| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
But if typing that was, in any way, pre-ordained, how would it appear different?
|
I have absolutely no idea.
I also have nothing to say about pre-ordainment/determinism. That stuff really is crackers.
Why are you asking me this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, mistake in the editing of the quote to make it readable....
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrianInSuwon
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't blame the prisoners. However, I don't recommend letting them go free. Society isn't punishing them for deciding to commit a crime, they are punishing them for committing the crime.
Its unfortunate, some people have had the wrong influencing factors in life. Its the luck of the draw. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
SPINOZA
| Quote: |
| It pisses me off how people think we can have either 100% free will or have no free will at all. |
This is certainly not my position. I believe that the possibilities are either limited free will or no free will. I strongly suspect the latter but I think it would be very hard to completely prove. I don't think complete proof will ever be necessary tho'. I think when enough evidence points to it it will be accepted.
I think there are other indications that can undermine the idea of free will (too many to go into here). None of them on their own are strong enough to be compelling but when they are put together and if they are combined with new insights into what motivates us they will prove convincing.
One of those indications is that no other creature in the animal kingdom is deemed to have free will, yet man is a member of the animal kingdom so why should we be different?
Some people will argue that it is because we are more intelligent than all other species. But can free will be a function of intelligence. Do more intelligent people have more free will and less intelligent people have less? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
SPINOZA
| Quote: |
| It pisses me off how people think we can have either 100% free will or have no free will at all. |
I believe that the possibilities are either limited free will or no free will.
|
The former I suggest is the way to go.
Complete lack of free will suggests we have no choices whatsoever and our every apparent choice is in fact a compulsion. This is completely unacceptable, since, even granted that we do as we want yet do not choose what we want (we just....want!) it still cannot be shown that our wants compel, coerce us, to act as we do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boodleheimer
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Location: working undercover for the Man
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i read a book by a criminologist who argues that one of the reasons why people commit crimes or give in to their dark side is that they feel they have no free will. committing a crime or doing something morally wrong is the ultimate way to confirm your own free will.
btw, on first glance at the title of the thread, i thought this was about Grace and Free Will and i was donning my theological cloak! oops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keepongoing
Joined: 13 Feb 2003
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am now reading the Red Queen, by Matt Ridley.
It is quite fascinating and does address the question of free will. He suggests that the human psyche evolves in the same way as our physical selves.
From Kirkus Reviews
A former editor of The Economist asks how sexual selection has molded human nature. The title here alludes to a scene in Lewis Carroll in which Alice and the Red Queen run as fast as possible to remain in the same place. Ridley looks first at current thinking on why sexual reproduction exists at all, when many organisms manage quite well without it. The answer has to do with disease: a species must rebuild its defenses from one generation to the next merely to keep from falling behind in the race against opportunistic viruses. Sex, by allowing a new shuffle of the genetic material with each generation, improves the chance of survival. But the predators also improve with each generation, so the race (vide Lewis Carroll) is never over. Turning to animals, Ridley describes mating patterns with an eye as to whether mates are selected for health and vigor, or for esthetics. He concludes that both play a role: neither sickly fashion-plates nor healthy wallflowers will pass on their genes as often as those who combine both beauty and health. Given the contrast between a brief sexual act and long years of child- rearing, aggressive males will tend to have more children, while nurturing women will have healthier ones. Those who select mates with these qualities will transmit them to ensuing generations, along with other qualities affecting offspring survival. Ridley contends--not a popular thesis in recent decades--that such genetic programming is far more central to human nature than social conditioning. Extensively researched, clearly written: one of the best introductions to its fascinating and controversial subject.
Referring to Lewis Carroll's Red Queen from Through the Looking-Glass, a character who has to keep running to stay in the same place, Matt Ridley demonstrates why sex is humanity's best strategy for outwitting its constantly mutating internal predators. The Red Queen answers dozens of other riddles of human nature and culture -- including why men propose marriage, the method behind our maddening notions of beauty, and the disquieting fact that a woman is more likely to conceive a child by an adulterous lover than by her husband. Brilliantly written, The Red Queen offers an extraordinary new way of interpreting the human condition and how it has evolved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheonmunka
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| made a vow the day it hit that if he could find/recover the bodies of his wife and children he'd become a monk. |
I vowed I'd continue dating seriously the girl I was with if the llama (at the zoo) came down from the other side of the yard to me. The llama did come to me. It walked down and stayed a while then got confused and trotted back up to the other side.
I married the girl.
Is that anything to do with free-will? Or was it manipulating the will of the llama? Or, using the llama for my own sordid ends? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MASH4077
| Quote: |
| Ridley contends--not a popular thesis in recent decades--that such genetic programming is far more central to human nature than social conditioning. |
This completely bewilders me! Can anbody explain how it came about that the reverse came to be accepted? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SPINOZA
| Quote: |
Complete lack of free will suggests we have no choices whatsoever and our every apparent choice is in fact a compulsion. This is completely unacceptable, since, even granted that we do as we want yet do not choose what we want (we just....want!) it still cannot be shown that our wants compel, coerce us, to act as we do.
|
I think what gives the appearance of free will is the subtle interaction between gene expression and enviroment. In situations that seem similar we make different choices so that it appears we have free will. However I believe that no two situations will ever be completely the same and that is why we are able to make different choices.
Consider also the case of a person in the grip of a compulsive disorder. Very often they do not want to do what they feel compelled to do but they seem unable to choose not to do it. They will then often come up with a reason for carrying out the action to give the appearance they have chosen freely to carry out the action rather than accept that they have given in to their compulsion.
When I worked in the pharmaceutical industry I was involved with a study to see the effect of drug therapy in reducing and in some cases eradicating compulsive behavior. When you see that some people can be given 'free will' in the form of a tablet you can't help but question!
But I certainly cannot offer conclusive proof (or anything near to it) that free will does not exist. And while I strongly suspect it doesn't I am not anywhere near as committed to that view as I would be to, say for example, my belief that there is no such thing as absolute morality (from the other thread I'm involved in). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MASH4077 wrote: |
I am now reading the Red Queen, by Matt Ridley.
It is quite fascinating and does address the question of free will. He suggests that the human psyche evolves in the same way as our physical selves.
From Kirkus Reviews
A former editor of The Economist asks how sexual selection has molded human nature. The title here alludes to a scene in Lewis Carroll in which Alice and the Red Queen run as fast as possible to remain in the same place. Ridley looks first at current thinking on why sexual reproduction exists at all, when many organisms manage quite well without it. The answer has to do with disease: a species must rebuild its defenses from one generation to the next merely to keep from falling behind in the race against opportunistic viruses. Sex, by allowing a new shuffle of the genetic material with each generation, improves the chance of survival. But the predators also improve with each generation, so the race (vide Lewis Carroll) is never over. Turning to animals, Ridley describes mating patterns with an eye as to whether mates are selected for health and vigor, or for esthetics. He concludes that both play a role: neither sickly fashion-plates nor healthy wallflowers will pass on their genes as often as those who combine both beauty and health. Given the contrast between a brief sexual act and long years of child- rearing, aggressive males will tend to have more children, while nurturing women will have healthier ones. Those who select mates with these qualities will transmit them to ensuing generations, along with other qualities affecting offspring survival. Ridley contends--not a popular thesis in recent decades--that such genetic programming is far more central to human nature than social conditioning. Extensively researched, clearly written: one of the best introductions to its fascinating and controversial subject.
Referring to Lewis Carroll's Red Queen from Through the Looking-Glass, a character who has to keep running to stay in the same place, Matt Ridley demonstrates why sex is humanity's best strategy for outwitting its constantly mutating internal predators. The Red Queen answers dozens of other riddles of human nature and culture -- including why men propose marriage, the method behind our maddening notions of beauty, and the disquieting fact that a woman is more likely to conceive a child by an adulterous lover than by her husband. Brilliantly written, The Red Queen offers an extraordinary new way of interpreting the human condition and how it has evolved. |
That book is definitely going on my Christmas wish list! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cheonmunka wrote: |
| Quote: |
| made a vow the day it hit that if he could find/recover the bodies of his wife and children he'd become a monk. |
I vowed I'd continue dating seriously the girl I was with if the llama (at the zoo) came down from the other side of the yard to me. The llama did come to me. It walked down and stayed a while then got confused and trotted back up to the other side.
I married the girl.
Is that anything to do with free-will? Or was it manipulating the will of the llama? Or, using the llama for my own sordid ends? |
Just don't ever tell your wife that story!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KWhitehead wrote: |
i read a book by a criminologist who argues that one of the reasons why people commit crimes or give in to their dark side is that they feel they have no free will. committing a crime or doing something morally wrong is the ultimate way to confirm your own free will.
|
I can't understand that. Wouldn't they be just as likely (if not more) to feel that, if they resisted the temptation to do something illegal/immoral, they were exercising free will?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aldershot
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="SPINOZA"]
| Quote: |
| It pisses me off how people think we can have either 100% free will or have no free will at all. |
that's it. free will and determinism co-exist, though their relation is defined temporally. the future is governed by free will, the past is a product of determinism. the present is a nexus of these two opposing forces.
the future is nothing but a million options to any given individual. to take a course of action is to see through your millions of options and choose one. these options range from very obvious actions that will change the course of your destiny (to take the subway or the bus), to very tiny nuances (to wear blue underwear or white) that will likewise change your destiny, albeit perhaps slightly.
when i mention destiny, i am talking about the past, about determinism. as soon as one action is chosen from the millions available in the future, it immediately becomes an action that happened in the past. it becomes fact. it is set in stone, and the action that you chose couldn't have happenned any other way. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS OVER, it is destiny, it can't be changed.
this gets us into the realm of cause and effect (see Hume), actions leading into actions leading into actions. minutiae within minutiae.
from a million options (free-will, the future) to making a single choice (the making of the choice is the present, the nexus, the relationship between the future and the past), to executing that choice (thus throwing the action into the past, determining that it would not have been any other way)...
...blah blah blah... i smoked too much pot in uni and thought i had this one figured out. ahhh, sweet pot. i also discovered the meaning of life.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
