Vegan Forum

Hey. *I'm having a very, very good discussion on free will and consciousness with some people on another forum, and this is the kind of stuff that we would talk about on this forum.


So I'll link to the discussion. *Any comments, etc. just post here and we can talk about it on this forum.


http://www.gamingw.net/forums/index.php ... 968andamp;


(WARNING: make sure you have HOURS on hand before reading this )


(Edited by ProbePhage at 10:21 pm on April 23, 2003)

The link is invalid, I'm being redirected to the main forum page.

Doesn't the fact that Angroth from that website decided to write all of that prove that he has some amount of free-will?

Unless he was told to do it. In which case he still has creative freedom in how to word it which boils down to style and grammar he learned at a young age (or through formal education, if english isn't his first language).

... but he did say he doesn't know why he thought of it. While I'm sure that statement is an understatement, it does illustrate, to a point, that he had enough free-will to start writing it.

These "philosophers" need to get their definitions straight. But I can't stay they're the only ones guilty of it.

Angroth later states that everything we do is based on emotions which are fickle and erratic. Wouldn't that go against his previous thesis that there is no such thing as free-will???

... Here I thought all along that everything we do is based upon chemical signals and processes in our bodies. Which are consistent from context to context, if you are a healthy generic carbon unit like me

Its odd but under hypnosis somone can be told to do something upon waking like crawling around the floor for instance. Now when that person wakes they will tell you why they are about to do what they are about to do, like andquot; Oh, what an interesting floor cover, I was thinking about going into the carpet business myself, let me just have a look at this hereandquot; andnbsp;and down they gaet and crawl around. Now to them they have acted out of their own free will, but seen from our viewpoint thats not the case, maybe we have a deeper part of our conciousness which controls our descicions and we only make up excuses for why we dcided upon that particular course of action. Free will is a wierd thing, i don't think it will ever be solved.

Now to them they have acted out of their own free will, but seen from our viewpoint thats not the case, maybe we have a deeper part of our conciousness which controls our descicions

I know a lot of women who are well versed in manipulating free will

I read a magazine article about studies in voles, where the females were stimulating androgen (hormone) levels in males. Those males with the highest androgen levels were more likely to mate for life. The article speculated that women may be able to "persuade" a man to marry them by adopting certain character traits...

The article speculated that women may be able to "persuade" a man to marry them by adopting certain character traits...

Heh, that's pretty interesting...
Any specifics? What traits?

Paul, that sounds incredibly fascinating.

Anywhere that I can dig into it?

- Josh

There is a little bit on it in an interesting book by John Searle called andquot;Minds, brains and scienceandquot; but apart from that its just experience.

AndyBa wrote:

The article speculated that women may be able to "persuade" a man to marry them by adopting certain character traits...

Heh, that's pretty interesting...
Any specifics? What traits?

The article suggested asking your man to put up some shelves or mend something - the human equivalent of building a nest. It said it was important to make the man feel as though you cannot do these things yourself, and hence cannot live without him

I know girls who act like this They also refuse to drive on motorways, or refuse to go out without company It seems to work for them

It doesn't work for me Sometimes I wish I could be SmallBecka Then men would find me cute and do stuff for me Maybe I could just obtain some androgen pills, and hide them in some cakes...

However, I'm not sure how the magazine article deduced all this from the scientific report they cited.

I read another magazine article that suggested pretending to have a secret admirer, or pretending to have some terrible illness... This sounds like it could backfire quite badly

BigBecka wrote:The article suggested asking your man to put up some shelves or mend something - the human equivalent of building a nest.

What about asking him to dig a cave?

Free will... it really is a good one.

Paul,

Is that 'deeper part of our conscioussness' contolled by us, or by something else apart from the individual?

What about asking him to dig a cave?

LOL! No more rent! He might question the need for a cave... And I wouldn't trust most of the blokes I know with dangerous tools

Now I am thinking of sweaty muscular men, with shovels and axes and dynamite... I will have to go and lie down...

BigBecka wrote:Now I am thinking of sweaty muscular men, with shovels and axes and dynamite...

Actually I was thinking about bearded bandy-legged dwarves with pick axes

Well, i dont really feel like reading all that, but if i had to say something about free will, i would say that there is no such thing. andnbsp;What we, as humans, define as andquot;free willandquot; is really just chemical responses and stuff programmed into us. andnbsp;We, as humans, have been chemically programmed to believe that we have some sort of control over what we do. andnbsp;I read somewhere ( i forget where) that there is a second consciousness controlling your mind. andnbsp;its like the wizard of oz saying andquot;pay no attention to the man behind the curtainandquot; and actually believing it.

Actually I was thinking about bearded bandy-legged dwarves with pick axes

Hehehehe Now I'm thinking of the video for Sonne (Rammstein)... Yay, someone put it on YouTube here

its like the wizard of oz saying andquot;pay no attention to the man behind the curtainandquot; and actually believing it.

what a strange thought...

This philosophy to me sounds a lot like Descatres. This isn't origional. But then again, Descatres had to remind himself that he existed. He's the one that said 'I think, therefore I am'. A very stange and confused man.

So we have limited free-will?

If those Enlightenment Period philosophes were correct, then we were born with a clean slate. But we have no knowledge, at birth, to act upon so there really is no will except survival instincts of... suck and go to the bathroom... and sleep.

But as we get older we are influenced by language and our personal observed histories. Then we can act upon our knowledge for whatever purpose we desire.

But then you can point out the physical laws that define us and prevent us from doing pretty insane things. There was that whole debate over language how we're all just a continuation of our predecessor's words.

... But we can still make some choices. We can change our minds again and again. We can do totally irrelevant things or attempt the most profound. Again, whatever.



I don't feel you can reasonably deny having at least /some/ free will in your life. The question is not a matter of how much. The question is a matter of how to get around those limitations.

*wink wink*

But as we get older we are influenced by language and our personal observed histories. Then we can act upon our knowledge for whatever purpose we desire.

I think this can limit us, too. I went to school with some girls from very... how shall I say... privelidged and narrow-minded backgrounds. Their upbringing prevented them from walking through a poor area of town (in some cases, from walking anywhere!) because they were terrified of being attacked. They chose "acceptable" careers, because they believed that they couldn't work in a man's job or succeed in science or technology. You get the picture...

What I'm trying to say is, knowledge only liberates you if you have enough of it! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially if that knowledge prevents you from questioning or learning any further knowledge.

I don't feel you can reasonably deny having at least /some/ free will in your life.

I have to agree. In fact, an Existentialist would say that you are completely free: people only seek to impose structure on a random, meaningless world in order to negate their feelings of anxiety and dread. I'm reading Jean-Paul Satre at the moment: he noted that people will often relinquish their free-will. For example, the person who has an affair because they were "seduced," instead of admitting it was their choice.

Descartes believed humans could doubt all existence, but could not will away or doubt the thinking consciousness, whose reality is therefore more certain than any other reality. Existentialism decisively rejects this argument, asserting instead that as conscious beings, humans would always find themselves already in a world, a prior context and a history that is given to consciousness, and that humans cannot think away that world. [Wikipedia]

Dude, if you want to believe what the enlightenment philosophers had to say, then go for it. I personaly believe that they're crack heads. I was just pointing out that the particular philosophy is not origional. But free will is what makes us human. Every other animal acts on instincts. And I agree with you.

BigBecka wrote:For example, the person who has an affair because they were "seduced," instead of admitting it was their choice.

This is normal behaviour, unless people _always_ act like that.
Most people don't miss a chance to get rid of responsibility which is a consequence of their choices. Or at least they try to push a part of this responsibility to other people, so those ones would share it with them.
This is a very controversial fact, but I can see an explanation of this.
If we look at the other extreme, there are people with a very high sense of responsibility. Those people don't mind to accept some responsibility of other people, for sharing it with them.
But such people are a minority.
And even if there are some of them who manage to bear the burden of such a big responsibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi, other ones just get crumpled by its weight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer.

Don't agree with alot of what enlightenment period philosophes have to say...

But the clean slate ideology... I believe in that.

what the enlightenment philosophers had to say, then go for it. I personaly believe that they're crack heads.

Really? Why? They challenged the church and state at the time: the world would be very different if they hadn't!

And even if there are some of them who manage to bear the burden of such a big responsibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi, other ones just get crumpled by its weight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer.

Very true I didn't know about Bobby Fischer I've been reading a lot about Freegans at the moment: Vegans (usually)who reject all consumer society on the basis that it's all fuelling the same corrupt political machine and impending ecological disaster There's a whole movement in the US who go "dumpster diving" for food and goods. Actually, I guess it's not that unusual - families in my home town were picking bread out of supermarket skips in the last recession The supermarkets throw out food that's often still edible. Mind you, I never felt like doing it myself... Some of them also sqaut in disused buildings, because they believe housing is a right, or are voluntarily unemployed Others go feral and live in the wild: now that kind of apeals to me in summer, at least. So long as it's somewhere without bears

Then do you believe in reincarnation?

Hi Benny: Not sure if that's directed at me or Trisha... But, yep, I like the idea of God(s)/the Cosmos recycling souls I remember thinking when I was very young that Heaven/Valjalla must be getting rather full by now!

But that might just be me trying to rationalise the world...

Physical reincarnation, of course.

Now was that the first or second law of thermodynamics... hmmm

BigBecka wrote:I remember thinking when I was very young that Heaven/Valjalla must be getting rather full by now!

Heh, youngsters are idealists, they fail to see the grey and the black parts of life, they usually see only the pink part of it.
If you are a sinner, you don't go to Heaven. And most people are sinners nowaday.
Same about Valjalla - you can get there if you die on a battelfield, when fighting. Nowadays people use long-ranged missiles instead to kill eachother. That's just plain cowardice.

If you are a sinner, you don't go to Heaven.

Hmm, I'm a little confused by this... isn't God meant to be really into forgiveness? Depending on the church... I went to a Roman Catholic primary school for a year, and they actually had nine-year-olds producing a wall display on the different types of sins (seven deadly sins, seven carnal sins, etc.) - there's a lot of them I have a vague notion I might be irredeemably condemned...

Same about Valjalla - you can get there if you die on a battelfield, when fighting. Nowadays people use long-ranged missiles instead to kill eachother. That's just plain cowardice.

Yes, they should bring back Dane-axes and Broadswords... All that feasting and merry-making always appealed to me

Interesting. And uh, no clue.

BigBecka wrote:I went to a Roman Catholic primary school for a year ...

I know it's not wise to generalize, but I was recently told a story by a mid-aged man from US. I'd call it a horror story. When he was a kid, he used to go to a Catholic school. He was getting his left hand beaten with a ruler on a daily basis (because he was left-handed and he was writing with the left hand). There was some law edicted by the Pope that was claiming that left-handed men are not normal, that they are tempted by Satan. That law was abrogated later, but still having such nonsense in the 20-th century just proves to me that Catholicism is a synonym for Hypocrisy.

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed?