TheDon Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Then how can one be responsible for ones actions? I believe in a sort of middle ground. Our brain controls a great deal but through knowledge and understanding we develop a means to filter the process. In other words, it works like so We find ourselves in a situation, brain scans said situation, brain produces various choices, we choose an outcome according to what we know, we perform said outcome. So rather than having pure determinism, we use our understanding to seperate ourselves from animals who are not in control. It depends how you define "you". "You" in the sense of "everything contained within your body" has ultimate responsibility of your decisions. What your talking about is still chemical reactions occurring in your body. The "filtering" doesn't happen in some abstract soul, it happens due to physical interactions. "We" choose the outcome, but that choice isn't based on anything but activity within the brain. I think it's a rather naive viewpoint to say "we use our understanding to separate ourselves from animals who are not in control", what actually separates us from animals? We are after all, just animals. To say that we have some strange "understanding" that makes us somehow mentally superior to every other species on the planet is a pretty blinded viewpoint, and one that seems to be quasi-religious in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 If you believe every action can only have a single possible reaction, the theory works. Only a fool does the same thing twice expecting different results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Our brains control everything we do . There is no seperate entity inside us which filters the brain or controls the brain. Everything we do is the result of a biological process in the brain . The brain controls "you" in fact there is not really a "you" at all . We are all biological machines and act in accordance with our genetic make up and environmental surroundings . "You" have no control over anything . I only seperated 'brain' and 'we' for descriptive purposes. My arguement is simply that our advanced understanding allows us a freedom of choice that we otherwise wouldn't have. Understanding/Knowledge/Memory all exist within the brain. I'm certainly not arguing for a form of cartesian dualism. But there is no reasoning with hard determinists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 I only seperated 'brain' and 'we' for descriptive purposes. My arguement is simply that our advanced understanding allows us a freedom of choice that we otherwise wouldn't have. Understanding/Knowledge/Memory all exist within the brain. I'm certainly not arguing for a form of cartesian dualism. But there is no reasoning with hard determinists Does it actually allow us a freedom of choice though? No one is arguing that we don't have advanced understanding, but that doesn't translate to freedom of choice, it simply translates to better decisions. Those decisions, based on advanced understanding, superior knowledge, and complex problem solving, can still be entirely predictable. Even the ability to learn from past mistakes can be an entirely predictable behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Does better decision making mean one is responsible for one's actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Only a fool does the same thing twice expecting different results If you take the coin flip, and look at one single reaction out of the fuckton of others in play. At the fundamental level, where there are no other influences left, all hands have been played, will you have arrived at the point where there can only be one possible outcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Does better decision making mean one is responsible for one's actions? We're all responsible for our actions in the fact that they are due to things within our own bodies. We just have no real control over them, only an illusion of control. In fact in the nature vs nurture debate I subscribe to both sides, that both our dna and our environment effects who we are. Just that our ability to learn from our environment is as a result of our dna, that some people can take their cues from society better than others, but that if you will learn from a situation or not, is ultimately predictable and will go only one way. If you take the coin flip, and look at one single reaction out of the fuckton of others in play. At the fundamental level, where there are no other influences left, all hands have been played, will you have arrived at the point where there can only be one possible outcome? I've explained this already. There is only ever one possible outcome. The only reason we don't know the outcome ahead of time is that we don't have the level of knowledge about the situation that is needed to do so. Think of it like predicting the weather, they take measurements and then model what should happen based on them. Their models aren't perfect, so they often get things wrong. If the models were perfect then we'd never have an incorrect forecast, but having that perfect model is simply not possible. Not only do we not have the computational power to create it, we don't have a high enough understanding of how everything interacts. The fact that our standard model in physics doesn't work on the quantum level for instance, is one thing that would hold back ever being able to achieve that perfect level of knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted November 4, 2012 Administrator Share Posted November 4, 2012 We are meat machines. Members of our species judged unable to make good moral choices are less likely to breed. Thus intelligence, morality, altruism become survival traits and puts the lie to religions' claim of being the source of morality. Individuals cannot help what they do, but the species works to remove those individuals who do not make good choices from the breeding pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humanoid Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 This video clip is on the same lines as what TheDon is saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 This video clip is on the same lines as what TheDon is saying... Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. Haven't seen that video before, absolutely fascinating that there's such a lag between his brain deciding and him being aware of it. I wouldn't have expected that. Everything it says around your consciousnesses being part of your brain activity is exactly what I'd expect though, it's the only thing that really makes sense from a scientific standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humanoid Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. Haven't seen that video before, absolutely fascinating that there's such a lag between his brain deciding and him being aware of it. I wouldn't have expected that. Everything it says around your consciousnesses being part of your brain activity is exactly what I'd expect though, it's the only thing that really makes sense from a scientific standpoint. I feel that there's some kind of feedback loop within the mechanism of brain activity. In order to make "better decisions" and be accountable for them, one has to be able to evaluate the thoughts that come into the mind to make a "better choice". I dont believe this to be control but only that it influences future thoughts and evaluations, still leading to the only outcome there could be, but an outcome of greater value if the "better" evaluation is made. As the professor said, "the unconscious brain activity is in harmony with your beliefs and desires", which being merely evaluations, implies that rather than one being able to control outcomes, ones past experience and evaluations will influence unconscious choices made in the present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I've explained this already. There is only ever one possible outcome. The only reason we don't know the outcome ahead of time is that we don't have the level of knowledge about the situation that is needed to do so. Think of it like predicting the weather, they take measurements and then model what should happen based on them. Their models aren't perfect, so they often get things wrong. If the models were perfect then we'd never have an incorrect forecast, but having that perfect model is simply not possible. Not only do we not have the computational power to create it, we don't have a high enough understanding of how everything interacts. The fact that our standard model in physics doesn't work on the quantum level for instance, is one thing that would hold back ever being able to achieve that perfect level of knowledge. I know what you mean, but I don't think you've understood my proposal. I'm questioning the premise that there can always only be one possible outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 5, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted November 5, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Only a fool does the same thing twice expecting different results The definition of insanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 5, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted November 5, 2012 "No man ever steps in the same river twice" (Heraclitus) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Uganda will pass a new law against homosexuality by the end of 2012 as a "Christmas gift" to its advocates, the speaker of parliament has said. The AP news agency quoted Rebecca Kadaga as saying that Ugandans were "demanding" the law. Homosexual acts are already illegal in Uganda, but the bill which is before parliament proposes tougher sentences for people convicted. Foreign donors have threatened to cut aid if gay rights are not respected. The bill, tabled by MP David Bahati, proposes jail terms for homosexual acts, including a life sentence in certain circumstances. It prohibits the "promotion" of gay rights and calls for the punishment of anyone who "funds or sponsors homosexuality" or "abets homosexuality". But a clause which calls for the death penalty against people found guilty of "aggravated homosexuality" - defined as when one of the participants is a minor, HIV-positive, disabled or a "serial offender" - is to be dropped, Mr Bahati has said. The bill was strongly condemned last year by Western leaders, including US President Barack Obama who described it as "odious". International donors have threatened to cut off aid to Uganda if the country does not do more to protect the rights of gay people. Ms Kadaga said she hoped the bill, first tabled in 2009 and now before a parliamentary committee, would be passed by the end of the year, Reuters news agency reports. "Ugandans want that law as a Christmas gift. They have asked for it and we'll give them that gift," Ms Kadaga is quoted as saying. Last month, Ms Kadaga was involved in a row with Canada's Foreign Minister John Baird over gay rights at a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Quebec. When Mr Bairn warned Uganda not to trample on people's human rights, Ms Kadaga replied: "If homosexuality is a value for the people of Canada they should not seek to force Uganda to embrace it. We are not a colony or a protectorate of Canada." She received a rapturous welcome from several hundred anti-gay activists, including religious leaders, at Uganda's Entebbe airport when she returned from her trip. In June, Uganda's Minister for Ethics and Integrity Simon Lokodo said 38 non-governmental organisations which he accused of promoting homosexuality would be banned. lare Byarugaba, the co-ordinator of Uganda's Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law, said the group would challenge the law in the constitutional court, Reuters reports. "The international community supports us and we also believe in the constitution of our country which protects the rights and freedoms of everyone," she is quoted as saying. Correspondents say many Ugandans are deeply conservative, and say homosexuality is against their religious and cultural beliefs. beeb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 14, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted November 14, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. Haven't seen that video before, absolutely fascinating that there's such a lag between his brain deciding and him being aware of it. I wouldn't have expected that. what about something where you don't have 6 secs to make up your mind though ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humanoid Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 what about something where you don't have 6 secs to make up your mind though ? You never have 6secs to make up your mind, only that your mind has already decided what decision you will make up to 6 seconds (it could be more, only that we see the observable effects on the brain up to 6secs) before you "consciously do so". In other words, your subconscious mind is what is driving your life experience and not your conscious mind of which you think you make decisions with. So, I already was going to post this repsonse to your post before I "consciously decided" to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 21, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted November 21, 2012 Top Tip of the day: "WOMEN Bishops. Follow the Church of England's example by inventing your own religion and appointing yourselves" Less than 7 per cent of the population are regular churchgoers, yet this (predictably reactionary) vote by the Synod was the MAIN HEADLINE item on the BBC news last night. Read my lips: the vast majority of your viewers DON'T CARE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts