Are we nothing but "robots?"

[automatic existence]

Other people say that we are nothing but transformers. What a magic of coil in universe !! Imagine a coil of DNA, a coil of galaxy and a coil of transformer[electric power or radio frequency ].

Wikipedia defines a transformer is a device used to transfer electric energy from one circuit to another, especially a pair of multiply wound, inductively coupled wire coils that effect such a transfer with a change in voltage, current, phase, or other electric characteristic.

 

Till we may whisper that probably we're transformers from 'god energy' to observe reality.

 

I am obviously not intelligent enough to understand what you mean here. If you would, without any obvious reason, want me to relpy I would appriciate a link or a esaier explenation mabye?

 

But it's kind of a question with no answer

 

The thing is your "half right." Of course you cant lie in bed and think up how quantum mechanics or anything else that is very complex works. This was possible back in ancient Greece yes, but not anymore. Now you got to do tests and use formulas and all this complex stuff. Its more work, but it also gives "better" answers. And the mass psychosis that we cant find the ultimate answer to such things as meaning and purpose and that there is a difference between the physical brain and the "spritual mind" just give away that we are still stuck in an age of superstitious thinking which we pretend to have grown out of. There is NO reason why our brain should not be the equal of the superstitious "mind" and no resaon why we should not find out what and if there is a meaning/purpose to it all. But all in all I agree with you that the subjectivity of ereryone is a "problem." But it looks like the little know-it-all Kant has a solution to that which makes subjectivity objective! Looking forward to that.

 

Thanks for the warm embrace. Its a appreciated.

 

OT

automatic existence, I'd just like it if you took this IQ test... for your (our :eek2:) age, you seem exceptionally intelligent, at least compared to my peers over here in the States :xx:.

 

I am always afraid of IQ tests on the net. They have told me my IQ is 70(!) and 138(!). After I had taken those two I didnt want to spend more time on it. 17% of my country got 70 as an IQ. It was a national test and the results were "fixed." It was on the net and there was something wrong so everybody got 70. The funny thing is many people didnt get to know there was a bug so they might actually believe it was their real IQ. And the other one was called "Ticle" or something, didnt seem to realistic though.

 

Its always scary with things like these becouse you risk to loose the great image on has of oneself as a really smart guy. And for most people it dosent matter if they get an avrage score, but I am in a situation where I have to be really smart. So i really cant loose the image of being it.

 

But after all I desided to give it a go. Anyways I had a lot of good excuses if it went bad. I am (as you must have noticed) not very skilled in the english language and that causes trouble. I hate the tasks with your money, thats hard. And I simply skipped all the tasks which dealt with the complex unfolded structures with different symbols. I just looked at those and thought; Uh, uh. So sure, I could gotten a much better score.

 

Roll of drums.... My score was 118. I missed 7 points to get into the club I think. Thats a bummer. Anyways, Im fairly pleased but it wasent as good as the one who said 138 so I´ll stick to that. Haha.

 

Anyone else who has taken the test?

[emessay]

The idea is speculative inspired from coil morphology formation to consider 'dynamic energy exchanger' process in :

1. Coil of electric transformer = transferring electric energy from one circuit to another

2. Coil of DNA = transferring informative signal from 'alien dimensions' to create life reality

3. Coil of galaxy = transferring 'gravity current/voltage' from 'alien dimensions' to galaxies

 

I know it doesn't make easier, so let's forget myLOL explaination.

[nkt]

AE,

 

the free-will debate is a moot point, really. If there were a guiding force that controlled us all, it would have to, by extension, control all animals and probably all plants too, down to the smallest bacteria and even viri.

 

If this is true, then it would be impossible to prove or disprove unless said controller (intelligent designer?) decided to make it so. As Al points out, the volume is just too great for anything to be able to do that.

 

Another way to look at it, is, that since we cannot know whether we have free will or not, but do not know the outcome, we have to live our lives as if we have free will. Since we do not know where to go, we cannot try to second-guess something controlling the entire universe, and we must, therefore, decide for ourselves - if we have no free will, then whatever we decide will be the right choice anyway!

[automatic existence]

AE,

 

the free-will debate is a moot point, really. If there were a guiding force that controlled us all, it would have to, by extension, control all animals and probably all plants too, down to the smallest bacteria and even viri.[/Quote]

 

Why is this a necessity? I do not speak of a force, God, aliens or what not. I just imply that I wonder how much we are "controleddetermined" by "other factors." Now Im in(?) deep water but isent it the same with gravity, that its a "force" but we do not now why or what? I might be wrong but to elaborate let me put it this way;

 

And, individually, each one of us is a product of forces that we did not choose and which we only dimily understand. We were born at a time and by parents we did not choose. We were, therefore, bequeathed a certain genetic inheritance over which we have no control but which does, to a significant extent, have control over us. This inheritance determines, in part, the ilnesses to which we are susceptible, and the limits of our intellectual, athletic and moral capacities. Not totally maybe, but enough. And we find ourselvs born into an environment that we fill inn with whatever slack is left over by our genetic endowment, an environment that, again, we did not choose and over which we have little control, at least in our crucial formative years

 

And this is, i believe, just the top of the iceberg. Also, I do not believe that we have personal tastes but that they too are regulated by the previously mentioned, as i believe is a big thing in sociology "these days" without having any specific knowledge. Add to this the fact that emotions is nothing but a survivel kit we have, just to reproduce and survive and that our existence is close to as meaningful as that of an ant. What we have here is not a creature which is free in my perspective. Moot point? Nah, its a scientific question, thats what I think. Its not "choose what fits you", which btw. people certanly know how to do.

 

If this is true, then it would be impossible to prove or disprove unless said controller (intelligent designer?) decided to make it so. As Al points out, the volume is just too great for anything to be able to do that.[/Quote]

 

Nah, dosent need a big guy to control all the evidence or the information, even less for him to tell us. Intelligent designer? Dont make me laugh. Why in Gods name would he have to tell us? Why wouldnt we be able to figure this out by ourselvs? I see that you have a point with the quantity of information that has to be stored. But am I wrong, or wouldn it become many, many, many times as much information if we have unlimited choice? "It just is" might be an answer, but it dosent give me the required satisfaction of having understood when you end up with just so stories. But then again, I know very little about what I am talking about so Im just gathering opinions.

 

I also saw that I totally missed the point in UA first post and I am sorry for that. And I see what you meant with the Matrix reference, but still how can you apply quantums, this I do not know?

 

Another way to look at it, is, that since we cannot know whether we have free will or not, but do not know the outcome, we have to live our lives as if we have free will. Since we do not know where to go, we cannot try to second-guess something controlling the entire universe, and we must, therefore, decide for ourselves - if we have no free will, then whatever we decide will be the right choice anyway! [/Quote]

 

So you mean even if we cant controll anything ourselvs we should still pretend as we do? And no, whatever choicewe made would not be the right one. The whole concept of right and wrong is built on the fact that there is choice. It wouldnt be the "right choice" if there were no choice, would it? I know Im taking others comments to extremes but it makes people more engaged. I think we should try to find out to what extent we are controled and then choose how to deal with it, not the other way around. And I am convinced that it really isent that hard to find out, which at the moment is my attitude to everything.

 

Happy to receive critique or feedback... anything really.

[emessay]

So, what are differences if we were puppets, transformers, or robots and we're just only like other species, mortal ?

 

It seems to me that we're in 'space-time ship cockpit' , we must surviellence anywhere and anything happen in universe, yes we're robotic-like. But do you think 'the space-time ship' is going to somewhere ?

[bartock]

So, what are differences if we were puppets, transformers, or robots and we're just only like other species, mortal ?

 

It seems to me that we're in 'space-time ship cockpit' , we must surviellence anywhere and anything happen in universe, yes we're robotic-like. But do you think 'the space-time ship' is going to somewhere ?

yes.... this is the big question.purpose of existence :eek2: ? which way are we headed? :xx:

[motherengine]

if a conscious entity constructs you from raw material to carry out consciouslly directed, semi or fully autonomous activities than you may be a robot in the technical sense. we are in a sense machines (either accidental or designed, it ends up the same) but i think the lack of knoweldge as to what agents (chemical or otherwise) spurn on our activities leaves us with an impression of freewill that, with the organic complexity of our mechanics, seperates us from robby [forbidden planet] at least.

[nkt]

Why is this a necessity? I do not speak of a force, God, aliens or what not. I just imply that I wonder how much we are "controlleddetermined" by "other factors." Now Im in(?) deep water but isent it the same with gravity, that its a "force" but we do not now why or what? I might be wrong but to elaborate let me put it this way;

Ok, I see what you were getting at with your first post. I read it as meaning some controlling intelligence, rather than a question about factors.

 

Everyone has a potential, and few manage to get even 50% of the way to what they could be. No-one fills every stat, as that is impossible, so you have to work towards what you are suited to, or what you like. Squat people are not good runners, and do better at power lifting than rock climbing, whilst those under 4ft tall are hard pushed to get a job as a policeman or a fireman. Wit, intelligence, etc. are all governed to a degree by your raw genetic stock, but the plasticity of the human means that we work at something, and get better at it, and our bodies adapt on an atomic level to make us even better. No-one ever ran a mile in under 4 minutes until Roger Bannister managed it. Today, 4 minutes is slow, and certainly wouldn't win you any medals at a big competition. However, to someone who hasn't trained, it is unattainable, regardless of genetics.

 

Your mind is flexible in the same way - train it, and you get smarter. Taxi drivers (presumably before GPS became cheap) have been found to have an enlarged area of the brain where they (metaphorically, or at least in a way we don't quite understand yet) keep the map they use to get from A to B.

 

Of course, some people can't drive...

 

Intelligent designer? Dont make me laugh. Why in Gods name would he have to tell us? Why wouldnt we be able to figure this out by ourselvs?

Well, if he/she/it was in complete control, and we had no free will, it would be s/he/it that had some of us discover his noodley tendrils, rather than randomly decide to play tennis or step under a bus that day. Proof would be generated only by it's leave and obvious choice. That's what I was getting at. If you are controlled, along with everyone else, then whatever you decide to do is right, as you can see it no other way, even if you disagree with it!

I also saw that I totally missed the point in UA first post and I am sorry for that. And I see what you meant with the Matrix reference, but still how can you apply quantums, this I do not know?

It was a nice point. As for the application of quantum mechanics, it is to do with the collapse of wave functions. Read up on Schroedinger's Cat for a good way to understand it.

 

So you mean even if we cant controll anything ourselvs we should still pretend as we do?

No, you don't have to pretend you do, because it is all part of the plan. You could not hope to second guess the creator and controller of a universe, could you?

And no, whatever choice we made would not be the right one. The whole concept of right and wrong is built on the fact that there is choice. It wouldnt be the "right choice" if there were no choice, would it?

But it would, from the point of view of the being that had you do his bidding...

 

I know Im taking others comments to extremes but it makes people more engaged. I think we should try to find out to what extent we are controled and then choose how to deal with it, not the other way around. And I am convinced that it really isent that hard to find out, which at the moment is my attitude to everything.

 

Happy to receive critique or feedback... anything really.

It is impossible to state the controls. I wrote a bit today on the way society used to self-police, with everyone working towards the common goal of "peace". This was disrupted by social change, with cities where nobody knew your name, and then, far more badly, by the invention of the police, who are there to do the job so you don't have to. This means you don't, and so no-one does, and suddenly, instead of 99.9% of people working towards a commmon goal, you suddenly have less than 1% doing all the work. Worse, they take away your rights, extend their powers, and tell you it is for your own good, whilst the crime rate goes up, and they don't need to help you.

 

Just that aspect of the influences on your life would be enough for a Ph.D, without touching on banking practises, the effects of gravity, magazine influences, TV, mobile phone radiation, drugs in the water supply, and the infinite number of other factors, including strange arguments on forums around the world about whether we have free will, and the attempts to measure the influences... I should probably use the boggley eyes face again... :eek2:

[Csongor]

To be a free human on the Earth....This is realistically, like if you borned, and grown at the right independent egoist enviroment, after then you could have complainst against the systems wich was starting to use you, if it's not naturell in your life and in your culture.

 

 

Csongor

[Kriminal99]

You misunderstood. If an outside force is acting upon us and denying us free will (regardless of whether that force is conscious or not) - how would you prove it's existence? And how would you prove it's effects?

 

I can answer that. By making a logical argument, based on everyone's common experience, that shows that all human behavior is governed by a mechanical system of cause and effect in a similar manner to how everything a computer does is ultimately driven by the laws of physics which dictate that electrons travel from point A to point B in a circuit. (And no this potentially unconnected metaphor isn't the argument -its meant to point out how physicaly driven systems are capable of really complex things) I believe I can make this argument and will use it to found arguments in philosophy in an ironclad way compared to how philosophical arguments have been founded before.

 

Rather than using a scientific method where 3rd person information given to someone in the form of a report or claim of a scientific investigation combined with soemones attempt to logically necessitate a claim based on that information, this type of argument would be of the form: If you agree with X, and you agree with Y then, Z. If you agree with Z and with Y then G. etc etc. The trick is to start with "X"'s and "Y"'s that are undisputable because they are so simple and not use any confusing metaphor based reasoning on the way. If you think that nothing of signifigance could come from an argument of this form, I would say that A) When you first read a logic puzzle the additional information that can be obtained by logic is not immediately obvious, and few people go through their entire life deducing everything they can from the information they have, and :doh: Its basically what math does with numbers and look what is accomplished there... Its just that pure logic is harder to deal with because all the involved concepts aren't so similar that we can ignore the "generalization problem of induction" ie if you can multiply one number by 2 you can do it to all numbers...

 

The arguments I believe are possible to make in this fashion are basically just about gathering alot of sense experience and somewhat long chains of simple reasoning to deduce signifigant information. The advantage of psychology over this type of argument is that psychology is supposed to be able to evaluate information directly that would immediately allow them to make an argument... But for many psychological claims I have read it seems that it could be claimed that there was a sort of "confirmation bias" which drove them to claim the results necessitated something they did not -

 

Example: There was an experiment where some people were asked to press a button at a random time, but before they did to note the time where they decided to do so. A "readiness potential" was built up a short time (small fractions of seconds) before they claimed they decided to press. The psychologists claimed that this showed that consious thought did not drive action. I believe the experimental results in no way logically necessitated their claim, but a professor of mine told me this experiment was taken very seriously in the psychology community. Were I to be given such a test I know several things would be true: A) for me there is no such thing as "randomly" choosing to press the button - random means being driven by high variance factors. You would have to come up with some kind of algorithm to help you choose when to press (eenie meenie miney moe), and when the outcome would be clear THEN you know you are going to press it even though you would claim to wait till the end to "decide" to press the button. :) Besides that, it might just be impossible to mark the time on the clock before you consiously decide to press the button, just because deciding and time marking seem like mutually exclusive actions to me. But none of this matters in the physcological community, because science places more emphasis on gathering of data correctly then of criticizing reason.

 

Arguments of the form I want to use have their advantages as well though: People will never take a claim from a scientists as seriously as they would something they have reasoned to be true themselves, therefore I believe advances in psychology will never has as much impact on human behavior as advances in philosophy can.

[perplexity]

I can answer that. By making a logical argument, based on everyone's common experience,...

:hihi: :Alien:

 

I'd thought that science already did that.

 

....I believe I can make this argument and will use it to found arguments in philosophy in an ironclad way ..... The trick is to start with "X"'s and "Y"'s that are undisputable because they are so simple and not use any confusing metaphor based reasoning on the way.

i.e. axioms

 

this is what science was already up to, ever since Newton, if not well before.

 

....Its basically what math does with numbers and look what is accomplished there...

Indeed, mathematics is notoriously axiomatic.

 

 

Its just that pure logic is harder to deal with because all the involved concepts aren't so similar that we can ignore the "generalization problem of induction" ie if you can multiply one number by 2 you can do it to all numbers...

For logic to be so pure, your logical premises would have to be absolutely pure.

 

"a logical argument, based on everyone's common experience" does not appear to me to promise much by way of an absolute purity.

 

The arguments I believe are possible to make in this fashion are basically just about gathering alot of sense experience and somewhat long chains of simple reasoning to deduce signifigant information.

What else is new?

 

... Example: ..... A) for me there is no such thing as "randomly" choosing to press the button - random means being driven by high variance factors.

Free will is notorously variable.

 

It varies for instance to the extent that the will is presumed to exist at all.

 

Arguments of the form I want to use have their advantages as well though: People will never take a claim from a scientists as seriously as they would something they have reasoned to be true themselves, therefore I believe advances in psychology will never has as much impact on human behavior as advances in philosophy can.

When you make your first million on the philosophical stock exchange, do let us know.

 

To the best of my knowledge this has not before happened, for want of an appetite for the equity.

 

:cup:

 

-- RH.

[Kriminal99]

:hihi: :Alien:

 

I'd thought that science already did that.

 

 

i.e. axioms

 

this is what science was already up to, ever since Newton, if not well before.

 

 

Indeed, mathematics is notoriously axiomatic.

 

 

 

For logic to be so pure, your logical premises would have to be absolutely pure.

 

"a logical argument, based on everyone's common experience" does not appear to me to promise much by way of an absolute purity.

 

 

What else is new?

 

 

Free will is notorously variable.

 

It varies for instance to the extent that the will is presumed to exist at all.

 

 

When you make your first million on the philosophical stock exchange, do let us know.

 

To the best of my knowledge this has not before happened, for want of an appetite for the equity.

 

:D

 

-- RH.

 

 

Science does not even apply to an issue like free will. What on earth are you talking about? Off topic bump year old threads much?

 

Perhaps you would like to conduct an experiment to determine if we have free will? :cup:

 

IMO Free will is an abstract concept that cannot be directly tested using scientific experimentation. We already have as much information on the subject as we are going to get (from common experience which science does not base arguments on btw to contradict your first quote), we only need reason through it carefully. Since when did science have exclusive jurisdiction on careful reasoning?

 

"a logical argument, based on everybody's common experience" is not the premise in any argument. That would be the reason why it is not precisely defined, assuming that is what you meant by pure.

 

free will is variable? What are you talking about. This is the form of the argument: If determinism, not free will. Determinism, therefore not free will.

 

The quote is pointing out that someone "randomly" deciding to press a button could just mean they pressed it because they were trying to prove free will etc. So yes will is high variance. No that does not contradict anything I said.

 

Of course philosophy impacts people's behavior. The vast majority of social changes ever enacted was driven by people making arguments as to what should and should not be done based on their personal experience. Not by scientists collecting experimental data.

[perplexity]

Science does not even apply to an issue like free will. What on earth are you talking about? Off topic bump year old threads much?

That is exactly what I am talking about.

If there is such a thing as free will, then science ought to apply to it, or more to the point, science ought to take it into consideration.

 

Perhaps you would like to conduct an experiment to determine if we have free will? :omg:

Personally, I had never felt the need.

 

IMO Free will is an abstract concept that cannot be directly tested using scientific experimentation.

Of course not.

 

We already have as much information on the subject as we are going to get (from common experience which science does not base arguments on btw to contradict your first quote), we only need reason through it carefully.

Really? No more free will? It is all over already?

I must have missed the announcement.

 

 

Since when did science have exclusive jurisdiction on careful reasoning?

The jurisdiction tends to come and go. It has been fairly strong for the past 300 years or so.

 

"a logical argument, based on everybody's common experience" is not the premise in any argument. That would be the reason why it is not precisely defined, assuming that is what you meant by pure.

Please explain then. Perhaps I missed the gist. What is the base of a logical argument if not the premises of it?

 

free will is variable? What are you talking about.

Except that it makes a difference there would be no point to free will.

If it does make a difference, that introduces, per se, a variable factor into the equation.

Will implies action, implies effect.

 

This is the form of the argument:

If determinism, not free will. Determinism, therefore not free will.

Free will determines. What else its it for?

 

....Of course philosophy impacts people's behavior. The vast majority of social changes ever enacted was driven by people making arguments as to what should and should not be done based on their personal experience. Not by scientists collecting experimental data.

Ergo philosophy determines human conduct?

 

We might just as well supppose that the philosophy is determined by the conduct.

 

Chicken and egg.

 

Which philosophical argument invented the internal combustion engine?

 

--- RH.

[Kriminal99]

That is exactly what I am talking about.

If there is such a thing as free will, then science ought to apply to it, or more to the point, science ought to take it into consideration.

 

 

Personally, I had never felt the need.

 

 

Of course not.

 

 

Really? No more free will? It is all over already?

I must have missed the announcement.

 

 

 

The jurisdiction tends to come and go. It has been fairly strong for the past 300 years or so.

 

 

Please explain then. Perhaps I missed the gist. What is the base of a logical argument if not the premises of it?

 

 

Except that it makes a difference there would be no point to free will.

If it does make a difference, that introduces, per se, a variable factor into the equation.

Will implies action, implies effect.

 

 

Free will determines. What else its it for?

 

 

Ergo philosophy determines human conduct?

 

We might just as well supppose that the philosophy is determined by the conduct.

 

Chicken and egg.

 

Which philosophical argument invented the internal combustion engine?

 

--- RH.

 

Why would science ever consider free will? It is outside the scope of science which deals with collecting experimental data. Not even the development of theories from collected scientific data by scientists is strictly science. What exactly do YOU think science is?

 

Of course science does not have jurisdiction over careful reasoning. That statement was made in jest oO. Billions of nonscientists live their lives succesfully every day and reason carefully on what they experience with no problem.

 

People's every day common experience, which is meant to point to various every day experiences that people did or did not have, is going to be a premise for the logical argument. The STATEMENT "a logical argument based on everybody's common experience" is not the premise in any argument. I believe you are demonstrating dishonest debate tactics by this argument.

 

Will is determined by prior states. Free will isn't for anything, because it doesn't exist. If you ask someone who believes in free will to tell how the things that effect their decision don't rule out free will, what would they say?

 

By philosophy, I merely mean informal reasoning as to what should and shouldn't be done. Science certainly has not claim to this.

 

The internal combustion engine? Maybe indirectly the philosophical argument that invented science.

[perplexity]

Why would science ever consider free will? It is outside the scope of science which deals with collecting experimental data.

Of its own volition science is evidently disinclined to own up.

 

Not even the development of theories from collected scientific data by scientists is strictly science. What exactly do YOU think science is?

Science is a religion in drag, a set of religious beliefs cunningly disguised as axioms.

 

Of course science does not have jurisdiction over careful reasoning. That statement was made in jest oO.

One should hope that science is not just the ultimate conceit, but I've run up against a few of them who would seem to make it so.

 

.... People's every day common experience, which is meant to point to various every day experiences that people did or did not have, is going to be a premise for the logical argument. The STATEMENT "a logical argument based on everybody's common experience" is not the premise in any argument. I believe you are demonstrating dishonest debate tactics by this argument.

I note then that my question was dodged, or misapprehended.

Logical arguments are only valid to the extent that their premises are valid. What then are you premises, please tell?

If you mean to talk about something more poetic you might cause a lot of confusion by calling it logic.

 

Will is determined by prior states. Free will isn't for anything, because it doesn't exist. If you ask someone who believes in free will to tell how the things that effect their decision don't rule out free will, what would they say?

For as long as another person's free will would operate, what they'd have to say is for them, not me to say.

Personally, I might say to **** off and stop being so stupid. That is what a lot of people do if you dispute their will.

 

By philosophy, I merely mean informal reasoning as to what should and shouldn't be done. Science certainly has not claim to this.

"informal reasoning" sounds like gossip, rather than philosophy.

It is necessary for philospohy to be precise precisly because the issues it deals with are as yet indefinite.

Otherwise you are just blowing smoke at smoke.

 

The internal combustion engine? Maybe indirectly the philosophical argument that invented science.

Which was what?

 

The essential creed of the scientific faith appears to me to be the single reality, an absolute unltimate truth akin to the concept of God that preceded it.

 

Is that then the root cause of road traffic congestion?

 

Perhaps it is.

 

--- RH.

[Freddy]

Free will is an illusion. Science has and continues to investigate free will. There is no empirical evidence for free will. Countless studies in social/biological science research have investigated social and genetic influences on human behavior. Read The Practice Of Social Research by Earl Babbie. Determinism is the foundation of social science research on human behavior.

[perplexity]

There is no empirical evidence for free will.

Of course not, tautologically.

 

Empricism implies a proof by predictability or repeatability.

 

With the very absense of free will as the premise, the very same conclusion is not then so much of a surprise to me.

 

Free will defies empiricism.

 

--- RH.