Free will

blissed · 24-08-06 04:49:05

I thought of a very interesting point today at least to me following on from the food thread.

Our bodies know what nutrients we need or lack at any particular time and knows the precise nutrient content of any food we've ever eaten. So when you say "mmmm I feel like a egg sandwich" What instigated that thought, a part of our brain told us, we wanted an egg sandwich or that we like or don't like any particular food. It's not a case of free will really. That got me wondering what else the instinctive "needs" part of our brain decides for us. Sexual behaviour, choice of colours or textures, competitive behaviour.

Discuss

or make flippant comments or just ignore this and carry on wanking
Did you make a conscious decision to have a wank or did your body need one.

Last edited by blissed (24-08-06 04:50:05)

frankie · 24-08-06 05:44:39

Let me think about it for a bit then get back to ya!

Last edited by frankie (24-08-06 05:44:51)

frankie · 24-08-06 09:06:25

I guess most of our actions are dictated by need. Even seemingly altruistic acts serve a need. I'd like to think that I am making concious decisions but that fits very nicely into the we are so clever and full of imagination, marvel at human, ideology.

Perhaps the needs are instinctive but we have a choice how and when we service them. Also people submit to devastatingly destructive behaviour that seem to defy natural needs so that must be free will at work surely. Or maybe just a need to self-destruct...now I'm confused.

Last edited by frankie (24-08-06 09:07:07)

Burlesque · 24-08-06 09:14:54

I believe that we have free will, but that it is very seldom in use. Most of the things we do during a day are things we don't think very closely about. This doesn't just go for needs (in fact, needs must quite often be put on hold), but for what is expected of us, what "needs to be done" to get through the day. Most of the things we do are instinctive: even when we do think about how to go about something, our decision is more often than not the result of an instinctive reaction.

The genes versus upbringing discussion is something we've had before, so I won't even go there, but whatever the cause, instinctive reaction rules: try to get through a day actively thinking about every single thing you have to do. You will fail, and anyway you will be utterly exhausted within 15 minutes.

Blissed, thank you for this opportunity to rant incoherently. You know how much I enjoy that!

Burlesque.

Burlesque · 24-08-06 19:12:29

Yes, I too believe that there is a very distinctive difference between "need" and "want", and that people (including myself) often forget that there is such a difference - we often honestly think that we really need something that is a mere craving, more often than not instilled in us by outside interests, notably commercial ones.

While there may not be a need for a specific texture or colour, I do think there is the need for beauty, whether it's the beauty of nature, of art or ... or this place! Constant ugliness leads to depression, that's my experience.

Burlesque.

The_Elfman · 24-08-06 19:26:38

"O, reason not the need: our basest beggars are in the poorest thing superfluous. Allow not nature more than nature needs, man's life's as cheap as beast's".
As for want that is largely determined by who and where we are and what our values are. If you live in the suburbs of Melbourne or London your sense of what you “need” is going to be very different than it would be if you lived half way up Mount Kilimanjaro. It is all subjective.

I believe that most of our actions are determined by prejudice, programming, personal experience and arbitrary taste. They have little to do with logic. We all have had experiences when we have met people for the first time and have been instantly drawn to or repelled by them for no logical reason. It’s the same with our lifestyles. I’m a heavy smoker. I know that this is very bad for me and I don’t even need to smoke as much as I do to satisfy my nicotine addiction. It is simply habit.

In our pursuit of happiness and fulfilment we tend to look for it outside ourselves, thinking that if we had the right house, car, and the right sort of people around us we would be happy so we try to surround ourselves with people and things that make us feel comfortable, secure, or stimulated, yet most of us fail to achieve any sense of lasting contentment. The main precept of Buddhism is “awareness”. Being conscious of why you think or do things and the effect that your actions have on others around you. As Burlesque said this is phenomenally difficult to achieve or sustain for any length of time. Even the most devout monks struggle with it.

We are all subject to the human condition and that condition is fickle.

Elfman.

Last edited by The_Elfman (24-08-06 20:17:38)

Burlesque · 24-08-06 19:29:43

See Elfman's post above if you wish to take part of the opinions of someone with an actual mind. Clear, precise and insightful - all the things my posts were not . Brilliant, Elf!

Burlesque.

Last edited by Burlesque (24-08-06 19:30:46)

blissed · 24-08-06 22:38:18

I've gone mad on this because It's something I find really interesting

Liandra wrote:

needs... I would say human bodies are often out of contact with what they need. We rely on want without thinking of need for a significant percentage of the time. I couldn't readily believe we "need" a texture or colour, or whatever. A lot of human idiosyncrasies and ecentricities may possibly have stemmed from instinct and have subverted or developed in wierd, wonderful or even harmful ways. If need is necessity then all we really need to live is healthy food and fresh water and some sort of physical activity, preferablly sex Need is used flippantly. However there is more to us, and just because we don't need things doesn't mean they have a lesser value, in fact they most often hold a greater one. It's that maslows hierarchy of needs again isn't it. I suppose I presume needs only concern what is necessary for mere basic functional existence. everything else is a bonus or a bane perhaps I'm rather primative.

Oh yes of course maslows hierarchy of needs *pretends he's even heard of it and hasn't had to look it up* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs it seems pretty well thought out and theres the the concept I really like that you introduced me to, self actualisation, thanks for that, having that concept clearly set in your mind is very good at helping to add a little confidence. Most means of expression whether they're painting, writing, sport or home making are as important as we want them to be. But feeling comfortable and fulfilled does alter the chemical balance of our minds to our benefit and especially if our upbringing was hard and psychologically uncomfortable, to settle into a life thats fulfilling can make the few that do that like Burlesque, feel pretty well contented.

Burlesque wrote:

Yes, I too believe that there is a very distinctive difference between "need" and "want",

Just to be difficult here I'd like to replace the word "need " with "must" which is imperative and pro-active. You must eat when your hungry and you must have sex to reproduce, if you damage your hand, you must rest it or it won't heal, If you don't want to get depressed, then your performance must match your expectation.

frankie wrote:

Perhaps the needs are instinctive but we have a choice how and when we service them.

So the subconscious engine in our minds makes us do things, we're not complete automatons tho. Sitting alongside that engine is a navigation device called consciousness. It simply gives us the ability to avoid obstacles and decide where to go next and in doing that has developed the ability to best do the things it must do. Your subconscious will make you angry (because it thinks your response has been wrong and has millennia of experience to draw on), but your conscious mind is navigating and can see that today this decision is wrong and not getting you anywhere, so you modify your response next time or try to. It's all quite an elegant system for survival, procreation and proliferation and I think Maslow was right in just examining and trying to understand what functions well.

The_Elfman wrote:

In our pursuit of happiness and fulfilment we tend to look for it outside ourselves, thinking that if we had the right house, car, and the right sort of people around us we would be happy so we try to surround ourselves with people and things that make us feel comfortable, secure, or stimulated, yet most of us fail to achieve any sense of lasting contentment. The main precept of Buddhism is “awareness”. Being conscious of why you think or do things and the effect that your actions have on others around you. As Burlesque said this is phenomenally difficult to achieve or sustain for any length of time. Even the most devout monks struggle with it.

Thats because I think by natural selection our predisposition is to be discontented and what we have we quickly become use to and usually want more of. This inclination is very difficult to suppress.
It's one reason why the planet is covered in our stuff and if you don't want more stuff you want more enlightenment or peace but we seem to be driven to want more and if we're instinctively driven to want it's not really a want I think, but a must. Sorry if it seems like I'm getting all semantic on you Elf It's the reasons for wanting something I'm examining and are they a product of free will? Hey I hope this isn't an annoying mind fucking experience I'm sorry if it is I just find the subject really interesting.

.

Last edited by blissed (24-08-06 22:40:58)

Burlesque · 24-08-06 23:16:21

When I say what I think - what I really think - on this highly interesting subject, people tend to get cross at little old me. "Cross" doesn't even cover it. They get nettled, miffed or even peeved. Thus it stands: I could say many a thing and am tempted to do so, but because I'm such an unbelievably caring and chummy individual, I will not. And don't say I never do you guys any favours!

And Blissed, what was that bit about me being contented? Explain, or I'll sue you for defamation.

Burlesque.

Last edited by Burlesque (24-08-06 23:23:47)

blissed · 24-08-06 23:28:05

Oh OK Burlesque, Elf begged me not to but I 've just sent you an email

Burlesque · 24-08-06 23:35:11

You will regret this .

Burlesque.

The_Elfman · 24-08-06 23:40:58

blissed wrote:

Sorry if it seems like I'm getting all semantic on you Elf

No problem mate. On the subject of free will (which you are right I totaly failed to address) this is I think a tricky one. So much of our motivations are influenced by our socialisation and our experiences that I wonder if any of our decisions can ever said to be totaly "free". Also our options are often so limited that freedom of choice doesn't really enter into it. If a man is only able to choose between theft and starvation how much "free will" can he actually be said to have?

Elfman

The_Elfman · 24-08-06 23:45:33

blissed wrote:

Oh OK Burlesque, Elf begged me not to but I 've just sent you an email

Burlesque wrote:

You will regret this big_

I know I did .

Elfman

Warmtouch · 24-08-06 23:58:21

Maslow rocks... although like many unified psychological theories he can't be used to explain EVERYTHING. (Some things are just plain chemical imbalances and what people need are suitable drugs; no amount of analysis or talk therapy will help them.) But in general I've found Maslow's theory appealing both from a scientific and a humanistic standpoint.

It's also, in very general terms, part of what underlies the video game The Sims. The simulated people in the game have a hierarchy of needs that the player has to help them meet.

blissed · 25-08-06 00:03:49

Yeah I often thought that if you wanted to build an "artificial" human like concioisness inside a computer, a very very sophisticated version of that game would produce a very real "somebody" inside the computer for you to talk to.

.

Last edited by blissed (25-08-06 00:04:37)

The_Elfman · 25-08-06 00:08:28

blissed wrote:

Yeah I often thought that if you wanted to build an "artificial" human like concioisness inside a computer, a very very sophisticated version of that game would produce a very real "somebody" inside the computer for you to talk to.
.

But we are the sum of all our experiences and cultural heritage. How can you create a "somebody" out of something that has neither?

Elfman.

Last edited by The_Elfman (25-08-06 00:09:06)

Burlesque · 25-08-06 00:20:09

The_Elfman wrote:

blissed wrote:
Oh OK Burlesque, Elf begged me not to but I 've just sent you an email
Burlesque wrote:
You will regret this big_
I know I did .
Elfman

The ever popular Burlesque, reviewed tonight at IFM forums! The tagline for tonight's show is "Keep away from him, folks, just keep away!"

And, yohooo, Blissed, you still haven't explained the slanderous allegation that I am supposed to be "contented"!

Burlesque.

Last edited by Burlesque (25-08-06 00:21:19)

blissed · 25-08-06 00:32:29

Hey that was a great email Burlesque But in fact the future direction of humankind might be directed by my experiment when I get the funds for it see below.

The_Elfman wrote:

blissed wrote:
Yeah I often thought that if you wanted to build an "artificial" human like concioisness inside a computer, a very very sophisticated version of that game would produce a very real "somebody" inside the computer for you to talk to.
.
But we are the sum of all our experiences and cultural heritage. How can you create a "somebody" out of something that has neither?
Elfman.

Part of that environment would be created inside the computer, thats the immediate surrounding and virtual living space so that when the virtual kid looks in the mirror they see a person a human face like ours because that person is a close approximation both in computing power and neural architecture to a human. All the people involved in raising the virtual kid are real but have avatars in the virtual word. the kid knows of the real world outside and their relationship to it. As the kid grows they accumulate the similar experiences that we do. and absorb culture and the emotional interaction we do. Once that kid is raised tho unlike a human you can copy them. The more advanced version 2.0 contains a complete virtual world just like the sims but populated with emotional thinking beings running their lives at say 10 times the speed of ours, this population occasionally throws up a pure genius and those people are copied. these could be offered real problems to solve or projects to work on for us. Also unlike the Sims now, very fast virtual social experiments could tell us a lot about ourselves. I've been thinking about this a lot because if you have a child now this is their future, to exist a long side this sort of intelligence because once you have a comparable human conscience in a machine you can or they can extend their capabilities almost infinitely as it lives for ever and unlike Hal it's certainly not going to let you kill it. Something to dream about tonight I think

Last edited by blissed (25-08-06 00:37:50)

Burlesque · 25-08-06 00:37:00

My god, you're crazier than I am!

Hmm, interesting though. Highly fascinating ... in an unhinged, Frankensteinian way.

Burlesque.

blissed · 25-08-06 00:40:20

Yeah but your thinking 2006. Not 2036.
Just do a mental exercise and clock the difference between 1906 and 1936.
When you were playing with toys in 1976 was just a flight of fancy.

Last edited by blissed (25-08-06 00:45:50)

Burlesque · 25-08-06 00:44:06

No, I don't mean "crazy" in the sense "it can never be done", I mean "crazy" in the sense "why on earth would you want to do a thing like that, you lunatic!?" You will agree that there is a subtle difference .

Burlesque.

The_Elfman · 25-08-06 00:49:22

blissed wrote:

Also unlike the Sims now, very fast virtual social experiments could tell us a lot about ourselves.

No they couldn't. They could tell us a lot about advanced computer self-programming but nothing more. Computers can teach us nothing about being human because they aren't.

Elfman.

blissed · 25-08-06 00:50:38

Because we are beings of instinct and have spent 15 million years populating the planet distructively, with the same cycles of enlightenment and ignorance.
Once an artificial inteligence has been enlightened it stays that way forever, can populate the entire universe with ease if it chooses and order it eligantly.

Right now Blue genie the computer that simulates nuclear blasts because real nuclear testing is banned has the same computing power as one human brain. So that gets you thinking that if you change the architecture to a neurol net and copy the human mind and give them a human apearance and upbringing you will create a person. Then the adventure begins from there

The_Elfman · 25-08-06 00:52:48

further to my comment above how could you defend it ethicly? You are talking about designing a machine which thinks as itself as human but never can be. It's cruel.

Elfman

The_Elfman · 25-08-06 00:55:05

blissed wrote:

Because we are beings of instinct and have spent 15 million years populating the planet distructively, with the same cycles of enlightenment and ignorance.
Once an artificial inteligence has been enlightened it stays that way forever, can populate the entire universe with ease if it chooses and order it eligantly.
Right now Blue genie the computer that simulates nuclear blasts because real nuclear testing is banned has the same computing power as one human brain. So that gets you thinking that if you change the architecture to a neurol net and copy the human mind and give them a human apearance and upbringing you will create a person. Then the adventure begins from there

Sorry mate but we are never going to agree on this one. I don't beleive you create a "person". I think that you would create a travesty.

elfman

#1 24-08-06 04:49:05

Free will

#2 24-08-06 05:44:39

Re: Free will

#3 24-08-06 09:06:25

Re: Free will

#4 24-08-06 09:14:54

Re: Free will

#5 24-08-06 19:12:29

Re: Free will

#6 24-08-06 19:26:38

Re: Free will

#7 24-08-06 19:29:43

Re: Free will

#8 24-08-06 22:38:18

Re: Free will

#9 24-08-06 23:16:21

Re: Free will

#10 24-08-06 23:28:05

Re: Free will

#11 24-08-06 23:35:11

Re: Free will

#12 24-08-06 23:40:58

Re: Free will

#13 24-08-06 23:45:33

Re: Free will

#14 24-08-06 23:58:21

Re: Free will

#15 25-08-06 00:03:49

Re: Free will

#16 25-08-06 00:08:28

Re: Free will

#17 25-08-06 00:20:09

Re: Free will

#18 25-08-06 00:32:29

Re: Free will

#19 25-08-06 00:37:00

Re: Free will

#20 25-08-06 00:40:20

Re: Free will

#21 25-08-06 00:44:06

Re: Free will

#22 25-08-06 00:49:22

Re: Free will

#23 25-08-06 00:50:38

Re: Free will

#24 25-08-06 00:52:48

Re: Free will

#25 25-08-06 00:55:05

Re: Free will

Board footer