|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
posted May 28, 2010 12:32 AM |
|
|
You really do miss the point. The If up there was just to clarify. Wether we know where every particle is doesn't matter if we're asking questions about the engine.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 12:37 AM |
|
|
I think the wider question you're asking is whether materialism and determinism are true. Materialism - yes. Determinism - that's an empirical question.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 12:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So thinking will nullify some of your options in life, thus reducing your freedom (you could turn it around and say that you have the free choice of actually robbing, but...).
Thinking about your options is not a limitation on your freedom. Thinking about your options only increases the odds that you will act in a more prudent manner. You still have the freedom to try to rob the guy or not to try to rob the guy.
But I think this discussion has strayed far from the topic.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 12:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
So thinking will nullify some of your options in life, thus reducing your freedom (you could turn it around and say that you have the free choice of actually robbing, but...).
Thinking about your options is not a limitation on your freedom. Thinking about your options only increases the odds that you will act in a more prudent manner. You still have the freedom to try to rob the guy or not to try to rob the guy.
But it was Ohforf that said and he have said that he thinks that it would infringe on freedom (or maybe I've misunderstood him) since whatever reason behind it, something that prevents you from doing something is infringing on your freedom.
"But I think this discussion has strayed far from the topic."
Quite so. I still think this is quite interesting though.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 07:02 AM |
|
|
Everything in the universe - of course quantum mechanics as well as mathematics - point to the fact, that there is a certain unpredictability. What's a mutation? Is it predictable? What's a sudden idea? Predictable?
I don't think so. It's more like a question of chance. If you know everything about a human CHANCES are, they will behave so and so. But of course there is a chance that they will behave differently.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 08:49 AM |
|
|
Ohforf:
All three of your examples are coercion. But they were helpful in helping me figure out a good way to explain how to draw the line. It doesn't matter how many rocks there are.
To explain further, take three examples.
A rock falls by itself and traps a person. Not coercion.
A guy pushes a rock and it falls and traps a person. Coercion.
Guy 1 asks Guy 2 to push a rock down so it would fall down and trap someone. Coercion by Guy 2.
So, when asking, "Is this coercion?", two questions have to be answered:
1. Is this the direct result of a human act? (That is, there aren't any knowing human intermediaries between the agent and the person harmed.)
2. Would this result be reasonably expected from the action?
If the answer to both of these is yes, then there's no doubt it's coercion.
Quote:
Then for larger systems, I suppose, the range of the region goes down and the likelyness of it being there goes up
But so does the number of particles.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 09:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, I'd like to define free will, as I see it. To me, free will is not the ability to make a consciouss choice, because we can't seperate if that's just an illusion, and it certainly is not the ability to make unpredictable consciouss choices, because that would make ourself unaware of our choice until the moment of choosing, i.e., we would not use the information presented to us, i.e. memory would be useless.
No I define free will as the state where will=>conditioning and Actions(Will) = Actions(Conditioning).
That's all nice and well, but pretty irrelevant, since "free will" does just mean, that your actions are not PRE-determined (which means, there is no "fate"), nor is "will" or "decision-making" fully determinable/predictable (only with a certain probability, but never 100%). Which is just an assumption, of course, a well as the counter-theory.
Quote:
in conclusion and what I think is one of your questions, Shares, freedom does not get limited in any way by consciously limiting your own options to choose from
That sounds like semantics. If I come to a decision, if I do it the rational way, may do it by limiting my options coninually, until just one is left. hat's not limiting my options, that's decision-making. "Limiting my options" is meat more generally. For example, if you decide never to cheat on your husband/wife/partner, you definitely limit your options. You are voluntarily sacrificing something of your freedom, because you make a summary decision for all future.
Of course you can always reclaim the sacrificed freedom, but that's part of what "social" and "society" and relation beteen people is all about: willingly sacrifice the freedom to reclaim sacrificed freedom - being true to your word is important, socially spoken, which means that the limiting of options shold be consiered carefully, because it IS a limiting of freedom.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 10:46 AM |
|
Edited by Shares at 10:49, 28 May 2010.
|
Since JJ and Mvass seems to be unable to let go of a minor details (even though I explicitly said that it didn't matter), I'll repost it, and hope that they understand it with that part removed.
In it's simplicity a human is controlled by two or three things things.
1) Genetics. We are all born with a unique DNA, thus a unique body. The body defines the mind. For example people tend to be easier to upset when they are tired. This will off course affect their choices in life.
2) Experiences. People will always have a unique set of experiences, even more so than DNA, as in seeing enviroments, events and make choices they will learn to behave in a special way.
3) So does 1 and 2 define all that a human mind is? If you know everything about 1 and 2, can you then predict every single action they will make in specific situation? Are they a sum of their products? Or are there a third factor? The free will, would then be the third factor.
We can make a comparison with computerprogramming. 1 and 2 are perfect examples of how a human could be programmed, but would they act as anticipated?
Ohforf: Do you think it's random, a differance in choices or a differance in choices due to randomness that have a minor effect?(thus major in long term)
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 10:56 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 11:04 AM |
|
|
@ Shares
I still don't see more than your 1) and 2) is the clasical deterministic scenario and you are asking whether there is more than that.
My answer: there IS more than that; there are quantum processes taking place in the brain, and we all know that determinsm is out, when it comes to quantum effects.
Which translates to this: Take two genetically identica persons, put them into exactly the same environment - and they will still lead different lifes and make different decisions, since the quantum effects in the brain are not following deterministic principles. They may lead to spontaneues effects - individually.
Which answers your question, I think.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 01:13 PM |
|
|
So it's a differance in choices due to randomness (quantum). Yes, that answers my question.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 01:25 PM |
|
|
I prefer "uncertainty" over randomness.  But that's of course just cosmetics.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 07:55 PM |
|
|
ohforf :
Quote:
The purpose of a state that's not oppressing will always be to
1) Satisfy its members.
2) Increase production towards its purpose (i.e. improve its own abilities to satisfy its members).
ok, how do you do that when a minority of the world population already use the majority of the available resources?
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 08:22 PM |
|
|
@Mvass
Your idea of a system in stead of socialism is most certainly interesting, but you still haven't convinced me. I like how you changed it to require knowledge and/or reasonable expectation, if I understood you right that is, but still, it means you can get extremely limited, without you ever have been coerced by that definition. To me, what you added makes sense in case of judging someone, but most of all, I'd like society to be about making it good for the members, not only making it 'not bad' in human & human relations.
@Fauch
Well, your example is too general in contrast to what I wrote. Nor is it specific enough for me to respond to.
Is it that 20% of the population of Earth uses 80% of the ressources currently available to the humans on Earth, because they use a better technology, in short meaning that if they used less, it doesn't mean the rest of the 80% of the population would get more. In that case I see nothing wrong, it'd be like complaining about people who gets abortions, just because oneself due to moral standards won't get one, etc.
If it is, to be contingent with the topic of the thread, that of the socities on Earth of which 100% of the population pays taxes, from those taxes a total of 80% ends up at 20% of the population, and those 80% of the population is oppressed by it, then of course it's not okay.
It's kinda hard to answer it better, to be honest, because the idea of 20% of the population using 80% of the ressources may not in general be a problem. What is the focus should be that everyone have what they want, not that some have more than others.
E.g. if you want a car, because you want to drive along the roads and I want a place, because I want something that looks cool in the garage, the purposes of each are different, we both get what we want, if we both can get this, there should be no problem in that what I want require more ressources, if we aren't limited by this in any way (that there's plenty).
Though stepping back to the real world. Yes it's very sad that some countries are very poor and a lot of people are in big need. However I think it has little to do with the non-oppressing state, in my opinion, as these states themselves seem to get more power from investors (other countries) and very isolated means of productions (oil comes to mind). That means the power throughout the system is changing a lot, and very few people, via their outside sources (other countries inveseting) can actually become dictators. I don't think it has that much to do with democracy and the systems that follows.
What these countries need is hard to say, whatever I'd come up with, would probably be too simplistic and waste of time anyway.
So this is me in a very long way writing that I don't think what your question is about is directed under the definitions presented and need a whole other system of observation to be dealt with.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 10:03 PM |
|
|
Let's say it like this. South America is a quite rich land, with useful minerals, rivers , forests etc. Still, it is a very poor part of the world since most of its resorces goes to Europe, North America and some other rich places (20% of the population). It is not that we just happen to own 80% of the resources and have better technology to get more of our resources, it's that we take others resources as well.
It is we, more than their own countries, that opress them. I guess that it's a product of conquering all of the world, stealing every thing they had and then free them, saying that they owe us.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 10:15 PM |
|
|
Ohforf:
And here we come to the key point - in general, people know what they want better than anyone else does. So it's more efficient to have people generally take care of themselves than to take from some to spend on something else.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 10:57 PM |
|
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 11:45 PM |
|
|
South America is ruled by drug lords and dictators. That is why it is poor. They tolerate oppression instead of having a revolution to overthrow the tyrants and drug lords. Don't blame the US if you are unwilling to fight for your freedom.
America had a revolution to overthrow the tyrants who ruled over her.
Sorry, I don't buy the "the US is an evil oppressor" crap. America has done more for freedom than any other nation that has ever existed. The rest of the free world should kiss America's butt and thank America for all she has done and continues to do.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 11:46 PM |
|
|
To be fair, the US funded some of those oppressive governments back in the day.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 29, 2010 12:59 AM |
|
|
South America, geographically, does not have it easy. It's not an odd coincidence that almost every highly developed region in the world is temperate or sub-arctic. Pull down a geographic map sometime and coniferous forests + wealth pretty much overlap. The temperate regions that aren't wealthy have either suffered under communism or are landlocked, or both. Tropical countries are playing the game of life on a higher difficulty setting. Other places had success handed to them on a silver platter.
You might not think about, but doing hard labor on the damn equator isn't so easy. Construction in general always runs slower, even aside from poorer trained personnel and worse equipment. Almost all of the mass-producing crops grow far better in temperate or sub-temperate zones. Disease is a much bigger problem in the tropics. Clearing some of the extremely dense land is more involved. The rudimentary functions of a society are simply harder to build up.
There's interesting studies on the psychological and behavioral effect that tropical weather will have on a people that could also explain why the tropics don't seem to make pace with the more emotionally discontent + ambitious colder regions.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
