The Criminal Mind

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

Sorry, how does stamping our feet, crying and complaining about our emotions put the world into perspective?

wow. that's amazing! she posts a descriptor of your personality type, and you give a response that completely proves everything she wrote correct. you read a textbook description of your faults, and not only do you prove that correct, in doing so you exhibit every flaw described therein. i've never seen a personality description fit somebody so well.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

The first part makes perfect sense. Moral judgement requires moral standards, because judgements cannot be made independent of standards. Moral standards require moral identity, because one cannot measure one thing against another without assigning identities to those two things. Moral identities require moral agents, because something amoral cannot exist as a moral entity. A moral agent must be a self-aware identity, and a self-aware identity must have the logical faculty to recognize choices.

How can you make statements that agree with me, yet not agree with me?

You are saying quite clearly that free-will is dependent on several things in a causal chain. The simple fact that choice depends on anything, eliminates any freedom it has. I am not arguing choice, I am arguing free-will.

will /wɪl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wil] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, willed, will·ing.
–noun
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
4. wish or desire: to submit against one's will.
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness: to have the will to succeed.
6. the wish or purpose as carried out, or to be carried out: to work one's will.
7. disposition, whether good or ill, toward another.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/will

free will
–noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=free%20will

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

I appreciate everyone's analysis of my psyche, but I fail to see where they are at all correct. The only instability in my life is financial. I don't have emotional or rational instability. If any of you knew me outside of the board, that would be apparent.

It's quite simple and I've explained this thoroughly. People make different choices and we attribute this to "Free" will, so we recognize that free-will is not constant, this means that something, whether divine or natural determines what "free" will we have and is therefor not "Free". Because "'free'-will" by definition is independent of any deterministic mechanisms and should therefor be constant, but it's not, it's different for everyone and not "free". It's determined by some "thing" else. Or in my opinion everything else.

this is a perfect example. you are not emotionally stable. you blew your lid last night like i've never seen anyone do before. you've got emotions boiling under the surface you refuse to even acknowledge (probly becos you're afraid you'll go back to torturing pets if you dont control it). so when the talk turns to our internal psyche, you cannot discuss it. you quickly direct conversation back to your external focus on how the real problem is not you, it's everyone else in the entire world becos they have this illogical believe that they are free. even when you say "i picture myself as the boy" you're not being empathetic boy, you're making a feeble attempt to get in touch with your own emotions, becos you've already admitted you WERE that boy. and even then, you are not trying to understand what might have caused that boy to behave such a way, you are simply projecting the reasons you behaved that way onto this boy and assuming he would be the same.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Oh, much of what goes on around you is human behaviour that does not fit into mathematical formulas. If do not learn to understand or even tolerate the subjective nature of humans without belittling them based on your judgement of irrelevency (with commentary like "stamping feet, crying and complaining" or worse "psychotic" which alienates people), you will miss out on adapting to human systems which surround you at all times. They are alogical.

Another thing you and I have in common is we are "judgers", which means we make snap judgements all the time. While we can be potent and decisive, we can also be intolerant and alienate others by tuning out further possible amendments to our judgments. You and I are extraverted judgers, who are fortunate in ways because it is such people who are "go getters" and make things happen for them in life. However, such people often alienate even their own children by their teenage years with overbearing intolerant attitudes. It's something to think about.


Studying personality type is an objective way to get one's balance on track. Sticking to one's own subjective "conditioned" ideas about one's self is a good way to fool one's self.

It's difficult to understand the mind mathematically. It's also difficult to understand the atmosphere mathematically, or quantum physics. So what they do is gather as much information they can, follow trends, formulate a hypothesis and include a probability variable. The probability variable, is the probability that they are right, not the probability that the event will actually occur. Given a specific set of contingencies the event will or will not occur. The fault is in our scope of understanding, not in the underlying mechanisms driving the result.

This also applies to the human mind. The system is so complex that we can only make predictions based on trends and probabilities. That doesn't mean that the system is not deterministic though.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

wow. that's amazing! she posts a descriptor of your personality type, and you give a response that completely proves everything she wrote correct. you read a textbook description of your faults, and not only do you prove that correct, in doing so you exhibit every flaw described therein. i've never seen a personality description fit somebody so well.

I had no problem with the analysis, my question is what good does emotion do us given the circumstances. Do we need to fight off a mastadon right now? Nope. Do we need to life a truck off of our child? Nope. Any reason we might need to get emotional over this conversation? Nope.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

I had no problem with the analysis, my question is what good does emotion do us given the circumstances. Do we need to fight off a mastadon right now? Nope. Do we need to life a truck off of our child? Nope. Any reason we might need to get emotional over this conversation? Nope.

yet you did get emotional about this conversation just last night. i remember you getting wound up and saying "fuck you" to me several times. why? becos i was being an asshole and belittling you. when it happens to you, you cry and throw a tantrum like the rest of us. however, when you browbeat people and tell them how stupid they are for their beliefs, you do not even recognize it. you think you're just "spreading truth" to the poor stupid folks who aren't as smart as you. you cannot even see it. becos you are incapable of empathy or recognizing feelings in others. perhaps you attempt to shut yours down for a reason, but notice how incapable of it you are. and when someone challenges the wisdom of such an idea, you get defensive. becos you're afraid of having to admit and feel them.

the point was, the description points out that you dismiss anything emotional as worthless. and you immediately respond by belittling anything with a hint of emotion. you could not be more blind.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

this is a perfect example. you are not emotionally stable. you blew your lid last night like i've never seen anyone do before. you've got emotions boiling under the surface you refuse to even acknowledge (probly becos you're afraid you'll go back to torturing pets if you dont control it). so when the talk turns to our internal psyche, you cannot discuss it. you quickly direct conversation back to your external focus on how the real problem is not you, it's everyone else in the entire world becos they have this illogical believe that they are free. even when you say "i picture myself as the boy" you're not being empathetic boy, you're making a feeble attempt to get in touch with your own emotions, becos you've already admitted you WERE that boy. and even then, you are not trying to understand what might have caused that boy to behave such a way, you are simply projecting the reasons you behaved that way onto this boy and assuming he would be the same.

That is completely wrong. I have emotions that I express, either when I feel they are appropriate, or when the chemicals within my brain are too difficult to resist with logic. I have no such disorder as you describe. I am not assuming anyone is the same as me. I am assuming that although this and this are fundamentally the same, they are ultimately different. They appear at different coordinates on the screen and contain different subjective tones to the reader. You are assuming that everyone is the same in exercising "Free" will to always make the right choice based on a mythical universal measure of right and wrong. You do that to boost your ego, thinking that you, given the same tools are ultimately better than others who make improper choices.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

yet you did get emotional about this conversation just last night. i remember you getting wound up and saying "fuck you" to me several times.

the point was, the description points out that you dismiss anything emotional as worthless. and you immediately respond by belittling anything with a hint of emotion. you could not be more blind.

Yea, emotions are worthless in the given context. My statements the day prior were also worthless, was it not?

I should not have reacted that way, nor should you have instigated that reaction. But never-the-less it happened and is now part of our history.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

How can you make statements that agree with me, yet not agree with me?

You are saying quite clearly that free-will is dependent on several things in a causal chain. The simple fact that choice depends on anything, eliminates any freedom it has. I am not arguing choice, I am arguing free-will.

I'll tell you this again, for the hundredth time:

Free-will is not magic.

The fact that choice is dependent on your mind does not eliminate it's existence. You are arguing against choice because, in a deterministic world, choice is impossible.

You're setting up a straw-man for free-will wherein it knows no bounds and then tearing it down because magic doesn't it exist. The problem with that is no one here is telling you that free-will is magic.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

I'll tell you this again, for the hundredth time:

Free-will is not magic.

The fact that choice is dependent on your mind does not eliminate it's existence. You are arguing against choice because, in a deterministic world, choice is impossible.

You're setting up a straw-man for free-will wherein it knows no bounds and then tearing it down because magic doesn't it exist. The problem with that is no one here is telling you that free-will is magic.

Free-will by definition is magic.

I agree that we have "will" dependent on our genetics and experiences. But nothing else. There is no "free will" that exists independent of deterministic laws.

I am not arguing against choice in it's raw defintion. I'm arguing against choice as a product of "Free will". Choice as a product of determined will certainly exists, though it's not free.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

Free-will by definition is magic.

Interesting that I've said that about 50 times to you, and this is the first time you've retreated to this position.

Free-will is not, by definition, magic any more than behavioral freedom is. The concept of free-will you've created may be.

I agree that we have "will" dependent on our genetics and experiences. But nothing else. There is no "free will" that exists independent of deterministic laws.

I am not arguing against choice in it's raw defintion. I'm arguing against choice as a product of "Free will". Choice as a product of determined will certainly exists, though it's not free.

Let me ask you a simple question, considering this new tact of yours:

Can I, as a conscious individual, actively observe my behavior and make choices between various paths based on my own desires?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Interesting that I've said that about 50 times to you, and this is the first time you've retreated to this position.

Free-will is not, by definition, magic any more than behavioral freedom is. The concept of free-will you've created may be.

Let me ask you a simple question, considering this new tact of yours:

Can I, as a conscious individual, actively observe my behavior and make choices between various paths based on my own desires?

All of that is irrelevant. Don't worry about finding examples.

Some thing, any thing that is not constant is affected by some thing else.

E.g. a raw egg, does not become a fried egg out of it's own volition.

If you want to find examples how one thing can become something else without any interference, then be my guest, but they don't exist.

Can I, as a conscious individual, actively observe my behavior and make choices between various paths based on my own desires?

Yes, based on their own desires, which they cannot choose. They can affect their desires in way, but they cannot sit down and draw up a list of everything they want to desire. Because what they want to desire, is not their choice. How can you justify desire as a personal choice, by saying that I desire what I desire, and based on free-will, I desire what I desire to desire, and infinitely so..

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

All of that is irrelevant. Don't worry about finding examples.

Some thing, any thing that is not constant is affected by some thing else.

E.g. a raw egg, does not become a fried egg out of it's own volition.

If you want to find examples how one thing can become something else without any interference, then be my guest, but they don't exist.

"Without any interferece"??? What do you think free-will is? Non-interference?

Can I, as a conscious individual, actively observe my behavior and make choices between various paths based on my own desires?

Yes, based on their own desires, which they cannot choose. They can affect their desires in way, but they cannot sit down and draw up a list of everything they want to desire. Because what they want to desire, is not their choice.

Hehe...so now I can choose, but I cannot control the standards by which I make a selection? That's not a choice, friend.

How can you justify desire as a personal choice, by saying that I desire what I desire, and based on free-will, I desire what I desire to desire, and infinitely so..

Our desires are the products of many factors. They all have roots. We desire food because we're biologically built to desire food. We desire life because we're biologically build to want to live. But how we acquire that food and how we seek that life are not biologically defined, nor are they entirely dependent on external factors. Furthermore, those desires are often contradictory, meaning we must select one over the other. There is no reason to resort to the recursive choices of desire in your straw-man above. One need only recognize that we can evaluate our desires, regardless of their roots, and judge them based on the standards we hold (biological, learned, and chosen).

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, emotions are worthless in the given context. My statements the day prior were also worthless, was it not?

I should not have reacted that way, nor should you have instigated that reaction. But never-the-less it happened and is now part of our history.

no, they werent. they were the only intelligent things you said that night.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

"Without any interferece"??? What do you think free-will is? Non-interference?

Hehe...so now I can choose, but I cannot control the standards by which I make a selection? That's not a choice, friend

Our desires are the products of many factors. They all have roots. We desire food because we're biologically built to desire food. We desire life because we're biologically build to want to live. But how we acquire that food and how we seek that life are not biologically defined, nor are they entirely dependent on external factors. Furthermore, those desires are often contradictory, meaning we must select one over the other. There is no reason to resort to the recursive choices of desire in your straw-man above. One need only recognize that we can evaluate our desires, regardless of their roots, and judge them based on the standards we hold (biological, learned, and chosen).

I fail to see how you are not totally agreeing with me. Also, how can the determination to choose be chosen? A choice chooses a choice chooses a choice and so on to infinity? Makes no sense. Choices are determined, and therefor are not free choices, but are determined choices, and ultimately not choices at all, in the sense that it exists outside of determinism.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

no, they werent. they were the only intelligent things you said that night.

Really? So when I said you are a myopic piece of shit, that was intelligent?

Remind me to insult you more, if that's what you think intelligence is.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

Really? So when I said you are a myopic piece of shit, that was intelligent?

Remind me to insult you more, if that's what you think intelligence is.

no, i was talking about when you said i was an asshole. i was. it was the only time you said anything that had any basis in reality.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTB6.pdf

Beautiful.
Don't make me love you more than I already do, farfromglorified.



I've only gone partway through this, but it's enthralling.

And I've come to love articles that use the word "empirical" nearly excessively.

"The only acceptable point of view appears to be one that recognizes both sides of reality--the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical--as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously. ...

The introduction into neuroscience and neuropsychology of the extensive use of functional brain imagining technology has revealed, at the empirical level, an important causal role of directed attention in cerebral functioning. ...

It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that there is at least one type of information processing and manipulation that does not readily lend itself to explanations that assume that all final causes are subsumed within brain, or more generally, central nervous sytem mechanisms. The cases in question are those in which the conscious act of willfully altering the mode by which experiential information is processed itself changes, in systematic ways, the cerebral mechanisms utilized. There is a growing recognition of the theoretical importance of applying experimental paradigms that employ directed mental effort in order to produce systematic and predictable changes in brain function. ... These willfully induced brain changes are generally accomplished through training in, and the applied use, of cognitive reattribution and the attentional re-contextualization of conscious experience. Furthermore, an accelerating number of studies in the neuroimaging literature significantly support the thesis that, again, with appropriate training and effort, people can systematically alter neural circuitry associated with a variety of physical and mental states that are frankly pathological. A recent review of this and the related neurological literature has coined the term "self-directed neuroplasticity" to serve as a general description of the principle that focused training and effort can systematically alter cerebral function in a predictable and potentially therapeutic manner.

From a theoretical perspective, perhaps the most important aspect of this line of research is the empirical support it provides for a new science-based way of conceptualizing the interface between mind/consciousness and brain. Until recently, virtually all attempts to understand the functional activity of the brain have have been based at least implicitly on some principles of classical physics that have been known to be fundamentally false for three quarters of a century. According to the classical conception of the world, all causal connections between observables are explainable in terms of mechanical interactions between material realities. But this restriction on modes of causation is not fully maintained by the currently applied principles of physics, which consequently offer an alternative conceptual foundation for the scientific description and modeling of the causal structure of self-directed neuroplasticity.

The advantages for neuroscience and neuropsychology of utilizing the conceptual framework of contemporary physics, as opposed to that of classical physics, stem from five basic facts. First, terms such as "feeling", "knowing", and "effort", because they are intrinsically mentalistic and experiential, cannot be described exclusively in terms of material structure. Second, in order to explain the observable properties of large physical systems that depend sensitively on the behaviours of their atomic constituents the founders of contemporary physical theory were led to introduce explicitly into the basic causal structure of physics certain choices made by human beings about how they will act. Third, within this altered conceptual framework these choices are described in mentalistic (ie: psychological) language. Fourth, terminology of this kind is critically necessary for the design and execution of the experiments in which the data demonstrating the core phenomena of self-directed neuroplasticity are acquired and described. Fifth, the injection of psychologically described choices on the part of human agents into the causal theoretical structure can be achieved for experiments in neuroscience by applying the same mathematical rules that were developed to account for the structure of phenomena in the realm of atomic science.

...basically...classical physics is an approximation to the more accurate quantum theory, and that this classical approximation eliminates the causal efficacy of our conscious efforts that these experiments empirically manifest."

Classical physics eliminates the causal CAPACITY TO PRODUCE A DESIRED EFFECT of our conscious efforts that these experiments empirically manifest. Classical physics and mechanics is INCOMPLETE in actual understanding of such dynamics!

I LOVE this article...so far anyway....

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

I fail to see how you are not totally agreeing with me.

You do not believe in the conscious actor. That's why. We agree that free-will is not magic. However, you're trying to pretend the magician, the hat, and the rabbit don't exist because magic doesn't exist.

Also, how can the determination to choose be chosen?

By evaluating it before action, of course.

A choice chooses a choice chooses a choice and so on to infinity? Makes no sense.

It doesn't make any sense, and you're the only one who's saying it. First and foremost, choices can never extend to infinity because your existence as an agent don't extend to infinity. Secondly, all preferences have roots. But they can have contradictory roots and you as a conscious actor may select between them.

Choices are determined, and therefor are not free choices, but are determined choices, and ultimately not choices at all, in the sense that it exists outside of determinism.

Ok, so I can't choose. Gotcha. Thank you for returning to a semi-consistent position.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Beautiful.
Don't make me love you more than I already do, farfromglorified.

How could that be possible