Human freedom is constrained by the mind's content and physical ability

[DBT]

Neither way favours of 'free will' (a poorly defined concept at best), you don't get to choose whatever happens to pop up unexpectedly, non determinism, nor can you effect the process of determinism through an act of will. Physics of scale. The macro world is deterministic, the micro world does what it does regardless of our desires.

But this isn't about free will,

It looked like you were implying it.

which I thought I made a good enough case for being possible.

Sorry, but no....there being no connection between 'will' or decision making and random quantum events, radioactive decay, etc.

But rousseau is wondering about freedom within different parts of the brain that may lead to what I would call knowledge from within. "Physical limits" or impossibilities is practically meaningless with the possibility of QM lurking in the brain.

Knowledge 'from within' comes not from quantum scale activity, but neural architecture. Knowledge (information), is related to macro scale physics, the objects and events of the world as we perceive them and interact with them.

 

[ryan]

But rousseau is wondering about freedom within different parts of the brain that may lead to what I would call knowledge from within. "Physical limits" or impossibilities is practically meaningless with the possibility of QM lurking in the brain.

Knowledge 'from within' comes not from quantum scale activity, but neural architecture. Knowledge (information), is related to macro scale physics, the objects and events of the world as we perceive them and interact with them.

This is much different than our previous argument.

Putting QM aside for now, we have instincts that don't necessarily come from incoming information from the environment even though the information would trigger them. The brain and the environment change together, and with that, some knowledge forms from within.

At least this is what I think the OP is about. Rousseau, if you're reading this, are you saying that concepts must come from the environment?

 

[rousseau]

Knowledge 'from within' comes not from quantum scale activity, but neural architecture. Knowledge (information), is related to macro scale physics, the objects and events of the world as we perceive them and interact with them.

This is much different than our previous argument.

Putting QM aside for now, we have instincts that don't necessarily come from incoming information from the environment even though the information would trigger them. The brain and the environment change together, and with that, some knowledge forms from within.

At least this is what I think the OP is about. Rousseau, if you're reading this, are you saying that concepts must come from the environment?

A lot of the above conversation is over my head but basically what I'm saying is that there is a practical limit on the information a person can use at any given time, that limit being constructed of pre-existing knowledge, and the knowledge attainable via the use of that pre-existing knowledge.

That wouldn't mean that concepts HAVE to come from the environment, they could be derived internally, but theoretically there would be knowledge that is unattainable by a mind in it's current state, until the mind happened upon that knowledge in the environment and internalized it.

Putting a practical face on this idea, a common notion is to call a lot of people ignorant, and believe that they are intentionally so, but I'd argue, as I have in another thread, that ignorance isn't intentional, but rather people are in a continuous process of acquiring more information to incorporate into their world view. At no point does that process *feel* like ignorance, it's just people constantly growing as human beings, and widening their range of abilities.

So we could talk about someone like a hardcore Christian. They aren't a hardcore Christian because they choose to be, but because their internal set of data has led them there, and no new data has yet led them out. Conceptually they are incapable of changing their mind, until they are for some random reason.

Further, the more accurate and realistic information we expose people to, the better able they will be to manipulate their environment successfully.

A person who is more normal than me might just say: "We need better education systems".

 

[ryan]

This is much different than our previous argument.

Putting QM aside for now, we have instincts that don't necessarily come from incoming information from the environment even though the information would trigger them. The brain and the environment change together, and with that, some knowledge forms from within.

At least this is what I think the OP is about. Rousseau, if you're reading this, are you saying that concepts must come from the environment?

A lot of the above conversation is over my head but basically what I'm saying is that there is a practical limit on the information a person can use at any given time, that limit being constructed of pre-existing knowledge, and the knowledge attainable via the use of that pre-existing knowledge.

That wouldn't mean that concepts HAVE to come from the environment, they could be derived internally, but theoretically there would be knowledge that is unattainable by a mind in it's current state, until the mind happened upon that knowledge in the environment and internalized it.

Okay, I think I know what you mean. This is a very interesting topic. I will go into details below.

Putting a practical face on this idea, a common notion is to call a lot of people ignorant, and believe that they are intentionally so, but I'd argue, as I have in another thread, that ignorance isn't intentional, but rather people are in a continuous process of acquiring more information to incorporate into their world view. At no point does that process *feel* like ignorance, it's just people constantly growing as human beings, and widening their range of abilities.

Yes, I mostly agree, but it is starting to look more and more like the brain is more than just a hardwired machine. Quantum processes that affect the brain in any way may give an unpredictable output. Even stranger, if quantum entanglement has anything to do with connecting our brains with the environment, then very strange things can happen. It would explain things like how a mother can "know"/"feel" that her son is in danger or how we have unexplainable intuitions that are correct. Now I am not saying that this is the way it is. There is some scientific evidence of it, so it should not be ruled out.

So we could talk about someone like a hardcore Christian. They aren't a hardcore Christian because they choose to be, but because their internal set of data has led them there, and no new data has yet led them out. Conceptually they are incapable of changing their mind, until they are for some random reason.

Further, the more accurate and realistic information we expose people to, the better able they will be to manipulate their environment successfully.

A person who is more normal than me might just say: "We need better education systems".

Yes, I agree. Even if there is some quantum mechanical interventions going on in our brains, the classical world seems to be dominant, so exposure to good education may become part of a fixed foundation in a developing brain.

 

[DBT]

Putting QM aside for now, we have instincts that don't necessarily come from incoming information from the environment even though the information would trigger them.

Can you give an example of what you mean? Instinct is form of genetic memory established through repeated behavours ...fly south for the winter, it's warmer there, etc...which is related to genes/self in relation to environment encoded as 'instinct'

 

[ryan]

Putting QM aside for now, we have instincts that don't necessarily come from incoming information from the environment even though the information would trigger them.

Can you give an example of what you mean? Instinct is form of genetic memory established through repeated behavours ...fly south for the winter, it's warmer there, etc...which is related to genes/self in relation to environment encoded as 'instinct'

That's it; I said that our instincts come from within, and they can be useful in certain environmental conditions. We know how to breath before we have to learn it.

 

[DBT]

Can you give an example of what you mean? Instinct is form of genetic memory established through repeated behavours ...fly south for the winter, it's warmer there, etc...which is related to genes/self in relation to environment encoded as 'instinct'

That's it; I said that our instincts come from within, and they can be useful in certain environmental conditions. We know how to breath before we have to learn it.

To be pedantic, instinct as a function is a bit different to that of the autonomic nervous system, which is the peripheral nervous system that regulates the workings of internal organs.

 

[ryan]

That's it; I said that our instincts come from within, and they can be useful in certain environmental conditions. We know how to breath before we have to learn it.

To be pedantic, instinct as a function is a bit different to that of the autonomic nervous system, which is the peripheral nervous system that regulates the workings of internal organs.

I agree. The point is that knowledge can come from within.

 

[DBT]

To be pedantic, instinct as a function is a bit different to that of the autonomic nervous system, which is the peripheral nervous system that regulates the workings of internal organs.

I agree. The point is that knowledge can come from within.

Knowledge in all forms come from within. All forms of experience, perception of objects and events of the external world, self identity, character, beliefs, assumptions, likes, dislikes, hopes, desires and fears are shaped, formed and generated within the system.

 

[fromderinside]

I agree. The point is that knowledge can come from within.

Knowledge in all forms come from within. All forms of experience, perception of objects and events of the external world, self identity, character, beliefs, assumptions, likes, dislikes, hopes, desires and fears are shaped, formed and generated within the system.

Except, except, they wouldn't come from within had they not been recruited from without. Birds began to migrate to better climes forced by events. After a while genetic mechanisms developed that led them to fly to better climes given certain conditions existed. Only then did the behaviors become from within.

Find an exception win a prize.

 

[DBT]

Knowledge in all forms come from within. All forms of experience, perception of objects and events of the external world, self identity, character, beliefs, assumptions, likes, dislikes, hopes, desires and fears are shaped, formed and generated within the system.

Except, except, they wouldn't come from within had they not been recruited from without. Birds began to migrate to better climes forced by events. After a while genetic mechanisms developed that led them to fly to better climes given certain conditions existed. Only then did the behaviors become from within.

Find an exception win a prize.

Information in, representation forms, behaviour out......

 

[untermensche]

Knowledge in all forms come from within. All forms of experience, perception of objects and events of the external world, self identity, character, beliefs, assumptions, likes, dislikes, hopes, desires and fears are shaped, formed and generated within the system.

Except, except, they wouldn't come from within had they not been recruited from without. Birds began to migrate to better climes forced by events. After a while genetic mechanisms developed that led them to fly to better climes given certain conditions existed. Only then did the behaviors become from within.

Find an exception win a prize.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of how genetic information develops.

If I jump as high as I can everyday, that does not change my genes and make my offspring better jumpers.

 

[fromderinside]

Except, except, they wouldn't come from within had they not been recruited from without. Birds began to migrate to better climes forced by events. After a while genetic mechanisms developed that led them to fly to better climes given certain conditions existed. Only then did the behaviors become from within.

Find an exception win a prize.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of how genetic information develops.

If I jump as high as I can everyday, that does not change my genes and make my offspring better jumpers.

Yeah, well its easier to see pressure from external conditions involved in selecting those genes produced to survive to the next generation.

I said external not internal. Jumping, considered from a conscious point of is an internally produced activity except that jumping probably has something to do with reaching stuff to eat which gets me right backs to where I wrote. The fact that I was sloppy doesn't change the essential correctness of the nature of what I wrote. External conditions judge those mutations fit or unfit. If fit means a adaptation begun as some sort of path following behavior then seasonal migrations makes sense after enough time as seen through the extended lens of history. I agree with Dawkins genes are selfish. If they are better located then it is more likely that what they added are continued in the same pattern as begun. Randomness goes only so far and its very local.

Oh shit its untermenche who will argue with a gnat over an ort.

 

[untermensche]

This shows a complete lack of understanding of how genetic information develops.

If I jump as high as I can everyday, that does not change my genes and make my offspring better jumpers.

Yeah, well its easier to see pressure from external conditions involved in selecting those genes produced to survive to the next generation.

I said external not internal. Jumping, considered from a conscious point of is an internally produced activity except that jumping probably has something to do with reaching stuff to eat which gets me right backs to where I wrote. The fact that I was sloppy doesn't change the essential correctness of the nature of what I wrote. External conditions judge those mutations fit or unfit. If fit means a adaptation begun as some sort of path following behavior then seasonal migrations makes sense after enough time as seen through the extended lens of history. I agree with Dawkins genes are selfish. If they are better located then it is more likely that what they added are continued in the same pattern as begun. Randomness goes only so far and its very local.

Oh shit its untermenche who will argue with a gnat over an ort.

If I see bad understanding of evolution I try to help.

And there is no pressure to make birds fly to warmer conditions. There is pressure to leave the cold, but the bird does not have the weather channel. It has no idea which direction will bring it to warmer conditions.

Those that just by chance were compelled somehow to move to warmer conditions survived better. Eventually these migration instincts developed.

You're welcome.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah, well its easier to see pressure from external conditions involved in selecting those genes produced to survive to the next generation.

I said external not internal. Jumping, considered from a conscious point of is an internally produced activity except that jumping probably has something to do with reaching stuff to eat which gets me right backs to where I wrote. The fact that I was sloppy doesn't change the essential correctness of the nature of what I wrote. External conditions judge those mutations fit or unfit. If fit means a adaptation begun as some sort of path following behavior then seasonal migrations makes sense after enough time as seen through the extended lens of history. I agree with Dawkins genes are selfish. If they are better located then it is more likely that what they added are continued in the same pattern as begun. Randomness goes only so far and its very local.

Oh shit its untermenche who will argue with a gnat over an ort.

If I see bad understanding of evolution I try to help.

And there is no pressure to make birds fly to warmer conditions. There is pressure to leave the cold, but the bird does not have the weather channel. It has no idea which direction will bring it to warmer conditions.

Those that just by chance were compelled somehow to move to warmer conditions survived better. Eventually these migration instincts developed.

You're welcome.

If only those birds that stay where its cold die why not say its birds that go to warmer climes? After all the warm clime migrating birds are the ones which survive.

There, found gnat. swiped ort.

Oh, if you consider the above a other than a hint, you're wrong. I shall not repeat myself.

 

[ryan]

Yeah, well its easier to see pressure from external conditions involved in selecting those genes produced to survive to the next generation.

I said external not internal. Jumping, considered from a conscious point of is an internally produced activity except that jumping probably has something to do with reaching stuff to eat which gets me right backs to where I wrote. The fact that I was sloppy doesn't change the essential correctness of the nature of what I wrote. External conditions judge those mutations fit or unfit. If fit means a adaptation begun as some sort of path following behavior then seasonal migrations makes sense after enough time as seen through the extended lens of history. I agree with Dawkins genes are selfish. If they are better located then it is more likely that what they added are continued in the same pattern as begun. Randomness goes only so far and its very local.

Oh shit its untermenche who will argue with a gnat over an ort.

If I see bad understanding of evolution I try to help.

And there is no pressure to make birds fly to warmer conditions. There is pressure to leave the cold, but the bird does not have the weather channel. It has no idea which direction will bring it to warmer conditions.

Those that just by chance were compelled somehow to move to warmer conditions survived better. Eventually these migration instincts developed.

You're welcome.

Your last two posts are exactly why I don't like being on here anymore.

If there is the smallest window of ambiguity that leads to an uncharacteristically false statement, certain people have to point it out and they will claim that that was what was meant - what a waste of time and what a derail! Why wouldn't you give him the benefit of the doubt in this case or at least ask if that was what he meant?

 

[untermensche]

If I see bad understanding of evolution I try to help.

And there is no pressure to make birds fly to warmer conditions. There is pressure to leave the cold, but the bird does not have the weather channel. It has no idea which direction will bring it to warmer conditions.

Those that just by chance were compelled somehow to move to warmer conditions survived better. Eventually these migration instincts developed.

You're welcome.

If only those birds that stay where its cold die why not say its birds that go to warmer climes? After all the warm clime migrating birds are the ones which survive.

There, found gnat. swiped ort.

Oh, if you consider the above a other than a hint, you're wrong. I shall not repeat myself.

Only in your mind have you made any point.

You clearly have little understanding of evolutionary theory.

And don't seem to want to learn it or be able to discuss it.

 

[untermensche]

Your last two posts are exactly why I don't like being on here anymore.

If there is the smallest window of ambiguity that leads to an uncharacteristically false statement, certain people have to point it out and they will claim that that was what was meant - what a waste of time and what a derail! Why wouldn't you give him the benefit of the doubt in this case or at least ask if that was what he meant?

The thread was dead.

I know I am confrontational. But not confrontational for the sake of being confrontational.

I like to motivate people to want to destroy my arguments.

It is the only way to know if they are any good and how they can be improved.

Bad understanding of evolutionary theory is common. And I don't like seeing it.

 

[fromderinside]

You clearly have little understanding of evolutionary theory.

And don't seem to want to learn it or be able to discuss it.

Starting point.  Modern evolutionary synthesis

Our disagreement starts here:

In The Selfish Gene (1976), author Richard Dawkins asserts the gene is the only true unit of selection.^[34] (Dawkins also attempts to apply evolutionary theory to non-biological entities, such as cultural memes, imagined to be subject to selective forces analogous to those affecting biological entities.)

Others, such as Stephen Jay Gould, reject the notion that genetic entities are subject to anything other than genetic or chemical forces, (as well as the idea evolution acts on "populations" per se), reasserting the centrality of the individual organism as the true unit of selection, whose specific phenotype is directly subject to evolutionary pressures.

Actually My views crystallized around those of Travis Williams who set the principle of selfish gene in response to group selection proposed by Wynne-Edwards in the fifties and sixties, rather than Dawkins as the gene as the essential unit of selection. This view has been buttressed by mechanisms such as epigenetic expression through mechanisms like  DNA methylation and by work on competition among genes such as the material by Burt and Trivers in Genes in Conflict: The biology of selfish gene elements https://sunsetridgemsbiology.wikispaces.com/file/view/Genes+in+Conflict.pdf

 

[untermensche]

The only thing that can possibly experience evolutionary success or failure is the entire organism.

It either reproduces or it doesn't.

Genes of course come along for the ride and their expression in total, not individual genes themselves, are determining factors.

When Dawkins produces anything close to Gould's 'Structures in ET" you can hold him up as somebody who can challenge Gould.

Gould was an a different level than Dawkins. A higher plane.