Evolution and free will

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 7046
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Evolution and free will

Post by Belinda »

Age wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:51 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:24 am
bahman wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 1:00 pm
A decision is either biased or not. In the first case, it is determined and in the second case, it is free. You don't have any other option. Free will looks random from the third person's perspective but it is not random from the first person's perspective since there is the element of wanting.
"The element of wanting" is determined by your biological needs
HOW was the WANT of a 'red ferrari', for example, determined by SOME so-called 'biological need'?

And,

WHAT 'biological need' could, supposedly, create or cause the WANT of a 'red ferrari', for example?

Or, what possible 'biological need' could possibly drive a person to DESIRE or WANT to travel around the world to watch a coffin drive by, which may well contain NO human body AT ALL, or not, within it?
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:24 am and what you have learned to believe you are entitled to.
Are there REALLY some adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, who Truly BELIEVE that they are ACTUALLY 'entitled' to some 'things'?

If yes, then WHO are those human beings?

And,

What, EXACTLY, do they ACTUALLY BELIEVE that they are 'entitled' to?
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:24 am By honest introspection you can adopt a third person, unbiased, point of view.
Obviously you have learned mainstream morality, therefore you believe you are entitled to glorify goodness, truth, and beauty.
Learning some 'thing' NEVER means one HAS TO BELIEVE ANY 'thing'.

For example, you might have LEARNED that God created the Universe, or 'mainstream morality', (WHATEVER that IS, EXACTLY), but there is NO reason to then just start BELIEVING some 'thing' as ABSURD AS; 'you' are 'entitled' to GLORIFY 'goodness', 'truth', NOR 'beauty', (WHATEVER those 'things' ACTUALLY ARE, EXACTLY).

Oh, and by the way, IF one had ALREADY LEARNED, properly AND correctly, what 'goodness' IS, EXACTLY, what 'Truth' and 'truth' IS, EXACTLY, and what 'beauty' IS, EXACTLY, then they would be CLOSER to GLORIFYING only those 'things', which DESERVE being GLORIFIED.
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:24 am It 's even possible that the urge to glorify certain abstract qualities is a biological urge.
HOW and WHY would this even be a POSSIBILITY?

WHEN 'you', ALSO, have the ANSWER to this question, then 'you' KNOW 'you' will, ALSO, be MUCH CLOSER to thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.
[/quote]
The want of a red Ferrari is easy to explain biologically. Humans need some power if they are to participate in social life. A red Ferrari would typify conspicuous consumption in many developed societies.
In 1899, the sociologist Thorstein Veblen coined the term conspicuous consumption to explain the spending of money on and the acquiring of luxury commodities (goods and services) specifically as a public display of economic power — the income and the accumulated wealth of the buyer. To the conspicuous consumer, the public display of discretionary income is an economic means of either attaining or of maintaining a given social status.
CHNOPS
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:11 am

Re: Evolution and free will

Post by CHNOPS »

bahman,
Your aim is to reach your destination so sensations and emotions do not matter. Thoughts also cannot help you since if they could you would choose a proper road. Yet you are able to choose.
So, in a free choise there are NO sensation, NO emotions and NO thoughts?
Age
Posts: 12683
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution and free will

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:51 pm
Age wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:51 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:24 am

"The element of wanting" is determined by your biological needs
HOW was the WANT of a 'red ferrari', for example, determined by SOME so-called 'biological need'?

And,

WHAT 'biological need' could, supposedly, create or cause the WANT of a 'red ferrari', for example?

Or, what possible 'biological need' could possibly drive a person to DESIRE or WANT to travel around the world to watch a coffin drive by, which may well contain NO human body AT ALL, or not, within it?
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:24 am and what you have learned to believe you are entitled to.
Are there REALLY some adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, who Truly BELIEVE that they are ACTUALLY 'entitled' to some 'things'?

If yes, then WHO are those human beings?

And,

What, EXACTLY, do they ACTUALLY BELIEVE that they are 'entitled' to?
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:24 am By honest introspection you can adopt a third person, unbiased, point of view.
Obviously you have learned mainstream morality, therefore you believe you are entitled to glorify goodness, truth, and beauty.
Learning some 'thing' NEVER means one HAS TO BELIEVE ANY 'thing'.

For example, you might have LEARNED that God created the Universe, or 'mainstream morality', (WHATEVER that IS, EXACTLY), but there is NO reason to then just start BELIEVING some 'thing' as ABSURD AS; 'you' are 'entitled' to GLORIFY 'goodness', 'truth', NOR 'beauty', (WHATEVER those 'things' ACTUALLY ARE, EXACTLY).

Oh, and by the way, IF one had ALREADY LEARNED, properly AND correctly, what 'goodness' IS, EXACTLY, what 'Truth' and 'truth' IS, EXACTLY, and what 'beauty' IS, EXACTLY, then they would be CLOSER to GLORIFYING only those 'things', which DESERVE being GLORIFIED.
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:24 am It 's even possible that the urge to glorify certain abstract qualities is a biological urge.
HOW and WHY would this even be a POSSIBILITY?

WHEN 'you', ALSO, have the ANSWER to this question, then 'you' KNOW 'you' will, ALSO, be MUCH CLOSER to thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.
The want of a red Ferrari is easy to explain biologically. Humans need some power if they are to participate in social life.[/quote]

'What power' do human beings, supposedly, 'need', if they are to participate in social life?

And,

How, EXACTLY, does just 'wanting' some human being created 'thing' then supposedly provide 'the power', (which hopefully you just talked about and just explained), which, reportedly, is 'needed' if one wants to participate in social life?

Also, how does just 'wanting' some 'thing' provide the alleged 'power', which is allegedly 'needed', 'biologically', if, for example, a human being, is what is called a "quadriplegic"? They do 'want' to 'participate' in 'social life', correct?

If yes, then how would just 'wanting' a 'red ferrari' supply these human beings with some 'power', which only then would allow them to 'participate' in 'social life'. That is; IF 'they are to participate in social life'?

Can a human being NOT have 'the power' to 'participate in social life', if they did NOT 'want' some, completely UNNECESSARY to life and for living, 'thing'?

Also, if human beings 'need' some sort of 'power' to just 'participate in social life', then, again, how, EXACTLY, does 'wanting' UNNECESSARY 'things' PROVIDE 'that power'?

Or, are you just relating 'the power' of a 'red ferrari' (and/or ANY OTHER colored ferrari), with 'the power', which supposed exists if a person wants to participate sociably with "others"?
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:51 pm A red Ferrari would typify conspicuous consumption in many developed societies.
Are you talking about the OWNING of a 'red ferrari'?

If yes, then I was ONLY talking about the WANTING of a 'red ferrari'?

Owning a t-shirt, dress, or pair of jeans can typify conspicuous consumption ALSO. But have ANY or EITHER does NOT, to me, provide absolutely ANY one with absolutely ANY perceived, necessary, power to JUST have a 'social life'. Let alone just WANTING a t-shirt, et cetera would do ANY thing in regards to 'biological urges', but each to their own, as I continually say and write.
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:51 pm
In 1899, the sociologist Thorstein Veblen coined the term conspicuous consumption to explain the spending of money on and the acquiring of luxury commodities (goods and services) specifically as a public display of economic power — the income and the accumulated wealth of the buyer. To the conspicuous consumer, the public display of discretionary income is an economic means of either attaining or of maintaining a given social status.
Have you forgotten what YOUR CLAIM was, EXACTLY, which was what I was responding to with questions, to obtain CLARITY?

You WERE talking about an 'urge to glorify certain abstract qualities', and how 'this urge' was, supposedly, a biological urge.

I do NOT think that the WANT of a 'red ferrari' is REALLY some 'biological urge' AT ALL. But rather is just a 'DESIRE', which lives within thought, or thinking, ALONE. Which is a 'thing', by the way, that is NOT affected by the genetics of the body.
Age
Posts: 12683
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution and free will

Post by Age »

CHNOPS wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:04 pm bahman,
Your aim is to reach your destination so sensations and emotions do not matter. Thoughts also cannot help you since if they could you would choose a proper road. Yet you are able to choose.
So, in a free choise there are NO sensation, NO emotions and NO thoughts?
GREAT QUESTION.

I wait, excitedly, to SEE how this question is CLARIFIED.
BigMike
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: Evolution and free will

Post by BigMike »

Neil deGrasse Tyson: "To deny objective truth is to be scientifically illiterate, not to be ideologically principled."
Belinda
Posts: 7046
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Evolution and free will

Post by Belinda »

Age wrote:
Belinda wrote: ↑A red Ferrari would typify conspicuous consumption in many developed societies.
Are you talking about the OWNING of a 'red ferrari'?

If yes, then I was ONLY talking about the WANTING of a 'red ferrari'?

Owning a t-shirt, dress, or pair of jeans can typify conspicuous consumption ALSO. But have ANY or EITHER does NOT, to me, provide absolutely ANY one with absolutely ANY perceived, necessary, power to JUST have a 'social life'. Let alone just WANTING a t-shirt, et cetera would do ANY thing in regards to 'biological urges', but each to their own, as I continually say and write.
Conspicuous consumption theory implies want, frustration, and satisfaction.
In some social circles it's not bad manners to boast without shame. In other social circles boasting is done more circumspectly.
Hippies and other rather nice people have tried to live without flagrant or subtle conspicuous consumption, and have largely succeeded in their goal. It remains to be seen whether or not their David will eventually overcome consumerism's Goliath.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Evolution and free will

Post by Iwannaplato »

BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 8:28 am Neil deGrasse Tyson: "To deny objective truth is to be scientifically illiterate, not to be ideologically principled."
So, one wonders how his views on transgenderism will look in 40 years: ideleologically principled or scientifically illiterate.

And why would he choose such a fancy ass way to say 'I disagree with that position based on the evidence.'
CHNOPS
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:11 am

Re: Evolution and free will

Post by CHNOPS »

bahman? you will answer?
popeye1945
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Evolution and free will

Post by popeye1945 »

bahman wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 12:45 pm Why does evolution grant such a feeling, having free will, if it is an illusion? Free will is absolutely unnecessary in a deterministic world so why should we have it? No need to say that our world is not always deterministic because of the existence of options.
bahman,

For most people what they have done yesterday or in the past determines what they can do in the present, no one would hire me as a brain surgeon I just don't have the background. All organisms are reactionary creatures and most creatures have what is called instincts, which is just to say programmed reactions, instant reactions to certain sign stimuli. Sexuality itself is hardwired, it is not an intellectual decision to become attracted or sexually aroused, Schopenhauer called it the will of the species. Nature governs us as human beings, which is entirely politically incorrect but true nevertheless. One can decide among alternative possibilities as to the way one is going to react, but only within the range of his/her individual possibilities, I can not sing, so my recording contract remains a non-starter, a non-reaction. One has a wide choice of reactions but one cannot, not react to one's environment for even a considered non-reaction is a reaction to said environment.

We are part of something larger than ourselves and are in constant reaction to that cause, as our reactions to the environment are cause within the environment in the way of changes made. Each individual is the center of their own universe and their reactions are cause to all other individuals, so when puzzled as to the behaviors of your fellows you need ask yourself, what is that fellow reacting to, your reactions are cause to others. The sense of free will is a highly functional illusion and makes perfect sense to the individual who finds him/herself the center of their own universe, being egocentric in this sense is a survival instinct. It is you who must react and fulfill your needs for the world is indifferent/read unaware of you as an individual. As to your problem with a deterministic world, that deterministic world is a complexity and to the individual, a process with seemingly no beginning and no end. Your sense of free will enables you to function somewhere within that complexity of process called your being within the world. As far as the evolutionary process is concerned, if all creatures were not reactionary creatures, the evolutionary process would not be possible, thus no adaptation to a changing world.
Post Reply