Not necessarily... it would just be that they were predetermined to get punished for those behaviors as well.
Not necessarily... it would just be that they were predetermined to get punished for those behaviors as well.
That somebody that believes in something so absurd is questioning me on my science LOLOL You don't find that funny? LOL
You sure didn't say that in your first post... only probably when you scrolled down and read the rests of the posts, or the rest of the article.
What valid arguments did you make? You didn't do anything but accuse me... which i answered if you would actually read the posts instead of getting your panties all in a bunch.
I didn't get as far as some of you but I think its definitely hog wash.
Think about this:
--------------
Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.
--------------
How were they able to experiment with two particles that were 10billion miles apart?
Then there's the hologram theory. If the whole universe was one big hologram, there's no way they can create a hologram within a hologram. It would just be part of the same hologram. So the mere fact that they claim you can create a hologram within this universal hologram makes it false. Think of the fish tank. If the universe was a hologram and you try to create a hologram within it, its like trying to create water within the water of that fish tank? Well, if you didn't get that anology, here's something else to think about, if the universe is one big hologram and you created a holographic image, does that mean you've just expanded the universe? or maybe you've just created another universe within your universe.
Think about this:
--------------
Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.
--------------
How were they able to experiment with two particles that were 10billion miles apart?
Then there's the hologram theory. If the whole universe was one big hologram, there's no way they can create a hologram within a hologram. It would just be part of the same hologram. So the mere fact that they claim you can create a hologram within this universal hologram makes it false. Think of the fish tank. If the universe was a hologram and you try to create a hologram within it, its like trying to create water within the water of that fish tank? Well, if you didn't get that anology, here's something else to think about, if the universe is one big hologram and you created a holographic image, does that mean you've just expanded the universe? or maybe you've just created another universe within your universe.
Interesting yes, but what would be the argument for punishment.
Today, administration of justice serves two main purposes:
1. Rehabilitation
2. Deterrent
If behavior can't be controlled individually, you won't be teaching the person not to repeat illegal behavior.
Likewise, people will not be able to refrain from behaviors simply because they have seen others get punished and fear similar treatment.
The justifications for our system of punishment for actions would become pointless.
Today, administration of justice serves two main purposes:
1. Rehabilitation
2. Deterrent
If behavior can't be controlled individually, you won't be teaching the person not to repeat illegal behavior.
Likewise, people will not be able to refrain from behaviors simply because they have seen others get punished and fear similar treatment.
The justifications for our system of punishment for actions would become pointless.
Just because everything is predetermined, doesn't mean we don't have control individually. The predetermination is in the big picture, but individually, we would still believe our life is our own free will. Psychology is all about human behavior, and how to understand and modify it. Even those who are under direct behavior modification, think they are completely free willed.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
I don't even know where to start. You are mixing my original post with my second post and treating them like one. I will not even comment on the second part because it's so messed up.
No, I do not find it funny. I believe in science and religion. What's wrong with that? Why do you find it funny that just because I believe in religion that I am unqualified to give an oppinion on this subject?
if you really believe in predetermination then everything is predetermined. you are only doing and thining what you are supposed to. there is no choice
because all your choices are predetermined.I'm not sure I understand you. If everything is predetermined, then when I choose to walk into a bank with a gun, that was not really my choice. It was predetermined. My subjective belief that it was all based on my decision has no effect on the fact that it was absolutely destined to occur.
Leading to my point that if a theory involving predetermined behaviors were ever proven to be true, people could no longer be held responsible for their actions. It would not matter who subjectively believed they were in actual control of their actions if the reality was known to be that no person controls his own actions.
Imagine a child who discovers that one night everytime he sneezes the thunder claps. As adults we would recognize it to be mere coincidence. The child's subjective belief that his sneezing caused the thunder would not change the reality of the situation as it is known to be.
Originally posted by: dighn
if you really believe in predetermination then everything is predetermined. you are only doing and thining what you are supposed to. there is no choice
I'm not arguing that... everything is predetermined... but we THINK it's freewilled, so we still act as if it's freewilled. If i was to get a kid, say 4-5 years old, and every night, i would go beat him while wearing a Mickey Mouse outfit... what do you think is going to happen to the boy in 10 years? He's most likely going to have a real hatred for Mickey Mouse... he's going to THINK it's his freewill to hate Mickey Mouse, but really, he's been conditioned to. If all we know is predetermination, how can we differentiate it from freewill? We can't, and we don't.
You're right... it would be predetermined, and your subjective belief would be that you had no decision... IF you choose to accept that. Most people still believe they're acting according to free will even when they're being controlled. But predetermination isn't just predetermination of an individual's behavior... it's the entire universe is predetermined. If you're evil, and rob a bank... you rob it because you were raised that way. That your mother was a crackwhore, and didn't properly teach you ethical behavior. That you yourself got involved in crack, and it's drive urged you to do something desperate. At that desperate moment, you just happened to walk by a bank. So you desperation leads you to rob it. All actions are predetermined from an almost infinite number of causes... just because we don't understand or notice it all, doesn't mean they're not there.
See, you're still thinking individually. If predetermination exists, it exists for all of us... including that we would be predetermined to act lawfully against those who break the law.
No it wouldn't... and i don't exactly see how this fits in with predetermination...
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
I already gave it to you. That's what we were discussing before you starting throwing insults around. I asked for proof of what you were saying. I then explained that they are using the 1920's experiment as an example of a possible implication, not as proof of their theory. I then asked who in this world knows VERY well how the brain works. As far as I know, no one knows how the brain works. They can identify parts of it, but don't know how it really works.
Are you going to stay on topic this time? Or are you going to start insulting my religion again?
Let me ask this... if we have free will, when does it start? Are we born completely free willed? Do we have a choice when or where we are born? Do we have free will at 1 years old? If i'm hungry, do i choose when to cry or not to cry? Ok, 2 years old... is this when free will starts? If you ever see a 2 year old, you'll see a lot of their behaviors are quite determine and predictable. I know there was a doll that use to make me cry all the time when i was little... and i had no free will over that. So when's the turning point, what is the moment or ability that develops that spontaneously gives us free will? Can we have free will in some actions, and not in others? Or must it be an all or nothing?
Sh1t man, are you really this dumb? Look at who started insulting who first. Is it really your nature to gloss over everything and just pay attention to whatever you want?
if looking at the brain as nothing more than a really complex machine, i don't think there is free will at all. every decision you make is the outcome of some complex process. you are nothing more than the combined results of that process.
though this concept of "me" really bothers me and makes me prefer to think that we are more than just organic computers. this really bothers me, is "me" real, am i really thinking about this because i want to or am i just an illusion and nothing more than a "program"
Buddhism answers this! There is no soul. There is no me. There is no I. It's all an illusion (exactly like Maya, the example he used, but he understood it incorrectly).
To help answer this question... are you the same person now that you were at 2 years old? At 5 years old? At 10 years old? You are the same person, but at the same time you aren't. You're nothing but a conglomeration of all your experiences wrapped up together. If you were born again as another clone, but lived a completely different life, you would be a different person. I may hate fish because i had a bad experience from fish when i was younger. My favorite color is the color blue, because my very first bike that my dad bought me was that color... and ever since then, i've had a strong affinity for that. I may talk with a lisp because of an accident i had in a car accident... and i may be more shy because of that accident and the lisp. But if i lived antoher life, and that accident didn't occur, and i didn't have that lisp... i would probably be more extroverted. I may have a foot fetish, because when i was younger, my babysitter played with my groin with her feet. Etc etc. There is no point where we become 'me'... there is no point that differentiates the me i am now from the me i was 15 years ago. Who we are is base on our experiences... and if we had completely different experiences, we would be completely different people. Where's the free will in becoming who we are? It doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean we're not responsible for our behavior. Just as society and our environment dictates how we act, it also dictates what wrong and what's not. In the very end though, we really aren't responsible... Jeffrey Dalhmer was evil... but what if you looked into his past, and found out he was molested by several relatives... and that he has a chemical inbalance inwhich he isn't able to empathize with people. Was he wholly free to act the way he did?
It fits with predetermination as an analogy to your proposition that it individual belief of controlling one's actions takes precident over the actual situation of predetermination in a reality based on predetermination.
When you say "No it wouldn't" you're stating that the child's subjective belief that his sneezing (or for better analogy - clapping) causes the thunder changes the reality of the fact that his actions have no control over the occurence. In other words, his belief that he is causing thunder to occur makes it true?
I am aware of conditioning (undergrad bs in psych '96) but what an indivudal believes he is choosing to do does not matter where he does not actually have a choice. If Pavlov had trained his dogs to attack children when he rang the bell AND if it was truly an uncontrollable reaction (as would be the case for all actions in a predetermined existence) would the dogs be responsible for the attack? Would the dogs be any more responsible for the attack if all circumstances were the same except they believed that it was their choice to attack?
Our present judicial system has legal exceptions to crimes of specific intent where the crime is proven to have been committed by a defendant without the capacity or ability to control his freewill to an extent permitting him to act with intent. Where all behavior is predetermined, no one has free will, no one has intent.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
I countered your arguement and asked for proof of what you were saying. I called said you were full of hogwash, but it was simply a remark that goes back to your original comment that you made about the article being hogwash. Then you starting insulting my religion! And you STILL haven't responded to my comments! If you can't come up with a response, then quit posting, or admit that you were wrong!
And WTF are you talking about me paying attention to whatever I want? I have responded to everything you have said and countered it. You have ignored my original post and have been insulting me and my religion this entire time. Is this your nature? To just insult everyone who believes something different than you and ignore their legitament questions because they are a different religion?
No, if we don't have freewill, intent will still be there... it'll just be understood differently. For example, if i take two billiard balls, and shoot them at one another at amazing velocity that would cause them to shatter... if we take a single moment of time, and look at it in that moment, everything would look chaotic... it would appear as though every shard was moved by randonmness... there would be no order. But if we understand EVERYTHING about the billiard balls... every single atom, knew the exact velocity, the exact air density, the exact gravitation pull by other nearby objects, we would be able to track every projectory that comes out of those balls.
Freewill, is freewill because we're looking at it with but a slice of perception. We don't see all the other causation that led up to that behavior.
Holy christ, are you really that dumb? I did answer you, did you not bother to read the link i gave?
I'm not going to bother with you anymore... obviously you lack the ability to comprehend. I gave you the link that answered everything you asked... and even answered the original quote i put up from that page.
And yes, i've insulted you and your religion... because i find it insulting anybody as dumb as you is questioning me on science. If a fellow intelligent person did it, i wouldn't mind... but to think somebody that believes in such absurdity as the literal bible questioning me on science? LOLOL
We will just have to disagree.
I believe that if we understand that we are entirely unable to control our future actions, then our will is also controlled and cannot be free.
If an event is absolutely certain to occur then my perception of its cause does not change its occurrence.
Anyway, 8 pm - gotta go
I believe that if we understand that we are entirely unable to control our future actions, then our will is also controlled and cannot be free.
If an event is absolutely certain to occur then my perception of its cause does not change its occurrence.
Anyway, 8 pm - gotta go
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
That link was NOT proof. If you consider that proof, I have many websites that PROVE that God is real. I find it insulting that someone who claims to be of science has their eyes so closed that they cannot even accept the possiblity that they could be wrong. That is not science. That is stupidity. And where did you get this crazy notion that I believe in the the literal bible? Show me ANYWHERE that I said that I believe in the literal bible. Are you just making up stuff and calling it fact? That must be the kind of science you believe in, hu? I am a man of science and religion, and I find it insulting that you even think that you know anything about science with how you've demonstrated yourself.
And if you did answer my questions, then I aplogize for missing it and request that you repost it at the bottom of this thread so that I may see it and accept it. Please don't repost that terrible link that just regurgitated crap. I'm looking for scientific proof.
So you want me to go through and dig up some research studies just to prove my point? When more than likely, you won't read or understand it? I don't have the time nor motivation to do that. What i posted answered what you asked, and also answered what i quoted. If you're too dense to understand it, here's the gist of it: we understand how the brain works, and how memories are stored and retrieved. They are stored across the brain (and we understand it, despite what the guy in the article claim... if you actually READ that dumb article), because memories rely on multiple senses. He was using a 1920 research to support his claim... that's research that's 80 years old. Do you really not see the problem in that? Are you really so blind in your sense of 'belief' that you would believe everything you read?
This article or one VERY similar (didn't read it this time) was discussed either here in Highly Technical or on slashdot not too long ago... and I pointed out that his hologram analogy is bullcrap. A piece of a hologram does NOT contain all the information. Imagine a hologram 5 feet by 5 feet of a daisy (portrayed at actual size). Near the top of the hologram, you could see almost straight down onto the daisy. Near the bottom of the hologram, you can see the bottom of the petals. Cut it in half horizontally. OOPS! The top half doesn't know what the bottom of the daisy looks like. A hologram just acts like a stationary window. Even though you can see almost as much through a peephole as a bay window, there IS stuff that you cannot see. I can draw a picture showing this if you don't get it.
Regarding free will: you still have to hold people accountable. If you throw a drink on me, and I break your nose, you probably will reconsider in the future. If I don't do anything, you will continue throwing drinks at me. You can't argue this isn't the case. Your actions and my actions are predetermined (drink -> broken nose -> no drink) but you still effectively choose not to throw stuff in the future. Also, bystanders see that they shouldn't throw drinks at me either, influencing their predetermined future decisions.
Regarding free will: you still have to hold people accountable. If you throw a drink on me, and I break your nose, you probably will reconsider in the future. If I don't do anything, you will continue throwing drinks at me. You can't argue this isn't the case. Your actions and my actions are predetermined (drink -> broken nose -> no drink) but you still effectively choose not to throw stuff in the future. Also, bystanders see that they shouldn't throw drinks at me either, influencing their predetermined future decisions.
Decent read. I would just like to point out that the phenomena of "instant communication" is more well known as quantum entanglement.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 397
Facebook
Twitter