Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Philosophy thread
Axum
Member Posts: 891
/Discuss
Or...we could talk about anything you had in mind.
Comments
I postulate that free will exists because we can guide those probabilistic atoms and particles in the direction we would like them to go. Thus by knowing what we want to achieve we could then use the probable outcome to influence the events leading up to it.
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
By the logic presented in the opening argument the "guidance" we would give the probabilistic atoms and particles would merely be an illusion.
"...Those questions are raised by a study conducted by Max Planck Institute neuroscientists and published Sunday in Nature Neuroscience. Test subjects chose whether to push a button with their right or left hand;
seven seconds before they experienced making the choice, their brain activity already predicted their final decisions."
www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/is-free-will-an/
In a book called "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell, the reader is presented with a fair amount of evidence that we don't make our decisions so much as our surroundings do. If you have read it, you should be able to recall the tests where people were asked to state their ethnicity before a test, and if the ethnicity was usually associated with a bad stereotype, then the test results were lower than usual.
It's almost as if it is Determinism masked by The Chaos Theory. The "Chaos" arising from the infinite amount of factors that would affect us.
that nature paper is quite interesting.
Firstly we know our bodies do things without our conscious awareness. This study shows that our perceived conscious decision happens after a bunch of other stuff happens in our brain. Why is this surprising, the physicality of the brain matter means that processes are happening over time. Nothing is simultaneous and thinking is a process not a snapshot.
This study shows that given enough baseline analysis (the method of determining what is a significant response was found by analyzing data collected from a set of test observations) you can get up to a few seconds of predictability that someone has reached the decision to act. Which happens to be a few seconds before they consciously believe they will act.
Interestingly they do not say they can predict which finger you will act with. Or if you can abort the act if for example, you are given an alert that you have reached a decision.
It would seem to me that free will would be destroyed if you are not able to use the information available to you to affect your actions. IE you are locked in in those few seconds and can't respond when you know you have unconsciously reached the decision to act.
Surroundings are A factor in free will, but not THE factor.
You could take a person from birth raised in a test tube and lock them into a totally dark room with no external stimulus whatsoever (music, culture, human interactions). Each day you feed the person a variety of dishes:
Beef dishes
Chicken dishes
Fish dishes
Vegetable dishes
Pork dishes
Dessert dishes
The person never actually sees what's on the plate, but can only smell and taste it. If you fed that person over its lifetime, they would eventually develop a favorite(s) among those dishes that THEY chose. They wouldn't be choosing a food because "Mom used to make me this" because they had no mother; it was a lab birth. But yet they'd choose one just the same.
There was no ethnicity or culture associated with it because the person has no idea what ethnicity they are. Actually it doesn't even know what "ethnicity" is at all, or that such a thing even exists. But the person certainly would reject some types of foods and favor others.
So even in that environment, the person would still 'prefer' some dishes over others and "choose" whenever possible which one they liked.
So clearly to me in that instance, it shows that free will people exhibit comes from some other place other than surroundings can.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Easy. It doesn't.
I agree that a person's surroundings are not the only factor that affects their choices, but the fact that they affect us as strong as they do would be enough to unsettle people's certainty about the topic.
But then again, we are trying to explain or rationalize something that is far above all our current capabilities.
I would like to discuss the rich intellectual legacy of the founding of the United States of America and then, in a non-critical way, discuss whether we have been good stewards of that legacy. Liberty, my friends, does not spring from the ashes that are the remnants of tyranny. Liberty springs, I think, on ideas. Are not ideas the very root of what it means to be an American? I know we are commercialized and under-medicated. But, there could be something left. You, if you are an American citizen, the descendant of the most powerful body of ideas to free YOU.
What were the ideas concerning religion? Education? Social equality? Democracy? What was the debate, the fiery intellectual debate, about how to order humanity? What role does the divine and natural world play?
Today, in the world of MyTube and YourSpace and IAMSOLIKEIMPORTANTWEBPAGE, debate seems constricted, limited, and sometimes even feared. Worse, perhaps, information is apparently abundant; but not the right information. Perhaps not even the correct or accurate information. I had a guy on this web page recently copy and paste a link of statistics and without providing any analysis, say, "see! My point is proven." Is this what is being taught in schools? I took statistics as both an undergraduate and graduate student, and it is difficult for me to even respond lest I dignify that "debate."
Our intellectual tradition is more rich than most people can possibly be imagined, let alone exposed to. We are talking about science, literature, philosophy, and of course politics. The entire focus lately is on liberalism, socialism, fascism, conservatism, and so forth. What about pragmatism? Most "conservatives" would not know that our American brand of conservatlism is linked with the emigre European intellectuals post WWII, finding allies in former American communists, traditionalists, and Southern agrarians. Some people will insist upon approaching each and every public policy with a conservative, liberal, or libertarian perspective, without really knowing the intellectual tradition of their own ideology that they spend so much breath, time, energy, and money to endorse.
Old Left. New Left. Neo-Conservastism. What are we? Where are we going? Do we have the will but not the intellect to face our new, profound, inter-connected, and global challenges? Why has religion somehow reemerged (persisted?) in an environment of such a rich intellectual heritage? What impact does religion have on the American consciousness? I just finished reading The Conscious of a Liberal by Paul Krugman (NY TIMES columnist and winner of the nobel prize in economics, who recently said in Sunday's NY TIMES book review that he models himself from Asimov's THE FOUNDATION SERIES, the only books I think I have recommended on this forum). Are we shifting from an expectation that the "free market" or "invisible hand" will provide affordable and accessible health care? Do we see a dramatic shift in our thinking, and indeed are we becoming more pragmatic?
What has our rise to world power done to our consciousness, and what kind of new ideas have emerged? Have these new ideas been consistent with or contrary to our rich intellectual tradition? How many people know that Harvard College was a Puritan college (and Yale)? What happened to religion, or our academy, where the higher education calling of religion is all but today completely abandoned? Aside: I actually happen to think, in a general sense, the private religious colleges are our best colleges in the United States, notwithstanding of course Harvard, London School of Economics, and so forth. Now are most schools interested in "human capital" and not "intellectual capital" to supply labor to industry? What then happens to our intellectual tradition, whereby "college educated" --spending countless hours on football games and drinking-- men and women are not even aware of their own intellectual history, tradition, and legacy? I heard Bill Maher say recently that we need less "townhall" and more "study hall," and I thought that was so accurate. People should ground themselves in knowledge of the issue before shouting-down their member of Congress, and people should ground themselves in knowledge of freedom before voting against freedom.
Are people consciously free if they lack any conception of those ideas that gave root to their freedom that they enjoy? Put more simply, perhaps, without any grounding in the rich intellectual legacy and ideas that gave root to freedom, can people be expected to "defend" and "endorse" --instead of their own subscribed ideologies-- freedom for all (even themselves)?
Do People Want to Be "Free" Today? - or - Do People Want a "Free" Wii?
What happened to you guys?
Is that really free will though? If it is simply a series of chemical reactions that induce a positive chemical release in the brain (which your mind associates with the taste and aroma of the particular food) how could I interpret that as free will rather than the structuring of the brain as determined by genetics and physical forces?
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Doesn't seem very complicated to me as I look at it from the way I describe that. If you take a sterile subject (a human), isolate them from external stimuli and present them with choices, they'll still have free choice that they could not have learned from anyone else and will make a decision based on what they as an individual like; not mob rule or persuasion.
To me, that shows humans are born with free will/choice, not learned as a rule. The learned portions are nothing more than things that INFLUENCE the choice, not that actually GIVE them the capacity for choice in the first place.
So in relation to your comic jpeg, I'd say free will can exist because its born within us from the start.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Because you still CHOOSE it. You either take this meal or that meal, regardless of the chemical process that you arrive at.
Someone may not like brocolli or salads, but they know its good for them so they eat it for health, chemical process aside. Then there are some that know fast food in large quantities are not good for them, yet they choose to scarf pounds of it down even while they suffer the physical side effects.
Genetics don't have much to play into it either, because you can take an Asian person born in China as a baby, then immediately place them in the United States. That child will speak PERFECT english if raised by White americans if they speak perfect english.
That child will no more develop a taste for Fried snake egg soup genetically than the white americans who raised them. They learn that taste, so genetics would say that he/she should love rice, congee and that snake soup. But they may throw up everytime its given to them because its just unappealing or gross to them. But genetics should predisposition them to eating it, since billions others that are genetically close to that person eat it.
The free will or choice is inborn in people. Everything else is them just getting a variety of choices.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Doesn't seem very complicated to me as I look at it from the way I describe that. If you take a sterile subject (a human), isolate them from external stimuli and present them with choices, they'll still have free choice that they could not have learned from anyone else and will make a decision based on what they as an individual like; not mob rule or persuasion.
To me, that shows humans are born with free will/choice, not learned as a rule. The learned portions are nothing more than things that INFLUENCE the choice, not that actually GIVE them the capacity for choice in the first place.
So in relation to your comic jpeg, I'd say free will can exist because its born within us from the start.
Well here brings up another point.
What if we had two "Sterile" human test subjects with the exact same genetic make up. (AKA Clones)
If they knew nothing of the world, and were put through the same test, I would be willing to bet they would make the exact same decision.
My reasoning being that all they have to go off of is what is inherent within them.
If I am correct in my logic, then there would have been no other option for the test subjects than the one they chose.
I would like to discuss the rich intellectual legacy of the founding of the United States of America and then, in a non-critical way, discuss whether we have been good stewards of that legacy. Liberty, my friends, does not spring from the ashes that are the remnants of tyranny. Liberty springs, I think, on ideas. Are not ideas the very root of what it means to be an American? I know we are commercialized and under-medicated. But, there could be something left. You, if you are an American citizen, the descendant of the most powerful body of ideas to free YOU.
What were the ideas concerning religion? Education? Social equality? Democracy? What was the debate, the fiery intellectual debate, about how to order humanity? What role does the divine and natural world play?
Today, in the world of MyTube and YourSpace and IAMSOLIKEIMPORTANTWEBPAGE, debate seems constricted, limited, and sometimes even feared. Worse, perhaps, information is apparently abundant; but not the right information. Perhaps not even the correct or accurate information. I had a guy on this web page recently copy and paste a link of statistics and without providing any analysis, say, "see! My point is proven." Is this what is being taught in schools? I took statistics as both an undergraduate and graduate student, and it is difficult for me to even respond lest I dignify that "debate."
Our intellectual tradition is more rich than most people can possibly be imagined, let alone exposed to. We are talking about science, literature, philosophy, and of course politics. The entire focus lately is on liberalism, socialism, fascism, conservatism, and so forth. What about pragmatism? Most "conservatives" would not know that our American brand of conservatlism is linked with the emigre European intellectuals post WWII, finding allies in former American communists, traditionalists, and Southern agrarians. Some people will insist upon approaching each and every public policy with a conservative, liberal, or libertarian perspective, without really knowing the intellectual tradition of their own ideology that they spend so much breath, time, energy, and money to endorse.
Old Left. New Left. Neo-Conservastism. What are we? Where are we going? Do we have the will but not the intellect to face our new, profound, inter-connected, and global challenges? Why has religion somehow reemerged (persisted?) in an environment of such a rich intellectual heritage? What impact does religion have on the American consciousness? I just finished reading The Conscious of a Liberal by Paul Krugman (NY TIMES columnist and winner of the nobel prize in economics, who recently said in Sunday's NY TIMES book review that he models himself from Asimov's THE FOUNDATION SERIES, the only books I think I have recommended on this forum). Are we shifting from an expectation that the "free market" or "invisible hand" will provide affordable and accessible health care? Do we see a dramatic shift in our thinking, and indeed are we becoming more pragmatic?
What has our rise to world power done to our consciousness, and what kind of new ideas have emerged? Have these new ideas been consistent with or contrary to our rich intellectual tradition? How many people know that Harvard College was a Puritan college (and Yale)? What happened to religion, or our academy, where the higher education calling of religion is all but today completely abandoned? Aside: I actually happen to think, in a general sense, the private religious colleges are our best colleges in the United States, notwithstanding of course Harvard, London School of Economics, and so forth. Now are most schools interested in "human capital" and not "intellectual capital" to supply labor to industry? What then happens to our intellectual tradition, whereby "college educated" --spending countless hours on football games and drinking-- men and women are not even aware of their own intellectual history, tradition, and legacy? I heard Bill Maher say recently that we need less "townhall" and more "study hall," and I thought that was so accurate. People should ground themselves in knowledge of the issue before shouting-down their member of Congress, and people should ground themselves in knowledge of freedom before voting against freedom.
Are people consciously free if they lack any conception of those ideas that gave root to their freedom that they enjoy? Put more simply, perhaps, without any grounding in the rich intellectual legacy and ideas that gave root to freedom, can people be expected to "defend" and "endorse" --instead of their own subscribed ideologies-- freedom for all (even themselves)?
Do People Want to Be "Free" Today? - or - Do People Want a "Free" Wii?
What happened to you guys?
In my opininon we are headed to rock bottom. The majority fails to realize the truth of the matter and i feel as if Humanity needs a wake up call before we can see any intellectual progress in the coming years.
Because you still CHOOSE it. You either take this meal or that meal, regardless of the chemical process that you arrive at.
Someone may not like brocolli or salads, but they know its good for them so they eat it for health, chemical process aside. Then there are some that know fast food in large quantities are not good for them, yet they choose to scarf pounds of it down even while they suffer the physical side effects.
Genetics don't have much to play into it either, because you can take an Asian person born in China as a baby, then immediately place them in the United States. That child will speak PERFECT english if raised by White americans if they speak perfect english.
That child will no more develop a taste for Fried snake egg soup genetically than the white americans who raised them. They learn that taste, so genetics would say that he/she should love rice, congee and that snake soup. But they may throw up everytime its given to them because its just unappealing or gross to them. But genetics should predisposition them to eating it, since billions others that are genetically close to that person eat it.
The free will or choice is inborn in people. Everything else is them just getting a variety of choices.
I think that is missing the point I was making: is it really "you" in the metaphysical sense choosing it, or is that "you" nothing more than "your" interpretation of what the chemicals in your body are telling you? The only way you can make the choice between the meals is either eating one and just going with whats familiar regardless of whether "you" like it or not OR you can try them all and go then with what "you" prefer.
That leads me back to the original point I was making: is it "you" making the choice or is it your body associating the smell and taste with the chemical result in your brain? If that is the case you aren't choosing, your body is according to a physical (chemical) reaction that is induced in your brain, not your mind's choice.
Your examples can be explained away by that as well:
In the case of eating something you don't like: your body is in need of certain nutrients, your particular diet that produces the said positive reaction in your brain doesn't have said nutrients so your body eventually forces you to eat them. You say you're choosing to eat them, I say you are acting according to your body's demands.
In the case of binge eating: it is like a high, as in eating an inordinate amount of food at one sitting probably produces an excess of dopamine. To get that feeling again you continue to binge. No choice in it.
Free will can be explained like this: consider a wave coming ashore on a beach. The foam that forms at the top of the wave considers itself to be incontrol, it is at the top controlling where the wave goes, but in reality it is simply a byproduct of the forces of nature and is still at the mercy of the physical wave. Its idea of control is an illusion.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Because you still CHOOSE it. You either take this meal or that meal, regardless of the chemical process that you arrive at.
Someone may not like brocolli or salads, but they know its good for them so they eat it for health, chemical process aside. Then there are some that know fast food in large quantities are not good for them, yet they choose to scarf pounds of it down even while they suffer the physical side effects.
Genetics don't have much to play into it either, because you can take an Asian person born in China as a baby, then immediately place them in the United States. That child will speak PERFECT english if raised by White americans if they speak perfect english.
That child will no more develop a taste for Fried snake egg soup genetically than the white americans who raised them. They learn that taste, so genetics would say that he/she should love rice, congee and that snake soup. But they may throw up everytime its given to them because its just unappealing or gross to them. But genetics should predisposition them to eating it, since billions others that are genetically close to that person eat it.
The free will or choice is inborn in people. Everything else is them just getting a variety of choices.
I think that is missing the point I was making: is it really "you" in the metaphysical sense choosing it, or is that "you" nothing more than "your" interpretation of what the chemicals in your body are telling you? The only way you can make the choice between the meals is either eating one and just going with whats familiar regardless of whether "you" like it or not OR you can try them all and go then with what "you" prefer.
That leads me back to the original point I was making: is it "you" making the choice or is it your body associating the smell and taste with the chemical result in your brain? If that is the case you aren't choosing, your body is according to a physical (chemical) reaction that is induced in your brain, not your mind's choice.
Your examples can be explained away by that as well:
In the case of eating something you don't like: your body is in need of certain nutrients, your particular diet that produces the said positive reaction in your brain doesn't have said nutrients so your body eventually forces you to eat them. You say you're choosing to eat them, I say you are acting according to your body's demands.
In the case of binge eating: it is like a high, as in eating an inordinate amount of food at one sitting probably produces an excess of dopamine. To get that feeling again you continue to binge. No choice in it.
Free will can be explained like this: consider a wave coming ashore on a beach. The foam that forms at the top of the wave considers itself to be incontrol, it is at the top controlling where the wave goes, but in reality it is simply a byproduct of the forces of nature and is still at the mercy of the physical wave. Its idea of control is an illusion.
When American kids are younger, they like peanut butter. Not because their body craves it, they like the taste and are used to it. Same thing with cereals and they just loveeeee milk/cheese. Now you give those same kids hot sauce or anything spicy, most I've seen reject it outright. Kids who have "snuck" a taste of beer when their parents weren't looking (guilty) hated the taste of beer. But you see latino, asian or indian kids that love spices and hotter foods, where American kids simply would die outright from eating it, lol. Why? Culture. It's not the kid's body craves hot/spicy foods; they are just used to it. So your theory isn't really that practical about the body knowing what it needs.
Years later, when those kids grow up they don't particularly like peanut butter. Or they don't eat cereal as much (after 40). But with many adults, hot foods now come into play; hot sauce, hot wings, hot whatever. And don't get started on beer. The taste is exactly the same, but they've learned to like it.
A lot don't like milk. But according to you, their body must not "need" the nutrients in milk (for bones, teeth) because it now gives them lactose intolerance. If their body craved (or needed) the nutrient, it would readily accept the milk or the peanut butter or anything else they needed as it's all the same minerals/vitamins. The body doesn't send you a sublimal signal to say "you need more iron" and you then crave spinach and suddenly like it, or you have high blood pressure and your body says "No more eating sunflower seeds and McDonald's french fries" and then you now hate them. It doesn't work that way. It's your own choices about what you want to eat. And that's lodged in your brain, not your heart and lungs or bones.
The things are on a plate, and people choose which ones they want to eat. Their minds might say "I want chocolate", but that's not their muscles or body parts demanding something inside of it so that it functions healthy. Otherwise, you could say the same for drug addicts.
Nothing in heroin or meth is "good" for the body at all, only the mind. The body actually rejects the things in there and that's why people throw up, get dizzy or pass out. The body says no, but the MIND says yes. And free will is connected to that part of the body. The "mind" isn't literally a part of the body like the brain; it's a consciousness that's housed within the brain that's WITHIN the body.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I would like to discuss the rich intellectual legacy of the founding of the United States of America and then, in a non-critical way, discuss whether we have been good stewards of that legacy. Liberty, my friends, does not spring from the ashes that are the remnants of tyranny. Liberty springs, I think, on ideas. Are not ideas the very root of what it means to be an American? I know we are commercialized and under-medicated. But, there could be something left. You, if you are an American citizen, the descendant of the most powerful body of ideas to free YOU.
What were the ideas concerning religion? Education? Social equality? Democracy? What was the debate, the fiery intellectual debate, about how to order humanity? What role does the divine and natural world play?
Today, in the world of MyTube and YourSpace and IAMSOLIKEIMPORTANTWEBPAGE, debate seems constricted, limited, and sometimes even feared. Worse, perhaps, information is apparently abundant; but not the right information. Perhaps not even the correct or accurate information. I had a guy on this web page recently copy and paste a link of statistics and without providing any analysis, say, "see! My point is proven." Is this what is being taught in schools? I took statistics as both an undergraduate and graduate student, and it is difficult for me to even respond lest I dignify that "debate."
Our intellectual tradition is more rich than most people can possibly be imagined, let alone exposed to. We are talking about science, literature, philosophy, and of course politics. The entire focus lately is on liberalism, socialism, fascism, conservatism, and so forth. What about pragmatism? Most "conservatives" would not know that our American brand of conservatlism is linked with the emigre European intellectuals post WWII, finding allies in former American communists, traditionalists, and Southern agrarians. Some people will insist upon approaching each and every public policy with a conservative, liberal, or libertarian perspective, without really knowing the intellectual tradition of their own ideology that they spend so much breath, time, energy, and money to endorse.
Old Left. New Left. Neo-Conservastism. What are we? Where are we going? Do we have the will but not the intellect to face our new, profound, inter-connected, and global challenges? Why has religion somehow reemerged (persisted?) in an environment of such a rich intellectual heritage? What impact does religion have on the American consciousness? I just finished reading The Conscious of a Liberal by Paul Krugman (NY TIMES columnist and winner of the nobel prize in economics, who recently said in Sunday's NY TIMES book review that he models himself from Asimov's THE FOUNDATION SERIES, the only books I think I have recommended on this forum). Are we shifting from an expectation that the "free market" or "invisible hand" will provide affordable and accessible health care? Do we see a dramatic shift in our thinking, and indeed are we becoming more pragmatic?
What has our rise to world power done to our consciousness, and what kind of new ideas have emerged? Have these new ideas been consistent with or contrary to our rich intellectual tradition? How many people know that Harvard College was a Puritan college (and Yale)? What happened to religion, or our academy, where the higher education calling of religion is all but today completely abandoned? Aside: I actually happen to think, in a general sense, the private religious colleges are our best colleges in the United States, notwithstanding of course Harvard, London School of Economics, and so forth. Now are most schools interested in "human capital" and not "intellectual capital" to supply labor to industry? What then happens to our intellectual tradition, whereby "college educated" --spending countless hours on football games and drinking-- men and women are not even aware of their own intellectual history, tradition, and legacy? I heard Bill Maher say recently that we need less "townhall" and more "study hall," and I thought that was so accurate. People should ground themselves in knowledge of the issue before shouting-down their member of Congress, and people should ground themselves in knowledge of freedom before voting against freedom.
Are people consciously free if they lack any conception of those ideas that gave root to their freedom that they enjoy? Put more simply, perhaps, without any grounding in the rich intellectual legacy and ideas that gave root to freedom, can people be expected to "defend" and "endorse" --instead of their own subscribed ideologies-- freedom for all (even themselves)?
Do People Want to Be "Free" Today? - or - Do People Want a "Free" Wii?
What happened to you guys?
In my opininon we are headed to rock bottom. The majority fails to realize the truth of the matter and i feel as if Humanity needs a wake up call before we can see any intellectual progress in the coming years.
In a political sense, the only thing people seem to be sure about is their own subscribed ideologies or prejudices. When it comes to information or even the news, people cannot distinguish what is useful and accurate information or what is correct and accurate news. It is like an inability to distinguish between pseudoscience and science. Astrology, e.g., is a pseudoscience whose false predictions are unfalsifiable. Political buzzwords from "socialism" to "death tax" to "French" and indeed "change" are obscuring any meaningful discussion.
In this world of polarization, it seems that people are less devoted to a party but are more ardent defenders of their ideology. Ideology is the only "truth" they know when they cannot distinguish between good and bad information; real news and political analysis news; genuine statistical analysis and unethical statistical analysis; and science and pseudoscience.
Until citizens use their own tools for thinking --reason, memory, experience, etc.-- and stop this absurd devotion to ideology, we will never return to the "study hall" and instead keep shouting out in the "town hall."
I am going to go ahead and make this clear if this will help you: when I say body I mean brain + body. You’re trying to say “the bones don’t know what they need!”; they don’t obviously, but I am arguing the brain does know what the bones need and can tell you to get what they need.
All are easily explained:
They like peanut butter because, I’ll get more defined here, when the peanut butter hits the taste receptors it tells the brain this is what this is, whether or not you like it is determined by how the brain reacts to these signals. If you like it the brain will release positive stimuli while negative if you don’t like it. That’s how I see it gets interpreted in the mind.
The foods you eat are determined by your surroundings sure, but that is irrelevant in the overall picture of choice. Similar how animals in China eat different foods than animals in the U.S., not because of culture but because of what is available to them. Further when the nutrients (not just what is good from an objective standpoint, all ingredients) of a particular region are all that exposed to you, the body will begin to adapt to needing them through reproduction with genetic variation (I think you know what that is). This is like how we started as herbivores and than acquired the taste for meat later.
Milk is not the only source for calcium, so if there is a particular food that your body found good that contained calcium I am saying you would probably find yourself with a craving for that if your body was low on calcium. Your body knows what it needs to sustain itself and will induce what it needs to get you to eat it. You think you’re choosing when your body is complete control (if you want to separate mind and body, go ahead but I don’t and it’s openly illogical in my opinion to do so).
However, we know full well that the brain is still developing even through the teenage years and probably some time into the 20s, changes in the brain structure can probably produce the same type of changes in taste as well.
At the same time there are more dimensions to this and you seem to like making everything one dimensional:
There is the same type of effect induced like drug use (not like a high you would get, but similar to how you “enjoy the high”), where the particular taste of chocolate is good to you, while overall it may be unhealthy. It makes you feel good, etc on a different level than the nutrients your body needs as in like a mentioned earlier it induces something like excess dopamine. Something like that can cause cravings for particularly special foods that overall aren’t that full of nutrients but provide some level of comfort or good feelings when eaten.
And you’re getting closer to that point with the drug use: the mind doesn’t say yes, the brain does because the drugs make the brain “feel good man” which by extension make the body feel good, this can become a physical dependence much like the nutrients do but something the brain craves that the rest of the body doesn’t.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Doesn't seem very complicated to me as I look at it from the way I describe that. If you take a sterile subject (a human), isolate them from external stimuli and present them with choices, they'll still have free choice that they could not have learned from anyone else and will make a decision based on what they as an individual like; not mob rule or persuasion.
To me, that shows humans are born with free will/choice, not learned as a rule. The learned portions are nothing more than things that INFLUENCE the choice, not that actually GIVE them the capacity for choice in the first place.
So in relation to your comic jpeg, I'd say free will can exist because its born within us from the start.
Well here brings up another point.
What if we had two "Sterile" human test subjects with the exact same genetic make up. (AKA Clones)
If they knew nothing of the world, and were put through the same test, I would be willing to bet they would make the exact same decision.
My reasoning being that all they have to go off of is what is inherent within them.
If I am correct in my logic, then there would have been no other option for the test subjects than the one they chose.
Interestingly enough that test has never been done; and can't be done. Therefore it should be considered valueless when coming to a conclusion on the current understanding of the issue.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
I am going to go ahead and make this clear if this will help you: when I say body I mean brain + body. You’re trying to say “the bones don’t know what they need!”; they don’t obviously, but I am arguing the brain does know what the bones need and can tell you to get what they need.
All are easily explained:
They like peanut butter because, I’ll get more defined here, when the peanut butter hits the taste receptors it tells the brain this is what this is, whether or not you like it is determined by how the brain reacts to these signals. If you like it the brain will release positive stimuli while negative if you don’t like it. That’s how I see it gets interpreted in the mind.
The foods you eat are determined by your surroundings sure, but that is irrelevant in the overall picture of choice. Similar how animals in China eat different foods than animals in the U.S., not because of culture but because of what is available to them. Further when the nutrients (not just what is good from an objective standpoint, all ingredients) of a particular region are all that exposed to you, the body will begin to adapt to needing them through reproduction with genetic variation (I think you know what that is). This is like how we started as herbivores and than acquired the taste for meat later.
Milk is not the only source for calcium, so if there is a particular food that your body found good that contained calcium I am saying you would probably find yourself with a craving for that if your body was low on calcium. Your body knows what it needs to sustain itself and will induce what it needs to get you to eat it. You think you’re choosing when your body is complete control (if you want to separate mind and body, go ahead but I don’t and it’s openly illogical in my opinion to do so).
However, we know full well that the brain is still developing even through the teenage years and probably some time into the 20s, changes in the brain structure can probably produce the same type of changes in taste as well.
At the same time there are more dimensions to this and you seem to like making everything one dimensional:
There is the same type of effect induced like drug use (not like a high you would get, but similar to how you “enjoy the high”), where the particular taste of chocolate is good to you, while overall it may be unhealthy. It makes you feel good, etc on a different level than the nutrients your body needs as in like a mentioned earlier it induces something like excess dopamine. Something like that can cause cravings for particularly special foods that overall aren’t that full of nutrients but provide some level of comfort or good feelings when eaten.
And you’re getting closer to that point with the drug use: the mind doesn’t say yes, the brain does because the drugs make the brain “feel good man” which by extension make the body feel good, this can become a physical dependence much like the nutrients do but something the brain craves that the rest of the body doesn’t.
Its been made very clear that your preferances in taste are all very psycological.
Women who are pregnant.
Why they crave peanutbutter and pickles.
When they eat their normal food, they experience morning sickness, therefore it becomes less desireable.
This continues untill all normal foods have been associtated with morning sickness and they are left craving intially less desieeable foods but given that everything ahead of it is now "disgusting" these odd combinations are top of the list.
This is a very well accepted theory. Another example of tests they have done is taking a very bizzare and uncommon flavour of icecream. In one test they used pistachio icecream. What they did was offered children this bowl of icecream before the side effects of their chemo-therapy for cancer.
Therefore the negative effects of chemo (VERY SICK) became paired with the pistachio icecream.
I beleive in this test it was a year later and every single child when offered pistachio icecream was disgusted by it and refused to eat it.
This also parallels with the idea of comfort foods and why certain people find alcohols they drank too much of in their youth disgusting. (ie me and rum, from a bad night of rum and cokes :P).
So your bodies physical response to a perticular food is very importaint to how the brain perceives that food. If you get sick or get better your brain makes a note of that... like how chicken soup really has nothing to do with getting better, but since people often eat it when they are sick the brain equates chicken soup to starting to feel better which makes it desireable.
On a more broader note this is an example of the brain trying to find patterns, which is something the human brain can do like no other.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
I don't want to mix "animal choices" in different countries because we are talking about humans and how they react and what makes free choices. Animals work off instinct, not free will. I agree milk isn't the only way to get calcium. As a matter of fact, a much more efficient way to get calcium is to take calcium pills. So given that, why will milk or orange juice be chosen over pills? Because it tastes better, which has nothing to do with the most efficient way to get it and the "mind" craves it.
We only acquired a taste for things like meat, when our usual staple ran low. That's when humans branch out into things they aren't meant to eat. Humans were not meant to eat meat at all, imo.
One reason why Americans cannot fathom why other people in other countries eat things that we consider sickening escapes most of us. The reason why in China today they eat snakes, rats, turtles, scorpions, worms, bugs, mice, birds of all kinds, frogs, uncooked fish, or anything else most of us wouldn't dare is because China has gone through long periods of famine. During these periods when crops ran low, people in China ate anything they could get their hands on. They didn't initially choose to eat all that strange stuff, its all they had. They even used to boil earth and rocks and make soup with it. I don't know any human who's body craves dirt for a meal. But when you have no choice or free will, humans will do whatever is necessary. If you were to go into North Korea today, you'd hardly find a bird, mouse, dog, cat or any type of moving thing at all because of the starvation so the people eat anything they find. They dont' WANT to eat those things if they had a choice, but they don't because of Kil Jong stealing.
It's similar to how Black people in America eat "soul food", which was made up of the leftovers from the slaveowners prime cuts. The slaves took it an made it their own food source over centuries and passed it down to today, where it's accepted as a first choice.
Nowadsys, a lot of Black people would choose to eat soul food over more healthier cuts of food simply because they were raised that way and their minds are geared to it; it's culture imbedded in the head, not the genetic structure because plenty of White people like soul food as well, and it's not their genetic tree.
If you gave a slave a choice between a ham steak or a pig's foot, they would have chosen the steak like most people. But centuries later, plenty of southern Black americans still choose the foot. The ones that don't and think it's gross simply weren't raised on it (maybe from the North or West), so they now choose the ham steak. None of this is "genetic" at all, it's all determined by choice at hand and geography, then free will comes into play after that. Given starvation or the examples above, most people would choose to eat whatever is lying around.
Again, the part of the body that emits that "free will" is the brain only. When faced with starvation, the brain is the only adaptable part that has to deal with it. A starving person can eat other people and his body won't care one way or the other because it's just meat; but his free will portion will say I'd rather die first.
There are certain things, like liquid that people have to have since the body is made up of mostly water. But given the choice between juice, beer, soda, milk, punch, or any other liquid refreshment and water, quite a few people don't choose water. And that's something that's definitely a genetic link nourishment wise. Our brain uses the free will to rationalize, "meh, there's water in beer/soda/sugary punch anyways so it's just as good for me so I'll have that."
I won't go back into drugs again, because as far as I'm concerned someone who never used drugs at all may say "I want to try cocaine." That is not their genetic structure or physical body craving it, or saying it needs the nutrients in cocaine, because it never experienced it. That's the free will mind choosing coke, first and last.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Actually that is almost precisely what I'm arguing: however I am considering the psychological response a reflection of the physical response (they go hand-in-hand). Instead I am simply applying the same operations that occur in the extreme cases of chemo therapy and morning sickness with every day interactions. Saying while this gives the appearance that "we're", in the metaphysical sense, "choosing" this is merely a reflection of what our body is telling us it needs. To say "we" chose it is arrogant on the part of the mind.
Do you deny that humans are animals?
The pills is a good question, but I think that can be addressed by natural tendencies, if that makes sense.
What I mean by "natural tendencies" is the body expects certain things when its eating, it most of all expects energy and that will come from the food and in addition the nutrients will also come from that food. In that respect the body expects this, however a pill of calcium is rather alien to it, certainly it will take it but it provides nothing other than the chemical it needs whereas the food provides the natural aspect of life that it knows. I would argue this by saying if you broke down all of what our body needs into simple pills and took those, you're likely still to be hungry. Is it free will that you're hungry? No, it's nature.
I am quite sure the rest of what you're saying almost entirely agrees with what I said. But what you're claiming is "free will" when faced with starvation I am claiming is the brains intrinsic notion that "I need to survive" kicks in and will resort to anything to do it.
At first when I was considering what I was saying the notion in my head of "I want to try x" occurred to me, however I think I understand the rational behind it. Usually if you want to try something you have an image in your head of its effects or the results being positive and that becomes concreted in your "mind", in other words your brain associates that trying substance x will be positive and will induce you to obtain it.
I think your notion about cannibalism that you mentioned is a different aspect of this, rather the philosophy of ethics and morality. Is that free will though that you would "choose" not to eat them? Or is it your survival instincts telling you "I can't do this by myself" or "We can survive if we work together" or "The more of us, the better" ?
Perhaps that's the wrong way of wording it, because it gives the impression that the mind thinks of it first, whereas I see it being associated through images and experience outside the "mind" and comes back from the brain as "I want that!"
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Actually that is almost precisely what I'm arguing: however I am considering the psychological response a reflection of the physical response (they go hand-in-hand). Instead I am simply applying the same operations that occur in the extreme cases of chemo therapy and morning sickness with every day interactions. Saying while this gives the appearance that "we're", in the metaphysical sense, "choosing" this is merely a reflection of what our body is telling us it needs. To say "we" chose it is arrogant on the part of the mind.
Well I enjoy the taste of icecream, and I crave it, but if I eat it I get fat. So I instead have an apple.
And again, you can say well we made a decision based on health... which is just the body.
But then your saying that your brain is not you.
But what If I make a counter decision just to spite you and eat the icecream?
Was that my brain hoping to rationalize my independance by an act of disobediance to convince myself that I am in control.
But thats just my body trying to get control of our actions...
Sounds a but like freudian theory in which you can explain everything and nothing could prove it wrong.
In which case I think that is the strongest argument against your theory Squirt5.
Can you give an example of evience which would prove your theory wrong?
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Actually that is almost precisely what I'm arguing: however I am considering the psychological response a reflection of the physical response (they go hand-in-hand). Instead I am simply applying the same operations that occur in the extreme cases of chemo therapy and morning sickness with every day interactions. Saying while this gives the appearance that "we're", in the metaphysical sense, "choosing" this is merely a reflection of what our body is telling us it needs. To say "we" chose it is arrogant on the part of the mind.
Well I enjoy the taste of icecream, and I crave it, but if I eat it I get fat. So I instead have an apple.
And again, you can say well we made a decision based on health... which is just the body.
But then your saying that your brain is not you.
But what If I make a counter decision just to spite you and eat the icecream?
Was that my brain hoping to rationalize my independance by an act of disobediance to convince myself that I am in control.
But thats just my body trying to get control of our actions...
Sounds a but like freudian theory in which you can explain everything and nothing could prove it wrong.
In which case I think that is the strongest argument against your theory Squirt5.
Can you give an example of evience which would prove your theory wrong?
Heh, well for the first one I would argue that in cases like that it could have something to do with the current chemical distribution and state of the brain where the influx of "ice cream" would produce such a thought present you with an alternative that do "sound better".
I would further argue that your action out of spite is a similar chemical process as described above. Where the brain redos the consideration of what to eat, with the new change of state in the mind and chooses the ice cream.
I understand your Freudian argument, however I think what I'm saying could probably be more objectively verified by analyzing our brain and the signals / reactions that occur within it. It is hard to do because for one thing the brain is extraordinarily complex and it seems most of the time everyone's brain works slightly differently in how it responds to stimuli. However as our technology improves and our computing power advances I think this will become a much more reasonable and practical solution.
At the same time, if these processes become discovered the next step would be to determine whether or not the "thought" induced them or they induced the "thought", which would be harder to show but has already somewhat been demonstrated by the article the OP posted where the scan showed which button would be pressed before they pressed it.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Actually that is almost precisely what I'm arguing: however I am considering the psychological response a reflection of the physical response (they go hand-in-hand). Instead I am simply applying the same operations that occur in the extreme cases of chemo therapy and morning sickness with every day interactions. Saying while this gives the appearance that "we're", in the metaphysical sense, "choosing" this is merely a reflection of what our body is telling us it needs. To say "we" chose it is arrogant on the part of the mind.
Well I enjoy the taste of icecream, and I crave it, but if I eat it I get fat. So I instead have an apple.
And again, you can say well we made a decision based on health... which is just the body.
But then your saying that your brain is not you.
But what If I make a counter decision just to spite you and eat the icecream?
Was that my brain hoping to rationalize my independance by an act of disobediance to convince myself that I am in control.
But thats just my body trying to get control of our actions...
Sounds a but like freudian theory in which you can explain everything and nothing could prove it wrong.
In which case I think that is the strongest argument against your theory Squirt5.
Can you give an example of evience which would prove your theory wrong?
Heh, well for the first one I would argue that in cases like that it could have something to do with the current chemical distribution and state of the brain where the influx of "ice cream" would produce such a thought present you with an alternative that do "sound better".
I would further argue that your action out of spite is a similar chemical process as described above. Where the brain redos the consideration of what to eat, with the new change of state in the mind and chooses the ice cream.
I understand your Freudian argument, however I think what I'm saying could probably be more objectively verified by analyzing our brain and the signals / reactions that occur within it. It is hard to do because for one thing the brain is extraordinarily complex and it seems most of the time everyone's brain works slightly differently in how it responds to stimuli. However as our technology improves and our computing power advances I think this will become a much more reasonable and practical solution.
At the same time, if these processes become discovered the next step would be to determine whether or not the "thought" induced them or they induced the "thought", which would be harder to show but has already somewhat been demonstrated by the article the OP posted where the scan showed which button would be pressed before they pressed it.
And well really were at a roadblock there. I'd still say that the lack of a clear definition of how it could be proven false is what prevents me from siding with that.
The fact that there is no way to prove string theory false is one of the major reasons I am skeptical about it and I think freuds mostly defeated today due to the fact that you could ad-hoc and explain every possible counter argument.
I'm trying to think but I can't really find an example of something you could prove that would definitvly prove the idea false.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Although my "Experiment" could not be done right now, it does bring up a very valid point against the existence of free-will. How much choice is there? In that scenario, no matter how you look at it, genetic background would be making the decisions.
I have a theory that there is a tiny town of people... smaller than the smallest microscope can detect, and they ring a series of tiny little bells (big to them actually). These bells are what controls our every behaviour.
Of course we can't test for this, but in that scenarios its interesting to think about the implications.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...