|
god, this thread.
the answer is yes.
|
On July 13 2013 05:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
god, this thread.
the answer is yes.
the answer is no
|
On July 13 2013 05:49 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 05:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
god, this thread.
the answer is yes. the answer is no
no, the brain is all chemical and electricity.
|
On July 13 2013 05:52 i zig zag around you wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 05:49 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
god, this thread.
the answer is yes. the answer is no no, the brain is all chemical and electricity.
the question is not about the brain. It is about the mind. If you are going to tell me that they are the "same" thing, then I ask you to come up with a hypothesis as to where my subjective experiences are. Once you can locate them, I will give you a cookie and agree with you.
|
On July 13 2013 05:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
god, this thread.
the answer is yes.
assume mind equals the collapse of quantum mechanic's wave function. would mind then equal chemics/electricity?
how sure are you that your imagination is enough to answer this question? remember there's no scientific answer yet.
|
On July 13 2013 05:37 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 05:12 Rassy wrote:On July 13 2013 05:00 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 04:25 DertoQq wrote:On July 13 2013 04:05 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote:
I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw.
Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong. what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen. You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it. He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it. Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology. I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently. DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them. No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying  But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do. Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it.
When you teach a child that doing bad things gets you put into jail, it makes the child not want to do bad things. Did the child choose to hear this information? Did it choose to have a brain that correctly interprets the risk vs. reward of such actions, or the selfishness to overlook the damage certain actions might inflict upon others?
|
On July 13 2013 05:56 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 05:52 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 05:49 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
god, this thread.
the answer is yes. the answer is no no, the brain is all chemical and electricity. the question is not about the brain. It is about the mind. If you are going to tell me that they are the "same" thing, then I ask you to come up with a hypothesis as to where my subjective experiences are. Once you can locate them, I will give you a cookie and agree with you.
(I don't really care for this analogy, but I think it's relevant here and I want to see how you respond):
Suppose you ask me to show you a university. And so I show you the registrar's office, and the faculty buildings, and the convocation hall, and all the classrooms, and the laboratories, and the dormitories/residences, and the gyms, and the various specialty buildings, and, after awhile, I've shown you every building. Then you turn to me and say, "Yes, but where's the university?"
Do you see how this is similar to your position?
|
On July 13 2013 06:14 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 05:56 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:52 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 05:49 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
god, this thread.
the answer is yes. the answer is no no, the brain is all chemical and electricity. the question is not about the brain. It is about the mind. If you are going to tell me that they are the "same" thing, then I ask you to come up with a hypothesis as to where my subjective experiences are. Once you can locate them, I will give you a cookie and agree with you. (I don't really care for this analogy, but I think it's relevant here and I want to see how you respond): Suppose you ask me to show you a university. And so I show you the registrar's office, and the faculty buildings, and the convocation hall, and all the classrooms, and the laboratories, and the dormitories/residences, and the gyms, and the various specialty buildings, and, after awhile, I've shown you every building. Then you turn to me and say, "Yes, but where's the university?" Do you see how this is similar to your position?
I wouldn't ask that question because the university is simply the sum of its parts, just like the brain. Unless this university you speak of has a subjective experience that is not found in the physical realm, then yes I would ask "where is this university"
The mind however is a little bit more special. You fail to see my view because you believe that the subjective experience is simply a result of the brain. But how can something non-physical be a result of something physical? If you are going to argue that my experience of the universe is physical, I would say show me where it is (not possible).
|
On July 13 2013 06:26 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 06:14 Shiori wrote:On July 13 2013 05:56 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:52 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 05:49 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
god, this thread.
the answer is yes. the answer is no no, the brain is all chemical and electricity. the question is not about the brain. It is about the mind. If you are going to tell me that they are the "same" thing, then I ask you to come up with a hypothesis as to where my subjective experiences are. Once you can locate them, I will give you a cookie and agree with you. (I don't really care for this analogy, but I think it's relevant here and I want to see how you respond): Suppose you ask me to show you a university. And so I show you the registrar's office, and the faculty buildings, and the convocation hall, and all the classrooms, and the laboratories, and the dormitories/residences, and the gyms, and the various specialty buildings, and, after awhile, I've shown you every building. Then you turn to me and say, "Yes, but where's the university?" Do you see how this is similar to your position? I wouldn't ask that question because the university is simply the sum of its parts, just like the brain. Unless this university you speak of has a subjective experience that is not found in the physical realm, then yes I would ask "where is this university" The mind however is a little bit more special. You fail to see my view because you believe that the subjective experience is simply a result of the brain. But how can something non-physical be a result of something physical? If you are going to argue that my experience of the universe is physical, I would say show me where it is (not possible).
I think most people would answer that your experience of the universe is located in your brain. Just because different regions of the brain works together doesn't mean that your mind is a separate thing. Honestly, I believe (for absolutely no particular reason) that physicalism is either non-reductive or some sort of (property) dualism is true. I don't have any good arguments for either, but I believe them because I like them and because I find them intuitively pleasing/elegant; I have some internal convictions about them which can't be translated into logical argument or empirical assessment. Nevertheless, I don't think that your position makes too much sense, despite my sympathies.
|
On July 13 2013 05:56 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 05:52 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 05:49 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
god, this thread.
the answer is yes. the answer is no no, the brain is all chemical and electricity. the question is not about the brain. It is about the mind. If you are going to tell me that they are the "same" thing, then I ask you to come up with a hypothesis as to where my subjective experiences are. Once you can locate them, I will give you a cookie and agree with you.
the mind is a religious thing and should not have anything to do with this thread in the first place.
your "subjective" experiences are memories. memories are the final product of your senses and their observations. the observations or "experiences" are encoded by your senses and stored in your brain. the prefrontal cortex of your brain is part of the nervious system that controls the neural processes working memory.
i'm really not going to jump in on this discussion because i find it ridiculous how everyone and their mom in this thread thinks they can debunk any scientific evidence.
"experiences" aren't otherworldly images that cannot be explained. in short, the brain was initially thought to store memories as "images" but that's not the case. fact is, the brain breaks down your experiences into tiny "blocks" (like circuits really, but lego-blocks if you will) and then reconstruct these memories (sometimes more accurately than other times). after the recalling process your senses then "see" these images once again.
|
On July 13 2013 06:33 i zig zag around you wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 05:56 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:52 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 05:49 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
god, this thread.
the answer is yes. the answer is no no, the brain is all chemical and electricity. the question is not about the brain. It is about the mind. If you are going to tell me that they are the "same" thing, then I ask you to come up with a hypothesis as to where my subjective experiences are. Once you can locate them, I will give you a cookie and agree with you. the mind is a religious thing and should not have anything to do with this thread in the first place. your "subjective" experiences are memories. memories are the final product of your senses and their observations. the observations or "experiences" are encoded by your senses and stored in your brain. the prefrontal cortex of your brain is part of the nervious system that controls the neural processes working memory. i'm really not going to jump in on this discussion because i find it ridiculous how everyone and their mom in this thread thinks they can debunk any scientific evidence. "experiences" aren't otherworldly images that cannot be explained. in short, the brain was initially thought to store memories as "images" but that's not the case. fact is, the brain breaks down your experiences into tiny "blocks" (lego-blocks if you will) and then reconstruct these memories (sometimes more accurately than other times).
you are telling me the reasons we have experiences, but are not actually locating them. I have taken multiple neuroscience courses, and have a pretty good understanding of the brain as well. The mind is not a religious creation, I am an atheist and I believe that mind is non-physical, or that the mind is the true reality that physical world originates from the mind. It is a simple question, Show me your experiences.
|
On July 13 2013 06:02 politik wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 05:37 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 05:12 Rassy wrote:On July 13 2013 05:00 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 04:25 DertoQq wrote:On July 13 2013 04:05 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote:
I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw.
Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong. what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen. You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it. He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it. Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology. I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently. DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them. No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do. Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it. When you teach a child that doing bad things gets you put into jail, it makes the child not want to do bad things. Did the child choose to hear this information? Did it choose to have a brain that correctly interprets the risk vs. reward of such actions, or the selfishness to overlook the damage certain actions might inflict upon others?
Then why are there so many people in jail? This must mean not everyone has a brain that correctly interprets the risks vs reward of his actions. And since he did not choose to have that brain, which determines what he does, then why do we punish him? Morality is already out of the equation, as well is our current conception of law as a legal contract, so what remains? Are we trying to correct them? Considering the high percentage of recidivism it may be more effective to just kill them. And if we punish them to warn others who do have a brain that correctly assesses risk vs reward, then again, why not just kill them? There truly is no need for a legal system as elaborate as ours in such a world.
|
On July 13 2013 06:37 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 06:33 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 05:56 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:52 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 05:49 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
god, this thread.
the answer is yes. the answer is no no, the brain is all chemical and electricity. the question is not about the brain. It is about the mind. If you are going to tell me that they are the "same" thing, then I ask you to come up with a hypothesis as to where my subjective experiences are. Once you can locate them, I will give you a cookie and agree with you. the mind is a religious thing and should not have anything to do with this thread in the first place. your "subjective" experiences are memories. memories are the final product of your senses and their observations. the observations or "experiences" are encoded by your senses and stored in your brain. the prefrontal cortex of your brain is part of the nervious system that controls the neural processes working memory. i'm really not going to jump in on this discussion because i find it ridiculous how everyone and their mom in this thread thinks they can debunk any scientific evidence. "experiences" aren't otherworldly images that cannot be explained. in short, the brain was initially thought to store memories as "images" but that's not the case. fact is, the brain breaks down your experiences into tiny "blocks" (lego-blocks if you will) and then reconstruct these memories (sometimes more accurately than other times). you are telling me the reasons we have experiences, but are not actually locating them. I have taken multiple neuroscience courses, and have a pretty good understanding of the brain as well. The mind is not a religious creation, I am an atheist and I believe that mind is non-physical, or that the mind is the true reality that physical world originates from the mind. It is a simple question, Show me your experiences.
you are free to believe in whatever you wish.
as to your request "show me your experiences", how am i supposed to show images that are stored in my brain and not in yours?
|
On July 13 2013 06:39 i zig zag around you wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 06:37 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 06:33 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 05:56 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:52 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 05:49 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
god, this thread.
the answer is yes. the answer is no no, the brain is all chemical and electricity. the question is not about the brain. It is about the mind. If you are going to tell me that they are the "same" thing, then I ask you to come up with a hypothesis as to where my subjective experiences are. Once you can locate them, I will give you a cookie and agree with you. the mind is a religious thing and should not have anything to do with this thread in the first place. your "subjective" experiences are memories. memories are the final product of your senses and their observations. the observations or "experiences" are encoded by your senses and stored in your brain. the prefrontal cortex of your brain is part of the nervious system that controls the neural processes working memory. i'm really not going to jump in on this discussion because i find it ridiculous how everyone and their mom in this thread thinks they can debunk any scientific evidence. "experiences" aren't otherworldly images that cannot be explained. in short, the brain was initially thought to store memories as "images" but that's not the case. fact is, the brain breaks down your experiences into tiny "blocks" (lego-blocks if you will) and then reconstruct these memories (sometimes more accurately than other times). you are telling me the reasons we have experiences, but are not actually locating them. I have taken multiple neuroscience courses, and have a pretty good understanding of the brain as well. The mind is not a religious creation, I am an atheist and I believe that mind is non-physical, or that the mind is the true reality that physical world originates from the mind. It is a simple question, Show me your experiences. you are free to believe in whatever you wish. as to your request "show me your experiences", how am i supposed to show images that are stored in my brain and not in yours?
so you believe these images are actually inside your brain? lol
|
On July 13 2013 06:42 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 06:39 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 06:37 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 06:33 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 05:56 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:52 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 05:49 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
god, this thread.
the answer is yes. the answer is no no, the brain is all chemical and electricity. the question is not about the brain. It is about the mind. If you are going to tell me that they are the "same" thing, then I ask you to come up with a hypothesis as to where my subjective experiences are. Once you can locate them, I will give you a cookie and agree with you. the mind is a religious thing and should not have anything to do with this thread in the first place. your "subjective" experiences are memories. memories are the final product of your senses and their observations. the observations or "experiences" are encoded by your senses and stored in your brain. the prefrontal cortex of your brain is part of the nervious system that controls the neural processes working memory. i'm really not going to jump in on this discussion because i find it ridiculous how everyone and their mom in this thread thinks they can debunk any scientific evidence. "experiences" aren't otherworldly images that cannot be explained. in short, the brain was initially thought to store memories as "images" but that's not the case. fact is, the brain breaks down your experiences into tiny "blocks" (lego-blocks if you will) and then reconstruct these memories (sometimes more accurately than other times). you are telling me the reasons we have experiences, but are not actually locating them. I have taken multiple neuroscience courses, and have a pretty good understanding of the brain as well. The mind is not a religious creation, I am an atheist and I believe that mind is non-physical, or that the mind is the true reality that physical world originates from the mind. It is a simple question, Show me your experiences. you are free to believe in whatever you wish. as to your request "show me your experiences", how am i supposed to show images that are stored in my brain and not in yours? so you believe these images are actually inside your brain? lol
not "images" but circuits that help our senses recall previously experienced moments.
edit: i'm an astrophysicist. as far as i understand this kind of research is about as plausibel as string theory or antimatter (if we go a few years back)
|
On July 13 2013 06:26 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 06:14 Shiori wrote:On July 13 2013 05:56 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:52 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 05:49 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
god, this thread.
the answer is yes. the answer is no no, the brain is all chemical and electricity. the question is not about the brain. It is about the mind. If you are going to tell me that they are the "same" thing, then I ask you to come up with a hypothesis as to where my subjective experiences are. Once you can locate them, I will give you a cookie and agree with you. (I don't really care for this analogy, but I think it's relevant here and I want to see how you respond): Suppose you ask me to show you a university. And so I show you the registrar's office, and the faculty buildings, and the convocation hall, and all the classrooms, and the laboratories, and the dormitories/residences, and the gyms, and the various specialty buildings, and, after awhile, I've shown you every building. Then you turn to me and say, "Yes, but where's the university?" Do you see how this is similar to your position? I wouldn't ask that question because the university is simply the sum of its parts, just like the brain. Unless this university you speak of has a subjective experience that is not found in the physical realm, then yes I would ask "where is this university" The mind however is a little bit more special. You fail to see my view because you believe that the subjective experience is simply a result of the brain. But how can something non-physical be a result of something physical? If you are going to argue that my experience of the universe is physical, I would say show me where it is (not possible).
The university is obviously more than the sum of its parts. So is the brain. I have no idea where you got this claim from. It's nonsense. If you rearrange the brain, it dies. Clearly, the parts are not everything that it is. This idea is wrong. The mind is no more special than every other thing in the universe that is more than the sum of its parts. Which is basically everything in the universe. So yea. Not unique.
You made up an abstract concept like the "mind" and then told us to locate where it is? Tell me, where is hope? Or freedom? Just because these things have intuitive definitions doesn't mean they are in a specific location. That's ridiculous.
|
Brain isn't even fully understood or mapped yet, give it a couple decades
|
On July 13 2013 06:39 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 06:02 politik wrote:On July 13 2013 05:37 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 05:12 Rassy wrote:On July 13 2013 05:00 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 04:25 DertoQq wrote:On July 13 2013 04:05 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote:
I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw.
Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong. what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen. You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it. He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it. Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology. I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently. DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them. No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do. Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it. When you teach a child that doing bad things gets you put into jail, it makes the child not want to do bad things. Did the child choose to hear this information? Did it choose to have a brain that correctly interprets the risk vs. reward of such actions, or the selfishness to overlook the damage certain actions might inflict upon others? Then why are there so many people in jail? This must mean not everyone has a brain that correctly interprets the risks vs reward of his actions. And since he did not choose to have that brain, which determines what he does, then why do we punish him? Morality is already out of the equation, as well is our current conception of law as a legal contract, so what remains? Are we trying to correct them? Considering the high percentage of recidivism it may be more effective to just kill them. And if we punish them to warn others who do have a brain that correctly assesses risk vs reward, then again, why not just kill them? There truly is no need for a legal system as elaborate as ours in such a world.
A lot of society were doing that (enslaving 'inferior people' (for them), killing people for small crimes, cutting hands when they steal etc..), you know what happened ? people didn't like it, they rebelled, they killed their master and so on.
You're over thinking everything. Our legal system is based on what the people want (to some extent), it doesn't matter why they want it or if is wrong or right or if we have free-will or not.
And yes, the human brain is far from being perfect, especially when it comes to living in a society with other people.
|
On July 13 2013 06:49 i zig zag around you wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 06:42 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 06:39 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 06:37 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 06:33 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 05:56 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:52 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 13 2013 05:49 biology]major wrote:On July 13 2013 05:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
god, this thread.
the answer is yes. the answer is no no, the brain is all chemical and electricity. the question is not about the brain. It is about the mind. If you are going to tell me that they are the "same" thing, then I ask you to come up with a hypothesis as to where my subjective experiences are. Once you can locate them, I will give you a cookie and agree with you. the mind is a religious thing and should not have anything to do with this thread in the first place. your "subjective" experiences are memories. memories are the final product of your senses and their observations. the observations or "experiences" are encoded by your senses and stored in your brain. the prefrontal cortex of your brain is part of the nervious system that controls the neural processes working memory. i'm really not going to jump in on this discussion because i find it ridiculous how everyone and their mom in this thread thinks they can debunk any scientific evidence. "experiences" aren't otherworldly images that cannot be explained. in short, the brain was initially thought to store memories as "images" but that's not the case. fact is, the brain breaks down your experiences into tiny "blocks" (lego-blocks if you will) and then reconstruct these memories (sometimes more accurately than other times). you are telling me the reasons we have experiences, but are not actually locating them. I have taken multiple neuroscience courses, and have a pretty good understanding of the brain as well. The mind is not a religious creation, I am an atheist and I believe that mind is non-physical, or that the mind is the true reality that physical world originates from the mind. It is a simple question, Show me your experiences. you are free to believe in whatever you wish. as to your request "show me your experiences", how am i supposed to show images that are stored in my brain and not in yours? so you believe these images are actually inside your brain? lol not "images" but circuits that help our senses recall previously experienced moments. edit: i'm an astrophysicist. as far as i understand this kind of research is about as plausibel as string theory or antimatter (if we go a few years back)
did you read my question to you? it was on this page too.
how are string theory and antimatter comparable? the latter can be measured, while string theory is completely wild.
|
On July 13 2013 06:39 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 06:02 politik wrote:On July 13 2013 05:37 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 05:12 Rassy wrote:On July 13 2013 05:00 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 04:25 DertoQq wrote:On July 13 2013 04:05 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote:
I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw.
Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong. what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen. You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it. He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it. Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology. I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently. DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them. No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do. Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it. When you teach a child that doing bad things gets you put into jail, it makes the child not want to do bad things. Did the child choose to hear this information? Did it choose to have a brain that correctly interprets the risk vs. reward of such actions, or the selfishness to overlook the damage certain actions might inflict upon others? Then why are there so many people in jail? This must mean not everyone has a brain that correctly interprets the risks vs reward of his actions. And since he did not choose to have that brain, which determines what he does, then why do we punish him? Morality is already out of the equation, as well is our current conception of law as a legal contract, so what remains? Are we trying to correct them? Considering the high percentage of recidivism it may be more effective to just kill them. And if we punish them to warn others who do have a brain that correctly assesses risk vs reward, then again, why not just kill them? There truly is no need for a legal system as elaborate as ours in such a world.
I feel that your viewpoint is just so far beyond fucked up that there's no point trying to argue with you, sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
