4 of 69
4
Do non-human animals have free will?
Posted: 07 November 2012 10:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 02 November 2012 12:13 AM

Vyazma, Vyazma,

Hundreds pages of discussions, with references to philosophers, with other people agreeing with me, and you still don’t get it? Stop raging and start reading and thinking. Read some good texts about combatibilism, show me where the errors in the argumentations are, and then discuss them here with me. But please stop yelling at me.

Whose yelling?  I’m typing, not speaking.
References to philosophers?...people agreeing with you?.....I guess your right then.
My mistake.
Why would I read about compatabilism?  I’m not interested in philosophical justifications for science.
My statements are based on science and what we know about consciousness and causality, determinism.
You show me a reaction to something, I can show you the action that caused that reaction.  That’s what I’m all about.
I’m not interested in peoples philosophical back-filling to justify a dialectic that is based on interpreting behavior on morals.
OR-  Philosophical explanations to phenomena that people just can’t grasp-because they don’t want to belive it.
Example-just like the god concept, or the heaven concept(people don’t want to accept that they are worm food after death), people don’t want to be told that they are not in control of their actions. It’s understandable. Especially this later concept…very understandable!! It almost defies reason and perception.
Two key words…“almost” and “perception”.  Perception being the crux as we all have agreed upon-consciousness.
Once we can agree that consciousness doesn’t come from “soul”, but comes from very predictable chemical reactions and a brain matter and nervous system that is highly standardized, what are we left with?
We are left with how this highly standardized electro-chemical machine, that is determined by the ultimate causal factor DNA, reacts with a highly standardized predictable environment.
Again most people can’t accept Free-will because they are best friends with their personality. They consciously “observe” themselves make choices.(really their memories just remind them of past reactions they have made-it’s strored in our memories.)
I suppose compatability helps lessen the impact of this startlingly shcking reality for most people.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2012 01:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31

VYAZMA,

Do you think people are responsible?
- If yes, on what faculty of humans is this based? How would you call that faculty, that bacteria, plants and most (all?) non human animals don’t have?
- If not, shouldn’t we change a lot of our societal structures (judicial system, prices and praise for accomplishments, etc).

Sorry, but the time is to turn the argumenting around. I am getting tired of defending myself against your verbal attacks.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2012 05:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29

What we should or should not do is irrelevant since we’ll always only do what we have to do. “Should” is as much of an illusion as is free will. You, GdB, seem to be one of the victims getting hit the hardest by the illusion of the Cartesian Theathre.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2012 07:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
George - 08 November 2012 05:13 AM

What we should or should not do is irrelevant since we’ll always only do what we have to do. “Should” is as much of an illusion as is free will. You, GdB, seem to be one of the victims getting hit the hardest by the illusion of the Cartesian Theathre.

The interesting thing is that sentences with ‘should’ can have causal influence. Is that hard to see? It is part of a causal chain. The exact physical implementation is not important, important is that it functions in a discourse. To really understand how a certain brain state has the influence it has on e.g. somebody else, and another physically different state has exactly the same influence, is to see that they both are implementations of the concept of ‘should’ at discourse level.

All the time you are pointing your attacks against my supposed indeterminism.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2012 08:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29

If it quacks like indeterminism, then it’s probably indeterminism. There is only one way we will structure our judicial system and that’s all there is to it. The illusion that we can or should structure it this way or that way is just that, an illusion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2012 08:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2777
Joined  2011-11-04
GdB - 08 November 2012 07:24 AM
George - 08 November 2012 05:13 AM

What we should or should not do is irrelevant since we’ll always only do what we have to do. “Should” is as much of an illusion as is free will. You, GdB, seem to be one of the victims getting hit the hardest by the illusion of the Cartesian Theathre.

The interesting thing is that sentences with ‘should’ can have causal influence. Is that hard to see? It is part of a causal chain…

I appreciate your making this point.  It is not difficult for me to see.

If I say you should do something, I am manding that you do so. If you do what I said that you should, perhaps I, or someone or something else, will provide a positive consequence for you, or withold an aversive consequence.  Sure we believe that what you do is controlled by the causal contingencies, but your hearing the word “should” can be one of the factors, and is thus not irrelevant.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2012 08:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
George - 08 November 2012 08:25 AM

If it quacks like indeterminism, then it’s probably indeterminism. There is only one way we will structure our judicial system and that’s all there is to it. The illusion that we can or should structure it this way or that way is just that, an illusion.

Sorry George, you see a mind where I did not put one: you hear your own duck, not mine.

If I convince somebody that he shouldn’t do something, then the causal influence works via the concept of ‘you shouldn’t ...’ I am determined to say what I say, the interpretation by the other, i.e. the processes it causes in his brain, are (partially) determined by the meaning of my sentence.

For an external observer who is able only to see physical processes, it will always be ununderstandable why people with so different brain states act so similar.

And sorry George, you cannot explain evolution on the level of physical processes. So why do you want to do this for human behaviour?

[ Edited: 08 November 2012 09:28 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2012 09:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29
GdB - 08 November 2012 08:42 AM

If I convince somebody that he shouldn’t do something, then the causal influence works via the concept of ‘you shouldn’t ...’ I am determined to say what I say, the interpretation by the other, i.e. the processes it causes in his brain, are (partially) determined by the meaning of my sentence.

Yes, everything is determined. So why are you asking VYAZMA if people are responsible? Of course they are not since everything is determined, and of course we will always act if as nothing was determined. The realization that free will is an illusion has no practical use whatsoever.

[ Edited: 08 November 2012 10:02 AM by George ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2012 09:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2777
Joined  2011-11-04

The great and intricate dance of life is choreograped by it’s controlling contingencies, and will thus play out accordingly.  This doesn’t mean that ideas play no part, whether practical or impractical, in the intracacies of the dance.  They do.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2012 09:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
George - 08 November 2012 09:28 AM

Yes, everything is determined. So why are you asking VYAZMA if people are responsible? Of course they are not since everything is determined, and of course we will always act if nothing was determined.

And what if the assigning of responsibility to people changes their behaviour? There is no inconsistency between doing that and assuming we are all determined. You think that responsibility is a kind of substance or physical attribute, instead of a complex process running on the most complicated machine we know, the human brain.

George - 08 November 2012 09:28 AM

The realization that free will is an illusion has no practical use whatsoever.

Well, psychologically it has. There have been done experiments that show that people when they think we have no free will tend to cheat more in games then those who think we have. With other words, they behaved less responsible.

And then there are neurologists who say we should reform our judicial system, because science has ‘discovered’ that we have no free will. So what is it: has the realization that free will is an illusion no practical use whatsoever? And when not, what is wrong in those neurologists’ standpoint?

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2012 09:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29

That’s beautiful, Tim. It has a lot of big words in it, so it must be true. grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2012 09:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2777
Joined  2011-11-04
George - 08 November 2012 09:49 AM

That’s beautiful, Tim. It has a lot of big words in it, so it must be true. grin

Someone said that “Truth is beauty and beauty truth.” But I think that that is just a platitude. What I said isn’t true because it’s beautiful.  It’s true because it is correct. (Aside from the fact that I misspelled intricacies.) Oh, and don’t knock big words, they have their place.

[ Edited: 08 November 2012 09:59 AM by TimB ]
 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2012 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29
GdB - 08 November 2012 09:49 AM

And then there are neurologists who say we should reform our judicial system, because science has ‘discovered’ that we have no free will.

Yeah, that’s what happens when incompetent people step into terra incognita. But that’s the way it goes: philosophers criticize neuroscientists, neuroscientists want to have a go at being legislators, and everybody who owns a digital camera is a photographer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2012 10:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
George - 08 November 2012 10:00 AM

Yeah, that’s what happens when incompetent people step into terra incognita. But that’s the way it goes: philosophers criticize neuroscientists, neuroscientists want to have a go at being legislators, and everybody who owns a digital camera is a photographer.

Ok. But why are those neurologists wrong? Can you explain that?

PS You forgot one: let the priests do exorcism, and do not criticise them, that is terra incognita for you…

[ Edited: 08 November 2012 10:06 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2012 10:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29
GdB - 08 November 2012 10:04 AM

But why are those neurologists wrong?

Because they don’t realize what their discoveries in fact mean, I guess. But I don’t really blame them. How could I?  wink

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 69
4
 
‹‹ Destiny..?      Babies are bigots ››