Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/6/10 02:45 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Yup! Hume once said that "Reason is the slave of passions". Here is another illuistration. Ahem.

Then it's odd that you, in one example, should emphasize a disconnect between the macroscopic and nano..scopic, and then in the next example, emphasize an intimate relationship between nano-scopic and macroscopic.

I apologize I am not so materialistically savvy, but I try.

Mum says that's all we can ask.

At 5/6/10 02:51 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: I apologize I am not so materialistically savvy, but I try.

Mum says that's all we can ask.

Whatever. No worries. I have trouble talking about free will too.

Let me try an example. A baseball and a baseball bat collide. The ball goes soaring some amount of distance with some kind of trajectory.

Is it dishonest to call the baseball bat a baseball bat instead of describing it's cellular structure? Is it dishonest to describe it's cellular structure instead of describing its atomic structure? Is it wrong to predict the distance the ball will travel based on things like velocity and air resistance, rather than calculating for every individual atom?

No.

But does this mean it's presumptuous to say the atomic structure of the baseball bat has something to do with the way the ball reacts to it? No.

And there are two brands of free will being discussed in this thread. One which perceives free will as a macroscopic interpretation of determinism, as the baseball bat. And one which perceives free will as an opening in the system. It's the latter that us determinists argue against.

So your treatment of rationalization as something outside determinism, where as passion is something inside determinism, is problematic, because determinism considers both a macroscopic phenomena. Passion is no more a proof of determinism as rationalization is proof against it. Neither are proof either way.

At 5/6/10 03:06 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Passion is no more a proof of determinism as rationalization is proof against it. Neither are proof either way.

Gah I said that wrong.

Passion is no more an example of determinism as rationalization is an example of free will (the latter kind).

When I say our decisions are based on the subatomic particle movement, I'm not referring to particles from granny getting smashed interfering with our brain. I'm referring to the particles that were already in our brain. Look at it this way, I tell you to look to your side. You look left, or you look right. The difference in which is based on billions of factors, but let's simplify it down to one step instead of billions. You have two sets of nerves, and the electrical impulse can travel down one, or the other. Which one that electrical impulse travels down is chosen not by you deciding you want that electricity to travel down, since you have no control over electricity whatsoever, but rather by the direction that particle was moving at the time when it hit the junction. You looked left, or you looked right, but you only felt like you chose that direction. The laws of particle dynamics decided which direction YOU would choose.

At 5/8/10 06:32 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: You have two sets of nerves, and the electrical impulse can travel down one, or the other. Which one that electrical impulse travels down is chosen not by you deciding you want that electricity to travel down, since you have no control over electricity whatsoever, but rather by the direction that particle was moving at the time when it hit the junction. You looked left, or you looked right, but you only felt like you chose that direction. The laws of particle dynamics decided which direction YOU would choose.

I get that idea of predetermination. I like it. Just that way in particular of addressing it runs into a major problem in explaining the examples I had posted. Surely if that were the case we would have no 'second thoughts' about anything, since everything is determined by the stronger synaptic connection of neurons. Can you illustrate how that particular idea would work with the previous examples? (Not the idea Bacchanalian and I rambled on for a bit)

At 5/8/10 07:09 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: typofix

Since everything would be determined by the stronger neuronal synaptic connections.

I'm only 'GCSE grade' biology savvy as well so please correct me if I'm wrong, I hope you get the jist of what I'm trying to illustrate.

Second thoughts? That'd still be fairly simple to explain, let's look at the same branching path and set up a second branch path at the bottom of that one. You first wanted to look left, but then the electron traveled down the other path at the second junction and you looked right. Of course, again I simplify a depressingly complicated arrangement of interactions on subatomic, atomic, and regular old cellular levels.

As for the example, I think you mean the one about the wife and the girl across the street? You're assuming that the atomic interactions to which I refer only supply the impulses you receive, correct? In other words, that the interactions of such things only affect the input to you, that you then make a rational decision and can choose to ignore that? If so, I've failed to fully explain... It would determine your initial impulse, but also your second guessing, the path your rationalizations took, and every other step of the process. Every bit of it, determined from the start. Of course, since the thoughts we have are determined in the exact same way, you could say that it's not the decision that was made but rather, the decision's maker. You were made to make the decision, in the same way that the decision was made. So, I live as if I'm the one in control, as if I have free will, because my mind happens to be set up so that I can accept rationally that my decisions at any given moment were predetermined while still 'choosing' to make the best decision possible.

I wonder how this works with social networks. Every person is built fairly similar, but still there are people who can get along better with some than others. But then again, such relationships are complex and can change over times etcetera. We all have similar actions, but we all act it out so complexly different.