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.
no doubt that I am, but you cannot blame me for it, it is my hardwired reaction
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.
You're the one positing something which hasn't been demonstrated to exist. Burden of proof is on you, not the other way around.
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.
it is not what I believe in, i am just asking you some questions. but np, you were predetermined to respond in such fashion.
I can rephrase it to take out the killing though, if thats more to your liking:
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 this does not seem very effective. And if we punish them to warn others who do have a brain that correctly assesses risk vs reward, then again, why then does history point towards the fact that the most deterring legal systems got into a spiral of more violence instead of less? There truly is no need for a legal system as elaborate as ours in such a world.
Someone else already gave a more or less satisfying answer though, however it still seems stuck in an outdated conception of mind-body dualism.
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.
it is not what I believe in, i am just asking you some questions. but np, you were predetermined to respond in such fashion.
I can rephrase it to take out the killing though, if thats more to your liking:
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 this does not seem very effective. And if we punish them to warn others who do have a brain that correctly assesses risk vs reward, then again, why then does history point towards the fact that the most deterring legal systems got into a spiral of more violence instead of less? There truly is no need for a legal system as elaborate as ours in such a world.
Someone else already gave a more or less satisfying answer though, however it still seems stuck in an outdated conception of mind-body dualism.
I think you have a big misunderstanding of what my position is. Of course people can make decisions and change their mind. What we're asserting is that the reason they do so is always rooted in a complex set of circumstances and genetics which ultimately the person had no control over.
So say you're mad at someone for punching you in the face, shouldn't you be mad at that person's parents for raising them so poorly? But what about the parents? They themselves were probably raised poorly as well, so is it any more their fault? And on and on, back to the Big Bang.
But really, the reason you're mad in the first place is just an instinctual response geared towards preventing future such instances.
Unfortunately I'm far too unintelligent to explain any of this properly, but if you have any intention of possibly learning something new and changing your mind (although I have an extremely strong suspicion that you unfortunately don't), here's a brilliant neuroscientist who's job it is to talk about this stuff:
He can explain it a hell of a lot better than I ever could.
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.
it is not what I believe in, i am just asking you some questions. but np, you were predetermined to respond in such fashion.
I can rephrase it to take out the killing though, if thats more to your liking:
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 this does not seem very effective. And if we punish them to warn others who do have a brain that correctly assesses risk vs reward, then again, why then does history point towards the fact that the most deterring legal systems got into a spiral of more violence instead of less? There truly is no need for a legal system as elaborate as ours in such a world.
Someone else already gave a more or less satisfying answer though, however it still seems stuck in an outdated conception of mind-body dualism.
I think you have a big misunderstanding of what my position is. Of course people can make decisions and change their mind. What we're asserting is that the reason they do so is always rooted in a complex set of circumstances and genetics which ultimately the person had no control over.
So say you're mad at someone for punching you in the face, shouldn't you be mad at that person's parents for raising them so poorly? But what about the parents? They themselves were probably raised poorly as well, so is it any more their fault? And on and on, back to the Big Bang.
But really, the reason you're mad in the first place is just an instinctual response geared towards preventing future such instances.
Unfortunately I'm far too unintelligent to explain any of this properly, but if you have any intention of possibly learning something new and changing your mind (although I have an extremely strong suspicion that you unfortunately don't), here's a brilliant neuroscientist who's job it is to talk about this stuff:
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.
Frankly I had to do a double-take when I read that you've taken multiple neuroscience courses... In any case, he's right. What he says is in line with what many many prominent neuroscientists and investigators think is likely the case. Your experiences, cognition, memory, consciousness, etc., are not magical blobs of subjectivity floating somewhere inside your dome. The fact we can't fully explain how it exists is due to the fact that there's a hell of a lot left to understand about brain structure and activity. Asking him to locate the experiences derived from particular networks of activity in your brain is asking him to solve the most daunting task in neuroscience. So far all the evidence points this way, so your adamant belief that the mind isn't physical is the thing that needs proving on your behalf.
On July 13 2013 07:34 beg wrote: so you believe that one doesnt have the option to go beyond anger? i can personally feel this option. i'm just asking.
yes, one is drawn towards anger, but doesn't one also have the option to go beyond anger? at least that's how i feel.
Sorry for being so ambiguous. I didn't mean to say anything even remotely suggesting this, it was just an example.
On July 13 2013 07:34 beg wrote: so you believe that one doesnt have the option to go beyond anger? i can personally feel this option. i'm just asking.
yes, one is drawn towards anger, but doesn't one also have the option to go beyond anger? at least that's how i feel.
Sorry for being so ambiguous. I didn't mean to say anything even remotely suggesting this, it was just an example.
please dont excuse. i really just asked cause your post made me wonder. i really wonder about the answer. i think about this stuff a lot lately.
your post didnt seem ambigious to me at all. i'm just asking a legit question, imho.
ok, rereading your post, maybe you were a little ambiguous. so you dont exclude the option of free will? i'm seriously just wondering. my subjective experience suggests free will, while my logics suggest otherwise. it's all fucked up for me.
On July 13 2013 07:34 beg wrote: so you believe that one doesnt have the option to go beyond anger? i can personally feel this option. i'm just asking.
yes, one is drawn towards anger, but doesn't one also have the option to go beyond anger? at least that's how i feel.
Sorry for being so ambiguous. I didn't mean to say anything even remotely suggesting this, it was just an example.
please dont excuse. i really just asked cause your post made me wonder. i really wonder about the answer. i think about this stuff a lot lately.
your post didnt seem ambigious to me at all. i'm just asking a legit question, imho.
ok, rereading your post, maybe you were a little ambigious. so you dont exclude the option of free will? i'm seriously just wondering. my subjective experience suggests free will, while my logics suggest otherwise. it's all fucked up for me.
I believe that free will is an illusion, albeit a damn good one. Yes, a person may be able to "choose" to not act upon their anger or other emotions, but that by no means implies free will.
On July 13 2013 07:34 beg wrote: so you believe that one doesnt have the option to go beyond anger? i can personally feel this option. i'm just asking.
yes, one is drawn towards anger, but doesn't one also have the option to go beyond anger? at least that's how i feel.
Sorry for being so ambiguous. I didn't mean to say anything even remotely suggesting this, it was just an example.
please dont excuse. i really just asked cause your post made me wonder. i really wonder about the answer. i think about this stuff a lot lately.
your post didnt seem ambigious to me at all. i'm just asking a legit question, imho.
ok, rereading your post, maybe you were a little ambigious. so you dont exclude the option of free will? i'm seriously just wondering. my subjective experience suggests free will, while my logics suggest otherwise. it's all fucked up for me.
I believe that free will is an illusion, albeit a damn good one.
so while you feel drawn towards anger, you don't think there's an option to just let go of these feelings? i personally do feel like that.
would you say the feeling of possibility to let go is just another deterministic mechanism? how so?
this shit is complicated as fuck. i'm so confused so many people here seem to know the answer D:
On July 13 2013 07:34 beg wrote: so you believe that one doesnt have the option to go beyond anger? i can personally feel this option. i'm just asking.
yes, one is drawn towards anger, but doesn't one also have the option to go beyond anger? at least that's how i feel.
Sorry for being so ambiguous. I didn't mean to say anything even remotely suggesting this, it was just an example.
please dont excuse. i really just asked cause your post made me wonder. i really wonder about the answer. i think about this stuff a lot lately.
your post didnt seem ambigious to me at all. i'm just asking a legit question, imho.
ok, rereading your post, maybe you were a little ambigious. so you dont exclude the option of free will? i'm seriously just wondering. my subjective experience suggests free will, while my logics suggest otherwise. it's all fucked up for me.
I believe that free will is an illusion, albeit a damn good one.
so while you feel drawn towards anger, you don't think there's an option to just let go of these feelings? i personally do feel like that.
would you say the feeling of possibility to let go is just another deterministic mechanism? how so?
this shit is complicated as fuck. i'm so confused so many people here seem to know the answer D:
Pretty much this. The brain and thought process are far more complex than most people realize; 99.9% of it goes on without you even noticing.
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.
it is not what I believe in, i am just asking you some questions. but np, you were predetermined to respond in such fashion.
I can rephrase it to take out the killing though, if thats more to your liking:
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 this does not seem very effective. And if we punish them to warn others who do have a brain that correctly assesses risk vs reward, then again, why then does history point towards the fact that the most deterring legal systems got into a spiral of more violence instead of less? There truly is no need for a legal system as elaborate as ours in such a world.
Someone else already gave a more or less satisfying answer though, however it still seems stuck in an outdated conception of mind-body dualism.
I think you have a big misunderstanding of what my position is. Of course people can make decisions and change their mind. What we're asserting is that the reason they do so is always rooted in a complex set of circumstances and genetics which ultimately the person had no control over.
So say you're mad at someone for punching you in the face, shouldn't you be mad at that person's parents for raising them so poorly? But what about the parents? They themselves were probably raised poorly as well, so is it any more their fault? And on and on, back to the Big Bang.
But really, the reason you're mad in the first place is just an instinctual response geared towards preventing future such instances.
Unfortunately I'm far too unintelligent to explain any of this properly, but if you have any intention of possibly learning something new and changing your mind (although I have an extremely strong suspicion that you unfortunately don't), here's a brilliant neuroscientist who's job it is to talk about this stuff:
He can explain it a hell of a lot better than I ever could.
I've watched the first 15 min of his speech, I will watch the rest later, its too late now to watch it all.
Ofcourse 15min is too little to say much about it, and perhaps he will make some better points later but none of what said so far counters, or actually even touches upon what I was saying (and by that I mean it seems to me like were talking about 2 different things, or atleast on 2 different levels). Except that he seems to have a definition of morality that I do not share.
thanks for the link tho, it seems interesting.
Imo tho, the root of the problem, and problem why this debate is so confusing, is that we are stuck with an outdated notion of free will that has its roots in a mind/body dualism, while our conception of what a person is, has pretty much gone beyond that dualism.
On July 13 2013 07:34 beg wrote: so you believe that one doesnt have the option to go beyond anger? i can personally feel this option. i'm just asking.
yes, one is drawn towards anger, but doesn't one also have the option to go beyond anger? at least that's how i feel.
Sorry for being so ambiguous. I didn't mean to say anything even remotely suggesting this, it was just an example.
please dont excuse. i really just asked cause your post made me wonder. i really wonder about the answer. i think about this stuff a lot lately.
your post didnt seem ambigious to me at all. i'm just asking a legit question, imho.
ok, rereading your post, maybe you were a little ambigious. so you dont exclude the option of free will? i'm seriously just wondering. my subjective experience suggests free will, while my logics suggest otherwise. it's all fucked up for me.
I believe that free will is an illusion, albeit a damn good one.
so while you feel drawn towards anger, you don't think there's an option to just let go of these feelings? i personally do feel like that.
would you say the feeling of possibility to let go is just another deterministic mechanism? how so?
this shit is complicated as fuck. i'm so confused so many people here seem to know the answer D:
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.
yea I sure am the first person to make up the mind. Not like the mind body problem has existed for 100's of years or anything. Everything we sense, everything we feel and experience cannot be located. You can explain the changes in the brain down to the very sodium channels that open and close, BUT you cannot actually find these experiences. As to the abstract concepts you stated, first work on finding simple things like color, smell, taste, sound, feel etc. These things don't exist outside of our minds. There is no color in the physical world, and then if I open up your brain, there is no color inside,so where is it then?
Edit: basically this is a problem that cannot be solved in this forum, because it has not been solved for hundreds of years by our greatest thinkers.
Thoughts are entities that act on their own. You do not have to act on these thoughts, but you will still have some that you do not want, even if you are highly trained against having such thoughts. They will still arise within you against your will. I think there is a commanding center of the brain that you have control over, the actual part of the brain that you use to tell your body to do things, but even this area can be surrendered.
I don't think anyone will ever solve this problem. It is just too complex. Unless we build an AI that can build an AI smarter than itself (ad infinitum), we will never know the answer.
On July 13 2013 08:13 biology]major wrote: Everything we sense, everything we feel and experience cannot be located.
Share some sources for this claim, I bet they're interesting reads. Or was it just your own personal opinion?
You can explain the changes in the brain down to the very sodium channels that open and close, BUT you cannot actually find these experiences.
according to..?
As to the abstract concepts you stated, first work on finding simple things like color, smell, taste, sound, feel etc. These things don't exist outside of our minds. There is no color in the physical world, and then if I open up your brain, there is no color inside,so where is it
Where is it? It is embedded in a network of connections beginning in your retina, traveling to your visual cortex, and then back to other regions of the brain, all of which results in the perception and experience of, say, color
You don't seem to appreciate what may arise from structural understanding of the brain. Try this for some info:
Brains can encode experiences and learned skills in a form that persists for decades or longer. The physical instantiation of such stable traces of activity is not known, but it seems likely to us that they are embodied in the same way intrinsic behaviors (such as reflexes) are: that is, in the specific pattern of connections between nerve cells. In this view, experience alters connections between nerve cells to record a memory for later recall. Both the sensory experience that lays down a memory and its later recall are indeed trains of action potentials, but in-between, and persisting for long periods, is a stable physical structural entity that holds that memory. In this sense, a map of all the things the brain has put to memory is found in the structure—the connectional map. An 'activity map' of the brain that only shows trains of action potentials would certainly be an incomplete map, as most behaviors and memories will not be visible in any finite recording session. Decoding the way experience via electrical activity becomes stably embedded in physical neuronal networks is the unmet challenge that connectomics attempts to solve.
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.
yea I sure am the first person to make up the mind. Not like the mind body problem has existed for 100's of years or anything. Everything we sense, everything we feel and experience cannot be located. You can explain the changes in the brain down to the very sodium channels that open and close, BUT you cannot actually find these experiences. As to the abstract concepts you stated, first work on finding simple things like color, smell, taste, sound, feel etc. These things don't exist outside of our minds. There is no color in the physical world, and then if I open up your brain, there is no color inside,so where is it then?
There is also no color in your computer, and even if you look very hard at my hard drive, you won't be able to see the funny video of cats I have on it ! Which is too bad, because there is sooo much emotions and experience in those videos : ( : (
As the late Douglas Adams put it: Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
On July 01 2013 10:11 electronic voyeur wrote: Life is complex, we all get that.
No, we don't. But it seems a nice ego trip for generations of 'civilized' men to think so. But we, ourselves, are too great to grasp in the mind of just one man. To quote an English poet: "The roaring of lions, the howling of wolves, the raging of the stormy sea, and the destructive sword, are portions of eternity too great for the eye of man."
yea I sure am the first person to make up the mind. Not like the mind body problem has existed for 100's of years or anything. Everything we sense, everything we feel and experience cannot be located. You can explain the changes in the brain down to the very sodium channels that open and close, BUT you cannot actually find these experiences. As to the abstract concepts you stated, first work on finding simple things like color, smell, taste, sound, feel etc. These things don't exist outside of our minds. There is no color in the physical world, and then if I open up your brain, there is no color inside,so where is it then?
Edit: basically this is a problem that cannot be solved in this forum, because it has not been solved for hundreds of years by our greatest thinkers.
I dunno man, the old "Science can't provide a naturalistic explanation for <insert curious phenomenon>, therefore <insert supernatural explanation too abstract to have any practical use or teach us anything of any real value>" doesn't exactly have a great track record...
Your proposition that we experience the world through some supernatural entity known as a "mind" doesn't even qualify as a scientific hypothesis, because it's not even coherent enough to prove wrong. There's no way to test such a claim, and even if we learn about 99.9999999% of how the brain functions you'll still have that 0.0000001% that's un-mapped where you can stick your "mind" concept. And frankly, even when we understand 100% you'll probably just choose to ignore some component of our understanding and make people knock down straw-men arguments ad infinitum.
EPT
