What is "Mind?"

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 3474 - 3493 of total 22307 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber

joshua tree

Aug 15, 2014 - 09:13pm PT

sure thing Eokee

and we think we can articulate and defend

don't forget, EVERYTHING at this point is speculation. Your only trading your OPINION for someone else's OPINION.

Hint: if you want to get to the nitty-gritty, ask'em about objective morality, or the FACT that there cannot be free-will in Determinism.

Evolutionist know there's free-will. They also know Evolution couldn't provide it. Thats why their scurrying around like cockroaches when the light comes on trying to re-name it

Good Luck! hope ya find what ur look'in for

MH2

climber

Aug 15, 2014 - 10:09pm PT

I can't offer much on a debate I don't understand: free will versus determinism. But as a dodge around the issue I suggest taking the position that you do have free will. Then put the burden of proof on the person who argues for determinism, if there is any such person. To establish that you do not have free will the determinist would need to show that they can predict your choices. If your behavior cannot be foreseen then it makes no practical difference whether or not it is pre-determined. It would be a philosophical debate beyond resolution, and could go on making work for philosophers without troubling the rest of us.

Jan

Mountain climber

Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa

Aug 16, 2014 - 01:15am PT

My take as a social scientist is that human society is going to be under enough of a strain, particularly in the next hundred years until the planetary population stabilizes, that whether or not free will exists, we will have to conduct ourselves as though it does in order to survive. When faced with brain wave studies vs pictures of young children who have been beheaded, people are going to go with common sense rules that have worked over the millennia, not some scientific theory.

In fact, I think there is a real danger of the current pop interpreters of science like Dawkins and Harris, so alienating the general public, that they become even less supportive of science then they already are. Science's public image was much better served by someone like Einstein who looked and talked like an eccentric but kindly old grandfather and preserved an air of mystery about himself and science, or Carl Sagan who left the door open to a bit of mystery.

So perhaps one of the characteristics of the new technocratic society is that these experiments and discussions will go on quietly among the cogniscenti while the general public only encounters them in the form of scientifically researched advertizing, and otherwise carries on as usual, inventing new rules and new religions as needed.

Meanwhile, feel free ST cogniscenti, to carry on.

MikeL

Social climber

Seattle, WA

Aug 16, 2014 - 10:05am PT

MH2: If your behavior cannot be foreseen then it makes no practical difference whether or not it is pre-determined.

I like this statement. Thoughtful and pragmatic.

These polarities (dark vs. light, good vs. bad, high vs. low, free will vs. determinism, this vs. that) all appear to be heavy-handed interpretations. Looking closely at any of them suggests they are not quite proper or accurate descriptions of the way things are. We cannot quite say the way things are.

We need to hold categorizations and classifications loosely, realizing that we're just talking. Our words (placeholders for concepts) get reified, and then there's hell to pay for what ensues.

One thing I think the millennials seem to be sensitive to (IME), it is just that: labels and categorizations need to be taken with a fair amount of salt. They are very suspicious of institutions (and hence institutionalization).

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/fashion/the-millennials-are-generation-nice.html?

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Aug 16, 2014 - 10:31am PT

the "free will" discussion is not just an issue that rests in the domain of philosophy disconnected from the "business of the people."

The concept of "free will" is the foundation of our laws, and probably comes down from our religious beliefs. The very idea that we have the freedom to choose between the "right" and "wrong" decision shows up in The Bible, in Genesis, with Eve deciding to take a bite of the apple of knowledge... which God had forbidden and "the snake" had suggested.

Eve made the wrong decision and ended up getting evicted, along with Adam, from the paradise that was Eden. The original sin was having the choice to make a decision, free will, and making the wrong one.

However, our modern legal system recognizes that a class of "diseases" affect a person's ability to make a decision. We have pleas of "insanity" which are very unpopular. This plea essentially absolves the person from the idea of "free will" essentially stating that their action took place beyond their ability to decide freely.

It is interesting that we see this as a binary condition, you have free will, or you are insane, but as with much of nature, we sense that there is a continuum of states between the two. This is essentially a scientific question, not a philosophical one, and it is eminently practical, and very important.

So confronted with this I don't see Jan's desire for scientists to climb up into their Ivory tower (an interesting religious reference) and grind out their amazing, but extremely arcane science (what is General Relativity and why was Einstein concerned with a unified field theory?) of which the fruits of their theories' applications allow the masses to engage in their daily activities (I'll have to find a way to reduce this response to a "Tweet", made possible by some high energy physicists sitting in a hallway at CERN wondering how to use the interconnectivity of computers to advance their arcane research).

Our legal system already recognizes that there are actions that people undertake that are beyond the binds of "free will."

I don't see any philosophical challenges to that legal doctrine. The horse has already left the barn. The question is how our scientific understanding, as arcane as it might be, could lend insight into how this legal doctrine will evolve.

That's as down and dirty as it gets.

TomCochrane

Trad climber

Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay

Aug 16, 2014 - 10:49am PT

is it an exercise of free will to choose a deterministic philosophy

Jan

Mountain climber

Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa

Aug 16, 2014 - 11:35am PT

I knew my comments would very probably draw out Ed who gave as usual, a well reasoned response. It is true that we do recognize a continuum of free will in our legal system though no where is it conclusive or applied equitably. So far, this has been mainly based on findings from the social sciences which range from the scientific to the political to the down right silly. Schizophrenia, vs explanations like deprived childhoods, vs eating too many twinkies made him do it - the whole spectrum. If science including brain waves can add better precision to these findings, so much the better. They have already helped people come to terms with massacres in which the shooter (Texas U tower for example) had a brain tumor.

What I think is damaging the image of science is the in your face types who are aggressively dismissive of the common ideas and culture of the average person. These are not scientists at places like CERN, but folks like Harris and especially Dawkins, scientists or former scientists, who have taken it upon themselves to proselytize to the public.

The other danger, best seen in the flood of diet research that has been released in the past few years, is that results are made public before they are conclusive, and then other studies contradict them and people are left confused and finally just ignore them altogether. That also is not the fault of scientists but of the pop science media.

MH2

climber

Aug 16, 2014 - 11:46am PT

I will choose determinism when it is accepted as a legal defense.

The legal system does take into account the mental competence of a person. A child, a senile oldster, a person with Down's Syndrome, a person under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, or someone the psychiatrists say is insane will not be punished for a wrong choice in the same way that a 'normal' person would be. However, the law, too, tries to make things simple. There may be many degrees of mental competence but I believe that the court is looking to decide between competent or not competent. A binary choice but I don't think it is between free will versus determinism.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Aug 16, 2014 - 12:19pm PT

I should have looked at this earlier...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense#History_of_the_insanity_defense

not a new idea (unless new is defined as anything with history), but even then pre-history may have had similar ideas...

as far as who a scientist is... well I know many who would not consider cultural anthropology to be a science. I happen to think it can be and probably is more and more...

as far as hewing to the constructs of cultural tradition because it is deemed more important than considering modern ideas, one only has to look at the various situations throughout the globe and wonder why these are such important issues... if teaching girls is prohibited by god in the old testament (remember that Eve was told not to eat that apple and did, brining us all a legacy of misery) is that something we should resign to? even though our science (and now I'll include sociology, anthropology, etc) seems to indicate that many benefits of modernization is derived from the education of girls and women?

If you want to believe in demonic possession as a model for human bad behavior it might not be so far from most people's understanding of the science of the mind...

Ward Trotter

Trad climber

Aug 16, 2014 - 01:58pm PT

Whether it is recognized or not---- a fair bit of determinism has steadily worked its way into our legal system and our society-wide views in general. This transformation has been underway for at least a century. Within the legal system this is partly reflected in the degree of punishment for especially serious crimes: in 1814 most murder cases tried in most courts resulted quickly in a death sentence carried out forthwith. In 2014 a whole legal library of "mitigating" and conditional factors are routinely brought into play to explain the behavior of murder suspects ----factors squarely outside the exclusive purview of "free will"

Broadly considered the current legal system seems to function transparently and macroscopically on a traditional "free will" premise ----- but simultaneously considers deterministic factors microscopically and largely out of view of the general public. A "sane and competent" convicted murderer is looked upon by the general populace as motivated by free will. The legal system increasingly in modern times , reflecting an empirical progressivism ,has come to view this same murderer as a bundle of causative social factors--- and therefore only partially responsible, if at all. In fact much of society in the developed world is coming over to this view. Especially in Europe.

When the negative effects of traditional attitudes are considered ,such as religiously-motivated "free will" ----conclusions are often reached which thereby set up a real world polemic between these two countervailing views. The "free will" view is very simple and very straightforward--- on the other hand the deterministic outlook is inherently fraught with byzantine levels of qualification and apparent contradiction.

The blatantly anachronistic "free will" remedy for anti-social behavior is obvious and easy to criticize: the chopping off of a thieves hand in Islamic Fundamentalism ,or the stoning of adulterous women, and so on. These punishments are extreme in the modern context, but not often lacking in effectiveness for the society in question.
What is not arguable is that such extreme punishments are squarely rooted in the religiously enforced foundation of free will. (Minus Satan being directly implicated)

The real world negative effects of determinism normally are not so sharply focused: a convicted murderer is lamented ,essentially as a victim of causative factors ---- who in court is given a 30 yr sentence ,but is subsequently reduced to half that time , and eventually emerges from prison in 10 yrs. --- often in time to kill his second innocent victim.

MikeL

Social climber

Seattle, WA

Aug 16, 2014 - 04:25pm PT

" . . . scientists at places like CERN . . . ."

Were we to have scientists at CERN running things in domains other than the ones they live and work in. Sigh. However, that might actually make them rather unlike the scientists who work at places like CERN.

FM: Most Americans have no idea who Dawkins and Harris are and I suspect they offend only your sense of propriety. As for science alienating the general population, that doesn't wash with the facts. American homes and businesses are awash with the fruits of science and technology.

The fruits of science came about because men and women went to work to create, innovate, produce a product or service, and take it to buyers. That brush stroke of yours there was the width of a small country.

It's been my understanding that most well-respected leaders were not scientists or men of science. Many of the best technical minds could not get an organization to move, change, or stop. The world will not build a path to your door just because you produced a new gadget. Most of the biggest, widely bought and use products were not the best that could be made available.

Mind over matter. Always. Always. Always.

MikeL

Social climber

Seattle, WA

Aug 16, 2014 - 04:33pm PT

and good posts, Ed.

MikeL

Social climber

Seattle, WA

Aug 16, 2014 - 04:44pm PT

I AM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K21thvOCSds&src_vid=G1ZwLPv0t8g&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_2022680651

jstan

climber

Aug 16, 2014 - 08:19pm PT

I thought "Don't Do" well worth watching. The last speaker brought up a new point. When religion and the culture are tied closely together, those who admit to atheism worry they may lose their place.

MH2

climber

Aug 16, 2014 - 08:33pm PT

I looked up discursive

Only one of many Largoisms on the thread.

edit:

See 'Spoonerism'

Jan

Mountain climber

Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa

Aug 16, 2014 - 09:00pm PT

It's true, Dawkins in particular annoys me with his style,and while the average person probably doesn't know his name, they are aware that there are now militant atheists every bit as convinced of their rectitude as the religious fundamentalists. Most people I know don't care much for either one.

As for anthropology being a science, biological anthro is scientific, but cultural anthro has always had one foot in social science and the other in the humanities. In both we strive to first of all understand our fellow human beings, and if we wish to change them, ponder how to do it using the background and baggage of the past. Complete revolutions happen, but not often.

I think this is well illustrated by the fact that people gladly accept the comforts of science and technology, including modern medicine, but not the world view (evolution comes to mind) that goes with it. So how much less likely is it that the average person is going to believe in brainwaves over our traditional legal system? This is not to say that this system and the notion of free will hasn't already been modified somewhat in regard to our own society.

However when increasingly confronted with utter barbarity such as we are seeing in the middle east right now, I think the idea of determinism is a hard sell. Even if scientifically true, we can't afford to believe that the folks beheading school children had no choice. It comes down to survival finally.

Jan

Mountain climber

Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa

Aug 16, 2014 - 09:15pm PT

When religion and the culture are tied closely together, those who admit to atheism worry they may lose their place.

One of the five major functions of religion according to anthropology is the provision of identity. Believing you were the chosen people, the true humans, that God loved your group more than others etc., was a powerful survival mechanism in the days of small populations. On our current over crowded planet, this has become a major liability. Just look at the middle east with Israelis and Palestinians, Sunnis and Shias, all claiming God given rights to the same pieces of real estate.

One of the pressing issues of our time is how to cope with this and how to change this mentality if we even can. Maybe we can't. History is full of groups who annihilated other groups.

Let me also remind you that all of history's most recent despots and mass murderers were all of the humanities bent.

And most of them were atheists as well. Which means ???

MH2

climber

Aug 17, 2014 - 08:20am PT

I appreciate your concern with words, Jim, and your ability to use them to make us reconsider without telling us directly what to think. The scheme for how different religions and the irreligious and non-religious can live together was worked out long ago. Gore your ox if your tradition calls for it but please leave my cat alone.