|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 12, 2015 23:52:41 GMT -5
Ok so is it possible to raise some one from birth in such a way that self identification doesn't happen? My guess is no. Self identification seems to happen as soon as the child is able to comprehend the abstract idea, around age two. Prior to that, the child can't be taught about the matter, and after that, it may be too late. There might be a way, but I doubt it. Conditioning is information and genetics are just a specific media. As peeps are social animals there's really no way to completely separate out non-genetic conditioning from the genes on this particular question (of self-identification). What I mean by that is no matter how many babies you leave alone on a deserted island, the chances of any of them surviving is slim. If you take man out of his culture he dies, and his culture -- for better and worse -- includes this artifact of mind/body identification, an artifact with which our genetics is quite compatible, if not pre-programmed for. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2015 1:23:39 GMT -5
My guess is no. Self identification seems to happen as soon as the child is able to comprehend the abstract idea, around age two. Prior to that, the child can't be taught about the matter, and after that, it may be too late. There might be a way, but I doubt it. Conditioning is information and genetics are just a specific media. As peeps are social animals there's really no way to completely separate out non-genetic conditioning from the genes on this particular question (of self-identification). What I mean by that is no matter how many babies you leave alone on a deserted island, the chances of any of them surviving is slim. If you take man out of his culture he dies, and his culture -- for better and worse -- includes this artifact of mind/body identification, an artifact with which our genetics is quite compatible, if not pre-programmed for. Yeah, I think whatever the mechanism, it seems inevitable. After all, ya can't wake up if ya don't fall asleep. |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 13, 2015 5:20:23 GMT -5
My guess is that a person dropped off on an a deserted island right after birth would eventually self identify as a separate being (let's assume survival happens).Partly because he has the cognitive ability to contemplate such things, and partly because the illusion points in that direction. Ok so is it possible to raise some one from birth in such a way that self identification doesn't happen? Maybe it is inevitable but probably it (self identification) is less severe in tribal life. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 13, 2015 6:17:20 GMT -5
I mean, assume no volition, and then see if it's still possible for an individual to learn from a how-to process, driven solely by conditioning. I spose there's a social function of assigning responsibility, but really I think the idea of free will is just a natural consequence of mind/body identification. If I am a separate person, and I am making choices, I must have free will and volition.Yeah, it's a no-brainer and the escape hatch for those who know better on that account is to identify with a mind-made object that transcends mind and body.  ... that way they get to be a peep++. It's a great deal! It's a bargain I tells ya'! The "escape hatch" is the illusion that you have no 'free-will', so that abusive behavior can be blamed on something other than the choice to be that way.. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 13, 2015 6:21:11 GMT -5
Ok so is it possible to raise some one from birth in such a way that self identification doesn't happen? My guess is no. Self identification seems to happen as soon as the child is able to comprehend the abstract idea, around age two. Prior to that, the child can't be taught about the matter, and after that, it may be too late. There might be a way, but I doubt it. Self-identification is a natural process, understanding the consequences and managing them to a beneficial result for both part and whole is also a function of the natural process, which can also malfunction.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 13, 2015 8:02:29 GMT -5
Conditioning is information and genetics are just a specific media. As peeps are social animals there's really no way to completely separate out non-genetic conditioning from the genes on this particular question (of self-identification). What I mean by that is no matter how many babies you leave alone on a deserted island, the chances of any of them surviving is slim. If you take man out of his culture he dies, and his culture -- for better and worse -- includes this artifact of mind/body identification, an artifact with which our genetics is quite compatible, if not pre-programmed for. Yeah, I think whatever the mechanism, it seems inevitable. After all, ya can't wake up if ya don't fall asleep. ... and the slumber is just a fact.  .. peeps gettin' all offended by that metaphor as a put down is just a kinda' nice little bonus.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 13, 2015 9:05:32 GMT -5
Yeah, it's a no-brainer and the escape hatch for those who know better on that account is to identify with a mind-made object that transcends mind and body. ... that way they get to be a peep++. It's a great deal! It's a bargain I tells ya'! The "escape hatch" is the illusion that you have no 'free-will', so that abusive behavior can be blamed on something other that the choice to be that way.. Well, as that's as vague as it is convoluted, I've responded in detail here out of respect for the others on the thread, but it's worth mentioning that the absence of volition very obviously doesn't mean that people can't be held accountable for harm done to others. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 13, 2015 9:12:07 GMT -5
Ok so is it possible to raise some one from birth in such a way that self identification doesn't happen? Maybe it is inevitable but probably it (self identification) is less severe in tribal life. If you picture culture as a sort of inverted pyramid, at the tip that is the base of the recognition of "me-in-the-world". Building on that is identification with the family unit and that in turn forms the basis of the clan which is the basic building block of the tribe. What comes after that?  |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 13, 2015 9:52:59 GMT -5
The "escape hatch" is the illusion that you have no 'free-will', so that abusive behavior can be blamed on something other that the choice to be that way.. Well, as that's as vague as it is convoluted, I've responded in detail here out of respect for the others on the thread, but it's worth mentioning that the absence of volition very obviously doesn't mean that people can't be held accountable for harm done to others. Excerpt from Is Free Will an Illusion? Oct 20, 2011 |By Shaun Nichols Unknown Influences To discover the psychological basis for philosophical problems, experimental philosophers often survey people about their views on charged issues. For instance, scholars have argued about whether individuals actually believe that their choices are independent of the past and the laws of nature. Experimental philosophers have tried to resolve the debate by asking study participants whether they agree with descriptions such as the following: Imagine a universe in which everything that happens is completely caused by whatever happened before it. So what happened in the beginning of the universe caused what happened next and so on, right up to the present. If John decided to have french fries at lunch one day, this decision, like all others, was caused by what happened before it.When surveyed, Americans say they disagree with such descriptions of the universe. From inquiries in other countries, researchers have found that Chinese, Colombians and Indians share this opinion: individual choice is not determined. Why do humans hold this view? One promising explanation is that we presume that we can generally sense all the influences on our decision making—and because we cannot detect deterministic influences, we discount them. Of course, people do not believe they have conscious access to everything in their mind. We do not presume to intuit the causes of headaches, memory formation or visual processing. But research indicates that people do think they can access the factors affecting their choices. Yet psychologists widely agree that unconscious processes exert a powerful influence over our choices. In one study, for example, participants solved word puzzles in which the words were either associated with rudeness or politeness. Those exposed to rudeness words were much more likely to interrupt the experimenter in a subsequent part of the task. When debriefed, none of the subjects showed any awareness that the word puzzles had affected their behavior. That scenario is just one of many in which our decisions are directed by forces lurking beneath our awareness. Thus, ironically, because our subconscious is so powerful in other ways, we cannot truly trust it when considering our notion of free will. We still do not know conclusively that our choices are determined. Our intuition, however, provides no good reason to think that they are not. If our instinct cannot support the idea of free will, then we lose our main rationale for resisting the claim that free will is an illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 13, 2015 10:09:38 GMT -5
Well, as that's as vague as it is convoluted, I've responded in detail here out of respect for the others on the thread, but it's worth mentioning that the absence of volition very obviously doesn't mean that people can't be held accountable for harm done to others. Excerpt from Is Free Will an Illusion? Oct 20, 2011 |By Shaun Nichols Unknown Influences To discover the psychological basis for philosophical problems, experimental philosophers often survey people about their views on charged issues. For instance, scholars have argued about whether individuals actually believe that their choices are independent of the past and the laws of nature. Experimental philosophers have tried to resolve the debate by asking study participants whether they agree with descriptions such as the following: Imagine a universe in which everything that happens is completely caused by whatever happened before it. So what happened in the beginning of the universe caused what happened next and so on, right up to the present. If John decided to have french fries at lunch one day, this decision, like all others, was caused by what happened before it.When surveyed, Americans say they disagree with such descriptions of the universe. From inquiries in other countries, researchers have found that Chinese, Colombians and Indians share this opinion: individual choice is not determined. Why do humans hold this view? One promising explanation is that we presume that we can generally sense all the influences on our decision making—and because we cannot detect deterministic influences, we discount them. Of course, people do not believe they have conscious access to everything in their mind. We do not presume to intuit the causes of headaches, memory formation or visual processing. But research indicates that people do think they can access the factors affecting their choices. Yet psychologists widely agree that unconscious processes exert a powerful influence over our choices. In one study, for example, participants solved word puzzles in which the words were either associated with rudeness or politeness. Those exposed to rudeness words were much more likely to interrupt the experimenter in a subsequent part of the task. When debriefed, none of the subjects showed any awareness that the word puzzles had affected their behavior. That scenario is just one of many in which our decisions are directed by forces lurking beneath our awareness. Thus, ironically, because our subconscious is so powerful in other ways, we cannot truly trust it when considering our notion of free will. We still do not know conclusively that our choices are determined. Our intuition, however, provides no good reason to think that they are not. If our instinct cannot support the idea of free will, then we lose our main rationale for resisting the claim that free will is an illusion. It's quite a bit more simple than all that. The question is: what chooses? Do you think that this is a question that can be answered collectively and with finality for everyone for all time? Sue and I used to have these marathon philosophical discussions that would last well into the wee hours back in the 90's. She would come at the discussion from a Christian perspective and I would counter with my science-based worldview. I just assumed freewill as a contextual basis, which is a very natural thing for a mind/body identified person to do. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if someone is mind and body identified then it's the most relatively healthy orientation to have to the question: assume the fact of your free will. From that perspective, one can inquire as to the nature of their choices, and the chains of events that led conditions that we see around us to develop the way that they have. They can inquire as to what it is, precisely, that they ever have any control over. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 13, 2015 10:12:01 GMT -5
Thus, ironically, because our subconscious is so powerful in other ways, we cannot truly trust it when considering our notion of free will. We still do not know conclusively that our choices are determined. Our intuition, however, provides no good reason to think that they are not. If our instinct cannot support the idea of free will, then we lose our main rationale for resisting the claim that free will is an illusion. Does the idea of the absence of volition mean to you that choices are predetermined? |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 13, 2015 10:18:33 GMT -5
Thus, ironically, because our subconscious is so powerful in other ways, we cannot truly trust it when considering our notion of free will. We still do not know conclusively that our choices are determined. Our intuition, however, provides no good reason to think that they are not. If our instinct cannot support the idea of free will, then we lose our main rationale for resisting the claim that free will is an illusion. Does the idea of the absence of volition mean to you that choices are predetermined? I dunno about that. I just put one foot in front of the other and see what happens/is required next. Anything more, for me, is TMT. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 13, 2015 10:35:46 GMT -5
Does the idea of the absence of volition mean to you that choices are predetermined? I dunno about that. I just put one foot in front of the other and see what happens/is required next. Anything more, for me, is TMT. Let's put it this way then, is it clear to you from the article which way that the author would answer that question? |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 13, 2015 10:57:55 GMT -5
I dunno about that. I just put one foot in front of the other and see what happens/is required next. Anything more, for me, is TMT. Let's put it this way then, is it clear to you from the article which way that the author would answer that question? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 13, 2015 11:07:44 GMT -5
Let's put it this way then, is it clear to you from the article which way that the author would answer that question? Yes. And which way would that be? The TMT starts with the article dude.  ... yer interested in that guy's TMT but not the question that reveals it for that, and that's the non-investigation Niz was talkin' about. The question "does the absence of volition mean the fact of predetermination?" is an invitation to stop thinking about a purely conceptual dichotomy. |
|
... yer interested in that guy's TMT but not the question that reveals it for that, and that's the non-investigation