By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Question about free will.

 

Will you be Joe?

Yes 3 20.00%
 
No 10 66.67%
 
Other? 2 13.33%
 
Total:15
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

It's amazing how much has changed since that happened.

People are finally finding their way out of the maze, it seems

lol this is the thread I keep talking about XP

I was a bit too busy to participate in that one :B



Around the Network
miz1q2w3e said:

That's simply not true, or at the very least you can't be certain they aren't. I've seen and read my share of presentational videos and articles, studies have been done on the subject, look some up if your interested. @learning & instinct: How is that so different from humans? We're basically the same but on a higher/more complex level.

@second sentence: Why the "theoretical"? It isn't that complicated to create a computer program that adjusted itself based on external factors. You say self-programming but I never claimed that. Building one that was able to emulate what the human brain does, although complicated, is certainly NOT impossible.

Either way, what's you point? The examples you mentioned aren't on the same level as humans, but that doesn't have much to do with the hypothetical at hand.

Humans can think about how things "ought" to be, whereas there's absolutely no evidence that animals are even remotely capable of making anything like a value judgment. For one thing, even if they were smart enough, they fundamentally lack the ability of detachment. Everything an animal does is in pursuit of its own survival or comfort, or the survival of the pack/species, and it can never deviate from that. A person, on the other hand, can live a life of selflessness and altruism because he believes that's the way he should live - even though doing so is completely antithetical to selfish human nature.

I say "theoretical" because while you say it's possible to make one, and theoretically it is, if there is a computer program as complex and byzantine as the human mind, I've never heard of it.



badgenome said:
Jay520 said:

Thanks, I'll look into that. As for the last sentence, I genuinely believe that anybody that has deviated from the norm did so because they've had abnormal experiences and/or abnormal genetic makeup. Thus, making them do what they 'think' is better. Had they not had those abnormal experiences/genetic makeup, they would have probably been normal. But I'll look it up though.

1.) But a hard determinist either has to live his life hypocritically - pretending he's making choices that he knows he isn't really making because he could never have done anything else - or would else fall into a fatalistic torpor and may as well not be living at all.

2.) Humans are conformist by nature, this much is true. That's precisely why culture is so important, and why a culture of conformity, of failure, of beating down the tallest nail, of "don't ask, don't think, don't try" is a waste of countless potentially brilliant minds, whereas a culture of free inquiry allows everyone to make the most of his mind and his "free will".



I don't know if I agree with that. Well, at least not when it comes to me. When I'm pondering a decision, even though I know I'm not deiciding anything, I still feel the need to ponder the decision. Because of how I've learned that thinking about a decision is better than not thinking about it. I may know that I won't decide my decision, but I still know that it's better to think about it, because it would have a more favorable outcome. Because of what I learned, I fully believe that pondering leads to better decisions, thus I will always do so, because that's what I learned.

2.) I think a culture of determinists could be successful. You'll just have enourage the people at a young age to be curious. In this way, you'll act as the environment affecting the kids. You'll have to make them learn this. I agree though. It's better for a society to believe they are free-thinkers.

badgenome said:
miz1q2w3e said:

That's simply not true, or at the very least you can't be certain they aren't. I've seen and read my share of presentational videos and articles, studies have been done on the subject, look some up if your interested. @learning & instinct: How is that so different from humans? We're basically the same but on a higher/more complex level.

@second sentence: Why the "theoretical"? It isn't that complicated to create a computer program that adjusted itself based on external factors. You say self-programming but I never claimed that. Building one that was able to emulate what the human brain does, although complicated, is certainly NOT impossible.

Either way, what's you point? The examples you mentioned aren't on the same level as humans, but that doesn't have much to do with the hypothetical at hand.

Humans can think about how things "ought" to be, whereas there's absolutely no evidence that animals are even remotely capable of making anything like a value judgment. For one thing, even if they were smart enough, they fundamentally lack the ability of detachment. Everything an animal does is in pursuit of its own survival or comfort, or the survival of the pack/species, and it can never deviate from that. A person, on the other hand, can live a life of selflessness and altruism because he believes that's the way he should live - even though doing so is completely antithetical to selfish human nature.

I say "theoretical" because while you say it's possible to make one, and theoretically it is, if there is a computer as complex and byzantine as the human mind, I've never heard of it.

@First paragraph: like I said, maybe you should try checking some stuff out if you want/are interested. For example: link

@Second paragraph: Yeah ok, theoretical was appropriate. I thought you meant it in a sarcastic way.

So what's your take on the OP's hypo? I think I misunderstood part of the OP, but either way I'm in the deterministic camp.



Ofcourse it would be an difference, especially for the female members.



 

Around the Network
miz1q2w3e said:

@First paragraph: like I said, maybe you should try checking some stuff out if you want/are interested. For example: link

Thanks for the link. It was interesting, although not anything terribly new to me. (I work in lab animal science and so read a lot of science journals and talk about this sort of stuff a lot.) But it's important not to anthropomorphize these behaviors too much. They are not an example of animal morality. They are more like a primitive system of ethics that is entirely practical for the survival of intelligent, highly social animals.



No, I wouldn't enjoy this thread.



NintendoPie said:
No, I wouldn't enjoy this thread.


Kinda random, but okay.

Jay520 said:
NintendoPie said:
No, I wouldn't enjoy this thread.


Kinda random, but okay.

Nice job covering up your tracks, Jay5PostOnWallsAboutMyNewThreads20.



NintendoPie said:
Jay520 said:
NintendoPie said:
No, I wouldn't enjoy this thread.


Kinda random, but okay.

Nice job covering up your tracks, Jay5PostOnWallsAboutMyNewThreads20.



I don't know what shit you smoking, but please don't derail my thread. K thanks!