Cito di Pense wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:It seems equally ludicrous to me to that we have absolutely no control of our lives or we have absolute control of our lives. It seems to me far more reasonable that perhaps someday, science will learn about the boundaries our brains place on our ability to choose.

The inventions of new technologies give you 'choices' you never had before. Science can't tell you the boundaries, because if it found some, it would try to see what was beyond them. "Here we go again..."

So you think we should desist with exploration simply because we can't see the far shore from our current position? Isn't that the same with the "Big Bang?" Why bother investigating the truth about the big bang since it will only lead to seeking what came before it... "here we go again?"

I have no problem with science exploration of the mind. It won't change my life regardless what they discover. I agree with you that people generally seem to be seeking justification for their philosophy which equals 'philosophy,' in this matter in particular.

As for the "boundaries" I mentioned in my previously posted, perhaps you'd have been more satisfied with "limitations?" I was speaking to the claim that one part of our brain has worked out an action before another part of our brain. To that I say, "so what?" It would be safe to draw from that the conclusion, that one part of our brain has worked out an action before, say the conscious. Leave it to the theologians and the philosophers to twist that knowledge into supporting or refuting their claims. What's so wrong with that?

Not many people I know, know the Tragically Hip. They're one of my favorites.

Keep It Real wrote:I doubt I would have reached the opinion there is no free will if i had been raised a theist.

Whimpering about your situation is a time-honored strategy for winning friends and influencing people. The downside of that is being stuck with the kind of friends and influence that follow from turning whimpering about your situation into your social career strategy. If you want a formal education in whimpering, read Andrew4Handel's posts on anti-natalism.

PensivePenny wrote:So you think we should desist with exploration simply because we can't see the far shore from our current position? Isn't that the same with the "Big Bang?" Why bother investigating the truth about the big bang since it will only lead to seeking what came before it... "here we go again?"

I have no problem with science exploration of the mind. It won't change my life regardless what they discover. I agree with you that people generally seem to be seeking justification for their philosophy which equals 'philosophy,' in this matter in particular.

As for the "boundaries" I mentioned in my previously posted, perhaps you'd have been more satisfied with "limitations?" I was speaking to the claim that one part of our brain has worked out an action before another part of our brain. To that I say, "so what?" It would be safe to draw from that the conclusion, that one part of our brain has worked out an action before, say the conscious. Leave it to the theologians and the philosophers to twist that knowledge into supporting or refuting their claims. What's so wrong with that?

Believing that there is a farther shore to reach is certainly one way to approach existential issues; I think we are well-familiar with one particular take on the 'farther shore' concept. I'm not saying what we should or shouldn't do. To tell the truth, I'm a bit creeped out by the people who want to understand human behavior to the nitpicking level of detail implied in studying responsibility 'scientifically'. Some do have trouble coping because they don't know in detail what other people are thinking. I'm not saying you're having trouble coping at our current level of knowledge, but the hope that we will discover something wonderful by what you call 'exploring' is just wishful thinking, and besides that, depends in no small way on your very personal take as to what 'wonderful' is all about. Promoting peace is just not the antithesis of promoting war.

Another song for ya -- and look up more recent Hot Tuna (Kaukonen-Casady) renditions, like the live version at Fur Peace Ranch -- but the classic interpretation is right here:



This stuff is wonderful if one doesn't carry around any baggage about the religious symbols in the lyrics. Jorma Kaukonen is one of those underrated treasures, in my opinion, which might very well go to waste, here. You were 6 years old when that one came out.

I'm not going to blather about the journey-instead-of-the-destination, one of the stupidest platitudes in the archive, but belief in progress is just a comforting fantasy. Ask Pebble what we want to progress toward: All the shit that the religious nuts wibble about, but without God, and his enumerated exclusions. Whose authority do you want to rely on, then? Don't back down from your personal take on what 'wonderful' is all about, but I simply may not personally support everything you think might be wonderful, because I have a different take on things. I like GB Shaw's take on the Golden Rule, too: "Don't do unto others. They might not share your tastes."

And -- limitations? My finite lifespan is the bottom-line limitation. Everything else is chump change. Is getting out from under these stupid little limitations really going to make the major limitation less of an issue? It might, for some people, who might not think they get enough fun out of life to compensate them for their finite lifespans. I'm tellin' ya, Penny, from the bottom of my cold, cold heart, that the fulcrum for this whole deal is existential anxiety. Shakespeare's Hamlet is my go-to guy when dealing with existential angst, Beckett's Vladimir and Estragon are there for comic relief, if you can call it that. YMMV, but I've found the stuff that gets me through the long, dark teatime of the soul.

Cito di Pense wrote:Believing that there is a farther shore to reach is certainly one way to approach existential issues; I think we are well-familiar with one particular take on the 'farther shore' concept. I'm not saying what we should or shouldn't do. To tell the truth, I'm a bit creeped out by the people who want to understand human behavior to the nitpicking level of detail implied in studying responsibility 'scientifically'. Some do have trouble coping because they don't know in detail what other people are thinking. I'm not saying you're having trouble coping at our current level of knowledge, but the hope that we will discover something wonderful by what you call 'exploring' is just wishful thinking, and besides that, depends in no small way on your very personal take as to what 'wonderful' is all about. Promoting peace is just not the antithesis of promoting war.

Being "creeped out" by those non-scientists seeking 'scientific' treatise on 'responsibility' is a little creepy. As far as I am aware, the scientist who broke ground on these studies were just seeking knowledge of how the brain worked. Is that wrong? My big problem with all this is what you point out right there... the idea that these studies say fuck all about 'responsibility.' The conclusions being drawn by the masses are faulty as I see it. I don't hold the search for knowledge in contempt... and knowledge about the universe around us, including our brains, to me I find just about the closest thing to 'wonderful' I can imagine. YMMV

I think you know me better than to think my "other shore" remark was anything other than the acquisition of new knowledge. Science has never been able to control what the masses do with their discoveries. Why should understanding the brains bio/chemical function be excluded?

Another song for ya -- and look up more recent Hot Tuna (Kaukonen-Casady) renditions, like the live version at Fur Peace Ranch -- but the classic interpretation is right here:

I looked it up... sorry... not my taste. Maybe I can't see past the religious references.

This stuff is wonderful if one doesn't carry around any baggage about the religious symbols in the lyrics. Jorma Kaukonen is one of those underrated treasures, in my opinion, which might very well go to waste, here. You were 6 years old when that one came out.

One of my top ten favorite artists of all time died when I was 7 (Janis Joplin).... so maybe that tells you something. I have eclectic musical tastes. Blues (old and new), is at or near the top of my list, but I also like classical, rock, grunge, motown.... about anything but pop.

I'm not going to blather about the journey-instead-of-the-destination, one of the stupidest platitudes in the archive, but belief in progress is just a comforting fantasy. Ask Pebble what we want to progress toward: All the shit that the religious nuts wibble about, but without God. Whose authority do you want to rely on, then? Don't back down from your personal take on what 'wonderful' is all about, but I simply may not personally support everything you think might be wonderful, because I have a different take on things. I like GB Shaw's take on the Golden Rule, too: "Don't do unto others. They might not share your tastes."

I have no problem with having a differing opinion of what is 'wonderful' with you or anyone, but the farther down ones list of 'wonderful' one finds truth (in the "conforms with fact or reality" sense), the less likely we can be friends. I don't take disagreement personally.

'Equality' This is how we got there. If you have an interest in treating people with any degree of care, then unless you specify otherwise, I shall assume you view all humans as deserving of to be treated with a similar level of consideration.

Cito di Pense wrote: I don't want to see them punished: I just want to see them sequestered, but somebody has to pay for that shit, including making the sequestration something that is not a fate worse than death. Some people thrive in prison culture, some don't.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Pebble wrote:So call me a cynic

No, I won't do that. Not if you're clamouring, "Equality for all."

Good - when I stand back and compare what we know of humanity before the last century, I see faltering progress. Whether it will continue, who knows. But I see possibilities, areas where progress can be made. You may argue it is all pointless as we cannot know what is progress and ultimately it all leads nowhere - to me that I bin in the irrelevant box, since I cannot know whether or not there is nowhere to go and the progress is just illusory.

This may be off-topic, but I think he's saying its all pointless because we're all going to die.

Which is arguably the most annoying thing possible, for lots of reasons.

And it makes everything else trivial.

'Honestly, what is the fucking point?' Is the implied title of every post.

Or maybe I'm just having a bad day myself and projecting. All my therapists said I did this a LOT.

romansh wrote:I think we have to agree on a definition of free will and what might be the likely properties of this supposed free will before we can move on to whether we have responsibility or not. Plus a 'good' definition of responsibility would not go amiss either,

How about, for free will, "There's someone in my head who's free from causality"?

Or, we could think up fudgy ones instead......how much time do you have to waste?

For responsibility...........I think we should identify the someone before trying to agree on what to charge him or her or it with, though I'm thinking 'Sorcery' might have to be the main accusation.

archibald wrote:This may be off-topic, but I think he's saying its all pointless because we're all going to die.

Not quite. I'm asking whether the attention some people devote to issues of freedom and responsibility might be related to existential anxiety. It's plain, and you seem to recognize, that there aren't any data that can settle the questions right now. But there isn't even any indication that the existing data (and theory, if you can call it that) we have at the moment show a direction to take in research. People seem to be still stuck tediously studying regions of the brain to see what gross function they relate to. That's all well and good, but it isn't addressing the questions of freedom and responsibility, and trying to win the argument about freedom and responsibility by flashing around brightly colored images of brain scans is a tired debating ploy. There's a two-thousand-plus page on historical Jesus here because people have deluded themselves into believing there are facts in the matter they can rationally debate and that address the ostensible question. Guess what I think is going on with them.

Another point I generally now offer in ambling threads about freedom and responsibility is simply to invite people to ask whether it's just vestigial religion coming back to bite them in the ass. The impulse to rationalize our judgements about these issues is all too common, and no, it need not be about vestigial religion at all. It might be that somebody is obsessing about needing to rationalize everything just because the name of the website has 'rational' in its URL. Learn to pick your battles, because you're not going to get anywhere with this if you're not already in the lab and know what the fuck you're doing. I'm just inviting you to see the hole in your donut because, delicious as it may be, it still isn't a steak.

I don't say it's all pointless. That's the kind of pathetic whining you get from KiR and Andrew4Handel. There are powerful therapeutic techniques which focus on an individual's dithering about peripheral matters to try to return the focus to what's really important in living one's life, the responsibility for which the individual must generate, and can then accept or decline. Deciding what's important is then a step toward acting, and dithering is deferral, which is what vacuous dickering about free will is up to. You were the one who posted the video clip from that Dutch psychotherapist. I thought you were beginning to get it at that point. The fact of death is just there to remind you that you only have so much time to decide, and then the matter will drop. Concerning oneself with humanity as a whole as a means of deferring individual decision is (you got it) from vestigial religion.

Cito di Pense wrote: I thought you were beginning to get it at that point. The fact of death is just there to remind you that you only have so much time to decide, and then the matter will drop. Concerning oneself with humanity as a whole as a means of deferring individual decision is (you got it) from vestigial religion.

This creates an interesting conundrum. As an individual I know exactly where I am going sooner or later. When I die any 'achievement' etc is of no further value to me. The knowledge I create or help create can 'evolve', but only in the minds of other humans - at present. So as I see it I am in a bind, either I invest in human knowledge, or accept the role of a polynucleotide transmission device. Do you have a third way?

Pebble wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote: I thought you were beginning to get it at that point. The fact of death is just there to remind you that you only have so much time to decide, and then the matter will drop. Concerning oneself with humanity as a whole as a means of deferring individual decision is (you got it) from vestigial religion.

This creates an interesting conundrum. As an individual I know exactly where I am going sooner or later. When I die any 'achievement' etc is of no further value to me. The knowledge I create or help create can 'evolve', but only in the minds of other humans - at present. So as I see it I am in a bind, either I invest in human knowledge, or accept the role of a polynucleotide transmission device. Do you have a third way?

Yes, a third way (one of many) is to stop dichotomizing everything.

i could entertain your question seriously. Either ask a more thoughtful question, or be happy with somebody else's answer, because you won't like mine. It still sounds like you've just discovered Jacob Bronowski and The Ascent of Man and can't stop playing with it.

Since it is going to turn out badly for the individual and his genome, lots of folks just have children, perhaps a few too many, just to make sure their nucleotides go somewhere. You can see what that's led to. Other animals have population explosions and outstrip their food supply or because their predators are having problems. Humans invent excuses. What did you fucking think I was gonna say?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Yes, a third way (one of many) is to stop dichotomizing everything.

i could entertain your question seriously. Either ask a more thoughtful question, or be happy with somebody else's answer, because you won't like mine.

Since it is going to turn out badly for the individual and his genome, lots of folks just have children, perhaps a few too many, just to make sure their nucleotides go somewhere. You can see what that's led to. Other animals have population explosions and outstrip their food supply or because their predators are having problems. Humans invent excuses. What did you fucking think I was gonna say?

Some hints as to the vast array of other options you have in mind might be where I was going with that? The answer doesn't have to be nice.
Avoiding all excuses as you put it is difficult to achieve without avoiding questions with no answers. Unless you have a potential target how do you go about acquiring knowledge.

Pebble wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Yes, a third way (one of many) is to stop dichotomizing everything.

i could entertain your question seriously. Either ask a more thoughtful question, or be happy with somebody else's answer, because you won't like mine.

Since it is going to turn out badly for the individual and his genome, lots of folks just have children, perhaps a few too many, just to make sure their nucleotides go somewhere. You can see what that's led to. Other animals have population explosions and outstrip their food supply or because their predators are having problems. Humans invent excuses. What did you fucking think I was gonna say?

Some hints as to the vast array of other options you have in mind might be where I was going with that? The answer doesn't have to be nice.
Avoiding all excuses as you put it is difficult to achieve without avoiding questions with no answers. Unless you have a potential target how do you go about acquiring knowledge.

What personal and particular problem are you trying to solve? I don't mean the 'technical' problem of freedom and responsibility. Do that on your own time. I could tell you about my hobbies, but that would just satisfy your prurient interest in them, and they won't necessarily accord with your tastes.

You seem already willing to forget the way you asked the question, originally:

Pebble wrote:This creates an interesting conundrum. As an individual I know exactly where I am going sooner or later. When I die any 'achievement' etc is of no further value to me. The knowledge I create or help create can 'evolve', but only in the minds of other humans - at present. So as I see it I am in a bind, either I invest in human knowledge, or accept the role of a polynucleotide transmission device. Do you have a third way?

That's completely abstract, Pebble, and heads immediately for the topmost level of generality as if you regard yourself as a deep and great thinker, yet here you are asking for some sort of advice. Spare me the fucking deepity, Pebble, and get specific. Since I'm not your therapist, and you're not paying me for my insights, I don't have to gently flatter your pretensions before asking you the next leading question.

As a physician, you well know the technique when a patient says, "it hurts when I do this." Your response (if it's hypochondria) is to say, "Just stop doing that." Yes, if there's an underlying presence of cardiac disease, you have to intervene. In The Shawshank Redemption (at least the film version) Red says to Andy, "Get busy living, or get busy dying." I'm not trying to tell you that's the ultimate wisdom; just find something that works for you. If you need to pay for help with that, do it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

That's completely abstract, Pebble, and heads immediately for the topmost level of generality as if you regard yourself as a deep and great thinker, yet here you are asking for some sort of advice.

Wrong & wrong
If I were a deep thinker I would write a book and make some money out of it, yet here I am batting away with you for free.
No advice required. You made a specific claim - that the dicotomy I offered in response to your analysis of the futility of seeking purpose, was false. I simply asked for justification.

Pebble wrote:You made a specific claim - that the dicotomy I offered in response to your analysis of the futility of seeking purpose, was false. I simply asked for justification.

I didn't recognize that you read my post as an "analysis of the futility of seeking purpose". I wouldn't say that the dicotomy is false; it's merely inadequate to the task it seems you've really set yourself. If you're trying and failing, perhaps that is why.

Seeking 'purpose' is something you either do or don't do; if you find value in it, then that's what you find -- selling the idea to someone else is tougher. If you go around seeking purpose in my presence, I'm just going to make fucking fun of it. As a social lubricant, it's not really very effective, and just leads to church congregations who get together to cement their business relationships.

If you just like to argue for the sake of argument, well, we're doing just that. I don't think there's much point to it, but you seem to think you have a point to make. Perhaps it's "somebody's wrong on the internet". I make it clear to you: I don't think you're wrong, just experiencing the negative consequences of trying to convince a crowd that a nonsense question is important. It's not an analysis of the futility of anything; that dignifies this process way too much. If you're happy with that, knock yourself out.

Pebble wrote: If I were a deep thinker I would write a book and make some money out of it

Oh, come on, Pebble. If you want to write a book, you need to be able to write compelling prose. And then you have to organize it. I see no evidence of you either writing compelling prose or organizing your thoughts. Dream on, old son. If you want to write the kind of a book Deepak Chopra writes, keep on honing those deepities.

You'll be sure to check this out:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38584975

Really, if seeking purpose in life can help reduce stress, I'm all for it. But only if it leads to stress reductions. Seeking isn't as easy as rolling off a log.

archibald wrote:This may be off-topic, but I think he's saying its all pointless because we're all going to die.

Which is arguably the most annoying thing possible, for lots of reasons.

And it makes everything else trivial.

'Honestly, what is the fucking point?' Is the implied title of every post.

It’s incredibly important that none of us crawling between earth and heaven should waste any half-hours of our pointless lives discussing the roots of morality. Enjoying ourselves by talking about a scientifically well-evidenced aspect of human sociality is out of order! It’s there in the Bible! Adam and Eve were allowed to enjoy themselves any way they liked, except being inquisitive about good and evil. So what did they do?

zoon wrote:

archibald wrote:This may be off-topic, but I think he's saying its all pointless because we're all going to die.

Which is arguably the most annoying thing possible, for lots of reasons.

And it makes everything else trivial.

'Honestly, what is the fucking point?' Is the implied title of every post.

It’s incredibly important that none of us crawling between earth and heaven should waste any half-hours of our pointless lives discussing the roots of morality. Enjoying ourselves by talking about a scientifically well-evidenced aspect of human sociality is out of order! It’s there in the Bible! Adam and Eve were allowed to enjoy themselves any way they liked, except being inquisitive about good and evil. So what did they do?

Yes, of course, zoon. If only the ignorant savages who invented religious morality had had science on their side. Then they could have given GOOD reasons for the laws they made up, which varied rather widely from place to place and from time to time. That's easily explained (if you can call it that) by saying things vary from place to place and time to time. Science for the win! Or, instead of constructing elaborate rationalizations for the notion that the stupid religious ideas you finally had to give up actually had some basis in fact, you can fill in the blank with the homespun wisdom: "Don't shit where you eat." That's so full of science, it isn't funny, because it's metaphorical, and not referring to E. coli. Yes, zoon. Science will save us, because we still need saving. Instead of inventing god as the ultimate source of moral authority, you now have 'science'. If you can call it that. Give it up, girlfriend, because you sound like you're still looking for a way to tell everyone else how to behave, although it can and does vary from place to place and from time to time. Thank fuck there's still a socially-constructed naughty-step, although it takes a lot more these days to put you on it, and neither being genuinely inquisitive nor trying to flim-flam the audience with pseudoscience are on the list. What you write is a prime example of something that doesn't distinguish the difference. Being dull-normal intelligence isn't on the list either, and that's a big reason why people like Donald Trump get themselves elected, because the Don (or, if you like, the Capo) is smarter than they are. Not everyone who votes for a Donald Trump is a religious nut, but they do think they know what right and wrong are all about, pretty much the way Cosa Nostra does it. The Donald informs you that right and wrong are constructed from muscle. Maybe they're just not being scientific about it. That's right, zoon: exploring the 'basis' of morality is not nearly as important as trying to convince yourself that you have a scientific outlook. Don't use a word like 'basis' unless you want to study vector spaces. Ooh. It's a pome!

Cito di Pense wrote: I'm asking whether the attention some people devote to issues of freedom and responsibility might be related to existential anxiety.

Quite possibly, since so much of life is related to assuaging that fucker.

Cito di Pense wrote: It's plain, and you seem to recognize, that there aren't any data that can settle the questions right now.

Do I need even more data? I keep saying that the idea of the existence of free will reminds me of the idea of the existence of god. Do I need more data about god before making a call on that? The notion that we have the sort of free will that everbody's talking about when they get the buzzy feeling that they have it is pretty much dead. Untenable. To me, anybody fishing about for in-betweeny free will is probably just trying to assuage their existential anxiety.

Cito di Pense wrote:There's a two-thousand-plus page on historical Jesus here because people have deluded themselves into believing there are facts in the matter they can rationally debate and that address the ostensible question. Guess what I think is going on with them.

Personally, I wouldn't quite equate this issue with that one. They haven't had any new data for over 2000 years.

Cito di Pense wrote:I'm just inviting you to see the hole in your donut because, delicious as it may be, it still isn't a steak.

What makes you think you need to constantly remind me (and many others here) that all we're doing is killing time?

Cito di Pense wrote:You were the one who posted the video clip from that Dutch psychotherapist. I thought you were beginning to get it at that point. The fact of death is just there to remind you that you only have so much time to decide, and then the matter will drop. Concerning oneself with humanity as a whole as a means of deferring individual decision is (you got it) from vestigial religion.

I think you might be overplaying the 'everything is because of religion' card. Apes is curious. That's where it started.

As for Annie de Vunkenfreud the existential psychotherapist or whatever her name was, you've lost me. Beginning to get what? Shut up and just get on with it? Sheesh. I know that. I shouldn't even be here.

archibald wrote:What makes you think you need to remind me (and many others here) that all we're doing is killing time?

I don't think I need to remind anyone. It's delicious to see people extending the conversation because they find reading someone else's opinion a springboard to their own thoughts on the matter. When they produce thoughts that are interesting to me, I let them know, and when they're spouting platitudes and banality, they can't really evade it by claiming it's political speech.

archibald wrote:I think you might be overplaying the 'everything is because of religion' card.

Did I touch a nerve? I verbally abuse continuing theists for the sheer atavistic thrill of it, and not because I have some lingering regret about having been once taken in by it.

Cito di Pense wrote:Did I touch a nerve?

Dunno. I didn't feel anything. Did you? Maybe you pricked yourself.