More philosophy for the simple minded faggots here

Share your experiences with the opposite sex. Suggest ways to improve your success. Analyze the behavior of females in real life and online. Rant and rave about females. Show the importance of looks pertaining to attracting females and other social situations. Discuss aesthetics and the science of attractiveness. Exchange health, nutrition and looksmaxing tips.

I know how you guys were trying to boast about how dark triad and intelligent you are, but since I'm more intellectually honest than you, I did some actual research.

I find this model really represents what I was trying to say. It represents the gut instincts I had regarding this issue, but is much more eloquent and comprehensive than I could have presented it:

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/cogito/

Again, beyond the Dennett and Mele models, the Cogito Model proposes a specific process that avoids the single "quantum event in the brain" that gets amplified perfectly in time with our thought processes to help with free will. There are billions of quantum events in the brain every second. The miracle of the mind is that it can manage the resulting noise, averaging over these events when it needs to, utilizing them when it wants to.

Because the agent is actively controlling the process of deliberation up to the instant of the determining decision at the 'moment of choice,' the Cogito Model shares much with agent-causal views, without being metaphysical.

The "free" stage of the Cogito Model depends on thermal and quantal noise in the neural circuitry of the brain. This noise introduces errors in the storage and retrieval of information, noise that may be helpful in generating alternative possibilities for action.

The "will" stage of the Cogito Model suppresses this noise for the adequately determined process of evaluation and decision, unless the will is satisfied with a random choice in special cases of the liberty of indifference.

The Cogito Model is compatible with indeterminism suitably located and determinism appropriately limited.

It is thus "doubly compatible" with indeterminism and "adequate" determinism. This suggests what we call a Comprehensive Compatibilism.

The Cogito Model is arguably closer to the common sense or "folk" view of free will than any other free will model.
Earth's sole legacy will be a very slight increase (0.01%) of the solar metallicity.



The finest details of brain events are thought by some to be a consequence of motions of the material particles that comprise the brain. Reductionism implies that mind is an epiphenomenon, or worse, just an illusion. The reductionist idea that everything is the consequence of "bottom up" physical causes is often called eliminative materialism.

By contrast, downward causation is a kind of holism that denies reductionism. "Wholes" can enforce constraints on their "parts" to make them move in ways that may be unpredictable, even given the complete information about the parts (ultimately the atoms and molecules) along with the complete information about the state of the universe outside those parts.

Downward causation is closely related to the concepts of emergence, self-organization, and supervenience. It has become very popular in the study of complex physical systems which exhibit a kind of self-organization and emergence of visible structures when the systems are far from equilibrium conditions.

Most modern discussions of emergence and self-organization in hierarchical systems start with the early 1950's work of Ilya Prigogine on dissipative structures, physical and chemical systems that are far from equilibrium, through which there is a steady flow of matter and energy.

Despite the normal tendency to chaos (the second law of thermodynamics and increasing entropy), these dissipative systems develop relatively stable visible structures, such as Bénard convection cells and Turing autocatalytic reactions that show space-dependent, steady-state processes stable against perturbations. These visible structures reduce the entropy locally. Prigogine's discovery of such "order out of chaos" in physical systems is widely cited as evidence of emergent properties in complex adaptive systems. It lies at the heart of modern complexity theory and chaos theory.

he idea that the emergent structures exert downward causal control on their molecular components was perhaps first articulated by Roger Sperry in 1965. Sperry cites a wheel rolling downhill as an example of downward causal control. The atoms and molecules are caught up and overpowered by the higher properties of the whole. He says that he "worked the new mind-brain ideas into a discussion of holist-reductionist issues, emergent downward control. and ‘nothing but’ fallacies in human value systems, in a broad refutation of the then prevalent ’mechanistic, materialistic, behavioristic, fatalistic, reductionistic view of the 'nature of mind and psyche’."

You faggots are just too close-minded and arrogant, all you care about is proving you're right. You guys clearly side with physical reductionism, which is clearly bullshit as emergent properties can override the physical precursors of smaller components.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/k ... ation.html

Most of this stuff is shit I said in earlier threads. I know Anakind has a philosophy degree, so it's quite disappointing his arguments were so simple and that he couldn't bring up ideas like downwards causation to liven the argument.

And EscortAddict comparing the brain to a piece of shit....dumbass.



The reason many of you are hardcore reductionists, is that you wanna cry about how you had no choice regarding anything in life, but also because you are too low iq to grasp higher abstract concepts like downwards causation which I implied in my earlier posts even though I didn't know the popular philosophical label it has.

I bet there's a correlation with iq and philosophical belief. 120-135 iq people like Anakind and EscortAddict can only comprehend absolute reductionism, while yet higher iq people will tend to believe more in emergent and downward causation philosophy, as well as simply understanding that the definition of free will is the crux of the argument.

When I learned about determinism in my philosophy 1000 class, the argument was basically: when you make a decision, there were tons of outside influences that caused you to make that decision in that moment. If you were to go back in time to that exact, identical moment, everything that caused you to make that decision would be exactly the same. So you would continually make the same choice over and over again, it would be impossible to make a different choice in that moment because everything that caused you to make the choice you did would be identical. And because all of the influences that caused you to make that choice were outside of your control, and had already occurred, that choice was predetermined and there is nothing you can do to change it.
Last edited by hood rych on Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Commit suicide in a coffin crew
ImageImage

So you're proposing randomness then? Just a more complicated bunch of randomness.



hood rych wrote:When I learned about determinism in my philosophy 1000 class, the argument was basically: when you make a decision, there were tons of outside influences that caused you to make that decision in that moment. If you were to go back in time to that exact, identical moment, everything that caused you to make that decision would be exactly the same. So you would continually make the same choice over and over again, it would be impossible to make a different choice in that moment because everything that caused you to make the choice you did would be identical. And because all of the influences that caused you to make that choice were outside of your control, and had already occurred, that choice was predetermined and there is nothing you can do to change it.


This model is complete horse crap. There are tons of possibilities for the outcome of an event. We can make different decisions. Look up Schrodinger's cat.

GANTZ wrote:So you're proposing randomness then? Just a more complicated bunch of randomness.


It's a combo of randomness and non-randomness, there is randomness at the quantum level, but the brain does not work in a strictly bottom-up way, so there is determinism at the higher levels interacting with the indeterminism at lower levels.

"The information solution to the mind-body problem can be interpreted as providing a non-reductive physical interpretation of mind. This model of mind supervenes on the neural brain structures that embody the information (while it is being stored). But the intellectual content of the information is not the resultant of whatever physical processes are coming from lower layers in a hierarchical structure. The physical brain is a plastic storage medium adequately determined to store the information content of these immaterial thoughts, and normally to store it accurately.

With reference to popular (if flawed) computational theories of mind, we note that the "software" contents of a computer program, as well as the execution of the program, is in no way determined or "caused" by the computer "hardware." Similarly, ideas are not determined by the ink on a printed page or the pixels on a computer screen, but by the human minds that put them there."


"Bottom-up" Physical Processes Are Not Deterministic
When small numbers of atoms and molecules interact, their motions and behaviors are indeterministic, governed by the rules of quantum mechanics.
However, when large numbers of microscopic particle get together in aggregates, the indeterminacy of the individual particles gets averaged over and macroscopic adequately deterministic laws "emerge."

Determinism is an emergent property that shows up in the macroscopic world.

The "laws of nature," such as Newton's laws of motion, are all statistical laws, however close they appear to being certain. They "emerge" when large numbers of atoms or molecules get together. For large enough numbers, the probabilistic laws of nature approach practical certainty. But the fundamental indeterminism of component atoms never completely disappears.

It therefore follows that physical brain events are not pre-determined by the events in lower hierarchical levels, not events in the base physical level, nor even in the biological level.

And the world is not "causally closed" by deterministic physical laws of nature, as assumed by so many philosophers (e.g., Feigl, Smart, Kim).

Moreover, since some "mental events" are large enough information structures to be adequately determined, these mental events can act causally on lower biological and physical levels in the hierarchy, in particular, the mind can move the body and all its contained physical particles, thus solving the mind-body problem.

A specific example of the mind causing an action, while not itself being caused by antecedent events is the following. Faced with a decision of what to do next, the mind considers several possible alternatives, at least some of which are creatively invented based on random ideas that just "come to mind." Other possible alternatives might be familiar options, even habits, that have frequently been done in earlier similar situations.

All these alternatives show up as "neural correlates" - brain neurons firing. When the alternatives are evaluated and one is selected, the selected action results in still other neurons firing, some of which connect to the motor cortex that signals muscles to move the body.

Apart from the occasional indeterministic generation of creative new alternative ideas, this whole causal process is adequately determined and it is downwardly causal. Mental events are causing physical body events."
Last edited by IncelExecutioner on Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

IncelExecutioner wrote:
hood rych wrote:When I learned about determinism in my philosophy 1000 class, the argument was basically: when you make a decision, there were tons of outside influences that caused you to make that decision in that moment. If you were to go back in time to that exact, identical moment, everything that caused you to make that decision would be exactly the same. So you would continually make the same choice over and over again, it would be impossible to make a different choice in that moment because everything that caused you to make the choice you did would be identical. And because all of the influences that caused you to make that choice were outside of your control, and had already occurred, that choice was predetermined and there is nothing you can do to change it.


This model is complete horse crap. There are tons of possibilities for the outcome of an event. We can make different decisions. Look up Schrodinger's cat.


Eh, I don't really care for philosophy anymore to be honest. It's a bunch of pointless mental masturbation. Sitting in your head all day doing thought experiments is fucking retarded and a good way to waste your life blowing smoke up your own ass about the capabilities of your own brain.

I'm in it for the fuckin slayyyyyyiiinnnnngggg buddy boy, that's the only philosophy I need.

hood rych wrote:Eh, I don't really care for philosophy anymore to be honest. It's a bunch of pointless mental masturbation. Sitting in your head all day doing thought experiments is fucking retarded and a good way to waste your life blowing smoke up your own ass about the capabilities of your own brain.

I'm in it for the fuckin slayyyyyyiiinnnnngggg buddy boy, that's the only philosophy I need.


Wow, what a dark-triad non-aspie badass you are. The back button is on the top left.

IncelExecutioner wrote:
hood rych wrote:Eh, I don't really care for philosophy anymore to be honest. It's a bunch of pointless mental masturbation. Sitting in your head all day doing thought experiments is fucking retarded and a good way to waste your life blowing smoke up your own ass about the capabilities of your own brain.

I'm in it for the fuckin slayyyyyyiiinnnnngggg buddy boy, that's the only philosophy I need.


Wow, what a dark-triad non-aspie badass you are. The back button is on the top left.


Lmao what does this have to do with being dark triad or non aspie? You're too riled up about this shit man. Time to take a break from SH.

OP are you trying to prove the traditional Christian/Conservative view on free will? Because randomness mixed in with determinism isn't such a thing.

I'd posit that even the randomness is determined, we just don't understand it fully...

But I'm open minded. Maybe in some unexplainable way we DO have Christian free will.

GANTZ wrote:OP are you trying to prove the traditional Christian/Conservative view on free will? Because randomness mixed in with determinism isn't such a thing.

I'd posit that even the randomness is determined, we just don't understand it fully...

But I'm open minded. Maybe in some unexplainable way we DO have Christian free will.


I don't believe in God or religion. I'm simply for the side that free will exists in the way we understand it to. Even most atheists believe in free will.

I'm against the reductionist hard-determinist approach that we are just chemical reactions and humans' understanding of the mind is bullshit because there is no mind and it's all just physical reactions. I believe that a physical system can get so complex that it essentially mirrors what we would understand as free will and the ability to make own decisions and hold "information", which is not directly reducible to physical structures, even though it is held by them.

"Information is neither matter nor energy. It is sometimes embodied in matter and sometimes communicated as pure energy. It is the scientific basis for an immaterial, causally open, non-physical mind that can nevertheless affect the physical world. Information is the modern spirit."

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/k ... ation.html

IncelExecutioner wrote:
GANTZ wrote:OP are you trying to prove the traditional Christian/Conservative view on free will? Because randomness mixed in with determinism isn't such a thing.

I'd posit that even the randomness is determined, we just don't understand it fully...

But I'm open minded. Maybe in some unexplainable way we DO have Christian free will.


I don't believe in God or religion. I'm simply for the side that free will exists in the way we understand it to. Even most atheists believe in free will.

I'm against the reductionist hard-determinist approach that we are just chemical reactions and humans' understanding of the mind is bullshit because there is no mind and it's all just physical reactions. I believe that a physical system can get so complex that it essentially mirrors what we would understand as free will and the ability to make own decisions and hold "information", which is not directly reducible to physical structures, even though it is held by them.

"Information is neither matter nor energy. It is sometimes embodied in matter and sometimes communicated as pure energy. It is the scientific basis for an immaterial, causally open, non-physical mind that can nevertheless affect the physical world. Information is the modern spirit."

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/k ... ation.html



Free will exists in the sense that a system will do what a system will do. Bob's going to do Bob. "I", a closed entity, will make choice that I will make.

I believe in consciousness. I experience emotions and sensory inputs and other phenomenon.

But sorry, more than likely our lives trajectory is already set in stone. If we could somehow make a computer that knows all physical laws and the positions of every atom in the universe, it could predict all our lives, I bet.

What do you mean by "free will in the way we understand it"? The mainstream view of free will makes people feel guilty for being lazy and doing drugs or not going to college or making other bad choices. It makes others act like they're better than you when ultimately "we" have no control.

IncelExecutioner wrote:
GANTZ wrote:OP are you trying to prove the traditional Christian/Conservative view on free will? Because randomness mixed in with determinism isn't such a thing.

I'd posit that even the randomness is determined, we just don't understand it fully...

But I'm open minded. Maybe in some unexplainable way we DO have Christian free will.


I don't believe in God or religion. I'm simply for the side that free will exists in the way we understand it to. Even most atheists believe in free will.

I'm against the reductionist hard-determinist approach that we are just chemical reactions and humans' understanding of the mind is bullshit because there is no mind and it's all just physical reactions. I believe that a physical system can get so complex that it essentially mirrors what we would understand as free will and the ability to make own decisions and hold "information", which is not directly reducible to physical structures, even though it is held by them.

"Information is neither matter nor energy. It is sometimes embodied in matter and sometimes communicated as pure energy. It is the scientific basis for an immaterial, causally open, non-physical mind that can nevertheless affect the physical world. Information is the modern spirit."

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/k ... ation.html


Oh baby, you hate modern science. Descartes was calling and he wants his idea back.
Two or three surgeries away from being Ja Rule gang.

Image
Image

GANTZ wrote:Free will exists in the sense that a system will do what a system will do. Bob's going to do Bob. "I", a closed entity, will make choice that I will make.

I believe in consciousness. I experience emotions and sensory inputs and other phenomenon.

But sorry, more than likely our lives trajectory is already set in stone. If we could somehow make a computer that knows all physical laws and the positions of every atom in the universe, it could predict all our lives, I bet.

What do you mean by "free will in the way we understand it"? The mainstream view of free will makes people feel guilty for being lazy and doing drugs or not going to college or making other bad choices. It makes others act like they're better than you when ultimately "we" have no control.


No way could a computer predict everything. There is definite randomness and chaos in the universe. The world follows deterministic laws at the macro level ( a car hitting a person), but indeterministic laws at the micro level (quantum movements leading to sweat beads causing someone's hand to slip).

There are many possibilities for how things will turn out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfYf_rPWUdY

Do you see how insane it is to believe that the movements of all these particles and amino acids are predetermined by some initial force? It is absurd. There is clear randomness in the movement, even though there is a more deterministic outcome after a tRNA attached to the ribosome.

Our lives trajectory are not set in stone, there are tons of possibilities for how are lives turn out depending on the decisions we make. The decisions we make are not directly reducible to specific physical events like a Sodium particle entering a neuron. The brain is so unbelievably complex and emergent properties of it so strong you would be an over-simplifying fool to take a reductionist approach to the mind.

" If the Micro Mind is a random generator of frequently outlandish and absurd possibilities (think of the unconscious and the Freudian id), the complementary Macro Mind is a macroscopic structure so large that quantum effects are neglible. This is the critical apparatus that makes predictable - and adequately determined - decisions based on our character and values. Thus we can feel fully responsible for our choices, morally and legally. "

SupportLocalSluts wrote:Oh baby, you hate modern science. Descartes was calling and he wants his idea back.


First of all, all the shit we are arguing about has been debated more formally thousands of time before us, I'm the only one here who actually sources my arguments.

And you think the physical reductionist approach you take is more enlightened?

Maybe the problem is that I'm an engineer and so I have experience with very complex physical and information systems and can understand the absurd, near magical complexity they can take on with enough components, randomness, and interconnections.

Without this experience I can see how you would fail to comprehend complicate dynamics that seemingly supersede physical explanation, arising from physical bases.

You think you are enlightened in making such a simple reduction of mind to some original physical events but it's only because you cannot grasp more abstract concepts that once a system becomes insanely complex, it's behavior cannot be directly reduced to smaller components

"Because it is embodied in the brain, this mind can control the actions of a body that is macroscopic and is normally unaffected by its own quantum level uncertainty (excepting when we want to be creative and unpredictable.

Thus our mind/body model explains how a relatively immaterial, "free," unpredictable, and creative mind can control the adequately determined material body through the self-determinate and responsible actions selected by the will from an agenda of alternative possibilities.

Moreover, since some "mental events" are large enough information structures to be adequately determined, these mental events can act causally on lower biological and physical levels in the hierarchy, in particular, the mind can move the body and all its contained physical particles, thus solving the mind-body problem.

A specific example of the mind causing an action, while not itself being caused by antecedent events is the following. Faced with a decision of what to do next, the mind considers several possible alternatives, at least some of which are creatively invented based on random ideas that just "come to mind." Other possible alternatives might be familiar options, even habits, that have frequently been done in earlier similar situations. "
Last edited by IncelExecutioner on Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:14 am, edited 3 times in total.

lol you believe in internal constructs/explanatory fictions

explain the practicality of attempting to understand the unobservable mind when we have behavior that can be observed and readily modeled without any reference to internal constructs.

you talk about emergence/self-organization yet you've never made any mention of ecological psychology or connectionism...both of those fields are strictly deterministic yet they fall under the broad category of emergence.
Last edited by SupportLocalSluts on Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

SupportLocalSluts wrote:lol you believe in internal constructs/explanatory fictions


I'm not surprised you haven't made any progress in understanding my very dumbed down argument for you about emergent properties, downwards causation, and the near magical method of operation that systems can take with enough complexity.

Maybe dealing with autists all day has made you as literal and reductionist as them.

SupportLocalSluts wrote:lol you believe in internal constructs/explanatory fictions

explain the practicality of attempting to understand the unobservable mind when we have behavior that can be observed and readily modeled without any reference to internal constructs.

you talk about emergence/self-organization you've never made any mention of ecological psychology or connectionism...both of those fields are strictly deterministic yet they fall under the broad category of emergence.


http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kvybo ... o1_500.png

That's cuz I don't have any knowledge of that shit. I'm taking a physics/biology/philosophical approach to this.

Now before you attack me like a Sabertooth tiger, I'm saying that the FIELD of psychology is a downstream and irrelevant factor in this debate, not the actual existence of psychology/the mind.

Physic/philosophy/biology already explain the shit I'm saying. You can't bring a downstream field like psychology or "connectionism" and claim it contradicts the things I've said.

IncelExecutioner wrote:
SupportLocalSluts wrote:lol you believe in internal constructs/explanatory fictions

explain the practicality of attempting to understand the unobservable mind when we have behavior that can be observed and readily modeled without any reference to internal constructs.

you talk about emergence/self-organization you've never made any mention of ecological psychology or connectionism...both of those fields are strictly deterministic yet they fall under the broad category of emergence.


http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kvybo ... o1_500.png

That's cuz I don't have any knowledge of that shit. I'm taking a physics/biology/philosophical approach to this.

Now before you attack me like a Sabertooth tiger, I'm saying that the FIELD of psychology is a downstream and irrelevant factor in this debate, not the actual existence of psychology/the mind.

Physic/philosophy/biology already explain the shit I'm saying. You can't bring a downstream field like psychology or "connectionism" and claim it contradicts the things I've said.


Ecological psychology is a strictly physics approach to perception.

Check it out:

http://www.ecologicalpsychology.com/

I think you'll love it :). If it blows your mind enough, I will be glad to chit chat about it with you.

SupportLocalSluts wrote:
Ecological psychology is a strictly physics approach to perception.

Check it out:

http://www.ecologicalpsychology.com/

I think you'll love it :). If it blows your mind enough, I will be glad to chit chat about it with you.


Ya that's kind of what I expected it to be, a pseudo-scientific hodgepodge of everything. I'll read it just for mental masturbation's sake.

It's trying to reduce mental things to a physical level and I've already stated that it is inherently impossible for us. EVEN IF everything is physical at its core, the absurd complexity supersedes anything we could explain. The interconnections and oscillations and random movements and complex highways of the brain are not something anyone could ever explain.

I also believe there is some form of "information". Like the two-slit experiment and the whole issue of observing vs. not observing. The "observance" of something is a physically valid and accepted factor in events.

Which just harks back to what I've been saying all along. You can't reduce everything to basic physical causes, you are absurdly underrating the complexity of the physical causes themselves.

IncelExecutioner wrote:
SupportLocalSluts wrote:
Ecological psychology is a strictly physics approach to perception.

Check it out:

http://www.ecologicalpsychology.com/

I think you'll love it :). If it blows your mind enough, I will be glad to chit chat about it with you.


Ya that's kind of what I expected it to be, a pseudo-scientific hodgepodge of everything. I'll read it just for mental masturbation's sake.

It's trying to reduce mental things to a physical level and I've already stated that it is inherently impossible for us. EVEN IF everything is physical at its core, the absurd complexity supersedes anything we could explain. The interconnections and oscillations and random movements and complex highways of the brain are not something anyone could ever explain.

I also believe there is some form of "information". Like the two-slit experiment and the whole issue of observing vs. not observing. The "observance" of something is a physically valid and accepted factor in events.

That website kind of sucks now. All ecological psych really does is apply non-linear dynamical modeling to perception and behavior. There is no real hodge-podge.

I think you're at the level where you can understand this:

Image

Just a heads up, emergence and self-organization are the same concept. I used to work in a computational psycholinguistics lab that studied emergent properties in sentence processing. I'd tell you about the specific research I've done there, but that's a little bit too much personal information.

I also believe (and research has shown) that information exists in the environment and there is no processing required for the brain to detect it. This is especially true in visual perception.

SupportLocalSluts wrote:
That website kind of sucks now. All ecological psych really does is apply non-linear dynamical modeling to perception and behavior. There is no real hodge-podge.

I think you're at the level where you can understand this:

Image

Just a heads up, emergence and self-organization are the same concept. I used to work in a computational psycholinguistics lab that studied emergent properties in sentence processing. I'd tell you about the specific research I've done there, but that's a little bit too much personal information.

I also believe (and research has shown) that information exists in the environment and there is no processing required for the brain to detect it. This is especially true in visual perception.


The existence of information without the need to observe it would support my claims if anything.

Also, emergent properties to me signifies that WE ARE OUR BRAIN. We are not a result of tiny reactions occurring in our brain. It's funny, because the people here against free will are the ones who hold onto the existence of a "I" and "spirit" separate from the physical reality. They talk about our brain controlling US as if we and our brains are two separate entities.

I have no problem saying that we are our brain. We are mostly our brain. It is a physical thing. But since we are the object, and due to emergent properties, we exert control over the smaller microscopic processes, not vice versa. Downstream causality, i.e. free will.

I'd have no problem being a car or a plane either, it would be pretty cool to drive myself at high speeds or fly wherever I want. Faggots here can't differentiate between being a self-controlling object and being controlled by the smaller components that make you up.
Last edited by IncelExecutioner on Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

IncelExecutioner wrote:
SupportLocalSluts wrote:
That website kind of sucks now. All ecological psych really does is apply non-linear dynamical modeling to perception and behavior. There is no real hodge-podge.

I think you're at the level where you can understand this:

Image

Just a heads up, emergence and self-organization are the same concept. I used to work in a computational psycholinguistics lab that studied emergent properties in sentence processing. I'd tell you about the specific research I've done there, but that's a little bit too much personal information.

I also believe (and research has shown) that information exists in the environment and there is no processing required for the brain to detect it. This is especially true in visual perception.


The existence of information without the need to observe it would support my claims if anything.


Maybe. However, why would you need a mind and internal processing constructs when the brain is merely detecting (as opposed to processing) invariant structures in the flow of stimulus information? The information doesn't need to be transduced if it's already there in the environment.

Read up on ecological psychology, broheim, I'm telling you that it is really up your alley.

Here's a conceptual primer:

http://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_3/ ... ne2008.pdf

Just do it. You're a really smart guy, I can tell. This stuff will honestly blow your mind. Once you have the concepts down, you're presumably a STEM major, so you will have the math background to understand the empirical work.

I can accept the plausibility of this argument and I'm happy that you've brought some real debate to the table, but it still doesn't explain how scientists can predict a few seconds in advance what decision someone will make before even they, the subject, knows what decision they will take.

abcdefgh wrote:I can accept the plausibility of this argument and I'm happy that you've brought some real debate to the table, but it still doesn't explain how scientists can predict a few seconds in advance what decision someone will make before even they, the subject, knows what decision they will take.


I don't think those studies are anywhere near conclusive, a lot of them make fallacious interpretations. Obviously they don't 100% predict responses, so in some cases the subject may have gone against his original brain activity. The studies also test very primitive things, like tapping a button. There are other studies which show brain activity closer to the act of a decision, like within 300 ms.

Even if the studies were 100% proving what they attempt to, which they don't, all it means is that the unconscious is very powerful, it doesn't mean we don't control our own subconscious and generate these initial bursts of activity and gut instincts using what we define as "free will".

LOL how you tried to indicate with "simple minded" that you are more sophisticated & educated than us :roll:

Most often the simplest explanation of a phenomenon is the best & most correct one.

For example the kopernikus model of the solar system (with the sun in the centre) was much more simple than the one from ptolemäus... and it was much more correct (still not 100%, that happend with kepler / newton)

Maybe fancy farry tales are nice to you because you can load up your brain with lot of irrelevant bullshit, but people like me like simple & correct explanations :)
Escort crew
Workcel crew
Oldcel crew
Next

Topic Tags

Return to Shitty Advice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dysfunctionalreject, Google [Bot] and 104 guests