Is pride illogical?

duga · 12-06-2012, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face

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).

Yes, but the whole point of bringing it up is for the human element of choice. If we were at equilibrium with our environments as animals are (they react purely on instinct and if the environment changes and they are unfit for it, they go extinct), then we, too would most likely have gone extinct by now. Our environment IS proceeding towards equilibrium while we are fighting against it. The unlimited aspect I mentioned is where free will and choice comes into it. We are constantly attempting to overcome our environment, making ourselves more fit even though our genetics can't do it. If we lived in Tuna's universe, this would never happen.

Face · 12-06-2012, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

Yes, but the whole point of bringing it up is for the human element of choice. If we were at equilibrium with our environments as animals are (they react purely on instinct and if the environment changes and they are unfit for it, they go extinct), then we, too would most likely have gone extinct by now. Our environment IS proceeding towards equilibrium while we are fighting against it. The unlimited aspect I mentioned is where free will and choice comes into it. We are constantly attempting to overcome our environment, making ourselves more fit even though our genetics can't do it. If we lived in Tuna's universe, this would never happen.

Do you mean equilibrium as in where no further reaction is possible? Or dynamic equilibrium (where a reaction is reversible, resulting in an ongoing two way reaction but a steady amount of reactants/products

Even animals aren't always in Dynamic (?) equilibrium with the environment. They can change their own environment (overfeeding etc) to a point where it can't recover until they adapt or die out. One could argue we are doing the same to the planet.

In order to reach equilibrium, the contents must constantly change until the equilibrium is reached.

Tuna's universe is one where we can predict exactly what is going to happen based on all previous factors and all existing conditions of the entire universe. If that was possible, then it would possible to know exactly how humans have/will overcome their environment, but the fact that it could be determined wouldn't prevent the outcome.

But you're saying if everything could be perfectly predicted, it would result in...a dynamic equilibrium (everything remaining constant/being cyclical)? If that's the case then I disagree.

duga · 12-06-2012, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face

Do you mean equilibrium as in where no further reaction is possible? Or dynamic equilibrium (where a reaction is reversible, resulting in an ongoing two way reaction but a steady amount of reactants/products

I think you are reading too much into the terms I am using. I'm not trying to say the universe is like a chemistry reaction...I was just using that as a comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face

Even animals aren't always in Dynamic (?) equilibrium with the environment. They can change their own environment (overfeeding etc) to a point where it can't recover until they adapt or die out. One could argue we are doing the same to the planet.

I said in my post that the universe is trying to reach an equilibrium. It's called entropy. Right now there are too many complex factors to predict what that will actually look like. We can see it on a small scale as unfit organisms go extinct while other species that have established their places on the food chain continue their lives. Anytime this is disrupted, it is because of a shift in the equilibrium and not because one of the animals "decided" to screw something up. There are plenty of organisms that we don't even know about that go extinct every year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face

Tuna's universe is one where we can predict exactly what is going to happen based on all previous factors and all existing conditions of the entire universe. If that was possible, then it would possible to know exactly how humans have/will overcome their environment, but the fact that it could be determined wouldn't prevent the outcome.

But you're saying if everything could be perfectly predicted, it would result in...a dynamic equilibrium (everything remaining constant/being cyclical)? If that's the case then I disagree.

I am saying that the world IS perfectly predictable...hence the universal equation I mentioned a few posts back. I'm saying in Tuna's world, it is perfectly predictable and without free will...which creates a stagnant universe that constantly just recreates itself the same way over and over. If the universe is contracting in on itself and another Big Bang occurs, then this only proves my point. It is the human element of free will (or any species with self awareness, I guess) that is unpredictable and is able to create something against this equilibrium.

Imagine a world of robots. We can all agree that by the definition of "robot", they would have no free will, right? Let's say they are also programmed to adapt to the environment as it changes. Will a robot ever innovate and invent something to give itself a leg up against the environment? No.

PoorOldPo · 12-06-2012, 08:23 PM

Pride is part of being human. Everyone feels it at some point. Everyone also exposes their insecurities by being unsure of themselves. At the end of the day, pride doesn't really define who you are as a person, it defines what you are conditioning yourself to be, or what you think you want to be. It is build with the bricks of your ego. Sometimes I feel pride as well as everyone else, but it is always short-lived, and completely irrelevant in the long term, of your life and your own personal experience.

Face · 12-07-2012, 12:05 PM

yeah, we got a bit disjointed there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

I'm saying in Tuna's world, it is perfectly predictable and without free will...which creates a stagnant universe that constantly just recreates itself the same way over and over.

Take this universe, remove all life (and hence any free will).

The big crunch looks increasingly unlikely, let's just assume it will not happen.

Surely in this scenario, the universe effectively undergoes pretty much exactly the same events as whether we existed or not and reaches the same conclusion. Any free will of ours is completely negligible within our solar system, let alone the universe in terms of our effect on the outcome.

There is no recreation, and the universe decays until it reaches maximum entropy. This will happen in a universe where we don't exist (no free will). This will happen where we exist (with free will)

------

As a side note, there are events at a atomic level which are unpredictable. Such as when a particular radioactive particle will decay, it's impossible to predict.

But when viewed as a group, statistically we can determine the material's half-life. And hence the outcome and it's effects.

If we assume free will isn't predictable for an individual, couldn't we theoretically determine the outcome of free will for a group of people. In some way, we already do. Given one person, we can't say for sure what they will do. But given a large enough sample size and previous experiments we can determine that 30% of people will select A over B or C. 50% will choose B ad 20% will choose C.

midnight rain · 12-07-2012, 01:38 PM

Ok, let's see here

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

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.

I consider probability to be the limitation of the human mind, and I believe Einstein said something along the same lines. Not necessarily that humans are unable to grasp the factors that go into why something happens, just the sure immensity of different factors that play into everything that happens in life, is just too broad and innumerable for humans to account for. Those are the limitations of technology and science today imo. I guess I just disagree with the concept of randomness, you say that "piecing together a caused b caused c is only attributing something after the fact" but to me that says everything has an underlying cause for why it happened, and that cause is definitive and the reason it happened (even if we can't pinpoint it). So if you were to reproduce that entire scenario to 100% accuracy, it would unfold the same way.

Quote:

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.

Hmm I'm not entirely sure what you're implying here. Humanity adapts to the environment just like all other species that came before us, our adaptations have certainly been far more effective and more far reaching (we've found a way to survive in the desert and the arctic, that's pretty impressive in and of itself), but other animals adaptations are like a microcosm of humanity in it's own way. Bears build their dens to hibernate in much in the way humans build houses to survive the conditions (they obviously exist for many more reasons, but that's the underlying one)

Quote:

This is the element I am talking about. The ability for life to create unexpected change is the basis of free will.

What unexpected changes are you referring to? Evolution has occurred since the most simple of organisms, and I don't think you'd attribute free will to a bacterial membrane.

Anything specific by Plato you suggest I start with?

midnight rain · 12-07-2012, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face

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.

Ok, I see, so you're basically illustrating that any other emotion is just as illogical as pride in the sense that I was getting at? I won't deny that since humans are such an inquisitive species, and that we want a purpose in life, the illusion of free will in and of itself serves a purpose and keeps us going in life. If lack of free will was uniformly embraced it could potentially result in us regressing to our most basic, animalistic needs, because life is short and why live for anyone but yourself?

But not everyone is willing to concede that free will is just an illusion, and on the same token not everyone is willing to accept that free will is very real in humans, so the debate does continue to serve a purpose as it gets us to question our existence. So long as people are willing to maintain an open mind of course.

Me, I like to logically accept free will as a farce, while going about my life ignoring this truth because I too am human.

Quote:

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.

Right, I understand. But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make off of it? I already agree with you that 'blame' is a misplaced concept. If you're talking simply about judgement, well we do that without knowing it sometimes and in full knowledge others. When you call someone "ugly" you (hopefully) realize that a lot of time it's through no fault of their own (assuming free will exists, people still don't have any control over say bone structure, so you'd be passing judgement over something that someone can't control), but you're still passing judgement. I think that can be applied to any physical or mental aspect that is judged on, only it's not as clear-to-see as something like physical features

midnight rain · 12-07-2012, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

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.

Pardon? I'm not sure how one can have the potential for free will but not the ability to use it? That sounds like I could say "a rock has potential for free will, if it had a brain to use it."

I guess you'll have to explain that to me more in-depth.

duga · 12-07-2012, 02:22 PM

Since I'm at work I'll have to come back to this later to comment more in depth, but just to respond to your last comment...imagine an old computer. You put a new peripheral accessory on it, but it's too old and obsolete to use it...it now has the potential to use it if it only had the capacity. There are some animals I feel have evolved enough to actually display some basic use of free will.

Face · 12-07-2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

Ok, I see, so you're basically illustrating that any other emotion is just as illogical as pride in the sense that I was getting at? I won't deny that since humans are such an inquisitive species, and that we want a purpose in life, the illusion of free will in and of itself serves a purpose and keeps us going in life. If lack of free will was uniformly embraced it could potentially result in us regressing to our most basic, animalistic needs, because life is short and why live for anyone but yourself?

But not everyone is willing to concede that free will is just an illusion, and on the same token not everyone is willing to accept that free will is very real in humans, so the debate does continue to serve a purpose as it gets us to question our existence. So long as people are willing to maintain an open mind of course.

Me, I like to logically accept free will as a farce, while going about my life ignoring this truth because I too am human.

That's my point, even if it is an illusion, we're all too human to function as if it is.

Continuing on....even if our entire environment is an illusion, it's temperature, nutrition, social interaction can still cause us to become cold, hungry and sad so we might as well treat it as real either way.

Quote:

Right, I understand. But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make off of it? I already agree with you that 'blame' is a misplaced concept. If you're talking simply about judgement, well we do that without knowing it sometimes and in full knowledge others. When you call someone "ugly" you (hopefully) realize that a lot of time it's through no fault of their own (assuming free will exists, people still don't have any control over say bone structure, so you'd be passing judgement over something that someone can't control), but you're still passing judgement. I think that can be applied to any physical or mental aspect that is judged on, only it's not as clear-to-see as something like physical features

I'm thinking aloud here, It might not have even been against anything you said specifically....

Deal with what something IS, not whether it "chose" to be that way.

In the same setting, , Alan IS tall, Bob is short.
You buy longer trousers for Alan, because they're tall. And shorter ones for Bob, regardless of why they are tall short.

In the same setting, Cameron kills infants, Dave is law abiding.
You detain Cameron, you leave Dave be, regardless of why they do.

It's a gross oversimplification...... but I think it illustrates on some level how even if we accept freewill doesn't exist, our responses don't/can't significantly change.

Maybe I don't have a point here afterall. Let's call it food for thought then.

12-06-2012, 08:23 PM	#44 (permalink)
PoorOldPo Blue Pill Oww Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Luimneach, Eire Posts: 1,107	Pride is part of being human. Everyone feels it at some point. Everyone also exposes their insecurities by being unsure of themselves. At the end of the day, pride doesn't really define who you are as a person, it defines what you are conditioning yourself to be, or what you think you want to be. It is build with the bricks of your ego. Sometimes I feel pride as well as everyone else, but it is always short-lived, and completely irrelevant in the long term, of your life and your own personal experience. __________________ https://www.instagram.com/hennas.lullaby/

12-07-2012, 02:22 PM	#49 (permalink)
duga MB quadrant's JM Vincent Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,762	Since I'm at work I'll have to come back to this later to comment more in depth, but just to respond to your last comment...imagine an old computer. You put a new peripheral accessory on it, but it's too old and obsolete to use it...it now has the potential to use it if it only had the capacity. There are some animals I feel have evolved enough to actually display some basic use of free will. __________________ Confusion will be my epitaph...