Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DRFseven · 04-20-2002, 08:02 AM

Quote:

dk: If I am the sole product of my parents (nature and nurture), society and experiences then �free will� and freedom are an illusion that reflect forces (inputs/outputs and hardware) beyond my control or will. I don't buy it. Objective knowledge commands my acceptance but subjective knowledge requires my assent. While it may be true a person coursed to commit immoral acts may be a victim of circumstances, free will and human creativity are inalienable. To some degree a person with free will and creativity acts as their own agent hence has some culpability, But if I am to accept your hypothesis I am a slave to my nature and environment. This is nonsense, and demonstrates why creatures like you and I with the capacity to reason are �an ends unto themselves�, and subject to objective moral principles. In a sense morality is the price of free agency, and a consequence of reason.

Why is it so hard to understand that there is a mechanism to thinking? What do you think that mechanism is? There is no magical "other thing" that enables thoughts; we have only biology and experience, which, together, form memories through an automatic mechanical process of coded cellular transmission. Sure, we are able to manipulate our own environment, but only to the extent that we have learned to do so. You might call this "freedom", but it is only free relative to comparison with the freedom of other animals, who are not equipped with such a complex learning apparatus. Still, we don't create opinions out of thin air; we are always at the mercy of our own perceptions, which are a product of happenstance. What this amounts to, basically, is that we can never want what we don't want.

dk · 04-20-2002, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:


Why is it so hard to understand that there is a mechanism to thinking? What do you think that mechanism is? There is no magical "other thing" that enables thoughts; we have only biology and experience, which, together, form memories through an automatic mechanical process of coded cellular transmission. Sure, we are able to manipulate our own environment, but only to the extent that we have learned to do so. You might call this "freedom", but it is only free relative to comparison with the freedom of other animals, who are not equipped with such a complex learning apparatus. Still, we don't create opinions out of thin air; we are always at the mercy of our own perceptions, which are a product of happenstance. What this amounts to, basically, is that we can never want what we don't want.

Why? Because it�s impossible to understand anything that subjugates �me� to principles that can't be demonstrated objectively. Probabilities, statistics and comparative analysis denote inference not substance, hence is blind to hidden variables, invisible dependencies and personal biases. If someone believes their freedom is dependent upon random events (happenstance) then they are not free. While I am constrained by the forces of nature, especially human nature, they don�t negate human intelligence, potential, creativity or reason. Why is it so difficult for you to understand its people�s nature to be free, and that freedom is the product of reasonably directed actions, choices and judgments that suitably order human behavior (morality)?

DRFseven · 04-20-2002, 05:39 PM

Quote:

dk: Why is it so difficult for you to understand its people�s nature to be free, and that freedom is the product of reasonably directed actions, choices and judgments that suitably order human behavior (morality)?

Complete, unsupported romantic wishful-thinking; fear of mechanism. What we know is that, without experience, a person will not think. Why? Because without input, there is no perception, and without perception, there is no basis for any opinion.

dk · 04-20-2002, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:

Complete, unsupported romantic wishful-thinking; fear of mechanism. What we know is that, without experience, a person will not think. Why? Because without input, there is no perception, and without perception, there is no basis for any opinion.

What we know is that experience activates (doesn't create) intellect. Once activated intellect enables a person to participate in their destiny. A person can't experience a mathmatical concept yet applied mathmatics describes all kinds of real mechanisms. Why do you place such an emphisis on perception, and so little on intellect, when its clear perception can be reliably fooled?

DRFseven · 04-21-2002, 08:54 AM

Quote:

dk: What we know is that experience activates (doesn't create) intellect. Once activated intellect enables a person to participate in their destiny.

The intellect is not "activated"; it develops. In fact, the neurons involved in the cognitive processes develop stochastically, variable according to experience. We have the ability to see this now on brain scans, which you may look up if you are so inclined. However, you may remember from your high school biology and psychology classes that enriched environment = enriched intellect and that poverty of environment = poverty of intellect (not speaking of the monetary sort of poverty, of course).

There is a biological foundation to intellect potential, but the cognitive wiring is not determined by this foundation alone. Experience tells the brain what to keep and what to prune within that biological framework, so that a child exposed to something, say classical music, from prebirth will have a different capacity for certain function that impacts the intellect than would have been the case without the exposure. The same is true for many other exposures, both the ones we consider as positive and negative intellectual forces, and all these experiences provide a means for the individual to come up with conceptual schemes of "truth detectors" for a particular environment, through which incoming information is processed. There is no such thing as an "activation" of a previously non-functioning intellect; it is created through experiential-cued growth and development within a biological framework.

Quote:

dk: Why do you place such an emphisis on perception, and so little on intellect, when its clear perception can be reliably fooled?

It's not like there are two things; intellect and perception, and that we can use one or the other to think. We receive information, we run it through our thinking processes, and we end up with perceptions. We all know that we don't think about things, we think about our perceptions of things; that's all we have to work with. We can come up with CONceptions by putting perceptions back through the processor, but we're stuck, at any one time, with whatever our perceptions happen to be at that time. Intellect is just a term for this whole perceptual process.

dk · 04-21-2002, 11:30 AM

Quote:

dk: - What we know is that experience activates (doesn't create) intellect. Once activated intellect enables a person to participate in their destiny.
DRFseven: The intellect is not "activated"; it develops. In fact, the neurons involved in the cognitive processes develop stochastically, variable according to experience. We have the ability to see this now on brain scans, which you may look up if you are so inclined. However, you may remember from your high school biology and psychology classes that enriched environment = enriched intellect and that poverty of environment = poverty of intellect (not speaking of the monetary sort of poverty, of course).

There is a biological foundation to intellect potential, but the cognitive wiring is not determined by this foundation alone. Experience tells the brain what to keep and what to prune within that biological framework, so that a child exposed to something, say classical music, from prebirth will have a different capacity for certain function that impacts the intellect than would have been the case without the exposure. The same is true for many other exposures, both the ones we consider as positive and negative intellectual forces, and all these experiences provide a means for the individual to come up with conceptual schemes of "truth detectors" for a particular environment, through which incoming information is processed. There is no such thing as an "activation" of a previously non-functioning intellect; it is created through experiential-cued growth and development within a biological framework.

dk: I don�t want to open the nature or nurture argument, except to say the development of higher mental functions of human beings doesn�t negate either. Clearly an infant is born with brain structures that make language as natural as sucking on mama�s tits, crying, bowel movements and urination. If computers networks model human architecture then the 5 senses stream data to the brain where it is parsed, accented, filtered, linked, and distributed into memory with accents; then retrieved on queue. I have a friend with a17 year kid who is one of the worlds oldest surviving miracle babies, born with hydrocephalous. They still can�t find the kid�s thalamus but the kid breaths, sleeps, crawls, eats, and vocalizes even though he�s totally deaf, and nearly stone blind. It was only in 1999 that scientists learned about the regeneration of brain cells.

Quote:

However, a landmark study in late 1998 by researchers from Sweden and the Salk Institute in La Jolla, Calif., showed for the first time that brain cells in mature humans can regenerate. The research was reported in the November issue of Nature Medicine.
---------- <a href="http://�http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/926345803.html�" target="_blank"> link to source </a>

There is no physical foundation for higher brain function, the surface has barely been scratched.

Quote:

On the Search for the Neural Correlate of Consciousness
This is a constructive analysis of the search for the "neural correlate of consciousness" (or the NCC, as it's sometimes called). I argue that because we don't have any way of detecting consciousness directly (i.e., we have no "consciousness meter"), the search is driven by pre-empirical bridging principles instead. I discuss some of these principles and draw some conclusions about the shape of the search. This paper is largely a transcript of my talk at the 1996 Tucson conference on consciousness, although some fun and games have been omitted (here are some visuals from the talk). It was published in Toward a Science of Consciousness II, edited by Hameroff, Kaszniak, and Scott (MIT Press, 1998).
<a href="http://�http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/consc-papers.html�" target="_blank"> link to NCC article </a>

Tucson 2000, just had a conference, �Toward a Science of Consciousness�. Please note the conference can�t define Consciousness precisely because they lack a physical foundation.

Quote:

dk: - Why do you place such an emphisis on perception, and so little on intellect, when its clear perception can be reliably fooled?
DRFseven: It's not like there are two things; intellect and perception, and that we can use one or the other to think. We receive information, we run it through our thinking processes, and we end up with perceptions. We all know that we don't think about things, we think about our perceptions of things; that's all we have to work with. We can come up with CONceptions by putting perceptions back through the processor, but we're stuck, at any one time, with whatever our perceptions happen to be at that time. Intellect is just a term for this whole perceptual process.

dk: That�s one theory, there are many theories including monism, pluralism and dualism. These theories are painted with all kinds of philosophical colors from a dab of radical empiricism to a smidge of radical idealism. I think your bias on this topic has colored your perception, or perhaps obliterated it entirely?

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

Sojourner553 · 04-21-2002, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vixstile:
 Now my question is:
What rational reason would this person have to, not commit these immoral acts?

Why should an individual not commit an act, purely on the basis that the act has been defined as objectively immoral?

Why should an individual adhere to a particular behavior, purely on the basis that it has been defined as objectively moral?

Without a god or society to enforce an objective moral law, what objective value does that law have?

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]

Hi Haran,

I have noticed you have left a number of my OTHER posts on a similar subject unanswered...

Here is an answer, although I don't think it's what you WANT to hear:

There are a number of psychological behavior models that have been proposed to maximize WIN-WIN scenarios. These all rationally entail some form of give and take - ie the recognition that one's individual needs are maximized, if one also allows the needs of others to be met!

That is why the Silver/Golden rule has been put forth in most civilized societies, because it is recognized as that principle by which societies best operate. (ie no divinity is needed to
discern this rule):

"I get treated well, if I treat others well."

I have also put on other posts, how empathy seems to have evolved not only in humans but animals as well. The mechanism? Mothers that take care of their children are more likely to grow up and have more children.

__________________________________

It is religion that teaches that there are "higher" PRINCIPLES more important than treating one's fellow human well:

Here are a few examples (the quotes are hypothetical only to demonstrate how the individual's BELIEF system affected their INHUMANE behavior to others.)

* "My children's drownings were necessary to save them from Satan and protect their souls for heaven." -- Andrea Yates

* "Torture is needed to halt the spread of heretical beliefs." -- Tom�s de Torquemada

* "We must kill the infidels" -- Bin Laden

* "Gays should not have full rights in society"
Jerry Falwell
.
Moral of story: You presume "belief" makes one act in an obvious moral way?
History has shown it was primarily CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS groups who fought and opposed democracy, toleration, slave abolition, women rights, and laws outlawing child abuse.

Sojourner

DRFseven · 04-21-2002, 06:15 PM

Quote:

dk: I don�t want to open the nature or nurture argument, except to say the development of higher mental functions of human beings doesn�t negate either.

That's nice that you don't want to open that argument since I'm not arguing against either one; I'm saying that that our thinking is a function of complex interaction of the two.

Quote:

Clearly an infant is born with brain structures that make language as natural as sucking on mama�s tits, crying, bowel movements and urination.

A capacity for learning language, yes. Do you mean to suggest that people don't need to learn languages; that they are born knowing them already? Humans exposed to language, learn to speak it due to the unique structure of their brains; other animals do not, except for some possibly rudimentary language abilities in apes. But learn it, we must, or else we won't speak it.

Quote:

If computers networks model human architecture then the 5 senses stream data to the brain where it is parsed, accented, filtered, linked, and distributed into memory with accents; then retrieved on queue.

Yes, agreed. Point?

Quote:

I have a friend with a17 year kid who is one of the worlds oldest surviving miracle babies, born with hydrocephalous. They still can�t find the kid�s thalamus but the kid breaths, sleeps, crawls, eats, and vocalizes even though he�s totally deaf, and nearly stone blind. It was only in 1999 that scientists learned about the regeneration of brain cells.

Do you, somehow, think I am arguing that brain cells don't regenerate?

Quote:

There is no physical foundation for higher brain function, the surface has barely been scratched.

No physical foundation for higher brain function? So, then, anything without brain cells at all could be intellectually brilliant? Like, maybe, the eggplant I had for dinner could have had higher brain function and I ate it!! Sorry, you're just totally wrong on this. No physical foundation.

Please read this information on <a href="http://fmri.ucsd.edu/fmri/FMRI-TINS.html" target="_blank">localization of brain function with functional magnetic resonance imaging</a> regarding the light it is shedding on higher brain function in humans. It says, among other things,

Quote:

Until recently, human functional data have been constrained by severely limited spatial resolution, as provided by electrical recording methods, or by the need for radionuclide (e.g. Positron Emission Tomography or "PET") imaging involving complex apparatus and radio-pharmaceuticals, even then achieving only moderate (~5-10 mm) spatial resolution. A confluence of MRI developments, particularly those involving ultra-fast imaging, have resulted recently in techniques by which activity in the human brain can be observed non-invasively with spatial resolution of a few millimeters and temporal resolution of less than a second. The MRI approach is technically challenging, expensive, and less than two years old, yet the publications on both method and results are already too extensive to summarize fully in a short review. These new techniques, generically termed functional MRI (fMRI) have led already to an improved understanding of the neural processing of higher level information; they will contribute substantially to the ability of the neuroscientist to explore the higher level workings of the human mind.

We don't understand consciousness yet, but we know there is a physical correlate, as brain lesion studies have shown long before fMRIs opened the floodgates to a visualization of the process in healthy individuals.

Quote:

I think your bias on this topic has colored your perception, or perhaps obliterated it entirely?

Yes, my strange bias toward fact instead of toward wistful longing for "noble freedom." Bah! I'm telling you, without experience, you don't think, period. Your experiences are responsible for every thought, every attitude, every opinion you've ever had. Your environment chose you.

dk · 04-21-2002, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:
.
Moral of story: You presume "belief" makes one act in an obvious moral way?
History has shown it was primarily CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS groups who fought and opposed democracy, toleration, slave abolition, women rights, and laws outlawing child abuse.

History teaches people forget history, hence are condemned to repeat it. Absent sound moral principles to live by, people degenerate until war becomes a blessing.

DRFseven · 04-22-2002, 07:17 AM

Quote:

dk: Absent sound moral principles to live by, people degenerate until war becomes a blessing.

I agree that people need moral principles to get along, and, back to vixstile's original point, absent the prospect of enforced penalties, what would be the incentive to comply with any objective moral rule? Nothing; people need personal scruples to act on moral principles without threat of penalty and this requires an emotional investment.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.