therapy, he would just think I'm messed up, because he can't understand where I am coming from.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It sounds like you are trying to stitch together some master plan. No I don't believe that we serve a functional purpose to some greater machine.
I told you, I am referring specifically to the physically observable determined aspects of life.
It is my understanding that we have agreed on these points:
1: our brain wiring tells us what to see and what we see.
2: what we see is not necessarily what is there. (ie: people generally do not recognize the degree that their actions are determined)
3: We believe what we are taught.
4: At an objective level everything is determined.
5: Everything in the universe has specific functions as uncovered through discovery and learning.
I thought you believed everthing is determined? And I thought you believed everything functions as per specific mechanisms? I only expect you to agree if you agree. I am distinctly expressing my physical level views and I am not intending at any time to bring God or spirituality into this. So you can relax. It's just that I usually naturally come from a spiritual/philosophical angle, that I don't think you realize what my actual physical world views are and how "normal" they are in terms of being logical and reasonable. I started this earlier because I believe we agree on these issues. And I believe that the parts we don't agree on are due to misconceptions and miscommunication, and not due to true disagreement.
edit: SO....do you agree that we serve a functional purpose within the determined system you perceive? Do you believe our thoughts, words and deeds serve a function within what is determined? Do you believe that we can uncover these functions and what needs they are filling for us, and then come to recognize how we are driven in certain patterns for reasons, and that upon such recognition we can then change these patterns to more effective ones? If you are familiar with and believe in behavioural psychology and evolutionary principles, I'm assuming you would agree.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I told you, I am referring specifically to the physically observable determined aspects of life.
It is my understanding that we have agreed on these points:
1: our brain wiring tells us what to see and what we see.
2: what we see is not necessarily what is there. (ie: people generally do not recognize the degree that their actions are determined)
3: We believe what we are taught.
4: At an objective level everything is determined.
5: Everything in the universe has specific functions as uncovered through discovery and learning.
I thought you believed everthing is determined? And I thought you believed everything functions as per specific mechanisms? I only expect you to agree if you agree. I am distinctly expressing my physical level views and I am not intending at any time to bring God or spirituality into this. So you can relax. It's just that I usually naturally come from a spiritual/philosophical angle, that I don't think you realize what my actual physical world views are and how "normal" they are in terms of being logical and reasonable. I started this earlier because I believe we agree on these issues. And I believe that the parts we don't agree on are due to misconceptions and miscommunication, and not due to true disagreement.
edit: SO....do you agree that we serve a functional purpose within the determined system you perceive? Do you believe our thoughts, words and deeds serve a function within what is determined? Do you believe that we can uncover these functions and what needs they are filling for us, and then come to recognize how we are driven in certain patterns for reasons, and that upon such recognition we can then change these patterns to more effective ones? If you are familiar with and believe in behavioural psychology and evolutionary principles, I'm assuming you would agree.
I wanted to make sure you get back to this stuff at some point in time, Ahnimus. There's no rush. I noticed this thread had slipped to the 2nd page.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I wanted to make sure you get back to this stuff at some point in time, Ahnimus. There's no rush. I noticed this thread had slipped to the 2nd page.
Absolutely, agree with you 100%. Except I like different words.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Absolutely, agree with you 100%. Except I like different words.
Okay, cool. I eventually intend to go into the stickier aspects of our purely physical, observable points of view, so it's important that in our agreements in the groundwork that you realize I am not trying to outsmart you but that rather, I am looking to see in depth where we actually do differ. For example, you might notice by my choice of words, that I put a certain connotation on things that you might not. I am noticing the differences you hold from me, by what you will accept and what you will not. The bottom line is that I am not attempting to sway you, but to rather define what we do and do not see, and what we do and do not agree upon.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Okay, cool. I eventually intend to go into the stickier aspects of our purely physical, observable points of view, so it's important that in our agreements in the groundwork that you realize I am not trying to outsmart you but that rather, I am looking to see in depth where we actually do differ. For example, you might notice by my choice of words, that I put a certain connotation on things that you might not. I am noticing the differences you hold from me, by what you will accept and what you will not. The bottom line is that I am not attempting to sway you, but to rather define what we do and do not see, and what we do and do not agree upon.
It's just the chi/ki that I am skeptical on that you seem to believe whole-heartedly in.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's just the chi/ki that I am skeptical on that you seem to believe whole-heartedly in.
Also I've seen that we have had numerous clashes in how we conceptualize things. Most of my "spiritual" stuff is very humdrum and normal and can be explained reasonably in terms of widely accepted natural laws (ie psychological principles, or evolutionary ones). I'm noticing more and more that it's the way I explain things that is discordant to you. If you are willing to accept or at least consider the possibility of that futuristic thing about my healing possibly working backwards from the future, along determined lines--as you did on the chat at 6:00 am, which by most people's standards is wayyy out there, then you are willing to consider some very odd theories. To you it seems like it's the spiritual stuff we disagree on. To me, it seems that we are speaking two languages. I see myself speaking about my personal experiences of interacting with everything. I feel emotional beauty and depths and I focus on these because they are amazing. I bring heaven into my experiences by doing so. You speak about everything as though it is unconnected to you--as if you detach yourself from what you are talking about, emotionally. These are opposing perspectives. Subjective vs. objective. I am a synthesizer and it's quite natural for me to tap into people because I can see where they are coming from. So, in order to clarify communication, I am attempting to meet you where you are, at your perspective as much as I can. And it seems that is working for now.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Also I've seen that we have had numerous clashes in how we conceptualize things. Most of my "spiritual" stuff is very humdrum and normal and can be explained reasonably in terms of widely accepted natural laws (ie psychological principles, or evolutionary ones). I'm noticing more and more that it's the way I explain things that is discordant to you. If you are willing to accept or at least consider the possibility of that futuristic thing about my healing possibly working backwards from the future, along determined lines--as you did on the chat at 6:00 am, which by most people's standards is wayyy out there, then you are willing to consider some very odd theories. To you it seems like it's the spiritual stuff we disagree on. To me, it seems that we are speaking two languages. I see myself speaking about my personal experiences of interacting with everything. I feel emotional beauty and depths and I focus on these because they are amazing. I bring heaven into my experiences by doing so. You speak about everything as though it is unconnected to you--as if you detach yourself from what you are talking about, emotionally. These are opposing perspectives. Subjective vs. objective. I am a synthesizer and it's quite natural for me to tap into people because I can see where they are coming from. So, in order to clarify communication, I am attempting to meet you where you are, at your perspective as much as I can. And it seems that is working for now.
Yes, I prefer to detach from a topic and look at it objectively. Experience is ontologically subjective and to me that means it's a pointless consideration. Actually, by definition of ontological and subjective, that's exactly what it is.
This is why others do not like to talk to me, because I don't appreciate their emotional feelings on the subjects.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yes, I prefer to detach from a topic and look at it objectively. Experience is ontologically subjective and to me that means it's a pointless consideration. Actually, by definition of ontological and subjective, that's exactly what it is.
This is why others do not like to talk to me, because I don't appreciate their emotional feelings on the subjects.
yes. and for example you and I have had enough interactions that I assume you respect me on some level. And I assume you respect my intelligence to some degree. And we've established that people like myself and farfromglorified share some important basics with your own view. And obviously we keep connecting through these discussions. Can you consciously appreciate that people like ffg and myself have complementary aspects of life to show you, just as you have pieces of the puzzle to add to our view? If we can all be aware of this, we will have less head-butting and just poor social-interaction problems, and more productive thought stimulation.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
yes. and for example you and I have had enough interactions that I assume you respect me on some level. And I assume you respect my intelligence to some degree. And we've established that people like myself and farfromglorified share some important basics with your own view. And obviously we keep connecting through these discussions. Can you consciously appreciate that people like ffg and myself have complementary aspects of life to show you, just as you have pieces of the puzzle to add to our view? If we can all be aware of this, we will have less head-butting and just poor social-interaction problems, and more productive thought stimulation.
Hippiemom doesn't want us talking about free-will anymore
Hey, I'm not the only one that is ignoring evidence. When I talk about pyschosis it's not an attack, it's a real hypothesis. I hope you realize that, ebcause I do have a lot of respect for you. I'm just trying to say the way I see it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Hippiemom doesn't want us talking about free-will anymore
Hey, I'm not the only one that is ignoring evidence. When I talk about pyschosis it's not an attack, it's a real hypothesis. I hope you realize that, ebcause I do have a lot of respect for you. I'm just trying to say the way I see it.
I think hippiemom is asking if we can not talk about free will in multiple threads--not that we don't talk about it at all. I understand that people want to be able to feel their opinions are accepted as is--that they can share their opinions without being bowled over by some topics (and/or people) that tend to take on a monopolizing quality. And that people like to see the thread topic discussed, not endless tangents. I also understand your perspective because if someone asked me to stop speaking about an aspect of psychology that I was very much focussed on and seeing underlying all kinds of interactions, I would feel stifled. I'm wondering if it's not so much that there are 5 free will threads, but that we are so ongoingly argumentative about it, repelling others from contributing to the topics at hand. And that, by the way, is a big part of why I am seeking resolution with you Ahnimus. I intend for resolution on these issues. I'm seeking to know where we stand, so we can accept that and leave it at that.
I told you on the gabbly chat that you have been a big challenge for me. That has mostly hinged on the word "psychotic". I had the sense that you meant what you said about psychosis on the clinical level, and that you did not intend to be insulting from the beginning, which is why I continued to interact on the subject. At the same time, you have hooked those places in myself that have been damaged, with me being a very sensitive person, and having family members who by their insensitivity to my feelings, acted in ways that were hurtful to me over and over again regarding the psychiatric disorders I have endured. I do accept all of the learning experiences I put myself in and I'm pleased to say the word psychotic doesn't seem to hold as much power over me anymore. Thanks to you.
I am willing to learn from you a)when I can...ie: when it's not info that causes my brain to shut down. and b) when we are being civilized and respectful to one another. I respect you as a person, Ahnimus. In all, I respect your intelligence and I even respect how you think, no matter how crazy and anal people think you are.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
This is why others do not like to talk to me, because I don't appreciate their emotional feelings on the subjects.
This is were you go wrong, Ahnimus. You might try to debate without the under-handed insults. You are simply looking at the 'evidence' and drawing your conclusions, just like everyone here. It's almost laughable when you declare your conclusions as the absolute truth, then tell others with differing viewpoints that they are psychotic. BTW, there have been several great points addressed to you in this thread. I was disappointed when you didn't address them.
The strict deterministic viewpoint is quite nice, isn't it? You don't have to accept responsibility for your actions.
ffg, gave some good advice earlier in the thread....
But I warn those who accept that mindset to be careful what they wish for. A belief in a world and a life without purpose will get you exactly what you ask for.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I don't believe in God (I'm an agnostic), and I have no idea what you mean by "stuff". Neither God nor "stuff" are necessary to find purpose in this life or that which makes it possible.
If you believe that you, and that what makes you actually you, have no purpose, I wholeheartedly support your right to act accordingly. But I warn those who accept that mindset to be careful what they wish for. A belief in a world and a life without purpose will get you exactly what you ask for.
Somewhere in this thread I believe you said something that amounts to "following your stomach will lead you to eat well". I encourage you to go meet those who live by such a pathetic mantra: among them you will find many who starve and the rest who simply steal from those who produce the actual food those others believe can just be conjured out of thin air, or by worshipping some wooden idol. Your stomach cannot find or grow your food. A desire, on its own, cannot make it so.
hold on. two steps too fast perhaps.
i did not say i do not find purpose in life, but i do not necessarily want to agree that there is a purpose behind consciousness [as in, 'the existence of consciousness']. possibly you could be drawing an inference that an entity having "consciousness" implies that said entity is thus operating upon a level of purpose--but not everyone uses the awareness that consciousness provides/allots to pursue actions upon a purpose...
..now, sure, a tail on a fish has a purpose,.. but this still alludes to god-speak: design-theory vs. mutation/natural-selection,... so that's what i meant by "stuff".
i believe we each interact as best we can in a world with too many factors for any objective ciphering,.. and some of us "find"--which typically means "accept"--a purpose for which to live,.. short of god's descent to earth, i dont see any superior type of knowledge which might absolutely prevail in any terms, be they ethical, metaphysical, or scientific[al].
next off, i made that little sentence up out of thin air yesteryore,.. i neither live by such mantras nor encourage others to do so,.. but i do hope to become some type of relevant writing guys someday, and so i fancy such notions as wonderful food for thought--nothing more, nothing less,.. but hopefully something of an above average quality of entertainment,...
I didn't say they are mutually exclusive, nor do I believe they are. Consciousness simply represents a futher step in the evolution.
right, we've had this talk before,... humanity as the brain of Nature.... and, in reference to everything else i have typed here, i am recalling that we agreed such values, i.e. 'purpose', are posited by us,..
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
The way I see it, you can just as easily insert "dream" in to the "follow your stomach" part, farfromglorified. If you follow your stomach, you don't give up logic or your sense of self. You use logic and your sense of self to fulfill the needs of the stomach.
And similarly, if we insert "dream" making the quote about following your dream we therefore end up getting our share of our dream, too. We may get lost but we'll find our dreams. I thought you would be a great believer in this philosophy.
he didnt count on my loyal army of brilliant women!!
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
You are welcome, and thank YOU. There is definitely something decidedly otherworldly about you, my friend. Aren't you pursuing some kind of arts endeavor? The quote, now that I know was written by you, shows me all the more how perceptive of reality you are. I can see by what you've written here how you think differently than I do, albeit still heading in the same direction. I am better for hearing your perspective on the subject as it definitely complements my more "take the bull by the horns" manner. Peace.
sorry A, i should've replied to this more responsibly last night,.. i just get so excited to leave work i cant think about much else when the time comes....
for the record, "otherwordly" is ok by me--i dont usually like any idea of titles, names, labels, trends, movements, or whatever '-isms' having any association with my work, but there are of course "fluffy exceptions"...
but yes, your memory, and, well, your awareness to begin with, serves you well--in fact i've recently applied to a mfa-photo program somewhere in the lower-48 states!
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
This is were you go wrong, Ahnimus. You might try to debate without the under-handed insults. You are simply looking at the 'evidence' and drawing your conclusions, just like everyone here. It's almost laughable when you declare your conclusions as the absolute truth, then tell others with differing viewpoints that they are psychotic. BTW, there have been several great points addressed to you in this thread. I was disappointed when you didn't address them.
The strict deterministic viewpoint is quite nice, isn't it? You don't have to accept responsibility for your actions.
ffg, gave some good advice earlier in the thread....
Give me a break Baraka. "The strict deterministic viewpoint is quite nice, isn't it? You don't have to accept responsibility for your actions. " that's bullshit. I know that hard determinism is right, because it is. There is no denying it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Give me a break Baraka. "The strict deterministic viewpoint is quite nice, isn't it? You don't have to accept responsibility for your actions. " that's bullshit. I know that hard determinism is right, because it is. There is no denying it.
LOL! It is you that should be giving all of us a break. It is not right, I'm afraid. I'm not saying that there isn't something to determinism in general, but your 'theory' is actually quite shotty. But, you are welcome to limit yourself and your potential by believing that rubbish. I have no doubt that it will become a reality to you.
Oh, and what did you find disturbing about my statement you quoted? Is it not true according to your 'theory'? The murder is not in control of his destiny, according your your theory. Your 'theory' allows you to blame other things for your failures (not you in particular) instead of looking at the most logical and obvious cause.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
LOL! It is you that should be giving all of us a break. It is not right, I'm afraid. I'm not saying that there isn't something to determinism in general, but your 'theory' is actually quite shotty. But, you are welcome to limit yourself and your potential by believing that rubbish. I have no doubt that it will become a reality to you.
Oh, and what did you find disturbing about my statement you quoted? Is it not true according to your 'theory'? The murder is not in control of his destiny, according your your theory. Your 'theory' allows you to blame other things for your failures (not you in particular) instead of looking at the most logical and obvious cause.
Tell me what is wrong with the theory? Don't just accuse me of trying absolve myself of moral responsibility.
Determinism doesn't allow me to blame other things for my failures. It enables to me recognize the causes of my failures and others. My focus is in understanding other's behavior as well as mine. It's free-will that is a selfish theory.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Determinism doesn't allow me to blame other things for my failures. It enables to me recognize the causes of my failures and others. My focus is in understanding other's behavior as well as mine. It's free-will that is a selfish theory.
And once you've recognized the causes, then what? Why bother? It matters not, according you.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
And once you've recognized the causes, then what? Why bother? It matters not, according you.
That is so myopic. Think about it!
If I know that traumatic experiences can cause damage to the frontal lobe of the brain and/or the amygdala which results in violent behavior or hypersensitivity to stress. Then I correlate that with fMRI scans of criminals and notice that they have brain damage. I can understand how they got to be criminals, and how certain therapy can help to repair the damaged regions of the brain.
You just assume they decided to commit murder because they chose the unrighteous path of evil. Give me a fucking break. That is a selfish perspective. That implies that you make better decisions regardless of the differences in experiences. It's totally ignorant. Free-will is the weapon of envy and pride, not determinism.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If I know that traumatic experiences can cause damage to the frontal lobe of the brain and/or the amygdala which results in violent behavior or hypersensitivity to stress. Then I correlate that with fMRI scans of criminals and notice that they have brain damage. I can understand how they got to be criminals, and how certain therapy can help to repair the damaged regions of the brain.
You just assume they decided to commit murder because they chose the unrighteous path of evil. Give me a fucking break. That is a selfish perspective. That implies that you make better decisions regardless of the differences in experiences. It's totally ignorant. Free-will is the weapon of envy and pride, not determinism.
Oh Ahnimus...... It very simple really. Again, no one is discounting determinism outright. There, of course, are determining factors that influence us. It's just that some are better able to overcome those influences. Your little example above is correct, but it is just one example in many. It certainly is not a very good case for strict determinism. You need to learn to look at the 'evidence' or 'facts' in context to the bigger picture. And, do not assume to know why I think most murders choose murder. You are good at making bad assumptions and placing words in other's mouths. Like I mentioned above, there are many examples, all with different circumstances. And certainly there are those that are so incapacitated mentally they do not know right from wrong, and there are those who are 'brain damaged' and are sociopaths. But most of us do not fall in this category. Our triggers, or determining factors are stress, hate, jealousy, desperation, etc. These are things that cause bad behavior. But, at the end of the day, WE make our own choices, period. What you need to understand is there are MANY variables at play.
Your last paragraph here was a bit confused, I think. Of course, it is based on a wrong assumption. "That implies that you make better decisions regardless of the differences in experiences." This statement makes no sense, Ahnimus. There are many sappy stories of individuals that had all the odds stacked against them, only to rise above it, probably due to believing in themselves and making wise choices.
You never answered my question, btw.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Oh Ahnimus...... It very simple really. Again, no one is discounting determinism outright. There, of course, are determining factors that influence us. It's just that some are better able to overcome those influences. Your little example above is correct, but it is just one example in many. It certainly is not a very good case for strict determinism. You need to learn to look at the 'evidence' or 'facts' in context to the bigger picture. And, do not assume to know why I think most murders choose murder. You are good at making bad assumptions and placing words in other's mouths. Like I mentioned above, there are many examples, all with different circumstances. And certainly there are those that are so incapacitated mentally they do not know right from wrong, and there are those who are 'brain damaged' and are sociopaths. But most of us do not fall in this category. Our triggers, or determining factors are stress, hate, jealousy, desperation, etc. These are things that cause bad behavior. But, at the end of the day, WE make our own choices, period. What you need to understand is there are MANY variables at play.
Your last paragraph here was a bit confused, I think. Of course, it is based on a wrong assumption. "That implies that you make better decisions regardless of the differences in experiences." This statement makes no sense, Ahnimus. There are many sappy stories of individuals that had all the odds stacked against them, only to rise above it, probably due to believing in themselves and making wise choices.
You never answered my question, btw.
Moderate determinism is not possible. Simply because you do not know why some choose differently than others is not evidence of Free-will. It's only evidence of your ignorance. Who is the "WE" that makes the choice? Is it not your brain? Is it not subject to determination? Then what the hell are you talking about?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Moderate determinism is not possible. Simply because you do not know why some choose differently than others is not evidence of Free-will. It's only evidence of your ignorance. Who is the "WE" that makes the choice? Is it not your brain? Is it not subject to determination? Then what the hell are you talking about?
I'm not sure you know what you are discussing, Ahnimus, to be honest, contradictions left and right. Your argument is circular and when you can not address the points directed at you, you resort to projection. You answer questions with irrelevant questions and copy & pasted statements. Get a grasp on what you are discussing. You are emotional and I think this is clouding your logic and debating technique. I do not buy your argument, at least not from the shotty case you've presented. Get a hold of yourself, man!
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm not sure you know what you are discussing, Ahnimus, to be honest, contradictions left and right. Your argument is circular and when you can not address the points directed at you, you resort to projection. You answer questions with irrelevant questions and copy & pasted statements. Get a grasp on what you are discussing. You are emotional and I think this is clouding your logic and debating technique. I do not buy your argument, at least not from the shotty case you've presented. Get a hold of yourself, man!
That's absolutely absurd.
I am providing a causal understanding of how people make decisions. The opposition simply states "We have free-will" without providing any causation for "free-will" so your assertion is completely opposite to what is actually going on.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
What you are talking about is what I call a "Chaotic System" as it follows the principles of chaos theory. Like the bingo ball machine, or the weather. In-fact, if you look up Butterfly Effect, it's a direct reference to chaos theory and the atmosphere. The outcome of a chaotic system is predictable given knowledge of all the determinents. Another example is a gun that is fixed to a solid surface and does not move, yet every bullet exiting the chamber fires in a different angle. A tiny speck of dust in the guns chamber can drastically affect the angle of the bullet. That's chaos theory. Not knowing the position of the speck of dust makes it impossible to predict the precise angle of the bullet, but if you knew the exact position and properties of the dust particle, you could predict with 100% efficiency the angle of the bullet. That is an over-simplification of course because you'd need to know the exact wind patterns at that precise moment as well. It all comes down to knowledge of the determining factors. Many scientists of the past stumbled upon problems they couldn't answer for lack of knowledge and attributed the emergence to God, but were later proven ignorant on the subject.
I think there is a bit of cross-over between these two concepts. Weather can be described in accordance with chaos theory, but it is also an emergent system, in that while it acts in accordance with physical rules, teh complexity is such that you have to wait until you see what happens, much like your gun. Chaos theory also predicts that if you run a system a sufficiently large number of times, eventually an unpredictable result will occur. I ascribe this reason as to why computers do weird shit at times. They run innumerable large numbers of calculations, then occasionally just crash for no apparent reason. There is a lot of intersting stuff like this in the Terry Pratchett books called "The Globe, or The Disc, I can''t remember hich at this headache filled moment.
BTW, I'm with you on the "there is no big plan" thing, eg there is no consequence of significane behind my keyboard chat here
Interesting. I'm aware of that concept, it was the basis for the "I, Robot" movie. It may very well be true that this emergence gives rise to consciousness. Though I think that would be a far more chaotic experience than what we have. There is far too much consistency in consciousness, and many neural correlates have been found. There are many theories out there about consciousness that are intriguing, but very few hold any water when investigated. My concern with all of this is speculation vs skepticism. Skepticism is far more truth dependent. It's very simple to suggest that things occur because of things which cannot be known. But it doesn't actually produce any results. Skepticism looks at any theory and suggests it may be wrong. Skeptics test the theories.
Sometimes, you can throw a stone farther than you can test a theory. Other times it takes some seriously critical thought. I tried explaining the concept of free-will to a gentleman today and he did not understand at all. He kept saying "freedom of choice" or "freedom to choose" and suggesting "We absolutely have the freedom to choose" and I wasn't arguing that, I tried explaining the difference between "freedom of choice" and "free choice" but he didn't get it. So explaining how he doesn't have free-choice was absolutely useless because he couldn't understand what it is. So, trying to debate something with this guy when choice is involved is pointless. If it was a moral issue of a rapist or murderer and I was suggesting more lenient punishment and of course therapy, he would just think I'm messed up, because he can't understand where I am coming from.
It is my understanding that we have agreed on these points:
1: our brain wiring tells us what to see and what we see.
2: what we see is not necessarily what is there. (ie: people generally do not recognize the degree that their actions are determined)
3: We believe what we are taught.
4: At an objective level everything is determined.
5: Everything in the universe has specific functions as uncovered through discovery and learning.
I thought you believed everthing is determined? And I thought you believed everything functions as per specific mechanisms? I only expect you to agree if you agree. I am distinctly expressing my physical level views and I am not intending at any time to bring God or spirituality into this. So you can relax. It's just that I usually naturally come from a spiritual/philosophical angle, that I don't think you realize what my actual physical world views are and how "normal" they are in terms of being logical and reasonable. I started this earlier because I believe we agree on these issues. And I believe that the parts we don't agree on are due to misconceptions and miscommunication, and not due to true disagreement.
edit: SO....do you agree that we serve a functional purpose within the determined system you perceive? Do you believe our thoughts, words and deeds serve a function within what is determined? Do you believe that we can uncover these functions and what needs they are filling for us, and then come to recognize how we are driven in certain patterns for reasons, and that upon such recognition we can then change these patterns to more effective ones? If you are familiar with and believe in behavioural psychology and evolutionary principles, I'm assuming you would agree.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Absolutely, agree with you 100%. Except I like different words.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's just the chi/ki that I am skeptical on that you seem to believe whole-heartedly in.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes, I prefer to detach from a topic and look at it objectively. Experience is ontologically subjective and to me that means it's a pointless consideration. Actually, by definition of ontological and subjective, that's exactly what it is.
This is why others do not like to talk to me, because I don't appreciate their emotional feelings on the subjects.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Hippiemom doesn't want us talking about free-will anymore
Hey, I'm not the only one that is ignoring evidence. When I talk about pyschosis it's not an attack, it's a real hypothesis. I hope you realize that, ebcause I do have a lot of respect for you. I'm just trying to say the way I see it.
I told you on the gabbly chat that you have been a big challenge for me. That has mostly hinged on the word "psychotic". I had the sense that you meant what you said about psychosis on the clinical level, and that you did not intend to be insulting from the beginning, which is why I continued to interact on the subject. At the same time, you have hooked those places in myself that have been damaged, with me being a very sensitive person, and having family members who by their insensitivity to my feelings, acted in ways that were hurtful to me over and over again regarding the psychiatric disorders I have endured. I do accept all of the learning experiences I put myself in and I'm pleased to say the word psychotic doesn't seem to hold as much power over me anymore. Thanks to you.
I am willing to learn from you a)when I can...ie: when it's not info that causes my brain to shut down. and b) when we are being civilized and respectful to one another. I respect you as a person, Ahnimus. In all, I respect your intelligence and I even respect how you think, no matter how crazy and anal people think you are.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Angelica!! What did we tell you!? *gets out the paddle*
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
This is were you go wrong, Ahnimus. You might try to debate without the under-handed insults. You are simply looking at the 'evidence' and drawing your conclusions, just like everyone here. It's almost laughable when you declare your conclusions as the absolute truth, then tell others with differing viewpoints that they are psychotic. BTW, there have been several great points addressed to you in this thread. I was disappointed when you didn't address them.
The strict deterministic viewpoint is quite nice, isn't it? You don't have to accept responsibility for your actions.
ffg, gave some good advice earlier in the thread....
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
hold on. two steps too fast perhaps.
i did not say i do not find purpose in life, but i do not necessarily want to agree that there is a purpose behind consciousness [as in, 'the existence of consciousness']. possibly you could be drawing an inference that an entity having "consciousness" implies that said entity is thus operating upon a level of purpose--but not everyone uses the awareness that consciousness provides/allots to pursue actions upon a purpose...
..now, sure, a tail on a fish has a purpose,.. but this still alludes to god-speak: design-theory vs. mutation/natural-selection,... so that's what i meant by "stuff".
i believe we each interact as best we can in a world with too many factors for any objective ciphering,.. and some of us "find"--which typically means "accept"--a purpose for which to live,.. short of god's descent to earth, i dont see any superior type of knowledge which might absolutely prevail in any terms, be they ethical, metaphysical, or scientific[al].
next off, i made that little sentence up out of thin air yesteryore,.. i neither live by such mantras nor encourage others to do so,.. but i do hope to become some type of relevant writing guys someday, and so i fancy such notions as wonderful food for thought--nothing more, nothing less,.. but hopefully something of an above average quality of entertainment,...
right, we've had this talk before,... humanity as the brain of Nature.... and, in reference to everything else i have typed here, i am recalling that we agreed such values, i.e. 'purpose', are posited by us,..
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
he didnt count on my loyal army of brilliant women!!
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
sorry A, i should've replied to this more responsibly last night,.. i just get so excited to leave work i cant think about much else when the time comes....
for the record, "otherwordly" is ok by me--i dont usually like any idea of titles, names, labels, trends, movements, or whatever '-isms' having any association with my work, but there are of course "fluffy exceptions"...
but yes, your memory, and, well, your awareness to begin with, serves you well--in fact i've recently applied to a mfa-photo program somewhere in the lower-48 states!
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Give me a break Baraka. "The strict deterministic viewpoint is quite nice, isn't it? You don't have to accept responsibility for your actions. " that's bullshit. I know that hard determinism is right, because it is. There is no denying it.
LOL! It is you that should be giving all of us a break. It is not right, I'm afraid. I'm not saying that there isn't something to determinism in general, but your 'theory' is actually quite shotty. But, you are welcome to limit yourself and your potential by believing that rubbish. I have no doubt that it will become a reality to you.
Oh, and what did you find disturbing about my statement you quoted? Is it not true according to your 'theory'? The murder is not in control of his destiny, according your your theory. Your 'theory' allows you to blame other things for your failures (not you in particular) instead of looking at the most logical and obvious cause.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Tell me what is wrong with the theory? Don't just accuse me of trying absolve myself of moral responsibility.
Determinism doesn't allow me to blame other things for my failures. It enables to me recognize the causes of my failures and others. My focus is in understanding other's behavior as well as mine. It's free-will that is a selfish theory.
And once you've recognized the causes, then what? Why bother? It matters not, according you.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
That is so myopic. Think about it!
If I know that traumatic experiences can cause damage to the frontal lobe of the brain and/or the amygdala which results in violent behavior or hypersensitivity to stress. Then I correlate that with fMRI scans of criminals and notice that they have brain damage. I can understand how they got to be criminals, and how certain therapy can help to repair the damaged regions of the brain.
You just assume they decided to commit murder because they chose the unrighteous path of evil. Give me a fucking break. That is a selfish perspective. That implies that you make better decisions regardless of the differences in experiences. It's totally ignorant. Free-will is the weapon of envy and pride, not determinism.
Oh Ahnimus...... It very simple really. Again, no one is discounting determinism outright. There, of course, are determining factors that influence us. It's just that some are better able to overcome those influences. Your little example above is correct, but it is just one example in many. It certainly is not a very good case for strict determinism. You need to learn to look at the 'evidence' or 'facts' in context to the bigger picture. And, do not assume to know why I think most murders choose murder. You are good at making bad assumptions and placing words in other's mouths. Like I mentioned above, there are many examples, all with different circumstances. And certainly there are those that are so incapacitated mentally they do not know right from wrong, and there are those who are 'brain damaged' and are sociopaths. But most of us do not fall in this category. Our triggers, or determining factors are stress, hate, jealousy, desperation, etc. These are things that cause bad behavior. But, at the end of the day, WE make our own choices, period. What you need to understand is there are MANY variables at play.
Your last paragraph here was a bit confused, I think. Of course, it is based on a wrong assumption. "That implies that you make better decisions regardless of the differences in experiences." This statement makes no sense, Ahnimus. There are many sappy stories of individuals that had all the odds stacked against them, only to rise above it, probably due to believing in themselves and making wise choices.
You never answered my question, btw.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Moderate determinism is not possible. Simply because you do not know why some choose differently than others is not evidence of Free-will. It's only evidence of your ignorance. Who is the "WE" that makes the choice? Is it not your brain? Is it not subject to determination? Then what the hell are you talking about?
I'm not sure you know what you are discussing, Ahnimus, to be honest, contradictions left and right. Your argument is circular and when you can not address the points directed at you, you resort to projection. You answer questions with irrelevant questions and copy & pasted statements. Get a grasp on what you are discussing. You are emotional and I think this is clouding your logic and debating technique. I do not buy your argument, at least not from the shotty case you've presented. Get a hold of yourself, man!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
That's absolutely absurd.
I am providing a causal understanding of how people make decisions. The opposition simply states "We have free-will" without providing any causation for "free-will" so your assertion is completely opposite to what is actually going on.