Is pride illogical?

anticipation · 12-05-2012, 11:42 PM

If you think nature and nurture influenced me to spend 13 hours in a 100+ degree kitchen making the best food I can every day then you're out of your mind. What part exactly of my childhood influenced my decision to clean, cut, pickle, and jar 70 lbs of ramps in one day? Or is it our genes that led us to break down 6 whole pigs and cook them in such a way that wins local and national acclaim? Being proud of what you do is as "illogical" as feeling upset when a family member dies or happy when you see your loved one. If all emotion is just synaptic reaction then what exactly makes them illogical? Your body thinks they're pretty important to do all by itself, doesn't that make them pretty valuable?

midnight rain · 12-05-2012, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anticipation

If you think nature and nurture influenced me to spend 13 hours in a 100+ degree kitchen making the best food I can every day then you're out of your mind. What part exactly of my childhood influenced my decision to clean, cut, pickle, and jar 70 lbs of ramps in one day? Or is it our genes that led us to break down 6 whole pigs and cook them in such a way that wins local and national acclaim? Being proud of what you do is as "illogical" as feeling upset when a family member dies or happy when you see your loved one. If all emotion is just synaptic reaction then what exactly makes them illogical? Your body thinks they're pretty important to do all by itself, doesn't that make them pretty valuable?

I'm not passing any judgement here, you were the one who argued that everyone was of equal intelligence with me in the shoutbox right?

Not sure I'm gonna convert someone with such a polarizing belief from my own

duga · 12-06-2012, 08:55 AM

Tuna, I find your beliefs pretty interesting. I'll concede to a couple things... First, that it is theoretically possible to predict absolutely anything with an in depth enough model (this is what physics is trying to prove with their universal equation). Second, I agree our decisions are influenced by our past experiences. However, that's where we stop agreeing. While we may be able to PREDICT what someone will do if we know enough about them, we still cannot ultimately be 100% certain. I think the key here is to think about external interactions vs internal thought processes. They are 2 very distinct sets of probabilities that can be used to determine the CHANCE that something will happen. As easy as it is to use hindsight and piece things together as a caused b caused c and that's why x happened, you can't assume that you could have known x would happen because a, b, and c are all probabilistic models themselves. Think about this... You could potentially know every element that could influence a coin toss. Even so, all of those elements combine to form something that is still a prediction. No one will ever be able to say how a coin toss will end up with 100% certainty. We are only certain after the fact. This element of uncertainty is where free will lies. It's the ability for our brains to process patterns and probabilities and still make a potentially irrational decision. The human element.

If you are interested, look into some Plato. His theory about the limited vs. the unlimited might be very interesting to you. He talks about how the world is made from 3 basic elements: unity, the limited, and the unlimited. There must be unity and the world is in a constant struggle to maintain it. The struggle occurs because the limited is in a constant battle with the unlimited. The limited represents pure rationality, which is the element you are focusing on. If the world was nothing but the limited, there would be no potential for positive change. The world would simply keep recreating itself in the same way. The unlimited is creativity and the will to strive for more and go beyond our current boundaries. This is the element I am talking about. The ability for life to create unexpected change is the basis of free will. You are bound by your "unique DNA" as you put it. A mutation might occur to make your offspring more fit in the environment. This would advance our species. If we lived in a purely probabilistic universe as you think, an equilibrium of life and death within every environment would be reached, and no overall change would occur. This is clearly never the case... Humans rose above that and are constantly striving to overcome our environment, not just coexist with it.

We do live in a causal universe, but causality is finite. It must begin and end with a choice.

Face · 12-06-2012, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

Emotions have proven an effect survival too for many species and humans are no different. Our emotions just happen to be more complex than all other species.

I agree. But my point wasn't trying to separate us from animals.

It was that while we can appreciate that (maybe) we have no free will. We emotively treat it as their choice to hug us, otherwise why would we have an emotional response?

It's almost like suspended disbelief (which is what what makes us cry/fear when we are being told a story we know is fictional). In this sense, free will (of the characters) definitely doesn't exist, but we can respond at a veryt fundamental level (emotively) that it is.

At the end of the day, deciding we have free will or not changes nothing. Either we have free will and are all responsible for our actions, or none of us have it, so can't be "held responsible" for how we react to others actions. If a criminal's nature&nurture caused him to commit a crime then a judges nature&nurture will determine the sentence he gives and you can't "blame" either.

Quote:

Well by same input I assume you're meaning same set of DNA and same exact environment? (Which is obviously physically impossible for a multitude of reasons, but I know you're presenting a hypothetical). In those ideal circumstances, the output would be identical I imagine.

I agree but that wasn't what I was going for.

In that analogy
Machine = individual's brain at that point in time, determined by genetics and all experiences up to that point in time.
Input = The particular situation each person is assessing.
Output = Their choice/reaction

If you take free will out of the equation, then the different outputs of each machine given the same input show simply what they are, judge them on that.

Maybe it's a weak anology. Whatever, I'm off for dinner.

midnight rain · 12-06-2012, 01:03 PM

I'm going off of like 1 1/2 hours of sleep today so I may get back to these posts sometime tomorrow

I will ask this of duga though (I think you already believe free will is an illusion, Face, correct me if I'm wrong). Do you think other animals besides humans have free will?

duga · 12-06-2012, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

Do you think other animals besides humans have free will?

I feel anything with self awareness has free will. Animals have the potential for free will without the capacity to use it. They are instinctual, which is purely causal. That opens up a whole other aspect to what i was talking about, so I'll wait till you digest what I said in the last post before I get into it.

Face · 12-06-2012, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

I'm going off of like 1 1/2 hours of sleep today so I may get back to these posts sometime tomorrow

I will ask this of duga though (I think you already believe free will is an illusion, Face, correct me if I'm wrong). Do you think other animals besides humans have free will?

Do I think it's an illusion? It depends on what you mean by free will. If the requirement of free will is that it needs to be independent of your experiences and genetics, well, then it doesn't exist in that sense.

Quote:

Side note from me....

If you want to get really technical, is everything we experience an illusion, since it's all perceived and interpreted by your brain? This fits in with me saying it doesn't really matter if it is an illusion or not (our own free will, or reality as we perceive it) the same thing will happens anyway because our descision has no tangible consequences whether we decide it is or not.

We decide free will is an illusion - and what?
We decide reality itself is an illusion - and what?

But I still think we can call what we do a "choice" because our choice is what it is. Given two options, then whatever constitutes as ME is what gave an output rejecting one option over another. So nothing else could be responsible for it apart from the entirety of what is........ ME, including genetics, experiences and whatever else that consists of.

So, I think going by that, an animal would need to be able to actually consider (or be aware of) alternative options on some level to be said to have any degree of free will similar to ours, however illusionary it may or may not be.

This being aware of other options opens the avenue to taking actually taking them, which leads to there being a variety in observed responses in a population. This variety in responses is what I think can be said to be the freewill (illusion or actual).

So, in order for an animal to be able to consider options, it cannot be hard-wired, it needs to be able to learn from it's experiences and have it's psychology shaped by it.

Face · 12-06-2012, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

If we lived in a purely probabilistic universe as you think, an equilibrium of life and death within every environment would be reached, and no overall change would occur. This is clearly never the case... Humans rose above that and are constantly striving to overcome our environment, not just coexist with it.

Could you expand on this? By probabalistic do you mean that given all factors we could predict the future with 100% certainty? Because if that's the case I don't understand why that would mean any equilibriums would have to be reached.

duga · 12-06-2012, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face

Could you expand on this? By probabalistic do you mean that given all factors we could predict the future with 100% certainty? Because if that's the case I don't understand why that would mean any equilibriums would have to be reached.

Think about it...you start a chemical reaction, it proceeds to equilibrium, using up catalysts and creating products until no more reaction occurs. There is still the potential for more reactions to occur, but without adding anymore elements, it will remain at equilibrium. This is the limited universe I was talking about. With a finite number of elements, any closed system will eventually reach equilibrium. Throw those same elements in again and again and what happens? The same thing...the environment recreates itself over and over. It's predictable.

Face · 12-06-2012, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

Think about it...you start a chemical reaction, it proceeds to equilibrium, using up catalysts and creating products until no more reaction occurs. There is still the potential for more reactions to occur, but without adding anymore elements, it will remain at equilibrium. This is the limited universe I was talking about. With a finite number of elements, any closed system will eventually reach equilibrium. Throw those same elements in again and again and what happens? The same thing...the environment recreates itself over and over. It's predictable.

What if you consider big bang all the way though to the universe's equilibrium/end as the one reaction?

Ie. catalyst + reactants -> products
The amount of reactants vs products is constantly changing, the reaction is irreversible and the equilibrium is at the end of the reaction. Isn't that what IS happening (assuming no big crunch), the universe is constantly changing, not self sustaining, while proceeding to AN (just the one) equilibrium of sorts (the end of the universe/reaction).

12-06-2012, 08:55 AM	#33 (permalink)
duga MB quadrant's JM Vincent Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,762	Tuna, I find your beliefs pretty interesting. I'll concede to a couple things... First, that it is theoretically possible to predict absolutely anything with an in depth enough model (this is what physics is trying to prove with their universal equation). Second, I agree our decisions are influenced by our past experiences. However, that's where we stop agreeing. While we may be able to PREDICT what someone will do if we know enough about them, we still cannot ultimately be 100% certain. I think the key here is to think about external interactions vs internal thought processes. They are 2 very distinct sets of probabilities that can be used to determine the CHANCE that something will happen. As easy as it is to use hindsight and piece things together as a caused b caused c and that's why x happened, you can't assume that you could have known x would happen because a, b, and c are all probabilistic models themselves. Think about this... You could potentially know every element that could influence a coin toss. Even so, all of those elements combine to form something that is still a prediction. No one will ever be able to say how a coin toss will end up with 100% certainty. We are only certain after the fact. This element of uncertainty is where free will lies. It's the ability for our brains to process patterns and probabilities and still make a potentially irrational decision. The human element. If you are interested, look into some Plato. His theory about the limited vs. the unlimited might be very interesting to you. He talks about how the world is made from 3 basic elements: unity, the limited, and the unlimited. There must be unity and the world is in a constant struggle to maintain it. The struggle occurs because the limited is in a constant battle with the unlimited. The limited represents pure rationality, which is the element you are focusing on. If the world was nothing but the limited, there would be no potential for positive change. The world would simply keep recreating itself in the same way. The unlimited is creativity and the will to strive for more and go beyond our current boundaries. This is the element I am talking about. The ability for life to create unexpected change is the basis of free will. You are bound by your "unique DNA" as you put it. A mutation might occur to make your offspring more fit in the environment. This would advance our species. If we lived in a purely probabilistic universe as you think, an equilibrium of life and death within every environment would be reached, and no overall change would occur. This is clearly never the case... Humans rose above that and are constantly striving to overcome our environment, not just coexist with it. We do live in a causal universe, but causality is finite. It must begin and end with a choice. __________________ Confusion will be my epitaph...

12-06-2012, 01:03 PM	#35 (permalink)
midnight rain Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,711	I'm going off of like 1 1/2 hours of sleep today so I may get back to these posts sometime tomorrow I will ask this of duga though (I think you already believe free will is an illusion, Face, correct me if I'm wrong). Do you think other animals besides humans have free will? Last edited by midnight rain; 12-06-2012 at 01:17 PM.

12-05-2012, 11:42 PM	#31 (permalink)
anticipation Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,565	If you think nature and nurture influenced me to spend 13 hours in a 100+ degree kitchen making the best food I can every day then you're out of your mind. What part exactly of my childhood influenced my decision to clean, cut, pickle, and jar 70 lbs of ramps in one day? Or is it our genes that led us to break down 6 whole pigs and cook them in such a way that wins local and national acclaim? Being proud of what you do is as "illogical" as feeling upset when a family member dies or happy when you see your loved one. If all emotion is just synaptic reaction then what exactly makes them illogical? Your body thinks they're pretty important to do all by itself, doesn't that make them pretty valuable?