Re: Girlfriend Post

I dont. (well actually I do but that seemed like a fun way to start the post :P)

Yes, its true that to an extent you *can* choose what you're like, but there are influences to your personality outside of yourself, and that has to be accepted as well.

For instance, have you noticed that most child abuse cases find somewhere along the line that the abuser was once on the recieving end?

And why else do prim and propper families churn out prim and propper kiddies that say "oh that's ok" rather than "yeah you better be" (re someoone sez "sorry").

I'm not saying that somone is entirely moddeled by the stuff around them, but it can have an effect.

So you cant just shut GoldenBunnie down for voicing his opinion (although I must admit I didn't see the point in his post... :P)

-out-
PsychoBrat

Quote:

---

And why else do prim and propper families churn out prim and propper kiddies that say "oh that's ok" rather than "yeah you better be" (re someoone sez "sorry").

---

It's called courtesy, and isn't the exclusive domain of the "prim & proper" as you sneeringly refer to them. Personally I got over all my "teenage angst" stuff years ago.

ok ok fine maybe that wasn't the best choice of words but i'm just trying to point out that there are influences on soneone's personality - not just themselves

Yeah, sorry:p snapped a little. Blame it on me being old. You're absolutely right, nobody can say what influences anybody, cos there are so many parameters involved. I have to agree with JDINGER tho' - at the end of the day, how you behave is down to you.

true

I don't think you can "choose" what your like at all. I don't buy it; there two things affecting who and what you are, your environment and your genes, you control neither.

So if I get up today, and (as usual) decide to be a complete arsehole, and ........ everybody who I meet off completely, is that my genes, or my environment??

This is bulls***, and just an excuse not to take responsibility for ones actions.

Your environment & genes affect who or what you are, but it's a denial of our sentience to say that we have no self-determination.

"This is bulls***, and just an excuse not to take responsibility for ones actions."

You mean, because it's not "nice" it can't be true?

"Your environment & genes affect who or what you are, but it's a denial of our sentience to say that we have no self-determination."

It's not a denial of our sentience at all, its a denial of our free will; which incidently cannot exist anyway without breaking every law of physics + has been demonstrated experimentally not to exist either:

They sat people in a lab with a button in front of them, they wired up their heads to a load of equipment and told them to press the button whenever they felt like it, the researchers watching the patterns of their brains knew that they were going to press the button half a second or so BEFORE THEY DID. The brain decides what it's going to do then let's us know.

I know it sucks, but it's true.

Quote:

---

They sat people in a lab with a button in front of them, they wired up their heads to a load of equipment and told them to press the button whenever they felt like it, the researchers watching the patterns of their brains knew that they were going to press the button half a second or so BEFORE THEY DID. The brain decides what it's going to do then let's us know.

---

So did their genes or environment tell them to push the button...... ??

Quote:

---

You mean, because it's not "nice" it can't be true?

---

No, I mean it's bull****:p

I can't see inside your head, or anyone elses, but I know that I can make a concious decision on what my behaviour is going to be today. Genetics contributes. Environment contributes. Hell, my wife contributes. I decide. (And I defy anyone to PROVE otherwise)!!

......... or does it just seem that way. Ouch, I wish I hadn't started thinking about this!!!

I just can't help but feel that the "genes/environment" argument is a nice excuse for antisocial behaviour.

"So did their genes or environment tell them to push the button...... ?? "

.... their brains CAUSED them to push the button, the function of the brain is soley dependant on the structure of the brain which is soley determined by genes and environment. There is no magic in biology.

"No, I mean it's bull**** "

Based on what?

"I can't see inside your head, or anyone elses, but I know that I can make a concious decision on what my behaviour is going to be today."

How do you know that? How do you know that your brain isn't making every decision for you and then letting you know aferwards?

It is natural to ASSUME that we have control because it FEELS like we do, but in fact we don't.

"(And I defy anyone to PROVE otherwise)!!"

You are simply wrong, your basis for your conclusions are on what "feels" right which is totally invalid.

You have fallen into the "if it FEELS like this, it must BE like this" trap. It is to be fair an easy trap to fall into. However consider this hypothetical:

Ok, lets say i stick chip in your head without you knowing, now lets say your walking along a road, and you come accross a fork in the road, now I hit a button on my keyboard that causes the chip in your head to make you decide to turn right.

Afterwards someone quizes you over freewill, and you swear that YOU chose to take the right road, that YOU make your decisions, simply because it FEELS that way.

Now infact there is no chip, the chip is simply the physical processes of your brain, the brain decides what to do, then lets us know afterwards.

"I just can't help but feel that the "genes/environment" argument is a nice excuse for antisocial behaviour"

Don't get me wrong, my thoughts on free-will don't alter my response to people who are bastards, people who act like bastards ........ me off, whilst inevitably I "rationalise" what they are doing as "bad" hence feel justified in my anger, in reality there is no rationalisation here, our anger is never logical, human behaviour is not founded on logic, its founded on evolutionary principles of surival.

I can't escape what I am, my behaviour is not governed by logic it is not rational and what runs through my head as the explanation for why I do things is not in anyway "true", BUT that doesn't mean i can't know whats really going on behind the scenes even if i am unable to act upon it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde
"They sat people in a lab with a button in front of them, they wired up their heads to a load of equipment and told them to press the button whenever they felt like it, the researchers watching the patterns of their brains knew that they were going to press the button half a second or so BEFORE THEY DID. The brain decides what it's going to do then let's us know."

---

oookey Clyde I agreed with everything else you said but that could easily because of them thinking about it, eg:

"hmmm yeah ok time to push the button again" then reaching for it.

But I'd like to point out that none of us can prove to ANY extent whether we make our own decisions, one way or another. - all i'm saying is that its possible.

Oops that last reply was by me... just forgot to enter my username etc...

bloody thing wont remember that i'm signed in :(

-out-
PsychoBrat

Well, I guess as neither of us has, or can prove anything, this discussion is pretty fruitless.

Quote:

---

You are simply wrong, your basis for your conclusions are on what "feels" right which is totally invalid

---

That may be so, but it's hardly conclusive evidence.

I would love to believe there is no such thing as free will. It would make my life so much easier. I would sooner believe I lived in a world where there is free will than not. If I believed I lived in a world where there is no free will, I may as well give up the struggle now, and descend into anarchy!

Quote:

---

none of us can prove to ANY extent whether we make our own decisions

---

Absolutely and precisely.

Quote:

---

human behaviour is not founded on logic, its founded on evolutionary principles of surival.

---

Absolutely. This is a fundamental point. The GOAL is genetic / environmental. The method of reaching it is self-deterministic. IMHO.

"oookey Clyde I agreed with everything else you said but that could easily because of them thinking about it, eg:

"hmmm yeah ok time to push the button again" then reaching for it"

Heh, of course the experiment took that into account!

The people sat with their finger hovering over the button and were instructed to press it as soon as they thought of it, the experimenters naturally subtracted the reaction time from the point when the button was pressed, they still had a substantial lead on the people doing the experiments.

"That may be so, but it's hardly conclusive evidence. "

It's pretty persuasive but of course it was expected anyway! You see free-will fundamentally cannot exist, doing so would break every law of physics:

Consider this: Free will exists, I move my arm, now I can trace the movement back to a nerve impulse arriving at the muscle synapse, I can trace that impulse back to the brain, now we hit a problem, you see IF free-will truly exists then i am not going to be able to trace that impulse back, you see for free-will to exist we will trace that impulse back to neurone and then thats it! The neurone will have had to spontaneously decided to fire!

You see if we can trace it back, then free-will dissolves IE. the nervous impulse was caused by a series of neurones fireing that were inturn caused by another series of neurones that were inturn caused by blah blah ... untill you get the ultimate cause to be external sensory input IE. the external environment and the current state of the brain resulted in me moving my arm. No free will.

So that leaves us with this fantom neurone firing presumeably connected by magic to some kind of inner "self" For the cell to fire a physical alteration has got to be made to the cell by a non-physical entity (this magical connection) thus breaking laws of physics.

So free-will was an impossiblity anyway, the experiment merely confirms that.

"I would love to believe there is no such thing as free will. It would make my life so much easier. I would sooner believe I lived in a world where there is free will than not."

You say that to yourself, because my argument that you believe whats "nice" seemed a little too close to home, hence you hope that you can convince yourself that in-fact you wish there wasn't freewill, hence allowing you to view your own conclusions as valid.

Come now, we all would like to be able to determine our own actions, we all hate the the idea that we have no real control over our own lives, why do you think humanity is obsessed with freedom? We strive for control of our own lives, the idea that, that control is an illusion is quite a lot to take.

"But I'd like to point out that none of us can prove to ANY extent whether we make our own decisions, one way or another."

This is not true, we can prove it, we can't prove it without objective testing but we can prove it:

Lets say that the experiment with buttons had been the other way round, that the experimenties knew they were going to press the button before there was any brain activity (rediculous i know) that would effectively prove free will.

Likewise if the experimenters watching the brains know before the experimenties it shows that the brain makes the decision then lets us know about it afterwards, which makes free-will a big no no.

Ah. The old "human being as computer" argument. Never really caught on. Absotively agree with the old "reaction to stimulus" argument. If someone shines a light in my eye, I blink. If someone points a gun at me, my adrenaline pumps. Survival instinct etc.

But what I don't understand, for example, is - what is writing poetry a response to? Computers respond to stimuli. When I press a key, a letter magically appears. It (usually) always responds the same way. If what you say is true, why is my reaction to rain some days depression, and some days happiness??

(BTW, I hate the word nice. It means nothing).

"But what I don't understand, for example, is - what is writing poetry a response to?"

There is as you point out a difference between a reflex action and a non-reflex action, however the difference is merely one of simplicity, a reflex action is not a concious decision, (though you can block reflexes conciously), and hence it does not depend on your current state of mind.

With concious decisions there are two factors there is the external stimulus and there is the current state of the brain.

So the reason that you sometimes feel happy with rain and sometimes sad is because you are in different moods to begin with. If your brain was in an identical state then you would behave in an identical way. The same applies to poetry, obviously the exact way that the external stimuli and the state of the brain interact and how they result in a given reaction is fiendinshly complex, so much so that neurologists are still battling to uncover all the mechanisms involved.

Clyde
Your whole argument seems to be

>>How do you know that your brain isn't making every decision for you and then letting you know aferwards?

If my brain is not ME, who is it?

If my subconcious is not ME, GET IT OUT!

I agree your actions are filtered thru learned (environment) and instinticive behaviour (genetics).
Even genetics can be overcome. Take tickleishness, an instinctive reaction to small things crawling on your skin. If you try hard enough you can repress this reaction. Just as people can control their involentary(sp?) actions (eg slow heartbeat) .

>>the external environment and the current state of the brain resulted in me moving my arm. No free will.

By your theory if I remove the enviroment, say a floatation tank or a quiet dark room, without the effect of the enviroment, you should not be able to move or as well. (which is plainly untrue)

"If my brain is not ME, who is it? "

Who? Your brain is not a person, its an organ, it may well generate, the illusion of self but that is quite different from any real deterministic ability. There is nothing but laws of physics governing how the brain works.

The concept of what the self actually is, is a complex argument and a separate one (and i have some interesting things to say about self too that you won't like :)), the experiment demonstrates that whatever self is, it is not in control of a persons actions.

"Even genetics can be overcome"

Not really, what you mean is that genetic predispositions to certain traits can be overcome, genetics cannot, you cannot overcome real limitations imposed by genetics: some people cannot roll their tongues and they never will be able to.

"By your theory if I remove the enviroment, say a floatation tank or a quiet dark room, without the effect of the enviroment, you should not be able to move or as well. (which is plainly untrue)"

Of course you can move in a floatation tank, movement is concious decision based on your current state of mind and your external environment, in the case of the floatation tank there is zero external stimuli hence your actions are soley determined by your state of mind.

Incidently lack of external stimuli is treated by the brain as another form of stimuli (even though its not), thats why you think you can see the colour black despite the fact that actually you can't.

It's not "my" theory, it's simple deducation.

>>If my brain is not ME, who is it?

You know, I read a study on this but I'm at work and I dont have the stats. The question was:

How do you define "you":
A) Your Body
B) Your Brain
C) Both Body and Brain

A surprising number of people chose Body. I found that very interesting.


>>Who? Your brain is not a person, its an organ

However, its in control of my actions. It in, in a sense, me. It is my awareness, and it is the only way I can recieve sensory data. Its a lot more 'me' than any other organ or collection of organs.

... Not enough time to finish my argument and I wont be around til tomorrow, so it looks like I might miss out some of on this. ;)

"You know, I read a study on this but I'm at work and I dont have the stats. The question was:

How do you define "you":
A) Your Body
B) Your Brain
C) Both Body and Brain

A surprising number of people chose Body. I found that very interesting. "

That is interesting, but then, i suspect those same people would not agree with the full ramifications of their choice, if they believe that their body is "them" it follows that if you stuck "their" head on another torso and someone else's head on their torso they would be left with the conclusion that "they" were not the individual that contained all their memories, had their personality, etc. etc.

"However, its in control of my actions. It in, in a sense, me. It is my awareness, and it is the only way I can recieve sensory data. Its a lot more 'me' than any other organ or collection of organs"

When dealing with the concept of self most people fall back upon the decartian model of the inner eye: They imagine that deep within their brain there some area that sends messages to "them" and that inturn "they" somehow send messages back to this area. Decarte reached the conclusion after looking at animal eyes, what he saw was that if you chopped off the retina then the eye would produce an image, so he asked himself what "sees" the image that eye produces? Of course he copped out the question and said there was this magic inner eye.

In fact the decartian model plainly cannot work but its the easiest way we have of thinking of ourselves.

Just by looking at people's language, we do distinguish between "us" and our brains, just look your sentence:

"and it is the only way I can recieve sensory data."

"it" being the brain, and "I" being the self.

Now modern neurology takes the stance the self is an illusion that it does not really exist, and I buy that point of view because it ties into my own thoughts on the subject:

I became interested in the concious mind and the problem of self about 6 years ago, I went to several lectures, read several books, asked my science teachers about it blah blah. I was convinced that the concious mind was unlike anything else, I couldn't make any sense of it, it seemed to contradict everything.

One of the main problems I had with it was the material brain paradox, there are several versions, I will give you one of the more popular versions:

Lets say I have a silica replica of a neurone that replicates its chemical and electrical properties exactly. Now I sit you down in my lab, and I replace 1 of your brain cells with my selica cell, since a few thousands brain cells kick the dust every time we shake our heads it seems logical that the person without the replaced silca cell is exactly the same as the person with it. Now I replace 1,000 cells with silica replacements, since there is no biological difference between the silica replacements and the removed cells surely you are still the same person, then I replace a million.... and finally your entire brain is now silica, now since there is no difference between a neurone and my silica cell it follows that there is no difference between you with a silica brain and you with a non-silica brain "you" must still be alive, you just have a silica brain now. So "you" are the silica brain.

BUT we have a huge problem! What if we had instead built the silica brain first without replacing any of your brain cells! I sit you in my lab and build a silica brain, surely then you are NOT the silica brain, you are still sitting their in my lab! If after building the brain i then turn to you and shoot you in the head, and stick the silica brain in your skull surely you would be dead, and yet that scenario is exactly the same as the one where I replaced your brain cells, except this time i havent done it gradually, i've done it all at once.

We know that "you" have got to be the silica brain but at the same time we know that "you" cannot be the silica brain.

Voila paradox. It's quite hard to grasp and i find many people who cannot grasp it, (probably because of my lame explanining skills, if my explanation wasn't good enough i'm sure a quick google search for "mind" and "paradox" will give a plethora of sites with a more easily understandable explanation) but the paradox seems completely unsolveable, and I fully believed it was.

Of course the entire thought experiment builds on-top of decarte's inner eye model which cannot be accurate, but which remains the only real way we can "imagine" the self to be.

But it is solveable, it took me 5 years to see that there is a flaw in the logic, I'm unsure whether or not mainstream philosophy has come to the same conclusions as me, the fact that the modern version of "I think therefore I am" has been changed to "thinking is" implies that perhaps they have.

My solution resides on the assumption that occurs in this line: "I sit you in my lab and build a silca brain, surely then you are NOT the silica brain, you are still sitting their in my lab"

There is an unstated assumption there, it is the assumption that the person sitting in the lab after the brain is built is the same person as the person who sat down before the brain was built! It is the assumption that the self exists and is continuous.

The only way out of the paradox is to conclude that either the "self" does not exist, that it is merely an illusion (although what that actually means... i don't know, how can the self be an illusion? If it's an illusion what is "seeing" it? neurology is making rapid advancement along these lines so hopefully I'll know the answer within my life-time), so the question of whether "you" are the same with a silica brain or nor becomes meaningless, the answer is that "you" do not exist, "you" are just an illusion. Or that self does exist but is dis-continuous, thats to say that every split second another "inner eye" comes along who experiences the thoughts and memories and senses, then either "dies" or moves onto another person and looks through their eyes, has their memories etc.,

The consequences of the latter are somewhat strange, it would mean that whilst we view ourselves as real continuous entities, we simply cannot be that way. It means that the "self" we are at a given instant is no more the "self" that we were at a previous point in time, that it is the "self" that exists in another person. It measn that our past, our memories, are not really "ours" at all.

Now neurology says the self is an illusion, which fits one of my solutions, of course I don't pay any attention to the actual nature of "self", I learned to accept a long time ago that human beings dance to tunes we never hear, as a human my behaviour is largely determined by the way things feel, I tried for about 2 years back when I was at school not to act that way, to somehow overide the behaviour seemingly programmed into my head, I just made myself miserable, and so, now I just go with how things feel.

Wow! Did I go off on a tangent or what?

damn, Clyde, you're on your way to a pHD :)

Genius.

"you forgot the soul & the heart."

heh, heart transplant patients might have something to say about the latter =)

Am I the only one who finds it difficult to argue on a board like this?? Now, if we were in a bar, "discussing" this over a beer......

Clyde, can you encapsulate your points briefly for me please. No more than say 10 keywords.

"Clyde, can you encapsulate your points briefly for me please. No more than say 10 keywords"

Hmm not really, the subject is a complex one. I can try and expand on what i've said, which part didn't ya get?

OK, change of tack then (and I am genuinely interested).

Take your silica brain cell scenario.

Lets say me and Osama Bin Laden were in a lab, and somebody took a brain cell from my brain, and put it into good ol' OBL, and vica versa. At some point (I would expect) "he" would become "me" and "I" would become "him" (because it would be exactly like swapping our brains over). This implies that although our cells are biologically the same (i.e. there are no physical differences between the biology of the cells), "RobR" brain cells are different from "OBL" brain cells.

Therefore in the silica example, there would become a point where enough "RobR" brain cells had been replace by silica cells that the thing in the chair was no longer RobR.

"Lets say me and Osama Bin Laden were in a lab, and somebody took a brain cell from my brain, and put it into good ol' OBL, and vica versa. At some point (I would expect) "he" would become "me" and "I" would become "him" (because it would be exactly like swapping our brains over"

That doesn't work, the function of the brain is extremely dependant on its structure, IE. the arrangement of the neurones, so how are you going to swap neurones between two different brains? The neurones you are swapping are in different positions hence cannot simply be swapped.

You could not gradually become Bin Laden, and Bin Laden could not gradually become you, you would have to do it in one step.

"implies that although our cells are biologically the same (i.e. there are no physical differences between the biology of the cells), "RobR" brain cells are different from "OBL" brain cells."

As I said, it is not the difference in the cells, generally speaking all neurones have the same properties, it is in the connectiosn between the cells, ie. their arrangement.

"Therefore in the silica example, there would become a point where enough "RobR" brain cells had been replace by silica cells that the thing in the chair was no longer RobR"

See that doesn't work, because the silica brain maintains the arrangement IE. how the brain is wired up.

If you could replace your neurones with Bin Laden neurones and not alter the arangement you would still be you.

Well I think we can all agree (can we?) that we can look at different parts of nature and see neurological processes becoming more and more simple. Eg:

Single cell creatures - completely basic response to environment, no instinct even - relies on environment being perfect.
Parasites + worms + cocroaches etc - basic survival instincts - poke it and it'll run.
Mice, possums - Survival instincts + can learn from mistakes well.
Dogs + Horses - Problem solving - comes across a fence, looks for ways to get past it.
Humans - Able to wonder about stuff like this!

See what I mean? There doesn't necesarily have to be some kind of "soul" or "spirit" behind us, each step of evolution is just the basic elements of life, just aranged in more complex and BIGGER ways, not necesarily hiding some greater thing than a mushy brain. :P

-out-
PsychoBrat

Oh and if you really want something to blow your mind, think about this:

Nothing makes sense at all.
What? I'm crazy did you say? Ok fine i'll prove it.

Ok, its generally excepted that there is something in existance, beacuse otherwise I wouldn't be thinking right now.

But... how can anything exist? Everything has to have come from somewhere, ok lets say there's some god. Where did he/she/it come from? Has it just been floating around in nothingness for eternity? I find this hard to believe. So he/she/it must have been created by something which in turn must have been created by something else and so on and so forth. But that's impossible! It can't just go on forever, there has to be something at the top, which brings you back to the start of this paragraph.

Thus nothing can exist... but wait a second, didn't I just prove up the top that it does?

See!? Something exists, but nothing can exist.

THUS NOTHING MAKES SENSE! :P

Dont you just love being confused? If not, you've gonna have to get used to it soon ;-)

-out-
PsychoBrat

<<But... how can anything exist . . .I find this hard to believe

great I'm glad you would find that hard to believe, especially since were dealing with truths, your beliefs are meaningless.

nothing can exist because you say something couldn't exist in the first place, but oh wait here i am sittinf in my chair existing as I type this.

people listen, we are in a finite world, the universe is not expanding(despite Dr. E's theory of reletivity), we a re in a reality, as percieved by many individuals. we see this universe in alimited spectrum, we jusdge this universe from this limited soectrum and we say something cannot exist because we cannot accept anything that we have not seen heard or comprehended from our limited spectrum.

[/vent] :o man that was tireing, :)

>>you forgot the soul & the heart.

Not forgotten. Nonexistant and irrelevant respectivly. (The heart pumps blood, people. Why is there this hangup about it being an emotional center?)

I see exactly where you're coming from Clyde, but the whole concept is based around the definition of "I". If I decide that "me" is my complete structure then there really is no problems (or at least, they're farther away, i'll discuss in a moment). "My" (;)) brain is the 'command center' for everything that this structure is able to do. It recieves data, it sorts data, it sends data. It is, in essence, me.

Now on the subject of the existance of self. It doesnt take much thought to conclude that there really is no such thing. Should this hypothetical situation occure in which my brain was instantly removed and a perfect silica recreation put in place without damage, I would be the exact same person. Obviously I would have the same memories, the same thoughts, and react in the same fashion. I would develop in exactly the same manner as if my origional brain had never been removed. This proves that "self" is only a collection of current and past sensory data that has been sorted in such a manner as to be optimally useful.

I have no problems accepting this concept. Apparently my sensory data is well arranged. :)

Quote:

---

Now on the subject of the existance of self. It doesnt take much thought to conclude that there really is no such thing.

---

Is it so obvious? Some of the most profound minds in the history of civilization would disagree...

Quote:

---

Should this hypothetical situation occure in which my brain was instantly removed and a perfect silica recreation put in place without damage, I would be the exact same person. Obviously I would have the same memories, the same thoughts, and react in the same fashion. I would develop in exactly the same manner as if my origional brain had never been removed. This proves that "self" is only a collection of current and past sensory data that has been sorted in such a manner as to be optimally useful.

---

I think that perhaps you are guilty of fallacy here? In attempting to prove that there is no soul, you say that you "would be the exact same person" after the replacement. Implicit in that statement is the assumption that there is nothing outside your brain's structure/makeup that determines your thoughts, memories, etc-basically who "you" are, ie, that there is no soul. It seems as if the conclusion is present in the argument, maybe.

"people listen, we are in a finite world, the universe is not expanding(despite Dr. E's theory of reletivity), "

err.... bzzzt, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

"If I decide that "me" is my complete structure then there really is no problems "

Ok, I can see that, though you still don't have "free will".

"Should this hypothetical situation occure in which my brain was instantly removed and a perfect silica recreation put in place without damage, I would be the exact same person. Obviously I would have the same memories, the same thoughts, and react in the same fashion. I would develop in exactly the same manner as if my origional brain had never been removed."

I think i know what you mean, problem is the English language becomes quite obstenant when you deal with this kind of thing, so presumeably when you say "I would be the exact same person" , you use "I" in a somewhat altered sense.

I mean if you accept that the person with silica brain is "you", then it follows that "you" are in the silica brain, but if we make the silica brain without destroying your original brain, then which one are "you"? Of course as you say, if the "self" is not a "real" entity then there is no problem because the question "which one are you" becomes meaningless.

"Is it so obvious? Some of the most profound minds in the history of civilization would disagree... "

History, being the key word, people in history, had far less information to tackle the problem than we do now, the people to ask are the people studying the brain: The neurologists, and guess what they will tell you?

Am I a chicken or an egg? :D

>>you use "I" in a somewhat altered sense.

I'm forced to use 'I' in an altered sense. I could think of no other word to suit the purpose... ? I was using my previous definition: "that "me" is my complete structure"... It could get horribly confusing talking about myself this way... :)

>>Ok, I can see that, though you still don't have "free will".

Agreed. But it would be interesting to find some agreement on the definition of free will. Nothing is "forcing" the brain to draw the conclusions that it does. The end result may be computable but that doesnt make it completly forced. If the variables (enviroment, etc) are changed, the results will change also. The brain merely comes up with the most reasonable conclusion to any given argument, based on previously recieved information. It follows the same principles as the fact that there is no such thing as randomness. The things we call random are merely the results of an action that involve too many external (and generally miniscule) forces for us to calculate or record.

"Agreed. But it would be interesting to find some agreement on the definition of free will. Nothing is "forcing" the brain to draw the conclusions that it does. The end result may be computable but that doesnt make it completly forced. If the variables (enviroment, etc) are changed, the results will change also. The brain merely comes up with the most reasonable conclusion to any given argument, based on previously recieved information. It follows the same principles as the fact that there is no such thing as randomness. The things we call random are merely the results of an action that involve too many external (and generally miniscule) forces for us to calculate or record."

Well, I'm not sure about randomness, I agree that what most people consider random falls under your description, but what about quantum randomness? You fire a single photon through a series of slits, it will interfere with itself, and (assuming you place a detecter there) will end up in 1 of 4 places, completely randomly. Of course we could go waaay off on a tangent discussing how and why this effect is caused :)

About free will, I agree that nothing is "forcing" the brain to draw a specific conclusion, but then there is no real choice either.

Lets say I look at someone who makes a decision, which i deem bad, then i judge that individual based on the decision they have made. Well, since the brain has made a decision in a purely computational sense, "blaming" that person makes little sense; no more sense than blaming a computer for its output: the computer was programmed that way, likewise the person whilst not being "programmed" never the less acts purely as the result of computation done by the brain, computation that just boils down to a complex set of physical interations.

Of course despite knowing that, I am just as judgemental as anyone else, I still "blame" people if they are jerks, I still feel gratitude towards people if they are nice, I still behave as if people did have an inner "self" that was ultimately responsible for their actions. Simply because it's human nature; trying not to behave that way, just doesn't work, certain parts of how we socialise are hard-wired into the brain, fighting them just makes you miserable, so i don't bother.

Quote:

---

Of course despite knowing that, I am just as judgemental as anyone else, I still "blame" people if they are jerks, I still feel gratitude towards people if they are nice, I still behave as if people did have an inner "self" that was ultimately responsible for their actions.

---

That, and the fact that the blame is part of the social conditioning that will affect the persons "computations" in future. So in a sense, the purpose of blame may very well be to condition the recipient in such a manner that they would no longer "behave" in the same fashion (hopefully in a fashion more acceptable to the blamer, would be the reasoning).


>>1 of 4 places, completely randomly. Of course we could go waaay off on a tangent discussing how and why this effect is caused

That we could. My hunch however is that it would be discovered that there is really nothing random about it. Why would the results of two identical actions be different? What kind of force would randomness be? What kind of govorning law could represent a random factor?

"That, and the fact that the blame is part of the social conditioning that will affect the persons "computations" in future. So in a sense, the purpose of blame may very well be to condition the recipient in such a manner that they would no longer "behave" in the same fashion (hopefully in a fashion more acceptable to the blamer, would be the reasoning). "

Yup I agree with that.

"That we could. My hunch however is that it would be discovered that there is really nothing random about it. Why would the results of two identical actions be different? What kind of force would randomness be? What kind of govorning law could represent a random factor?"

It is weird for sure, from your stand point, you could make a reasonably convincing argument based on the heisenberg uncertainty principle, IE. you could argue that the two acts are not exactly identical at all, the reason for the appearance of randomness being slight differences that are inherantly unmeasureable in the angle/energy of the photon

The problem is that the whole area is a bit weird really, since the scenario is one of the prime examples of wave-particle duality. The idea of fixed positions, is totally at odds with the wave nature of the photon, indeed the position of the photon only becomes fixed in one of the four places when it is measured.

I'm uncertain, of whether it is an example of "true" randomness or not, on the one hand as you point out the idea of "true" randomness appears to contradict common sense, on the other I already know that quantum mechanics is certainly not a slave to common sense and does away with it, when it wishes :)

>That, and the fact that the blame is part of the social conditioning that will affect the persons "computations" in future. So in a sense, the purpose of blame may very well be to condition the recipient in such a manner that they would no longer "behave" in the same fashion (hopefully in a fashion more acceptable to the blamer, would be the reasoning).

Yes, but it's gone beyond that. People are making "suggestions" that they know will never be heard by the recipient. Presumably in an effort to make them "feel better". How many times has the average driver (or TV viewer) sat abusing their target safe in the knowledge that their "suggestions" for future behaviour have gone unheard.

>I already know that quantum mechanics is certainly not a slave to common sense and does away with it, when it wishes

As a layman I'd agree, but as with what I understand of quantum mechanics it's all about perception (i.e. we don't have the correct equipment to measure the phenomenon, or due to the nature of the subject ever will).

>>Yes, but it's gone beyond that. People are making "suggestions" that they know will never be heard by the recipient.

Interesting point. The possible reasons are almost endless. Facts are hard to come by on this particular subject. Human reasoning, in and of itself, is not well understood. One could theorize for instance, that the brain generates the suggestion, in an attempt to modify behaviour, whenever it 'sees' behaviour that it deems unacceptable (for whatever reason). The decision to voice the suggestion at a TV screen is something else entirely. It would be the same reason that people will talk to themselves (or ask their computer questions ;)).

>>you could argue that the two acts are not exactly identical at all, the reason for the appearance of randomness
>>being slight differences that are inherantly unmeasureable in the angle/energy of the photon

That would pretty much sum up my argument, yes. My reasoning for coming to that conclusion is a simple one; No other phenomenom (as Sorenson puts it quite nicely) has such a random factor. The ability to measure photons is, as you mentioned, rather limited. It stands to reason that with limited instruments we are not able to achieve infinite precision. Without infinite precision, we are not able to determine if the random factor is actually that.

>The decision to voice the suggestion at a TV screen is something else entirely. It would be the same reason that people will talk to themselves (or ask their computer questions ).

Not necessarily. If it is acting , as you suggest, within pre-defined behaviour. Acting under stimulii from either the TV screen, or infact itself, could surely create the same behaviour if it was interpreted in the same way.

>> Not necessarily. If it is acting , as you suggest, within pre-defined behaviour. Acting under stimulii from either the TV screen, or infact itself, could surely create the same behaviour if it was interpreted in the same way.

True, true. The only probelm is: We dont know. Obviously the brain knows the difference between TV and someone standing in front of them. What is it that causes the brain to disregard these filters in many circumstances? Obviously the filters are oftentimes engaged, as I do not sit swearing violently at my TV every time I see behavior that is bothersome. (Not all the time anyhow ;).)

So this is the more difficult question: Why does the same action ellicite different reponses on different occasions? Easy answer: Different emotional states, current train of thought, etc. The only problem is, why would the brain chose to ignore the filters that would commonly stop you from talking to the TV in some circumstances, yet keep at least the appearance of sanity at some other point? Surely the difference in mental state should not change the patterns in which the brain operates? That kind of so called wiring, is generally considered to be more or less permanent and only changeable slowly over a period of time.

>Obviously the brain knows the difference between TV and someone standing in front of them. What is it that causes the brain to disregard these filters in many circumstances? Obviously the filters are oftentimes engaged, as I do not sit swearing violently at my TV every time I see behavior that is bothersome. (Not all the time anyhow .)

Yes, but the schizophrenic has a different outlook (and me sometimes), this has gone way off topic and I should get some sleep (else I'll become someone who can't differentiate between TV and reality).

We are slaves.
We have to do what our bodies tell us and there is no way around it. Enjoy the ride. I am not writing this message out of my own free will, I am writing it due to fundemental evolutionary needs, my experiences, and my current state of mind, chemical (i.e. hormone) levels, current stimuli and whatever else. I can't say exactly why I am writing this message (It's like trying to predict a computer-generated random number, the number is dependent on the time, but you still cannot predict it, it is just too complicated) so I will just write it.

If evolution has worked, eventually I will reproduce and die.

Fun.


I saw this program by some street magician guy, [I cannot remember his name but he has the same initials as David Blaine], he took some advertisement guys to a building and made them draw an advert for a pet cemetry and before they started work he put an envelope on the table containing what he thought their ideas would be.

Once the advertisment guys had finished he opened the envelope and the adverts were remarkably similar.

Then he explained that on the advertisement guys taxi journey to the building, he had put little messages everywhere outside the window [pictures] and had managed to put these ideas into the advertisement guys minds.

Its hard to explain but very clever.

Clyde. Obviously your absolutly right. People don't like the computer idea becuase current computers are a billionth of what our brain is...they are a baby step in the direction...and mabye still missing several peices, so a baystep to a subsection of what a brain is. Anyway...what I'm interested in is this...where you able to figure all this out without drugs? I took the drug route, so I can't tell if I could have come to these conclusions without. You?

>>where you able to figure all this out without drugs?

LOL, that's a good one. :)

Here is something that goes along with this topic: if all our actions are predetermined and/or a direct reflection of the surroundings and the environment, why do we punish certain behavior?

::I know, a responce to this could be something along the lines: "punishing the behavior is also predefined, not our choice either"... yet, I think we do have a choice.

>>why do we punish certain behavior?

See my post on the last page (third from bottom) regarding that exact topic.

Clyde,
One thing about your silica brain.

My understanding is that memories are stored as connections in my brain. So my brain must be constantly changing.

If you 'read' my brain it would be a snap shot.
Not valid as soon as I create a new memory.

So as you swap/build the brains you create new memories. You can never catch up to make them identical unless you can stop me thinking or acting (changing/using my brain).

If you do succeed in creating a copy of me, as soon as it or I create a new memory, we will be different. Even if we experence it togather, the fact I am doing something with my 'twin' will effect my memory.

There is a lot of difference between my PC's HD after a format and now with all the info on it.

I'm sorry, but just as I refuse to believe in a god (unless I get some sort of proof), I can not believe that all actions, for all people, from the begining to end of time are predetermined.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by novacain
I can not believe that all actions, for all people, from the begining to end of time are predetermined.

---

well really of you take all factors into acount anything and be predicted there for it is predetermined its just no one is capable of knowing everthing thats going at at once. It doesn't really matter one way or the other though as time as we know it is linier so you would never be able to observe to identical scenarios and see wether they end up the same so arguments like this are a bit meaning less. Well im just rambling, i guess i shouldn't try to post when im so tired.

Quote:

---

I can not believe that all actions, for all people, from the begining to end of time are predetermined.

---

If you do not believe in God... what do you believe in?
How can you not know He exist? Look around you!
How do you think this world was made? I cant sit here and answer every question or bounce back a reply to all of your denial.
I just hope you will think about things and begin to realize how stupid it is not to believe before its too late.

Im not a preacher or anything but I know God exist.

>>If you do not believe in God... what do you believe in?

That some people need a crutch to make their existance have a meaning, lest it all be for procreation.
That religion was invented to keep the masses in line by the rich. That is no longer needed as we now have TV / consumerism /drugs to keep us from questioning the status quo (and baby sit our children).

That now most religions do more harm than good.

I believe that when you die it is all over.


I would ask you to show me some proof that god exists but this is not the threads topic (and there have been so many about that).

(Raised as a strict Methodist, follower of John Wesley, I spent 1 hour a day, 6 days a week in church, plus religious education classes two hours a week as a teenager so I know where you are. I am just a lot further down the road)

Well I cant keep talkin bout this cause it is not the thread topic but...

I feel sorry for you that you have nothing to balieve in. That your life will end in spiritual lonliness. May God have mercy on your soul.

I really know that I shouldn't get involved here. I can see exactly which way this discussion is going but.....

Quote:

---

I feel sorry for you that you have nothing to balieve in. That your life will end in spiritual lonliness. May God have mercy on your soul.

---

Oh please. Give us some reasoned argument. Shout at us. Scream at us. Whatever. What I really dislike about god-botherers is the old "I'm right, and I have to convert you at all costs" line.

This is going to upset people, and get me flamed. Tough. There is more evil done in the name of "religion" than for any other reason in the world.

Take Northern Ireland as an example. Most religions state that murder is wrong. So why do Protestants kill Catholics. Why do Catholics kill Protestants.

I give up.

Tries to resist but sees red flag and enters china shop.

>>I feel sorry for you that you have nothing to balieve in. That your life will end in spiritual lonliness. May God have mercy on your soul.

I have plenty to believe in, look forward to and take joy in. From my 4 day old nephew to a stupid thread on this forum.

I just have realised, as I hope you do too, that mankind is fundamentally flawed. As is then god, as he made us (in his image). Which of course is a contradiction to the perfect being we are presented as god. Besides all the differnt religions can't be right, though they all can be wrong....

We are not SPECIAL enough to be the creation of the devine being. All your hopes, without a shred of proof, will not make it so.

"where you able to figure all this out without drugs?"

Yup, i was not on any mind inducing substances when i thought about all this stuff :)

"So as you swap/build the brains you create new memories. You can never catch up to make them identical unless you can stop me thinking or acting (changing/using my brain). "

An interesting point Novocain, one that can be sidestepped either by stopping the person's brain by freezing them, or by making the new silica brain instantaneously (yea I know, but it's a thought experiment we're allowed to do crazy stuff :)).

But lets say there is a gap, lets say the silica brain was the "you" from 15 seconds ago, the paradox still stands. It's just a little more complex, and it is still resolved by the anihilation of self, there is no problem if the "you" 15 seconds ago, and the "you" now are infact completely different "you"s anyway, or if the "you"s don't really exist at all.

- I hate the English language it makes this whole topic so much more complicated than neccesary!

"I'm sorry, but just as I refuse to believe in a god (unless I get some sort of proof), I can not believe that all actions, for all people, from the begining to end of time are predetermined."

Depends on what you mean by predetermined. All actions are governed by physical laws, so in that sense i suppose you could think of them as "pre-determined" but not all actions are predictable, chaos theory screws prediction up totally in many cases. (we will NEVER be able to predict the weather long term... which sucks!)

MY take on life: we're going to die, when we do we cease to exist (life after death == life before birth == nothing), I know that the ultimate fate of the universe is written in the laws of physics and nothing will ever change that, I know that "meaning" is not a real concept and that morality is a human construct.

And to be honest i found the above pretty damn depressing, (especially the loss of meaning) for several years of my life, but I came around and now subscribe to a Dawkin-esc philosophy;

Against huge improbability we as individuals exist, we happen to be a certain combination of our parents genes, any other combination and it would be someone else in place of us, in fact any other combination of genes in any one of our thousands of ancestors and we would not exist, in fact even given the right combination of genes in a given one of our ancestors, any slight twist of the events in history would have totally changed the present in such way that in all likelyhood you and I would simply not be.

We get to experience life! In all its greatness; we get to see the beauty of a sunset, hear the wonders of music, we get to feel wind brushing against our skin, we get to run, to dance, to breathe, to in-short live.

On a cosmic scale of things our life-time in truly puny, but for a minute fraction of cosmic time our eyes open and we see the universe in all it's splendor.

I like that, I also find comfort in the fact that I will have existed, come what may, whatever happens in the future, whatever becomes of me, the human race, etc. I know catagorically that at X time in X place, I was there, and I will always have been there. I have a little place etched out in time, that will always belong to me.