First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Are we Event Driven?
48667 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / in my heAD
Offline
Posted 4/15/11
Are we driven by events and therefore have no free will because our actions are predetermined by conditions?
Example
You wake up. Its exceedingly colder than you expected for today. You have the chills and need to get warm. Grabbing a red sweater you throw it on and decide to go to school. Red doesn't happen to be you favorite color. In fact you hate it so much that your day is now off to a bad start. You get to school grumpy. Your pissed off and picked on all day because all you wore that day was a red sweater.

What I'm trying to say here is that multiple variables throughout your environment can predetermine your actions based on current and past events. I'm not sure if that was a good example so heres another one for thought. Keep in mind I'm now using a point system to sort it out.

Example 2
You wake up.
You cough -1
You set your feet on your cold hard wood floor -1
You turn the heat up -1
10 minutes later the heat is felt +1
Your girlfriend knocks on the door really hard -1
:: Action
You answer the door and punch a hole in her head.

You wake up
You breath in well rested +1
You set your feet on a warm floor because your heat turns on before you wake. +1
Your already warm and off to a good morning, your girlfriend knocks on the door really hard -1
:: Action
You answer the door and greet her in a normal way.

I'm just using minor actions to display different outcomes that happen daily. So what do you think? Do we have free will really? Mind you theres millions of variables unaccounted for such as personality and whatnot. I don't really think about this stuff much anymore but I was thought full during my adolescent years.
Posted 4/15/11
Urgency in emergency. When a fire burns you, it is instinctive to soothe the pain and heal the damage.
Posted 4/15/11 , edited 4/15/11

randygal wrote:

Are we driven by events and therefore have no free will because our actions are predetermined by conditions?
Example
You wake up. Its exceedingly colder than you expected for today. You have the chills and need to get warm. Grabbing a red sweater you throw it on and decide to go to school. Red doesn't happen to be you favorite color. In fact you hate it so much that your day is now off to a bad start. You get to school grumpy. Your pissed off and picked on all day because all you wore that day was a red sweater.

What I'm trying to say here is that multiple variables throughout your environment can predetermine your actions based on current and past events. I'm not sure if that was a good example so heres another one for thought. Keep in mind I'm now using a point system to sort it out.



I'm just using minor actions to display different outcomes that happen daily. So what do you think? Do we have free will really? Mind you theres millions of variables unaccounted for such as personality and whatnot. I don't really think about this stuff much anymore but I was thought full during my adolescent years.
The fact that there exists a color bias means there's no "free will", only preferred responses to incentives. In fact, there's even specific prerequisites when regarding self-motivation.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 4/16/11 , edited 4/16/11
I think determinism is better understood from a reductionist rather than a holistic (preferring the smallest reactions we can, in any way, observe) viewpoint and an objective rather than a subjective one (looking at things generally as opposed to humans in specific). I was talking with a friend of mine who told me that there can be 'random' in quantum physics. Now, I have no clue about quantum physics, however, a deterministic world requires that there be no random occurrences. I don't think anyone here has the knowledge required to deal with the question at hand, whether the two things are reconcilable or not, but nevertheless, you can see what the issue is.
Posted 4/16/11 , edited 4/16/11

DerfelCadarn wrote:

I think determinism is better understood from a reductionist rather than a holistic (preferring the smallest reactions we can, in any way, observe) viewpoint and an objective rather than a subjective one (looking at things generally as opposed to humans in specific). I was talking with a friend of mine who told me that there can be 'random' in quantum physics. Now, I have no clue about quantum physics, however, a deterministic world requires that there be no random occurrences. I don't think anyone here has the knowledge required to deal with the question at hand, whether the two things are reconcilable or not, but nevertheless, you can see what the issue is.
Then look at it this way, from both the big history and natural standpoints, the only function/objective that random mutation serves in our evolutionary process, is to diversify the ever complex yet close-loop biosphere system that sustains and restores the finite resources. Which in terms supports the necessary threshold that allows such system to inhabit itself.

However, that's completely opposite of what the consumerist culture of stuff was determined to reduce the human ecology down to mindless consumption, psychosocial inequality, and recklessness. That's destroying the healing and resiliency of our social civility and wellness lifestyle.

So you see, no matter how you attempt to slice it through reductionism, The very mental skill that you're depending upon is the cause of our current "linear", thus incomplete and unrealistic perspective of our world. But such is the nature and limitation of reductionism:

re·duc·tion·ism

–noun
1. the theory that every complex phenomenon, especially in biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon.
2. the practice of simplifying a complex idea, issue, condition, or the like, especially to the point of minimizing, obscuring, or distorting it.(citation)

You don't start nor end your process with reduction, when it's a part of the greater mechanism that synthesizes its own needs through holistic means. Fail to do so and you're only leading to extinction through mental, ecological, and systemic retardation.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 4/16/11 , edited 4/16/11

DomFortress wrote:
I think determinism is better understood from a reductionist rather than a holistic (preferring the smallest reactions we can, in any way, observe) viewpoint and an objective rather than a subjective one (looking at things generally as opposed to humans in specific). I was talking with a friend of mine who told me that there can be 'random' in quantum physics. Now, I have no clue about quantum physics, however, a deterministic world requires that there be no random occurrences. I don't think anyone here has the knowledge required to deal with the question at hand, whether the two things are reconcilable or not, but nevertheless, you can see what the issue is.

Then look at it this way, from both the big history and natural standpoints, the only function/objective that random mutation serves in our evolutionary process, is to diversify the ever complex yet close-loop biosphere system that sustains and restores the finite resources. Which in terms supports the necessary threshold that allows such system to inhabit itself.

However, that's completely opposite of what the consumerist culture of stuff was determined to reduce the human ecology down to mindless consumption, psychosocial inequality, and recklessness. That's destroying the healing and resiliency of our social civility and wellness lifestyle.

So you see, no matter how you attempt to slice it through reductionism, The very mental skill that you're depending upon is the cause of our current "linear", thus incomplete and unrealistic perspective of our world. But such is the nature and limitation of reductionism:


I'm talking about determinism as a term that refers to a universe which operates in a way consistent with certain axiomatic rules, the laws of nature. This, I maintain, is a matter for quantum physics and determinism to resolve. This must necessarily mean that the matter is, as regards a solution, restricted to the field of physics.


re·duc·tion·ism

–noun
1. the theory that every complex phenomenon, especially in biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon.
2. the practice of simplifying a complex idea, issue, condition, or the like, especially to the point of minimizing, obscuring, or distorting it.(citation)
You don't start nor end your process with reduction, when it's a part of the greater mechanism that synthesizes its own needs through holistic means. Fail to do so and you're only leading to extinction through mental, ecological, and systemic retardation.


You highlighted the connotation of reduction that isn't of great relevance to my point. The one you did not highlight, on the other hand, is. I meant reduction as understood by, say, Ernest Rutherford (All science is either physics or stamp collecting). Education paradigms have little to do with that. In fact, they are extraneous.
Posted 4/16/11

DerfelCadarn wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
I think determinism is better understood from a reductionist rather than a holistic (preferring the smallest reactions we can, in any way, observe) viewpoint and an objective rather than a subjective one (looking at things generally as opposed to humans in specific). I was talking with a friend of mine who told me that there can be 'random' in quantum physics. Now, I have no clue about quantum physics, however, a deterministic world requires that there be no random occurrences. I don't think anyone here has the knowledge required to deal with the question at hand, whether the two things are reconcilable or not, but nevertheless, you can see what the issue is.

Then look at it this way, from both the big history and natural standpoints, the only function/objective that random mutation serves in our evolutionary process, is to diversify the ever complex yet close-loop biosphere system that sustains and restores the finite resources. Which in terms supports the necessary threshold that allows such system to inhabit itself.

However, that's completely opposite of what the consumerist culture of stuff was determined to reduce the human ecology down to mindless consumption, psychosocial inequality, and recklessness. That's destroying the healing and resiliency of our social civility and wellness lifestyle.

So you see, no matter how you attempt to slice it through reductionism, The very mental skill that you're depending upon is the cause of our current "linear", thus incomplete and unrealistic perspective of our world. But such is the nature and limitation of reductionism:


I'm talking about determinism as a term that refers to a universe which operates in a way consistent with certain axiomatic rules, the laws of nature. This, I maintain, is a matter for quantum physics and determinism to resolve. This must necessarily mean that the matter is, as regards a solution, restricted to the field of physics.


re·duc·tion·ism

–noun
1. the theory that every complex phenomenon, especially in biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon.
2. the practice of simplifying a complex idea, issue, condition, or the like, especially to the point of minimizing, obscuring, or distorting it.(citation)
You don't start nor end your process with reduction, when it's a part of the greater mechanism that synthesizes its own needs through holistic means. Fail to do so and you're only leading to extinction through mental, ecological, and systemic retardation.


You highlighted the connotation of reduction that isn't of great relevance to my point. The one you did not highlight, on the other hand, is. I meant reduction as understood by, say, Ernest Rutherford (All science is either physics or stamp collecting). Education paradigms have little to do with that. In fact, they are extraneous.
I'm saying that education/socialization is itself an holistic and collaborative process, through the art of democratic debate. But someones else with the political and financial powers that be, had rather foolishly determined among themselves that such isn't the case to be. Howbeit it's their authoritarian yet arbitrary sense of "expertise/specialization" that's disrupting the whole process, through themselves excluding the people from politics altogether. While humans as social animals are evolutionarily prone to confirmation bias, which reductionism within this context is just a bad case of self-deception.
maffoo 
78814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / England
Offline
Posted 4/16/11


I think that there is still free will. In the example you give, you are in a negative frame of mind and when your girlfriend knocks loudly on the door you are inclined take it out on her. However, you could also choose to take a deep breath, calm down a little bit and greet her normally. The events leading up to that point affect your reaction, but do not determine it.

That said, there could be situations where events do determine your reaction, for example if you felt as if you were in danger and something took you by surprise, you may have a flight or fight reaction and your survival instincts might take over.
Posted 4/16/11

maffoo wrote:



I think that there is still free will. In the example you give, you are in a negative frame of mind and when your girlfriend knocks loudly on the door you are inclined take it out on her. However, you could also choose to take a deep breath, calm down a little bit and greet her normally. The events leading up to that point affect your reaction, but do not determine it.

That said, there could be situations where events do determine your reaction, for example if you felt as if you were in danger and something took you by surprise, you may have a flight or fight reaction and your survival instincts might take over.
Hence how and why a lot of harmful and inhumane policies got made into laws during natural and man-made crisis.
55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 4/21/11
Events, mere occurrences, aren't, of course, the cause of our responses. We choose how we'll act emotionally to a given stimulus.
The two examples given in the opening premise strike me as being typical of proactive & reactive responses. [This shouldn't be confused with the physical reflexive responses to a stimulus to the neurological system.]
I believe there is a choice involved in both examples, since the choices of a positive or negative response could have been given in either of the example scenes. I've been succeeding more & more frequently in changing my reactive (& often negatively based) habits into choices of proactive behavior. It starts with building awareness of how one is inclined to respond, then deciding & practicing the proactive responses & behaviors.
53478 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 4/23/11 , edited 4/23/11
There is a lot of evidence in favor of B.F. Skinner's Operant Conditioning theory - which essentially states that you can control another person's actions/behaviors by manipulating their environment and genetics.

Theories suggest that humans are essentially an over glorified Universal Turing Machine, in which case you must ask yourself: does a computer have free will? Because that is essentially what we are: a computer which never ceases to execute the instructions it is provided with until the day it stops functioning. The only difference between us and computers is that we are programmed by evolution for the express purpose of furthering our own genetic line, whereas computers are programmed by humans in order to make life for humans more convenient.

Mind you, all of the above is meaningless if you take a religious approach to humanity and argue for the existence of "the soul".
Posted 4/23/11
Event horizon. Think of this in the context of not being completely effected by an occurrence at hand inside your own safe space of reasoning. A black hole of say "social unrest" or a "natural disaster" happens seemingly out of nowhere. You, unlike everyone else, remain in control, and detached. Through your own calculations, you decide to think in terms of self-preservation intelligently instead of panicking, or joining with a mob mentality of selfishness; like a school of small fish evading a shark attack. You decide in a situation that saving many cannot happen, for compared to the overwhelming chaos, your own ability to communicate is drowned out. You do not join with the stampede, you subtract yourself from it and decide what the best course of action is instead of getting trampled. A volcano erupts spewing chunks of stone and magma into the sky, most people run around like chickens with their heads cut off, you seek shelter. That, at least, is better than remaining vulnerable in the open. You found there was time to save a few, but the whole of those caught up in the event were silenced permanently.
Posted 4/23/11

Taedrin wrote:

There is a lot of evidence in favor of B.F. Skinner's Operant Conditioning theory - which essentially states that you can control another person's actions/behaviors by manipulating their environment and genetics.

Theories suggest that humans are essentially an over glorified Universal Turing Machine, in which case you must ask yourself: does a computer have free will? Because that is essentially what we are: a computer which never ceases to execute the instructions it is provided with until the day it stops functioning. The only difference between us and computers is that we are programmed by evolution for the express purpose of furthering our own genetic line, whereas computers are programmed by humans in order to make life for humans more convenient.

Mind you, all of the above is meaningless if you take a religious approach to humanity and argue for the existence of "the soul".


Computers have glitches, much like our own genetics, and logical errors. You could say all living things are "Universal Turing Machines" since they can change on behalf of a necessity. As for being free, how free are we and all organisms? A bird was wings, but it gave up front feet for them, losing some dexterity, though makes up for it with proper use of its feet and beak.
55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 5/2/11

Sonovabitch wrote:

Event horizon. Think of this in the context of not being completely effected by an occurrence at hand inside your own safe space of reasoning. A black hole of say "social unrest" or a "natural disaster" happens seemingly out of nowhere. You, unlike everyone else, remain in control, and detached. Through your own calculations, you decide to think in terms of self-preservation intelligently instead of panicking, or joining with a mob mentality of selfishness; like a school of small fish evading a shark attack. You decide in a situation that saving many cannot happen, for compared to the overwhelming chaos, your own ability to communicate is drowned out. You do not join with the stampede, you subtract yourself from it and decide what the best course of action is instead of getting trampled. A volcano erupts spewing chunks of stone and magma into the sky, most people run around like chickens with their heads cut off, you seek shelter. That, at least, is better than remaining vulnerable in the open. You found there was time to save a few, but the whole of those caught up in the event were silenced permanently.


Can't help but think I'm just spouting cliches as to how it's supposed to be done (1st response above), but in light of your comments here as well as the recent natural disasters so recent, & so globally wide spread, I can't help wondering how I truly would react if I were indeed caught up in one of those horrendous events...... ( I really really hope I don't have to "there", I don't want to find out that bad !!! )
Posted 5/3/11
It's the crazy aunt in the attic syndrome, everyone knows she's there, you just can't say anything about her...

anyway, event wise,,,,,

Perhaps some future variation may even take a cue from recursive movies like
"Being John Malkovich" and the "Scream" series. In it, anyone could play a game-company vice
president with the Bard-like name of Dancey. To win, you'd need to regain the trust of
embittered former loyalists and guide them through the bizarre Astral Plane known as the
Internet -- where a cruel kingdom called Microsoft battles a guild of gnome-like tinkerers
and their nebbishy leader, a sorcerer from faraway Finland, the one with an
unpronounceable name and a magic penguin...

that's the ticket!
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.