Fate or Free Choice?

[Lysia]

Tangled Up In Blue

Lysia

No, it's based on CHOICE. A computer can do difference calculations, for goodness sake!

Free will isn't required to decide that a course of action would be stupid to take.

I don't follow your use of the word "choice". Choice implies that we make a concious decision to take an action and that we may, at any time, chose one way or another, even though certain factors make one option more appealing than the other. I fail to see how choice is somehow different from free will and self-determination.

No, choice merely implies that a selection procedure has occurred. Selection can occur with or without consciousness.

[Lysia]

Tangled Up In Blue

Allow me to try to clarify what you're positing here for my own benefit: You are saying, basically, that any number of influences are working at a given moment to direct a human being's course of action in a given direction, no? That our actions are determined strictly by the conditions in which we find ourselves and the influences working therein and that said conditions will then determine the course that we take? Everything influencing everything else.

Of course. Think of the human mind as a vast, and immensely complex computer. That is exactly the model I am using; and to use any other model is somewhat silly. However, your word determine is misplaced; the brain is chaotic system, and therefore the small randomnesses which are bound to occur can precipitate bizarre responses.

[Tarrou]

Lysia

Of course. Think of the human mind as a vast, and immensely complex computer. That is exactly the model I am using; and to use any other model is somewhat silly. However, your word determine is misplaced; the brain is chaotic system, and therefore the small randomnesses which are bound to occur can precipitate bizarre responses.

I agree with that model up to a point (it would be irrational to disagree entirely). But that does not account for actions taken in direct contradiction of an organisms interests. Strict randomization does not accound for a human being setting himself on fire for purely political ends. It's so wildly contrary to common sense that it would almost require a concious choice to take such steps.

[Lysia]

Tangled Up In Blue

Lysia

Of course. Think of the human mind as a vast, and immensely complex computer. That is exactly the model I am using; and to use any other model is somewhat silly. However, your word determine is misplaced; the brain is chaotic system, and therefore the small randomnesses which are bound to occur can precipitate bizarre responses.

I agree with that model up to a point (it would be irrational to disagree entirely). But that does not account for actions taken in direct contradiction of an organisms interests. Strict randomization does not accound for a human being setting himself on fire for purely political ends. It's so wildly contrary to common sense that it would almost require a concious choice to take such steps.

Er...

Are you saying that it would be impossible to have a computer that behaved stupidly? The mere fact that something is a computer does not mean that what or how it computes are sensible/rational/obey common sense...

[Tarrou]

Lysia

Er...

Are you saying that it would be impossible to have a computer that behaved stupidly? The mere fact that something is a computer does not mean that what or how it computes are sensible/rational/obey common sense...

It seems impossible if it is programmed, as humans are, to avoid incredibly stupid decisions that threaten its existence. One of the most basic instincts is that of self preservation, and it's ingrained in us from birth (certainly the sort of influence that your calculations would take into account) and pure randomization does not seem to be able to account for as many instances of the violation of this instinct for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with ensuring the viability of one's genes as we have in history, nor in the clumpings that they often occur in (see martyrs and the like). The odds are just too small.

[Lysia]

Tangled Up In Blue

It seems impossible if it is programmed, as humans are, to avoid incredibly stupid decisions that threaten its existence. One of the most basic instincts is that of self preservation, and it's ingrained in us from birth (certainly the sort of influence that your calculations would take into account) and pure randomization does not seem to be able to account for as many instances of the violation of this instinct for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with ensuring the viability of one's genes as we have in history, nor in the clumpings that they often occur in (see martyrs and the like). The odds are just too small.

We aren't programmed; that's teleological.

Sets of behaviours that tend to lead to an increased survival chance of the offspring have been selected for. The behaviour that leads to behaviour and group dynamics is well documented for being insanely powerful; notice hypnotism, et. al. Incidentally, you're also assuming that evolution will arrive at the optimal mental state ("nothing that contravenes my own safety will be allowed" wink , but evolution virtually never ends up at the best solution.

[Tarrou]

Lysia

We aren't programmed; that's teleological.

Sets of behaviours that tend to lead to an increased survival chance of the offspring have been selected for. The behaviour that leads to behaviour and group dynamics is well documented for being insanely powerful; notice hypnotism, et. al. Incidentally, you're also assuming that evolution will arrive at the optimal mental state ("nothing that contravenes my own safety will be allowed" wink , but evolution virtually never ends up at the best solution.

I'd say that the mental state that is most often active is "nothing that contravenes my safety will be allowed within reason". Dying for a "cause" is not within reason biologically. Contravening one's safety to ensure the safety of offspring, family, or simply as the lesser of two potential threats to one's life all fall within bioligical reason. Allowing yourself to die for religion or politics definately is not covered there.

[Yisp]

Tangled Up In Blue

Lysia

We aren't programmed; that's teleological.

Sets of behaviours that tend to lead to an increased survival chance of the offspring have been selected for. The behaviour that leads to behaviour and group dynamics is well documented for being insanely powerful; notice hypnotism, et. al. Incidentally, you're also assuming that evolution will arrive at the optimal mental state ("nothing that contravenes my own safety will be allowed" wink , but evolution virtually never ends up at the best solution.

I'd say that the mental state that is most often active is "nothing that contravenes my safety will be allowed within reason". Dying for a "cause" is not within reason biologically. Contravening one's safety to ensure the safety of offspring, family, or simply as the lesser of two potential threats to one's life all fall within bioligical reason. Allowing yourself to die for religion or politics definately is not covered there.

It's where Lem's Saying "Through conscious awareness evolution has shot itself neatly into the foot." comes from.
Humans have a vast psychological dimension. The concepts we shelter in our psyche can have a massive influence on our behaviour.

Suicide, suicide-bombings, you shouldn't look at them as free choices, but rather as forced situations. I do not believe suicide is a positive choice, I think it occurs when a human (in his entirety) no longer sees any other choices. When the pains involved with continuing outweigh the basic desire to live.
Even animals die when they are placed in surroundings which can no longer guarantee for their structural demands[even if the most basic of all, food, would be provided]. Humans merely have additional psychological demands.
The mental state you speak of is merely an instinct, maybe not even that.
In the human mind, a human concept may outweigh instincts. Monks, celibacy, concepts dominating over instinct.
It's a calculation of concepts and instincts, with concepts being the product of the environment you are raised in.

[Riot_Rebelle_Kali]

You choose your own fate by the choices you make in life. heh. everyone is going to die sometime...

[Tarrou]

Calcy

It's where Lem's Saying "Through conscious awareness evolution has shot itself neatly into the foot." comes from.
Humans have a vast psychological dimension. The concepts we shelter in our psyche can have a massive influence on our behaviour.

Suicide, suicide-bombings, you shouldn't look at them as free choices, but rather as forced situations. I do not believe suicide is a positive choice, I think it occurs when a human (in his entirety) no longer sees any other choices. When the pains involved with continuing outweigh the basic desire to live.
Even animals die when they are placed in surroundings which can no longer guarantee for their structural demands[even if the most basic of all, food, would be provided]. Humans merely have additional psychological demands.
The mental state you speak of is merely an instinct, maybe not even that.
In the human mind, a human concept may outweigh instincts. Monks, celibacy, concepts dominating over instinct.
It's a calculation of concepts and instincts, with concepts being the product of the environment you are raised in.

Doesn't see other choices, that's key. Hypothetically, there are an infinite number of choices to be made other than suicide, which is the least desireable choice possible. Only through a concious, positive decision to eschew all other possible choices in favor of self-termination could an act such as suicide be achieve.

[Yisp]

Tangled Up In Blue

Calcy

It's where Lem's Saying "Through conscious awareness evolution has shot itself neatly into the foot." comes from.
Humans have a vast psychological dimension. The concepts we shelter in our psyche can have a massive influence on our behaviour.

Suicide, suicide-bombings, you shouldn't look at them as free choices, but rather as forced situations. I do not believe suicide is a positive choice, I think it occurs when a human (in his entirety) no longer sees any other choices. When the pains involved with continuing outweigh the basic desire to live.
Even animals die when they are placed in surroundings which can no longer guarantee for their structural demands[even if the most basic of all, food, would be provided]. Humans merely have additional psychological demands.
The mental state you speak of is merely an instinct, maybe not even that.
In the human mind, a human concept may outweigh instincts. Monks, celibacy, concepts dominating over instinct.
It's a calculation of concepts and instincts, with concepts being the product of the environment you are raised in.

Doesn't see other choices, that's key. Hypothetically, there are an infinite number of choices to be made other than suicide, which is the least desireable choice possible. Only through a concious, positive decision to eschew all other possible choices in favor of self-termination could an act such as suicide be achieved.

No, you see, a choice is a decision you, as an organism, as a member of homo sapiens, make.
Now, you can exclude full consciousness from the very beginning, since there is something called a subconsciousness.
A tiger, prisoned in a cell, depraved of any sensation, will stop eating. I decline to accept any form of positive choice concerning a tiger. It's the entirery of his organism that chooses starvation over life. A calculation of pain against ONE aspect of instinct. The Life-instinct is only one aspect. There are more, like fear, evasion of pain and so on.
It is not a free choice, but a "simple" calculation.
His psyche will alter its functioning.
The same goes for humans.
If your prospects in life promise nothing but pain, your brain alters its functioning, different hormones are set loose, things get biologically out of control.
Suicide bombing, it is a consequence, not an active decision. Bad economical conditions you live in, a radical religious view, a clear idea of who the enemy and cause of your pain is, you get to the point where heaven stands nearer than wordly existence. The perseverance instinct is crushed by your notion of eternal bliss, that's how strong concepts can imo be.
I see no need for "free will" inside these calculations. One the one hand it is the evasion of pain that in the end leads to death, not an active approval of death, on the other hand, a promise outweighing, outweighing on a fundamental biological level, on which you as an entire organism see yourself more drawn to heaven than to earth, your existence on earth, in the end a win-calculation, and again not a positive free decision.

[nevinyrral86]

Not to say I believe this, but here is a belief system that includes both.

At some point outside of time as we know it, we made every decision that we would ever make. However, because of a glitch in our nervous system, we see everything play out in the form of a continuum of events. We have already made all of the choices and there is nothing we can do about it because the choices have already been made. But we did have the choice.

[Tarrou]

*Bows* Calcy, I concede your point, sir. Not being a believer in the concept of a soul, I cannot argue any further with that.

[Yisp]

Heh, I have to convince myself every morning. ^__^
I've got some practice. xp