• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Do non physical things exist?

arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Do you think that some actions are at least less influenced by enviroment than others?
No. I think all actions are entirely environmentally determined and, as I've already said, even the ability to act in any way whatsoever is a function of the environment. In other words, the environment determines the existence of every organism, so there's no sense in which any action could be deemed free of environmental constraints.

All actions are completely specified and driven by environment.

Edit: It's probably worth noting that 'environment' is an extremely broad concept in biology. For example, the genome of an organism is part of its environment. Indeed, from the perspective of individual genes, the other genes in the genome constitute the environment, because how a given gene expresses is a function of those other genes.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
Ants don't have courts, prisons, speech, justice, codified morality, prohibition, laws, judges etc.

So how are we comparing the above with ants?
Thats a good point. But they also dont make or do many things that I enjoy...
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
No. I think all actions are entirely environmentally determined and, as I've already said, even the ability to act in any way whatsoever is a function of the environment. In other words, the environment determines the existence of every organism, so there's no sense in which any action could be deemed free of environmental constraints.

All actions are completely specified and driven by environment.
How do you know that?
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Thats a good point. But they also dont make or do many things that I enjoy...
Now you've added yet another criterion. Rather than getting closer to clarifying your position, you're muddying it further.

I really do think a direct definition is going to help you here.
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
Led Zeppelin is trying (very poorly) to make the case that humans have free will and free will cannot evolve. I thought I would help move this along before another page is wasted asking Led Zeppelin the same questions that he refuses to answer directly.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Led Zeppelin is trying (very poorly) to make the case that humans have free will and free will cannot evolve.
That's the feeling I've been having for a while. It looks a lot like a setup for a gotcha. If that's the case, good luck with that.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
That's the feeling I've been having for a while. It looks a lot like a setup for a gotcha. If that's the case, good luck with that.
Really? If we evolved I don't really see how free-will could not evolve along with us. What does one thing have to do with another? Someone asked me how I would classify higher and lower organisms and I gave an answer.

I am not saying you are wrong. But dont think that it is at least obvious that everything we do is the result of our environment.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

I think it might help to consider the interaction between Nature and Nurture.

Although I've never seen this analogy used before, I think of this in terms of dancing round a maypole.

The maypole represents Nature, in the form of genes.

Nurture is represented by the ribbons.

With a "lower form of life" - ducks, for example - there are relatively few ribbons, which are very short: ducks are more closely tied to their instincts.

With a "higher form of life" - humans, for example - there are a vast number of ribbons, which are so long they give us the impression that we have free will. That we are "independent of Nature (our genes/biology)".

But it is important to remember that the ribbons - no matter how many and/or how long - still connect us to the maypole (our genes).

In other words, we're not independent of Nature.

Years ago there was a (in?)famous study done at Loughborough University. The study found that female students exposed more skin during ovulation. Needless to say, the female students weren't happy because, as feminists, it meant that they weren't independent of Nature ("It's the 21st century!").

Another point to consider in weighing up altruistic behaviour is that there's a fine line between being group-oriented, and being self-oriented. Those who are group-oriented are more likely to sacrifice their life to save another than the self-oriented individual - whether human or a member of any other species. (There was a case of a chimpanzee who leapt into a pool in a zoo to rescue a young chimp - even though it wasn't the parent - and drowned.)

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Really? If we evolved I don't really see how free-will could not evolve along with us.
That's because you assume that free will is a thing. Let's start with what free will actually is, shall we? How would you define it. I have my own definition but, because it may differ from yours. Under my definition, it's an illusion.
I am not saying you are wrong. But dont think that it is at least obvious that everything we do is the result of our environment.
For something to be obvious requires only that you look at the evidence with an open mind. Having reviewed the evidence and how these terms are employed in rigorous circles, it's more than merely obvious, it's a tautology.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>

Greetings,

I think it might help to consider the interaction between Nature and Nurture.

Although I've never seen this analogy used before, I think of this in terms of dancing round a maypole.

The maypole represents Nature, in the form of genes.

Nurture is represented by the ribbons.

With a "lower form of life" - ducks, for example - there are relatively few ribbons, which are very short: ducks are more closely tied to their instincts.

With a "higher form of life" - humans, for example - there are a vast number of ribbons, which are so long they give us the impression that we have free will. That we are "independent of Nature (our genes/biology)".

But it is important to remember that the ribbons - no matter how many and/or how long - still connect us to the maypole (our genes).

In other words, we're not independent of Nature.

Years ago there was a (in?)famous study done at Loughborough University. The study found that female students exposed more skin during ovulation. Needless to say, the female students weren't happy because, as feminists, it meant that they weren't independent of Nature ("It's the 21st century!").

Another point to consider in weighing up altruistic behaviour is that there's a fine line between being group-oriented, and being self-oriented. Those who are group-oriented are more likely to sacrifice their life to save another than the self-oriented individual - whether human or a member of any other species. (There was a case of a chimpanzee who leapt into a pool in a zoo to rescue a young chimp - even though it wasn't the parent - and drowned.)

Kindest regards,

James
Alright. I think I see why being "Independent of Environment" would not be a meaningful classification. Certainly I can agree that we are not independent of Nature.
But couldnt we just classify the organisms with more ribbons as being higher than those that have less ribbons?
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
That's because you assume that free will is a thing. Let's start with what free will actually is, shall we? How would you define it. I have my own definition but, because it may differ from yours. Under my definition, it's an illusion.

For something to be obvious requires only that you look at the evidence with an open mind. Having reviewed the evidence and how these terms are employed in rigorous circles, it's more than merely obvious, it's a tautology.
I would define free will as the ability to decide. I understand that what we can and cannot decide is limited by nature.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
I would define free will as the ability to decide. I understand that what we can and cannot decide is limited by nature.
It's worse than that, I'm afraid, for experimentally validated reasons that I'll come back to.

I'd have to challenge the utility of your definition, though. Surely the ability to decide is will. The term 'free' appears in there.

I define free will as 'the ability to choose unconstrained between freely realisable alternatives'. I know it's a bit wordy but, I think you'll agree, it's more concise.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Then I can prove we don't have it. We aren't actually able to choose unconstrained, because there are constraints on our decisions that I know you aren't even aware of.



ETA: You'll note that all the examples of priming given in that video are environmental.
 
arg-fallbackName="ldmitruk"/>
Then I can prove we don't have it. We aren't actually able to choose unconstrained, because there are constraints on our decisions that I know you aren't even aware of.



ETA: You'll note that all the examples of priming given in that video are environmental.

That was a very interesting experiment. It's pretty amazing how these little things we wouldn't normally even think about can have such a profound effect on how we got about our lives.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
IKR? That research has been considerably expanded in the decade since. You can see how it isn't possible to even suggest that we have free will if we can't even define all the variables in terms of decision-making constraint. Whatever will we may or may not have, it most certainly isn't free. It is, in fact, questionable whether we even have will, let alone free will. It's not at all clear that choice itself is an illusion.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
It means to preform actions that are not controlled or influenced by our surroundings.

But everything is controlled and influenced by our surroundings: that's why I am saying I just can't grasp what your idea is here.


Some decisions we make are the result of internal reflection.

This is very confusing LZ, and I have to apologize as I frankly say that I think the confusion is stemming from you.

What has this got to do with the evolution of consciousness?
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
I think it has 2 meanings. One is self awareness and another is "the ability to wonder about why you are what you are". I like the 2nd one better.

Then the only conscious (self aware and pontificating) things we know of are humans, and I'm not even sure it's true of all of them.

Which is to say, I don't think that's a definition I could ever hope to agree with because I don't believe it's plausible to deny that other animals are also conscious - that feels a couple of hundred years out of date to me.

I'd say consciousness is some awareness of surroundings relative to themselves, so while the majority of animals are clearly aware of their surroundings and react consciously to things they perceive around them, plants are not conscious - while they can react to stimuli, such as turning their leaves towards the light - the plant has no capacity to be aware that we know of. As far as we can tell, consciousness requires a brain, and a brain is - at its most basic - a confluence of nerves that both respond to signals from parts of the body, and send messages to parts of the body. Among those parts are the sensory organs that allow the species to be aware of its surroundings.

While insects' brains are very tiny, many species of insect actually have ganglia, kind of 'mini-brains', all around their bodies - and this results in them reacting quicker to stimuli than we or any mammal can.

I'd suggest that a more serious assumption would be that all animals are conscious than to deny that any other animals is conscious. And I'd be more than comfortable defending that.
 
Back
Top