Thread: Culpable stupidity?

I have been wondering again....

We get angry, and feel it is right to be angry, at people who behave in stupid ways. In such context, calling somebody an idiot is more or less the ultimate criticism.

At the same time, we show (or at least we know that we ought to show) kindness, patience and understanding to people with medically identifiable mental handicaps. Which include idiocy.

Could it be that, besides the mental conditions for which the sufferers cannot be blamed, there exists a kind of stupidity that occurs through a person's own fault?

We get angry, and feel it is right to be angry, at people who behave in stupid ways. In such context, calling somebody an idiot is more or less the ultimate criticism.

People come in a wide range of intelligence and that's just the way it is. Be glad you are intelligent.

I find that my anger is more about me than 'them'. Anger from judging others and being intolerant. Intelligence is just part of the package of being human.[/quote]

From a deterministic standpoint I'd say that there's no such thing as a stupidity that occurs of one's own fault.

Originally Posted by m84uily

From a deterministic standpoint I'd say that there's no such thing as a stupidity that occurs of one's own fault.

from a strict deterministic standpoint we are all automatons. If we grant, at least for argument, free will exists, then there are certainly individuals whose behaviour is infuriating. Those whom I would tend to call idiot are those who behave in anti-social ways.

Originally Posted by m84uily

From a deterministic standpoint I'd say that there's no such thing as a stupidity that occurs of one's own fault.

Very true.

In fact, from that standpoint, nothing is anybody's fault.

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

At the same time, we show (or at least we know that we ought to show) kindness, patience and understanding to people with medically identifiable mental handicaps. Which include idiocy.

Well...I know people who can't stand handicapped persons.I've heard people talking about killing the handicapped(yea, some don't seem to show kindness or patience).
I guess such opinions depend on education and on our experience with people with mentally handicapped people.

As you said, we all get the facts wrong from time to time, we all make mistakes, we all get angry. I don't find a strong connection between this and our attitude regarding people with mental problems.Probably you cannot blame a mental handicapped, but you certainly can blame the idiots that are supposed to attend them (and instead of this they neglect them) - I'm thinking of parents who have children that suffer from such things and refuse specialised attendance or medical stuff paid to look after them.

Originally Posted by joycelyn

Probably you cannot blame a mental handicapped, but you certainly can blame the idiots that are supposed to attend them (and instead of this they neglect them) - I'm thinking of parents who have children that suffer from such things and refuse specialised attendance or medical stuff paid to look after them.

Thank you for a brilliant illustration of my question.

What is the fundamental difference between the mentally handicapped (some of whom are idiots in the strictly medical sense of the word), and those whom you despicably call "idiots" because of their irresponsible behaviour? Why do the former but not the latter deserve kindness, respect, and understanding?

I would suggest that it is not so easy a task in 2010, to avoid despising in some manner, those folk who we see as; for their own gain, taking advantage of the underprivileged or underdeveloped among us - by their selfish choices.

It's fair to recognise on the other hand, that many terms such as 'idiot' seem to have become entrenched into a kind of default vocabulary that utilises perhaps one or two in every twenty or so words available in the English dialect - for many, who are just a little too lazy to work out how to go about researching a more appropriate terminology that exists outside their severely limited frame of reference.

I regard it is one of the most rapidly developing, yet unfortunate outcomes of our technological age, where as a result of such as texting and internet shorthand; ever more basic language skills seem to be increasingly venerated - if all that doesn't present as overly convoluted, that is.

Some people seem to be losing contact, even per the skill of structuring and organising concepts, sentences and paragraphs, and that includes quite some members on this site. I'm sure joycelyn simply fell into one such trap with the term 'idiots'; being used in a seemingly inappropriate reference.

Respectfully, I would further suggest that the question you pose, such;

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

"Why do the former but not the latter deserve kindness, respect, and understanding?"

could be answered; such folk arrive at their handicapped position of culpable stupidity based selfishness and irresponsibility, directly through their own arrogant choices, whilst the 'mentally handicapped' seemingly enjoy a much reduced ability for variation or 'improvement'.

Moreover, my observations would suggest that many "mentally handicapped people", would also lack much of the ability to sink by choice to the depths of unmitigated self-serving arrogance that we often see among the mentally normal/'advantaged', and I may be wrong, but think that was the point joycelyn was attempting to make.

perhaps it most profitable to see a larger picture when defining intelligence?

for any unknown, reduce to the simplest equasion, as in mathematics, and, such indeed can be seen to apply to all things, applying such to a larger degree, to the largest degree possible in fact?

intelligence be the total sum of what any entity knows?

some know more, some know less?

or, is it that some know "different" data than self know?

perhaps it is more an illusion, that what know's "different" than oneself, knows less?

not less, just "different" data than self?

is there a total sum of the brain, as in some "filled" or greater capacity?

for this to be, we would have to have a clearly defined "capacity measurement" of the brain itself, to say what "maximum" capacity be, as in some clear defined "measure" of intelligence?

but then intelligence is just to "know"?

to know what?

many different things?

would hate be recognized, if the brain was not offered the opportunity to see love?

would winter be known, in it's "fullest measure", if summer did not exist?

in this same way, would what is better be known, if what was not better, HAD NOT BEEN ACTUALLY SEEN, or duly recognnized, in true reality?

would any "brain", recognize no pain, less it knew, KNOWS, or had actually experienced pain?

so it seems more benificial to the building of the logic, rather than the "feeling's", to see WHAT THE PURPOSE of all things that exist be, rather than believing in a "defintion" of something that exist, and using that to determine what human's so love to brag about as so called intelligence?

is winter better than summer?

is cold better than hot?

is pain better than no pain?

is stupidity better than no stupidity, lol...

well, such be the infinity tale of human existence, as the total sum of all things, cannot ever be understood, in reality, until the labels that so called "intelligence" has created have been sifted thru in the mind, peering past them, to see the purpose of all things is in itself to build advanced intelligence?

to see that none would know poor, lest there were rich, that no mind would have a point of reference for integrity, lest there had been corruption experienced in living TRUALITY...

so, no need to feel that anger, or self betterment, from seeing stupidity, for if stupidity did not exist, self would BE LESS INTELLIGENT?

lighten the load, and smile, for there is indeed a perfect reason for all things that exist, as to not know this, means that whomever can anger self, hath controlled self, for it made self react, and the reaction of each, is what create the total and complete sum of all human experience into existence?

the logic must be strong enough, to supercede the feelings, for indeed in these modern days of each believing selfs feelings be as supreme, the feelings are being validated no matter what they may be, a dangerous path for any society to meander, as this shall mean the feelings shall create the reaction, so the existence of all, so the fate of all, for the fate is what actually hath occured?

just one cent

David, it would be apparent to me that English is perhaps your first language, so I would like to suggest that you read through the post previous to yours, especially the first half, and then answer the following questions - for your self, even if for no-one else.

Have you ever come across the concept of a concept? How about a sentence? Also, a paragraph?

I bring this to your attention by way of support, for when you prepare a presentation, such as your post; it is generally a reasonable idea to organise it in a way that someone else (besides yourself) can also understand what you were thinking when you decided to put those particular thoughts 'out there', for other people to read.

It is easy to recognise you have intelligence and a thinking mentality willing to seek your own answers through the use of that intelligence, however you struggle in sharing that mentality through a lack of structure.

BTW, I must thank you for your post highlighting the point so well, that I was trying to make in that same - previous to yours.

Evidence suggests, but far from confirms, free will as an illusion. If and when this is confirmed by neuroscientists there will be grave consequences for society - as Leszek points out, would anyone be held responsible for any of their actions? Considering the degree to which our society is built upon the assumption of free will (not least, legal systems) the consequences could be disastrous.

Until such a time the question is one of where to draw the line. At the moment it seems to be an ever retreating line based on to what extent external forces (including the brains various systems) influence our decsions.

......

your brilliant observation be duly noted, and thank you so much for your brilliant intelligent analysis and keen observation of my post...

i shall work to better myself, and hopefully become far more intelligent as the days progress, perhaps even increasing my brilliance to unknown heights, with such stewardship as given aiming my abilities so precisley to the importance of such matter's...

i am kindly in your debt sire, and i humbly beg of thy forgivenenss, for such a stupid idiotic lapse of intelligence on my part...

if one inploy any method possible, to find the true motive and intent of other's, it has found the elusive.

such be the only true guide thru the murky waters created within modern-primitive man, deeply troubled and beleagured lacking any deeper insight to create viable solution for the problem's that beset mankind...

the overwhelming self validating energy of the human inclination, has created an accumulative and collective energy, that guide as an invisible hand and forcefield, rendering and reducing once brilliant minds to insufferable self validation of the human feelings of itself, even unto believing the self be as supreme in itself, such having as well reduced the awareness and deducting abilities of the human brain unto astronomical proportions, stealing the logical deducting ability from even the masses, leaving no true sight of the cause and effect such shall have upon all happenings within the human environement...

indeed, whatever method one use to find the open-minded, the solution minded, the true carer's of humanity, rather than but the carer's of themself, bypassing the narcisisstic tendencies of the self validator's, then while such condition remains, such indeed be a good and proven method...

an open mind is the only mind that is truly recieving any data from another into itself anyhow, for any assimilation to take place at all, thus being the good and excellent reason to only seek out the open minded with whatever method one might find to employ...

for such effectively bypass that which speak for simply the sake of self vanity?

since an open mind be the only intelligence creating mechanism of the human being itself, than what that does not know such for itself, shall fall prey to itself as it's own worst enemy, creating it's own idiocy, all the while espousing it's own brilliance, so it be most critical to walk and do all with greater method employed, if there be any hope of navigating thru such water's, for indeed, in a world where flatulence as fault finding, bellowed forth as brilliance, has become as commonplace as a pandemic, if not, then such shall threaten the collective intelligence to it's knee's..

ALL INTELLIGENCE IS COLLECTIVE, for ALL that is learned within HUMANITY, is due to the voice and insight of ANOTHER, and so at the expense of another, and cost of another, less ONE LIVE IN WORLD WHERE THERE BE ONLY ONE?

all that the brain know's, IT DUE TO COLLECTING DATA FROM WHAT ITSELF SEEN AND HEARD?

what has any human seen and heard?

MANY MANY OTHER'S?

so, huma's themself are creating the total sum that EACH OTHER BECOME AWARE OF?

WOULD THE BRAIN KNOW ANYTIHNG, LEST SUCH HAD OCCURED?

a mind that has come to delusion, cannot see nor recognize what created it's own intelligence, therefore hath none left to aquire.

if the intelligence be not great enough, the insight not deep enough, the desire not great enough, the wisdom not strong enough, to recognize the essence, then the essence therein was not wished to be granted.

there is a system naturally and unwittingly employed by each, to facilitate it's own most motive, but there is a system wittingly and cunningly employed, by those that seek greater essence, knowing that to find the true most motive of another be to find the very heart of the propulsion system of another, such being the only thing that shall redeem the breakdown of insight of a society, where self validation hath run amock.

Stupidity is such a sloppily broad word here... I think the subjectivity of the word is the major issue (but by no means the only one).

I'll put it simple, what you perceive to be stupid is partially your fault. We all have our morals to which we hold ourselves and other people to. An act of stupidity is primarily witnessed as such because it violates your idea of 'what isn't stupid'.

Take a guy who jumps off a 20ft balcony into a swimming pool. This is a stupid action, one which you determine as irrational. Yet, the same irrational belief in this guy will undoubtedly be held in other people in the world. Or we could truly get your blood boiling, and talk about paedophiles. They are immoral and 'stupid', yet there are many paedophiles in the world who would assert that their action was 'normal'.

I think that the anger reaction comes primarily from not being able to understand the inner workings of another's mind. With people with low intelligence, you have a reason as to why they will not act 'rationally' according to your perceived notions of rationality. With just plain 'stupid' people, your not altogether sure why they violate your notion of rationality.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Evidence suggests, but far from confirms, free will as an illusion.

What kind of "evidence" suggests may I ask? I keep reading this kind of bastardisation of reason, yet isn’t it time we recognised the obvious; that simply spouting some fatherless notion on a science forum site, does NOT give it any credence worth the effort of reading?

It continues to astound me that people who claim to be scientific can exude such inane illegitimate crap, whilst at the same time wallow in their abject failure to recognise that the real stuff of illusion, such as time; doesn’t in actuality exist in any reality outside their severely compromised imagination. How about we now GET REAL through reason - and in the process; get our heads out of the sand, or wherever lives the darkness that surrounds such misbegotten logic?

Originally Posted by Prometheus

If and when this is confirmed by neuroscientists

That is one almighty ‘IF’ you are throwing around there. It is clearly also an ‘IF’ that will never be updated to your 'when’.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Until such a time the question is one of where to draw the line

The line should always be drawn at reason and reality, which astoundingly finds your entire argument just a little vacant.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

At the moment it seems to be an ever retreating line based on to what extent external forces (including the brains various systems) influence our decsions.

What, fresh bastardisation is this? Please share with us all - what particular “external forces” would you suggest as influencing your decisions?

Originally Posted by daytona0

Stupidity is such a sloppily broad word here... I think the subjectivity of the word is the major issue (but by no means the only one).

The term ‘sloppy’ should be reserved for your observations. The word ‘stupid’, as with all terms, is neither broad nor subjective. It is your interpretation that makes such excessively broad qualifications; for sloppy subjectivity lives entirely inside your mentality.

Originally Posted by daytona0

I'll put it simple, what you perceive to be stupid is partially your fault

Precisely (almost) – it is your subjectivity; that is both broad and ENTIRELY at fault. The word itself is neither.

Originally Posted by daytona0

We all have our morals to which we hold ourselves and other people to. An act of stupidity is primarily witnessed as such because it violates your idea of 'what isn't stupid'.

Again, you are correctly identifying subjectivity and it’s palpable limitations, as - all yours!

Originally Posted by daytona0

Take a guy who jumps off a 20ft balcony into a swimming pool. This is a stupid action, one which you determine as irrational.

You may deem such action as irrational and even stupid, but someone else may (also subjectively) relate to it as being highly intelligent. Such is the broad nature of interpretation and subjectivity, yet notice - (again) words are NOT!

Originally Posted by daytona0

Or we could truly get your blood boiling, and talk about paedophiles. They are immoral and 'stupid', yet there are many paedophiles in the world who would assert that their action was 'normal'.

I think that the anger reaction comes primarily from not being able to understand the inner workings of another's mind.

Your anger reaction derives it's existence from your subjectivity, which not surprisingly; also supports your ignorance of another's anything.

Originally Posted by daytona0

With people with low intelligence, you have a reason as to why they will not act 'rationally' according to your perceived notions of rationality. With just plain 'stupid' people, your not altogether sure why they violate your notion of rationality.

You perhaps need to work at discovering a more objective perspective. For until such time, your failure to recognise how your subjectivity poisons your sloppy argument, will surely continue.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Evidence suggests, but far from confirms, free will as an illusion.

What kind of "evidence" suggests may I ask? I keep reading this kind of bastardisation of reason, yet isn’t it time we recognised the obvious; that simply spouting some fatherless notion on a science forum site, does NOT give it any credence worth the effort of reading?

It continues to astound me that people who claim to be scientific can exude such inane illegitimate crap, whilst at the same time wallow in their abject failure to recognise that the real stuff of illusion, such as time; doesn’t in actuality exist in any reality outside their severely compromised imagination. How about we now GET REAL through reason - and in the process; get our heads out of the sand, or wherever lives the darkness that surrounds such misbegotten logic?

Originally Posted by Prometheus

If and when this is confirmed by neuroscientists

That is one almighty ‘IF’ you are throwing around there. It is clearly also an ‘IF’ that will never be updated to your 'when’.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Until such a time the question is one of where to draw the line

The line should always be drawn at reason and reality, which astoundingly finds your entire argument just a little vacant.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

At the moment it seems to be an ever retreating line based on to what extent external forces (including the brains various systems) influence our decsions.

What, fresh bastardisation is this? Please share with us all - what particular “external forces” would you suggest as influencing your decisions?

It is only reasonable that you ask for evidence. The late Benjamin Libet, first recipient of the Virtual Nobel Prize in Psychology for his work on free will, is the pioneer of research into free will. He found neurophysiological changes preceded a desire to move: if free will were so we expect the converse.

Libet, B.; Wright, E. W.; Gleason, C. A.. "Readiness potentials preceding unrestricted spontaneous pre-planned voluntary acts", 1983, Electroencephalographic and Clinical Neurophysiology 54: 322–325

Itzhak Fried, a neurosurgeon, later found he could make people move by stimulating parts of their brain. No big deal, except that the people reported feeling the urge to move. This provides evidence that 'urges' are not necessarily the product of free will.

Fried I, Katz A, McCarthy G, Sass KJ, Williamson P, Spencer SS, Spencer DD. Functional organization of human supplementary motor cortex studied by electrical stimulation. J Neurosci. 1991 Nov;11(11):3656-66

As far as i can find there is no systematic review/meta-analysis in this subject and there is far from enough evidence to conclude one way or the other. I hope this empiricism is not a bastardisation of reason. If you prefer reason to empiricism, you may enjoy reading Daniel Dennett; a compatibilist, the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent (though he defers to empiricism).

I fail to understand why you mention the concept of time, i did not raise the issue and did not challenge your views on time.

Yes it is a big if - that's why i wrote it. Remember Reject, the word is neither broad nor subjective, but your interpretation may be so. I also fail to see how you are so confident the if will never become a when. You are claiming empirical knowledge of the future based on reason alone?

External forces influencing free will? These are legion. From neuro-hormonal chemicals, anatomical changes in the brain, psycho-social pressures and logical caps on free will (unassisted flight to the moon stuff) to name a few. I suggest a book on neuroscience if you wish to learn more as i won't have the time or space to explain them all here.

And Reject; chill out a little. It's just a debate.

Firstly David, you certainly do NOT need my, or anyone's forgiveness, for you have committed no wrong here, but have rather shared a profound witness. You would be well advised however, to continue to learn how to structure your expressions of highly intelligent reasoning and logic.

If you don't mind my doing so, I will now respond to (portions of) your post - after re-wording, per my perceptions of your expression.

Originally Posted by davidben1

If one employs any method possible, to find the true motive and intent of another, it has found the elusive.

Please refresh/re-word.

Originally Posted by davidben1

Such be the only true guide through the murky waters created within modern-primitive man, in his deeply troubled and beleaguered condition - lacking as he does, any deeper insight in order to recognise viable solutions for the many problems that beset us all

The deeply troubled nature of, and therefore problems that beset mankind; is/are due to his overreliance on his deficient emotional quagmire, in favour of his infinitely SUPERIOR Intelligence. His failure to recognise this of course, means his veneration of his emotions continues to mushroom, with the natural consequence being; an ever hastening slide into vacuousness, beleaguerment and depravity.

Originally Posted by davidben1

The overwhelming self-validating energy of the human inclination, has accumulated a collective energy, that guides as an invisible hand and force field; reducing his once brilliant mind to insufferable self validation, due his unfettered self adoration - even unto believing self to be supreme in itself.

This has also had the effect of reducing the awareness and powers of deduction of the (once amazing) human mind, unto pitiful depths; thereby stealing the logical ability of deduction from even the masses - leaving no effective insight into the cause and effect of such mentality upon everything within the human environment.

A most astute observation, and I heartily applaud it. You are absolutely correct to focus on the 'human feelings of himself", as lying at the core of all his confusion, and also delivering him to his current 'astronomical proportions' level of deductive inability.

Originally Posted by davidben1

Indeed, whatever method we might employ to find the open-minded, the solution-minded; the true carers of humanity - whilst such condition remains in ever-reducing quantities (rather than the narcissistic carers of self that presently overwhelm the planet’s mentality), then it would be worthwhile effort to locate and learn from them

I wish I had written the above. On the other hand, I am absolutely convinced that the overall superiority of INTELLIGENCE over the prevailing emotional conflagration into which the greater part of humanity is sliding; like smoke from a wildfire, will rise to it’s rightful position of glory; even after the increasingly hopeless mass of human degradation has been swallowed by it’s inevitable (and chosen) earthly abyss.

What a day that will be!

Originally Posted by davidben1

An open mind is the only means of truly receiving any worthwhile data into itself, and for any assimilation of this data to take place at all; thus being an excellent reason to only seek out the open minded with whatever method one might find to employ, for such effectively bypasses that which simply speaks for the sake of self and vanity.

Since an open mind be the only intelligence-creating mechanism of the human mentality

Listen now – no farmer ever creates his harvest. He provides as best he can, the conditions for growth - then gathers thankfully, what is made available from his efforts. Likewise, there is no intelligence-creating mechanism; for INTELLIGENCE, like the farmer’s harvest, indeed stands alone and can only ever be joyfully accepted. Intelligence IS the stuff of creation, and as such; at (his) pleasure, feeds the open-minded farmer – your worthy self!

Originally Posted by davidben1

then what that does not know such for itself, shall fall prey to itself as it's own worst enemy, creating it's own idiocy, all the while espousing it's own brilliance, so it be most critical to walk and do all with greater method employed, if there be any hope of navigating thru such water's, for indeed, in a world where flatulence as fault finding, bellowed forth as brilliance, has become as commonplace as a pandemic, if not, then such shall threaten the collective intelligence to it's knee's

I would dearly urge, if you please – re-write.

Originally Posted by davidben1

ALL INTELLIGENCE IS COLLECTIVE, for ALL that is learned within HUMANITY, is due to the voice and insight of ANOTHER

Just as a farmer collects his harvest.

Originally Posted by davidben1

So, man himself creates the total sum of which EACH OF US BECOMES AWARE?

The sum of our intelligence; that portion of which will always belong to the greater INTELLIGENCE; is gathered (not created) - with thankfulness.

Originally Posted by davidben1

A mind that has come to delusion, cannot see nor recognize what created it's own intelligence, therefore hath none left to acquire.

This may be the most profound statement I have ever read - on this site or anywhere!

Originally Posted by davidben1

If the openness of mind be not willing, the insight not deep enough, the desire not great enough, the wisdom not strong enough - to recognize the essence, then the essence therein was not wished to be granted.

Intelligence is freely given to all – yet some farmers have a more success than others. It’s the open-mind (soil prep), and thankfulness (watering) that is the measure of growth in each farmer’s crop. With such in place, all the other requirements on your list – willingness, insight, desire, wisdom; will fall into season, and the harvest will surely be guaranteed.

Originally Posted by davidben1

There is a system naturally and unwittingly employed by each, to facilitate his highest motivation. But there is also a system wittingly and cunningly employed by those who seek greater essence, knowing that to find the true highest motive of another is to find the very heart of the propulsion system of that other, such being the only thing that shall redeem the breakdown of insight of a society, where self validation hath run amuck.

Even though I agree with one or two of these premises (as I understand them), I’m mot sure of the overall. So if you will – re-write this also.

I hope my changes (above) are found to be acceptable, but if not; please make changes at will, and re-post, or perhaps use the internal personal message system. I have already sent a message to your inbox, so you may simply ‘reply’.

Apopohis Reject: While I believe you are being sincere and believe in this Intelligence notion of yours, I would ask that you not refer to it in such a matter of fact way. It is , after all, just an idea of yours that is not scientifically verified. What you are doing is close to religious preaching, no offence.

Your contributions to this forum has been very welcome and often insightful, but this INTELLIGENCE concept of yours does not fall into this bracket IMO. The preferred course of action for you, if you want to discuss it, is to keep to a single thread if possible and not to testify about it at every turn.

Thanks in advance.

Stupidity is such a sloppily broad word here... I think the subjectivity of the word is the major issue (but by no means the only one).The term ‘sloppy’ should be reserved for your observations. The word ‘stupid’, as with all terms, is neither broad nor subjective. It is your interpretation that makes such excessively broad qualifications; for sloppy subjectivity lives entirely inside your mentality.


The English language is quite unimaginative, and misinteretation is extremely ripe. When you refer to 'stupid' people, you have to explain to what degree you believe them stupid. Perhaps they have a naturally low IQ, in which case we can use a number of terms (some derogatory, some not). It could mean an irrational person based on your belief, it could be a person who acts rationally but is considered stupid by the opposition. It could be that a person views an intelligent person as stupid through jealousy. Where are the words to define more accurately the intricate definitions of stupidity? Many different cultures around the world have more exact words in situations like this. For example, the Inuits have a word for liking someone but not wanting to go seal clubbing with them (Edward De Bono). We don't necessarily need these middle terms, but not having them causes a lot of misinterpretation. The classic example used by Edward De Bono in one of his books about logic and language was that a prisoner is a prisoner is a prisoner. Whether you go to jail for stealing a loaf of bread or for killing someone, society defines you simply as a prisoner (guy 11043 at Exmouth prison is a prisoner!! I'm not sure what kind of a prisoner he is, perhaps he is innocent - but we still refer to him as such). It [stupid] can have a wide variety of meanings, and whilst I don't wish to get pedantic and argue on behalf of the language used, I have offered an idea with regards to the initial question.

Precisely (almost) – it is your subjectivity; that is both broad and ENTIRELY at fault. The word itself is neither.

Not sure I agree with this point (which isn't really building on what I said), more a carry over of my criticism of the descriptive word used by OP. Shame your only comment on my idea was to criticise my opinion. You haven't really offered much in the way of a debate. Even if you believe my way of seeing the world is wrong, then surely as a scientific thinker you have a moral right not only to enhance your knowledge but also to guide me towards a more accurate interpretation.

Again, you are correctly identifying subjectivity and it’s palpable limitations, as - all yours!

cheers for the constructive criticism, I have learnt a lot from this part....

You may deem such action as irrational and even stupid, but someone else may (also subjectively) relate to it as being highly intelligent. Such is the broad nature of interpretation and subjectivity, yet notice - (again) words are NOT!

I like what you put here, and I like to think that this is what I was getting down to. Again, I don't agree about the subjectivism of words.

Your anger reaction derives it's existence from your subjectivity, which not surprisingly; also supports your ignorance of another's anything.

I agree

You perhaps need to work at discovering a more objective perspective. For until such time, your failure to recognise how your subjectivity poisons your sloppy argument, will surely continue.

Objective perspective? When the main term used in the question is 'stupid' I am very inclined to think what sort of stupid we refer to..

Stupid is too subjective to use as a descriptive word. OP wanted an idea of why we hold contempt toward those who are stupid under the guise of free will (note i used the word guise to combat the alleged claims that free will doesn't exist from the debate).

I ask you, instead of giving a rundown of my good/bad points one by one (because that isn't productive), what makes my idea that behaviours which do not fit our already established schemas constitutes 'stupidity'? The idea that I do not expect an action therefore it doesn't fit my notion of what is right therefore I deem it as 'stupid'?

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The late Benjamin Libet, first recipient of the Virtual Nobel Prize in Psychology for his work on free will, is the pioneer of research into free will. He found neurophysiological changes preceded a desire to move: if free will were so we expect the converse.

I'm not sure what your (or his) definition of 'free will' be, yet I would certainly NOT expect the converse. It makes perfect sense that neurophysiologic changes would precede the choice to move.

I'm aware your term was 'desire' rather than 'choice', yet the catalyst of every choice to action is desire, which it seems as emerging from anywhere between (close enough to) instantaneous - to less so. Therefore change by varying degrees would, I expect; be axiomatic - prior to the choice, which in turn precedes the action (any action).

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Itzhak Fried, a neurosurgeon, later found he could make people move by stimulating parts of their brain. No big deal, except that the people reported feeling the urge to move. This provides evidence that 'urges' are not necessarily the product of free will.

That would surely be correct; for free will, or the action of the choice that emanates from it/them, is surely the product of urge/s. But did the good doctor investigate from whence comes (naturally occurring) urge?

So I would expect any external manipulation of the effectuating regions of the brain, would excite both the visceral sensation of that region – to awareness, as well as the physical movement at the relevant extremity. All that is happening at this point, is the free will of the mouse is being by-passed in favour of the free will of the bastard with the switch.

In any case, electrical impulse is close enough to instantaneous, so how could the mouse possibly be aware of which side of the equation came first?

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I fail to understand why you mention the concept of time, i did not raise the issue and did not challenge your views on time.

Firstly I had no idea whether or not you even read the relevant discussion. Even so, my mention of 'time', is because I see a great deal of scientific argument based upon a precept that time is some variety of extant commodity. It is NOT, but is rather a fallacy - illusion. On the other hand (my definition of) free will, certainly is NOT - yet many suggest it is. Kinda feels like a day trip to upside-down-world.

Therefore I regard it increasingly, as a frustration and bastardisation of reason to turn reality and existence on it's head like it is some variety of intellectual X-Box game, where sometimes you die, then just wait a couple of seconds, and off you go as new.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Yes it is a big if - that's why i wrote it. Remember Reject, the word is neither broad nor subjective, but your interpretation may be so.

It may well be too - particularly if I permit my emotions to hold sway. Thank you for your timely word.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I also fail to see how you are so confident the if will never become a when.

'Never' is one of those words I generally try to avoid, and even though I recognised it in the context and considered a modification, this was one of those times I allowed myself a little relaxation, which can admittedly be a grievous bedfellow. I am however very confident my delinquency in this instance will not land me in serious contempt of court charges.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

You are claiming empirical knowledge of the future based on reason alone?

Talking about contempt of court, there is a popular TV program around here, where the good judge will often expound; "If it doesn't make sense, it's usually not true", yet in this case I would argue (with much confidence) - "it will never be true" - just as time travel will never be realised, for such a notion depends upon a factual existence of time, yet alas! Similarly (my intreprtation of) free will is so sacrasanct, it seems childish to doubt it - even if that is a relatively subjective perspective.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

External forces influencing free will? These are legion. From neuro-hormonal chemicals

‘Internal,’ to my way of reasoning

Originally Posted by Prometheus

anatomical changes in the brain

‘Internal’

Originally Posted by Prometheus

psycho-social pressures

Not a ‘force’.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

and logical caps on free will (unassisted flight to the moon stuff)

You got me on that one. Does the pilot carry an English translator?

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I suggest a book on neuroscience if you wish to learn more as i won't have the time or space to explain them all here.

I do hope the book has one or two that actually relate to the question.

The only 'external force' that I can think of which might influence free will, is when Dr. Evil ties Austin Powers down and injects him with a needle o' mojo, or something like that.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

And Reject; chill out a little. It's just a debate.

Already taken care of, thanx again.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

You perhaps need to work at discovering a more objective perspective. For until such time, your failure to recognise how your subjectivity poisons your sloppy argument, will surely continue.

Great advice. When do you plan to tke it?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Apopohis Reject: While I believe you are being sincere and believe in this Intelligence notion of yours, I would ask that you not refer to it in such a matter of fact way.

How am I supposed to refer to an unequivocal reality - IMHO, especially in the face of everyone else seemingly disregarding it as useless, and then for good measure disregard my alternative version, as perhaps boring? Or are you possibly suggesting that intelligence fails to have a factuality to which we might refer and discuss?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

It is, after all, just an idea of yours that is not scientifically verified.

In the general course of discussions of late, there has been some reference made to the concepts of 'subjectivity' in comparison to 'objectivity'. I would suggest that this far more objective perspective of intelligence, has hit a sleepy town of entrenched subjectivity like a sudden tornado, and the locals are understandably none too delighted about it.

I can truly appreciate the consternation it all has wrought, and I assure you that I take no delight in constantly feeling like the ugly black sheep that everyone would like to dispatch to the abatoir - if only it would sit still for a second. Yet I ask - should it be my task to now subjectify my view, or would an alternative option be more all-round advantageous, do you think?

Hey, you are (as is anyone) more than welcome to discuss/debate the issue, or portion thereof at any time. So far you seem to have no argument, so your expression of doubt might now be considered somewhat confusing?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

What you are doing is close to religious preaching, no offence.

I cannot see how I could take offence, for you are welcome to try, yet will fail to locate the religious doctrine. I have surely been known to employ words that sound 'religious' to a cosmopolitan mentality, yet with a little effort, I'm sure you too will succeed in recognising the fallacy in all that millennia-old entwined religious crapolla I have been working at unravelling.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Your contributions to this forum has been very welcome and often insightful, but this INTELLIGENCE concept of yours does not fall into this bracket IMO.

Then - please debate the issue. You are the moderator, after all.

BTW, the (two) bracket(s) it does NOT fall into; being – the religious, and the subjective. I will rather leave the ‘insightful’ reference until such time, as someone actually understanding the concept, or at least genuinely discussing it in some detail. I’m still awaiting either.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

The preferred course of action for you, if you want to discuss it, is to keep to a single thread if possible and not to testify about it at every turn.

Now please - let's not be silly. I do NOT 'testify about it at every turn'. On the other hand, when another member such as davidben1 mentions the issue with such clarity of reason, am I to be expected to treat him with the same levels of disdain that the majority of forum members often dish out in my direction?

*is anticipating a argumentative de-construction of his 3rd post on the forum*

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The late Benjamin Libet, first recipient of the Virtual Nobel Prize in Psychology for his work on free will, is the pioneer of research into free will. He found neurophysiological changes preceded a desire to move: if free will were so we expect the converse.

I'm not sure what your (or his) definition of 'free will' be, yet I would certainly NOT expect the converse. It makes perfect sense that neurophysiologic changes would precede the choice to move.

Really? Before you have decided to act your brain is already in the process of acting, by 0.5 seconds according to the study. Surely free will would nessecitate volition first then neurophysiological changes. This study suggests the brain is already in the process of acting and then you have the volition to act. Please explain how it makes sense to already be acting and then have the volition to act.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I'm aware your term was 'desire' rather than 'choice', yet the catalyst of every choice to action is desire, which it seems as emerging from anywhere between (close enough to) instantaneous - to less so. Therefore change by varying degrees would, I expect; be axiomatic - prior to the choice, which in turn precedes the action (any action).

My term was desire. I've read the paper again. Their term was ‘freely’ voluntary acts. As for things being so close that you can consider them instantaneous; we have quite sensitive machines that can measure time in very small units. It's analagous to saying atoms are all the same because they're so small.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Itzhak Fried, a neurosurgeon, later found he could make people move by stimulating parts of their brain. No big deal, except that the people reported feeling the urge to move. This provides evidence that 'urges' are not necessarily the product of free will.

That would surely be correct; for free will, or the action of the choice that emanates from it/them, is surely the product of urge/s. But did the good doctor investigate from whence comes (naturally occurring) urge?

So I would expect any external manipulation of the effectuating regions of the brain, would excite both the visceral sensation of that region – to awareness, as well as the physical movement at the relevant extremity. All that is happening at this point, is the free will of the mouse is being by-passed in favour of the free will of the bastard with the switch.

In any case, electrical impulse is close enough to instantaneous, so how could the mouse possibly be aware of which side of the equation came first? )

The experiment was on humans. If you want to criticise the research please read it.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I fail to understand why you mention the concept of time, i did not raise the issue and did not challenge your views on time.

Firstly I had no idea whether or not you even read the relevant discussion. Even so, my mention of 'time', is because I see a great deal of scientific argument based upon a precept that time is some variety of extant commodity. It is NOT, but is rather a fallacy - illusion. On the other hand (my definition of) free will, certainly is NOT - yet many suggest it is. Kinda feels like a day trip to upside-down-world.)

Temporal sequence is essential in establishing cause and effect. Your view of time reminds me of bishop Berkeley's Idealism. Perhaps you would like to start a thread on the philosophy forum to discuss it further.

Your understanding of time is also counter-intuitive, which does not disprove it, but is one of the criteria you have used to dimiss free-will as an illusion. I doubt you were being purposively hypocritical but it nicely demonstrates confirmation bias, as demonstrated below.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

You are claiming empirical knowledge of the future based on reason alone?

Similarly (my intreprtation of) free will is so sacrasanct, it seems childish to doubt it - even if that is a relatively subjective perspective.

This is why we conduct science, to exclude, as much as possible, subjective experience. But i take the point that it is so integral to our society that disproving it would cause turmiol and/or disbelief.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

External forces influencing free will? These are legion. From neuro-hormonal chemicals

‘Internal,’ to my way of reasoning

Originally Posted by Prometheus

anatomical changes in the brain

‘Internal’

What do you mean by internal? I think we are just talking past each other here.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

psycho-social pressures

Not a ‘force’.

Society has never affected any of your choices? If not a force, what is it?

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

The only 'external force' that I can think of which might influence free will, is when Dr. Evil ties Austin Powers down and injects him with a needle o' mojo, or something like that.

And why would that affect free-will - would it be the chemicals in Dr. Evil's syringe? Chemicals that influence the brain? Much like chemicals that can already be found in the body? And would Dr. Evil's mojo injection be an external or internal force?

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The late Benjamin Libet, first recipient of the Virtual Nobel Prize in Psychology for his work on free will, is the pioneer of research into free will. He found neurophysiological changes preceded a desire to move: if free will were so we expect the converse.

I'm not sure what your (or his) definition of 'free will' be, yet I would certainly NOT expect the converse. It makes perfect sense that neurophysiologic changes would precede the choice to move.

Really? Before you have decided to act your brain is already in the process of acting, by 0.5 seconds according to the study. Surely free will would nessecitate volition first then neurophysiological changes. This study suggests the brain is already in the process of acting and then you have the volition to act. Please explain how it makes sense to already be acting* and then have the volition to act.

Do you ever act or even make a decision to act prior to thinking about it? Well thinking would demand brain activity - prior to volition.

I would argue there to be a very significant difference in definition between a 'decision' and a 'choice' - to act. Furthermore there must have been some (virtually imperceptible) brain activity during consideration/s of the options - prior to decision - which could have been for hours, days, months or even years in the process.

Secondly, I would have thought it unthinkable that any decision, much less choice could be made prior to neurophysiologic change, for such change would be indicative of the brain activity towards the supporting of the actual choice, which in turn precedes (by the most infinitesimal increment possible) physical action.

So for mine; your question is a little too vague for a direct answer, for I'm uncertain (with already be acting*), if you are referring to brain activity prior to (could be years in the process), or during the choice, or indeed even the bodily activity via electrical impulse, that results.

In any case, it is essential to recognise that a choice to act, is certainly not like a single wall switch, where you flick it once and we have illumination, a second time and we are in the dark again. But rather is the end result of a great many processes and unrecognised 'switches' (virtual choices) down the line - all of which are imperceptible whilst standing next to the (destination) toggle - which appears to do all the work - yet such is indeed a misperception.

Furthermore perhaps; your use of the term 'volition' in this instance is a little vague (for our purposes), so if I may enquire; with this term, are you referring to;
A. The willingness to make a choice (decision), or
B. The making of the choice itself - which again, are two completely separate processes?

Ultimately however, I would expect the brain to be increasingly active in regards the relative stages to action;
1. Process of consideration towards decision (could be many 'switches')
2. Actual moment of making the choice (one 'switch')
3. Implementing the choice towards action. (possibly many thousands of 'switches')

Of course I would expect the entire process above could take perhaps just a few milliseconds.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I'm aware your term was 'desire' rather than 'choice', yet the catalyst of every choice to action is desire, which it seems as emerging from anywhere between (close enough to) instantaneous - to less so. Therefore change by varying degrees would, I expect; be axiomatic - prior to the choice, which in turn precedes the action (any action).

My term was desire. I've read the paper again. Their term was ‘freely’ voluntary acts.

I'm not sure where you are going with this one.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

As for things being so close that you can consider them instantaneous; we have quite sensitive machines that can measure time in very small units. It's analagous to saying atoms are all the same because they're so small.

Actually it isn't - 'very small' is very different to 'infinitesimal'. At the speed of light, how could anything possibly measure the incremental difference in time between travelling (for instance) 3cm and 3m, much less between 3cm and 10cm?

Surely we can draw a mathematical expectation from accepted figures, but to measure such infinitesimal variations would, I expect be impossible - especially to the natural awareness of the subject, but also to the most accurate technological wizardry.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Itzhak Fried, a neurosurgeon, later found he could make people move by stimulating parts of their brain. No big deal, except that the people reported feeling the urge to move. This provides evidence that 'urges' are not necessarily the product of free will.

That would surely be correct; for free will, or the action of the choice that emanates from it/them, is surely the product of urge/s. But did the good doctor investigate from whence comes (naturally occurring) urge?

So I would expect any external manipulation of the effectuating regions of the brain, would excite both the visceral sensation of that region – to awareness, as well as the physical movement at the relevant extremity. All that is happening at this point, is the free will of the mouse is being by-passed in favour of the free will of the bastard with the switch.

In any case, electrical impulse is close enough to instantaneous, so how could the mouse possibly be aware of which side of the equation came first? )

The experiment was on humans. If you want to criticise the research please read it.

Now who needs to chill? The 'mouse' comment, as with the 'bastard', was not meant in any way as criticism of anything/anyone, but by way of light refreshment for a friend in the course of a serious discussion. After all, I openly accepted your reproof, did I not?

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I fail to understand why you mention the concept of time, i did not raise the issue and did not challenge your views on time.

Firstly I had no idea whether or not you even read the relevant discussion. Even so, my mention of 'time', is because I see a great deal of scientific argument based upon a precept that time is some variety of extant commodity. It is NOT, but is rather a fallacy - illusion. On the other hand (my definition of) free will, certainly is NOT - yet many suggest it is. Kinda feels like a day trip to upside-down-world.)

Temporal sequence is essential in establishing cause and effect.

Indeed establishing temporal sequencing is imperative to appreciate how the process accumulates, however I would suggest that much of the sequence occurs prior to anything physically discernible becoming evident.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Your view of time reminds me of bishop Berkeley's Idealism. Perhaps you would like to start a thread on the philosophy forum to discuss it further.

Now that’s a good one. It seems the only discussion to any threads I commence, is from arrogant ophish snipers who seem to live for nought else, than await for any reject post in order to once again express their sophisticated irrelevance.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Your understanding of time is also counter-intuitive, which does not disprove it, but is one of the criteria you have used to dimiss free-will as an illusion.

My understanding of time only appears counter-intuitive when your core intuition, is based upon everything you have ever been taught from around age 3 by adults who were previously beguiled into believing in something, which has never been.

Indeed we are born, grow into and become adults in a society where everything is increasingly dependent upon 'time' and 'money'. Therefore it becomes so second nature intuitive of us, to the point that whenever we come across anyone who doesn't have the same pin-point focus as ‘me’ on their clock's second hand or the dollar, we are in serious danger of dismissing them as a useless or irrelevant piece of humanity – which clearly is to our own personal detriment and disgrace, rather than any actual statement of them.

*I only mention money/the dollar here, by way of obvious comparison.

I doubt you were being purposely hypocritical in making the statement above, however it does serve to identify the depths of confusion to which our (mis)perception of reality has scuttled our mentality, as we continue to chase a non-entity or three, as if they are somehow the centre of all existence - which again, is an ever-more relevant fallacy.

Finally I did not at all use time as a criteria to ‘dismiss free-will as an illusion’. My mention of it was part of an (inverse type) illustration of the paradoxical and illogical nature of much argument that seems to pass around this forum and the like, for ‘intelligent’.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I doubt you were being purposively hypocritical but it nicely demonstrates confirmation bias, as demonstrated below.

And now I hope you might be in a position to better identify an actual confirmation bias. The inherent difference being - I accept and openly acknowledged - therefore confirmed my subjectivity - and possible shortcoming it poses, didn't I?

*Snipers such as Ophiolite might also consider taking note.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

You are claiming empirical knowledge of the future based on reason alone?

Similarly (my interpretation of) free will is so sacrosanct, it seems childish to doubt it - even if that is a relatively subjective perspective.

This is why we conduct science, to exclude, as much as possible, subjective experience. But i take the point that it is so integral to our society that disproving it would cause turmiol and/or disbelief.

It is absolutely wonderful to attempt elimination of ALL subjective interpretation – as long as we eliminate ALL - rather than be selective about it, and then continue the process in a profound delusion, that we fail or refuse to recognise, but in fact taints our every step along the way, leading to ever-compounding crapolla, such as supernatural sky-daddies on the one hand, and 'space-time' and 'dark energy' on the other.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

External forces influencing free will? These are legion. From neuro-hormonal chemicals

‘Internal,’ to my way of reasoning

Originally Posted by Prometheus

anatomical changes in the brain

‘Internal’

What do you mean by internal? I think we are just talking past each other here.

Not intending to 'talk past you', however I would have thought it self explanatory that any naturally occurring neuro-hormonal chemical or anatomical change that might be found to influence reasoning and therefore selection prior to choice, would be generally regarded as originating from an internal location - from within the organism, rather than externally. Still, I would have questions about them being a 'force' as such.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

psycho-social pressures

Not a ‘force’.

Society has never affected any of your choices? If not a force, what is it?

Of course society has affected my choices many times over, however I doubt even you are now suggesting that society as a whole exists inside our individual brains - apart from in a conceptual manner, at least.

So what you are referring to (and originally identified), is actually a pressure from society upon 'me' to make a choice - it's choice. For instance; society would pressure me to stop my car at a red traffic signal, however the choice to do so (or not), will in the end game - always be mine. The pressure is certainly there, yet it falls well short of anything we might identify as a physiological or even psychological 'force'.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

The only 'external force' that I can think of which might influence free will, is when Dr. Evil ties Austin Powers down and injects him with a needle o' mojo, or something like that.

And why would that affect free-will - would it be the chemicals in Dr. Evil's syringe? Chemicals that influence the brain? Much like chemicals that can already be found in the body? And would Dr. Evil's mojo injection be an external or internal force?

Well I would have thought it would first need to be established whether the injected substance constituted as 'force', a 'pressure' or an 'influence' - being why I first brought up such an issue for perhaps further consideration.

I would have expected that regardless of upon which of the above parameters we settle, the effect would have to be regarded as an 'external' factor, even though it will obviously take on an internal appearance. Even so, I would still have questions about precisely how much 'force' (as distinct from influence), it exerted over any choice - to action.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The late Benjamin Libet, first recipient of the Virtual Nobel Prize in Psychology for his work on free will, is the pioneer of research into free will. He found neurophysiological changes preceded a desire to move: if free will were so we expect the converse.

I'm not sure what your (or his) definition of 'free will' be, yet I would certainly NOT expect the converse. It makes perfect sense that neurophysiologic changes would precede the choice to move.

Really? Before you have decided to act your brain is already in the process of acting, by 0.5 seconds according to the study. Surely free will would nessecitate volition first then neurophysiological changes. This study suggests the brain is already in the process of acting and then you have the volition to act. Please explain how it makes sense to already be acting* and then have the volition to act.

Do you ever act or even make a decision to act prior to thinking about it? Well thinking would demand brain activity - prior to volition.

But this is what Itzhak Fried found, they can stimulate this 'prior decision' to act with electrodes. And you can act without thinking - think of a candle and your hand - the reflex arch kicks in at the dorsal horn of your spinal cord, bypassing the brain.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I would argue there to be a very significant difference in definition between a 'decision' and a 'choice' - to act. Furthermore there must have been some (virtually imperceptible) brain activity during consideration/s of the options - prior to decision - which could have been for hours, days, months or even years in the process.

Fair enough on the distinction between decision and choice. If a decision has been that long in the making would this not suggest a number of composite components culminating in the 'decision' to act? Lots of 'virtual switches' as causes for the present 'choice'.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Furthermore there must have been some (virtually imperceptible) brain activity during consideration/s of the options - prior to decision

Is this not how believers in God reason - you cannot detect what i'm talking about so you can't disprove it? This is what you're saying here - that we can't detect where free-will takes place therefore is outside observation?

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Furthermore perhaps; your use of the term 'volition' in this instance is a little vague (for our purposes), so if I may enquire; with this term, are you referring to;
A. The willingness to make a choice (decision), or
B. The making of the choice itself - which again, are two completely separate processes?

I mean by volition the making of the choice, and suggest the willingness to make a choice an illusion.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

As for things being so close that you can consider them instantaneous; we have quite sensitive machines that can measure time in very small units. It's analagous to saying atoms are all the same because they're so small.

Actually it isn't - 'very small' is very different to 'infinitesimal'. At the speed of light, how could anything possibly measure the incremental difference in time between travelling (for instance) 3cm and 3m, much less between 3cm and 10cm?

Surely we can draw a mathematical expectation from accepted figures, but to measure such infinitesimal variations would, I expect be impossible - especially to the natural awareness of the subject, but also to the most accurate technological wizardry.

I know very little of physics so i wouldn't have a clue how accurately we could measure the speed of light over those distances. However, we are not talking about the speed of light. In Libet's study they measured in milli-seconds.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

. If you want to criticise the research please read it.

Now who needs to chill? The 'mouse' comment, as with the 'bastard', was not meant in any way as criticism of anything/anyone, but by way of light refreshment for a friend in the course of a serious discussion. After all, I openly accepted your reproof, did I not?

So did you read it?

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Your view of time reminds me of bishop Berkeley's Idealism. Perhaps you would like to start a thread on the philosophy forum to discuss it further.

Now that’s a good one. It seems the only discussion to any threads I commence, is from arrogant ophish snipers who seem to live for nought else, than await for any reject post in order to once again express their sophisticated irrelevance.

Eh? It was a genuine invitation. Bishop Berkeley's Idealism is to matter what your views are to time, as far as i can tell, which is why i invited further discussion.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Similarly (my interpretation of) free will is so sacrosanct, it seems childish to doubt it - even if that is a relatively subjective perspective.

Your understanding of time is also counter-intuitive, which does not disprove it, but is one of the criteria you have used to dimiss free-will as an illusion.

My understanding of time only appears counter-intuitive when your core intuition, is based upon everything you have ever been taught from around age 3 by adults who were previously beguiled into believing in something, which has never been.

Can you not see the parallels here? Not so much based on 'time is money' mentality as in a simple 'time exists' mentality which most of us develop at an early age. Just like the mentality that 'i have free-will' which we also learn from a young age. You cannot criticise the illusion of free will for being counter-intuitive while ignoring criticisms of time as an illusion on the same grounds. You apply the criticism only when it suits you - hence i cried confirmation bias.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Finally I did not at all use time as a criteria to ‘dismiss free-will as an illusion’. My mention of it was part of an (inverse type) illustration of the paradoxical and illogical nature of much argument that seems to pass around this forum and the like, for ‘intelligent’.

The charge was not at all that you used time as a criteria to ‘dismiss free-will as an illusion’. Only that you used one type of argument for a concept you dislike (illusion of free-will) but not one that you like (time as illusion). It is irrelevant whether you acknowledged such as a subjective opinion if you assert subjectivity as a valid source of knowledge, then not apply the same reasoning to other concepts such as time as illusion.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

And now I hope you might be in a position to better identify an actual confirmation bias. The inherent difference being - I accept and openly acknowledged - therefore confirmed my subjectivity - and possible shortcoming it poses, didn't I?

I'll leave it to others (if any are reading us) to decide whether confirmation bias has been demonstrated, as i doubt we will ever agree on it. Perhaps someone else would like to comment on this point?

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Not intending to 'talk past you', however I would have thought it self explanatory that any naturally occurring neuro-hormonal chemical or anatomical change that might be found to influence reasoning and therefore selection prior to choice, would be generally regarded as originating from an internal location - from within the organism, rather than externally. Still, I would have questions about them being a 'force' as such.

I do not know if you hold a Cartesian dualistic concept of mind/body, in which case neurophysiological components may be considered external to the mind. If not, what is it that has 'free-will'?

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Well I would have thought it would first need to be established whether the injected substance constituted as 'force', a 'pressure' or an 'influence' - being why I first brought up such an issue for perhaps further consideration.

I would have expected that regardless of upon which of the above parameters we settle, the effect would have to be regarded as an 'external' factor, even though it will obviously take on an internal appearance. Even so, I would still have questions about precisely how much 'force' (as distinct from influence), it exerted over any choice - to action.

Perhaps it would also be interesting to consider hypnosis and free-will too, especially in the light of our discussion regarding society and others influencing free will?

I’m not at all sure if you have been following this recent discussion, in which I have been exploring what I maintain is an entirely unrecognised (more correctly; disregarded) definition of human consciousness, with particular attention upon this essential factor; ‘choice’.

In this discussion, I have been attempting to explore the obvious dual-core underpinning, upon which every choice into which we ever enter, is predicated; and how this observation unfolds into a world of astounding realities about just who we each are; at any moment throughout our lives.

Through the course of the following reply, I will now attempt to draw a few points together about all this, and we will see if the penny finally drops for someone. For I have been posting about these issues in one way of another for a couple of years now, and as you can now witness; have received little in return besides disregard, derision and warnings. I must say at this juncture, that I might have expected a higher level of imagination and awareness than so far evident. You appear, as perhaps the open-eyed salvation for what has thus far been an ongoing disappointment.

*My responses below, will not necessarily relate to the order of your post (above).

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Is this not how believers in God reason - you cannot detect what i'm talking about so you can't disprove it? This is what you're saying here - that we can't detect where free-will takes place therefore is outside observation?

We might not be able to physically detect where free-will takes place, however I doubt we need much definition for an event that is already clearly isolated and evident – every time – at the very instant of making the choice (one switch), between the same two options; 'A' or 'B'/‘yes’ or ‘no’!

Indeed this specific (recurring) switch is, I would suggest; outside the abilities of definition for any variety of extrinsic observation, for it is an entirely non-physical (=spiritual) switching. At best, it is known only to the specific individual at that specific moment. Even so, after a little focal adjustment, it is very much observable to the intrinsic observer.

Hopefully the remainder of this post will help you somewhat adjust your focus.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The charge was not at all that you used time as a criteria to ‘dismiss free-will as an illusion’. Only that you used one type of argument for a concept you dislike (illusion of free-will) but not one that you like (time as illusion). It is irrelevant whether you acknowledged such as a subjective opinion if you assert subjectivity as a valid source of knowledge, then not apply the same reasoning to other concepts such as time as illusion.

Now we seem to be talking past each other. I would never assert subjectivity as a valid source of knowledge, particularly when an objective perspective, as an option, is available.

On the other side of the equation, it has been noted that recognition (of a weakness), is the first step on the road to recovery. So the heart of this issue comes down to; respective self-awareness, and a resultant ability (or otherwise) to differentiate between subjectivity and objectivity in one's own perspective.

That I acknowledged my respective subjectivity and the shortcomings it may invoke, was in comparison to your (ongoing) far more generic subjectivity re. (unrecognised) non-entities, the lack of awareness (of such subjectivity) and it's deleterious implications per your reasoning, and … well let’s not labour the point, and in any case - I’m sure you can work out the rest.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Fair enough on the distinction between decision and choice. If a decision has been that long in the making would this not suggest a number of composite components culminating in the 'decision' to act? Lots of 'virtual switches' as causes for the present 'choice'.

You seem to be confusing two stages here - the process prior a decision; being what I might term ‘rumination and eliminations’ (virtual switches), which could take anything from perhaps less than a minute, to a year or more - with the decision itself, which in turn could respectively (depending upon such as alertness or reflex), involve a few milliseconds to a second or (even) two.

It is this decision stage that would apparently be evidenced in your Benjamin Libet study; the penultimate phase – just prior to the instant of choice being made towards action. This of course, would necessitate each of the two emergent options becoming clear in this time frame, in order for the subsequent choice (to be made) between them.

What we seem to be struggling to recognise, is a choice by definition, is just that – a choice from between ‘A’ and ‘B’, yet in order for our mentality to make this move, there first has to emerge/exist two actual defined options – ‘A’ and ‘B’ – as set and understood immediately prior to every choice – to action.

Not only do we require two options being placed before our attention immediately prior to the relevant choice between them being made, but they must clearly emerge from two separate sources – core ‘essences’ – necessarily being oppositional in nature. Anything else, and we would never be required to choose (from between A and A). This would in turn, define us, as never making a choice, and therefore your premise of free-will being an illusion, would be correct.

However, I would expect the activity upon which Benjamin Libet’s studies were able to focus, effectively prove free-will, and identified the physical brain matter being primed (charged); based upon the two (and only two) opposing options emerging and effectively being isolated in order for the impending choice to be actioned – between the two (now imminent) options; ‘A’ and ‘B’ or ‘yes’ and ‘no’; each in turn generating it's own energy, in order to be momentarily engaged - once (and if) chosen.

*Please Note; I really must thank you for bringing these studies to my attention.

All the above of course, is the ongoing life process towards the spiritual being made physical via the extremities of our corporeal being, to which the electrical impulses would subsequently be directed - for realisation of whichever choice of that respective issue/need.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

My understanding of time only appears counter-intuitive when your core intuition, is based upon everything you have ever been taught from around age 3 by adults who were previously beguiled into believing in something, which has never been.

Can you not see the parallels here? Not so much based on 'time is money' mentality as in a simple 'time exists' mentality which most of us develop at an early age. Just like the mentality that 'i have free-will' which we also learn from a young age. You cannot criticise the illusion of free will for being counter-intuitive while ignoring criticisms of time as an illusion on the same grounds. You apply the criticism only when it suits you - hence i cried confirmation bias.

You first need to recognise how you are confusing simple matters of existence at the most basic levels. Both your above observations are incorrect, and here’s why………

We do NOT develop a ‘time exists mentality’ – we are taught it. Indeed you will find no child who did not first have to be painstakingly trained how to read a clock, and subsequently have to learn – why it’s important!

On the other hand, we are not taught ‘I have free- will’, we simply accept at a very early age; what is naturally a fact of being in existence. Ask any parent of a two-year-old for confirmation of this fact, and you will soon discover that parent, as certainly having a confirmation bias (CB) - for very good reason.

So you see - your (CB) reference is not according any application of mine, so is clearly a miscalculation, based upon an actual (CB) that you understandably harbour. As such; your perspective remains (understandably) subjective until such time as you develop a more objective view, which in turn will find you realising a more astute application than evident above.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

[The inherent difference being - I accept and openly acknowledged - therefore confirmed my subjectivity - and possible shortcoming it poses, didn't I?

*Snipers such as Ophiolite might also consider taking note.

However, in post after post you show no sign that you will attempt to overcome that subjectivity. Your situation is analagous to the mass murderer who says "Sure, I kill people from time to time." then expects to be let off, since he has so readily confessed.

Several other members have attempted to address your ramblings point by point. I have abandoned such an approach. I do not expect to resume it until and unless you start making sense, argue coherently and stop talking bollocks. You call this sniping: I call it an objective assessment of your confused contributions.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I do not expect to resume it until and unless you start making sense, argue coherently and stop talking bollocks. You call this sniping: I call it an objective assessment of your confused contributions.

You are entitled to (subjectively) call it anything you like. In any case, please feel free to avert your attention. You know - in favour of someone who effectively enjoys some imagination and objectivity.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

We might not be able to physically detect where free-will takes place, however I doubt we need much definition for an event that is already clearly isolated and evident – every time – at the very instant of making the choice (one switch), between the same two options; 'A' or 'B'/‘yes’ or ‘no’!

Indeed this specific (recurring) switch is, I would suggest; outside the abilities of definition for any variety of extrinsic observation, for it is an entirely non-physical (=spiritual) switching. At best, it is known only to the specific individual at that specific moment. Even so, after a little focal adjustment, it is very much observable to the intrinsic observer.

You suggest free-will is self-evident: if that is true i would suggest time is also self-evident. Either way you are claimimg free-will to exist beyond what is knowable to us. It therefore should take its rightful place next to god and the flying spaghetti monster.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

What we seem to be struggling to recognise, is a choice by definition, is just that – a choice from between ‘A’ and ‘B’, yet in order for our mentality to make this move, there first has to emerge/exist two actual defined options – ‘A’ and ‘B’ – as set and understood immediately prior to every choice – to action.

Not only do we require two options being placed before our attention immediately prior to the relevant choice between them being made, but they must clearly emerge from two separate sources – core ‘essences’ – necessarily being oppositional in nature. Anything else, and we would never be required to choose (from between A and A). This would in turn, define us, as never making a choice, and therefore your premise of free-will being an illusion, would be correct.

I have little problem with this but the debate pivots on whether 'choice' between selecting A or B is determined or is made 'freely'.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

My understanding of time only appears counter-intuitive when your core intuition, is based upon everything you have ever been taught from around age 3 by adults who were previously beguiled into believing in something, which has never been.

Can you not see the parallels here? Not so much based on 'time is money' mentality as in a simple 'time exists' mentality which most of us develop at an early age. Just like the mentality that 'i have free-will' which we also learn from a young age. You cannot criticise the illusion of free will for being counter-intuitive while ignoring criticisms of time as an illusion on the same grounds. You apply the criticism only when it suits you - hence i cried confirmation bias.

You first need to recognise how you are confusing simple matters of existence at the most basic levels. Both your above observations are incorrect, and here’s why………

We do NOT develop a ‘time exists mentality’ – we are taught it. Indeed you will find no child who did not first have to be painstakingly trained how to read a clock, and subsequently have to learn – why it’s important!

Learning to tell the time is not the same as perception of time. Do we teach children to perceive objects? We may put the object in a context of the human condition but the direct perception is the child's. Do we teach children to perceive time? Even though we teach the relevance of time to the human condition the perception of time remains the child's.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

So you see - your (CB) reference is not according any application of mine, so is clearly a miscalculation, based upon an actual (CB) that you understandably harbour. As such; your perspective remains (understandably) subjective until such time as you develop a more objective view, which in turn will find you realising a more astute application than evident above.

Your denial of confirmation bias hinges upon your belief:

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

‘time exists mentality’ – we are taught it.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I have free- will’, we simply accept.

The very fact that you find one so obviously self-evident (and so requiring no evidence) and the other so obviously untrue is testament to your confirmation bias.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

so is clearly a miscalculation, based upon an actual Confirmation Bias that you understandably harbour

Your charge of me displaying confirmation bias is unlikely as i actually believe in free-will.

PS. Apologies to Leszek Luchowski for hijacking this thread, but it is related.

PS. Apologies to Leszek Luchowski for hijacking this thread, but it is related.

I agree.

Apopohis Reject:

First, let me address your comments directed at me specifically. I admittedly should have done so at the time, but I expected a bit of complaining about it, so I let it go. You have, however, decided to continue talking about your contentious ideas as if they are the unequivocal and self evident truth, so I feel I have to say something.

How am I supposed to refer to an unequivocal reality - IMHO, especially in the face of everyone else seemingly disregarding it as useless, and then for good measure disregard my alternative version, as perhaps boring? Or are you possibly suggesting that intelligence fails to have a factuality to which we might refer and discuss?

I presume you meant to start out with "not refer". Well, nobody is going to argue with the fact that intelligence does exist in some form or the other. As this is a science forum though, we have to deal with things that are scientific; at least within the threads designated as such. That means that references to personal ideas that are untestable as far as we know are by definition not scientific and is not contingent to the scientific method. Your continued reference to these ideas as objective and self evident leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They simply are not.

Hey, you are (as is anyone) more than welcome to discuss/debate the issue, or portion thereof at any time. So far you seem to have no argument, so your expression of doubt might now be considered somewhat confusing?

I have in fact discussed some of it with you in the past, if only briefly. Regardless, I thought that I had made my position on your ideas pretty clear in my last post in this thread.

I cannot see how I could take offence, for you are welcome to try, yet will fail to locate the religious doctrine.

As noted by Prometheus and no doubt a few others since you started out here, you are expecting us to take something you have come up with on your own from a supposedly objective viewpoint as an unequivocal fact. Sure, you appeal to us to think it through so we might come to the same realisation, but that makes no difference to the fact that you are asking us to accept the existence of something that has never and by definition never can be scientifically tested. Your reference to spiritual realities is religious in nature for this reason. It is entirely faith based.

Then - please debate the issue. You are the moderator, after all.

As moderator my job is to moderate. That does not require my participation in threads by definition.

I will rather leave the ‘insightful’ reference until such time, as someone actually understanding the concept, or at least genuinely discussing it in some detail. I’m still awaiting either.

I have already alerted you to the fact that this subforum is not the appropriate place to discuss ideas of the nature you hold to. If you want to discuss your ideas directly, I suggest you do it in the pseudoscience forum as they are not testable, as in that they refer to something that does not exist physically (whatever that means), which is a requirement in the New Hypothesis section. I am sure you will get respondents over there as well, many of whom have already been engaging you up to this point.

Now please - let's not be silly. I do NOT 'testify about it at every turn'. On the other hand, when another member such as davidben1 mentions the issue with such clarity of reason, am I to be expected to treat him with the same levels of disdain that the majority of forum members often dish out in my direction?

You have to learn to distinguish between when someone has disdain for you personally and when they don't much agree with what you are saying. I can't make a judgement call on what quality of person you are. I can only make judgements on the ideas you are attempting to get across.

I largely agree with both Ophiolite's and Prometheus comments in this thread.


You want to know how I see it? Fine.

Intelligence is a product of evolution. I think of our brains as functioning largely in the same way that an advanced computer would. It has a basic operating system (determined by our genes) which kicks in from the moment we are able to process senses in the womb. We then take in information as it comes in and make judgements as to what to keep and discard and what to do with the information that is kept. This judgement is influenced by what is already there and is made by both the subconscious and the conscious, either in combination or in isolation. The operating system has evolved to be highly adaptable and to best shape itself to aid survival in whatever environment it finds itself in. Emotions drive us and intellect enable us to solve specific problems through imagination.

No part of this is conceptually impossible to achieve with only physical components, i.e. you could possibly build a robot that would be able to learn, think and experience things in much the same way that we do, emotions included. You don't need to invent non-physical realities to explain the existence of intelligence or emotion. The physical reality of evolution is more than capable of producing exactly the kind of thinking and decision making organism that we are. We are also not really qualitatively different from other animals in this regard. The existence of intelligence can readily be explained using only natural means. No supernatural elements are needed. Why invent them? Because you feel that you are not special enough?

As for free will;

I believe the sheer complexity of this evolved system creates the illusion of free will. Our decisions are inextricably influenced by our experiences since birth and any genetic predispositions or framework we might have. I cannot think of any decision that could be made without the influence of past experiences. You become who you are and think what you think as a result of the processes as given above.

Could suicide bombers that are the product of life-long brainwashing really be blamed for being brainwashed? They have been subjected to stimuli that are designed to produce a personality that is capable of a particular, normally counter intuitive, action. They don't really have a choice in the matter, since they are effectively incapable of not being suicide bombers. Murderers have not been subjected to a designed set of stimuli, but certainly to a coincidental combination that renders them capable of anti-social behaviour. Similarly, every single one of us are essentially brainwashed from birth by our experiences. A lot of people come up with the argument of "this guy did it, why can't that guy do the same" as justification for blame, but no two people's experiences and genetics are the same. Essentially, given the exact same set of circumstances, the resulting individual will always turn out exactly the same. Any decision that is made could only ever have gone one way given the exact same set of circumstances. Where does free will enter into it if this is true?

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

I have been wondering again....

We get angry, and feel it is right to be angry, at people who behave in stupid ways. In such context, calling somebody an idiot is more or less the ultimate criticism.

At the same time, we show (or at least we know that we ought to show) kindness, patience and understanding to people with medically identifiable mental handicaps. Which include idiocy.

Could it be that, besides the mental conditions for which the sufferers cannot be blamed, there exists a kind of stupidity that occurs through a person's own fault?

Then we could be cycnical and say that such people with mental handicaps shouldn't speak, thus pollute good conversations/debates.

KALSTER, since initially reading your October 15 post, I have written quite a few replies of terse explanation as to how many errors it contained, and how with such erroneous reasoning, you were walking the path towards eternal damnation. But for some reason I couldn’t bring myself to post any of them, no matter how much I laboured on each to arrive at a level of modification which provided a sense of personal satisfaction.

Then I awoke in the middle of last night to an epiphanal moment - realising my focus has indeed been excessively limited, and as a result my need to correct you in this atmosphere, by definition, subjective; whilst about ‘my’ need. Furthermore I realised my conclusion re. your walk and destination of it’s heading, was (most likely) very wrong. So as you can see I have now sat down to punch out a very different reply.

Sadly I will still make note that I feel too much of the content of your post is the result of what I might term 'inverted reasoning', yet through it, I now feel you are on the cusp of perhaps an epiphanal moment of your own – realising quite an awesome connection – the kind that the snipers of this forum, may be too entrenched in their fear to make. So here now, is my (latest) reply;

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Well, nobody is going to argue with the fact that intelligence does exist in some form or the other. As this is a science forum though, we have to deal with things that are scientific; at least within the threads designated as such.

So even though you agree that intelligence exists, and it obviously sits dead centre of EVERYTHING that man is and has ever been able to achieve, yet for some convoluted reasoning you deem it as falling short of a ‘scientific’ reality – the kind that warrants investigation that is.

Why do you (so far) fail to recognise a major paradoxical anomaly with this?

It would appear you divide reality by some weird unspoken scientific ring – those ‘things’ tangible (physical), warranting investigating/understanding being on the inside. And on the outer; belong (by your definition) existent realities, that are clearly non-physical, therefore not worthy of understanding, even though at least one – intelligence, is the very essence which makes us who we are, and gives purpose to our existence.

Indeed whilst this profound confusion continues, I would suggest such science; a duplicitous embarrassment.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

That means that references to personal ideas that are untestable as far as we know are by definition not scientific and is not contingent to the scientific method.

Further to above; ‘scientific’ appears to urgently need a hypershot of REAL in it’s disingenuous and illogical arm.

Indeed, I have been explaining all along; these realities are entirely testable. Moreover, all science would need do, is open it’s imprudent eyes to recognise that any test per your suggestion, would be akin to a ‘test’ to discover if humanity exists or if eating supports physical life.

How about we conduct a few more tests to establish the self-evident?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

you are expecting us to take something you have come up with on your own from a supposedly objective viewpoint as an unequivocal fact. Sure, you appeal to us to think it through so we might come to the same realisation, but that makes no difference to the fact that you are asking us to accept the existence of something that has never and by definition never can be scientifically tested..

There are way too many errors in the above for me to deal with, so I would rather bypass it, with the same appeal – please re-read the previous reply, for only your generic version of these realities is unfathomable and untestable – by definition.

Or are you perhaps, ‘scientifically’ suggesting such genetic essence as Intelligence, being at once; a reality and non-extant? Now that would certainly be an interesting explanation, so please go ahead………….

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I have already alerted you to the fact that this subforum is not the appropriate place to discuss ideas of the nature you hold to. If you want to discuss your ideas directly, I suggest you do it in the pseudoscience forum as they are not testable

Have you a ‘test’ which proves the existence of man? How about the moon, a tree or if eating actually supports physical life? If not, why do you think to demand a similar test for another obvious reality such as Intelligence – for it to be considered ‘scientific’?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

as in that they refer to something that does not exist physically (whatever that means)

And finally we get to the real issue – an honest admission of a lacking in understanding the difference between the physical (such as a marriage certificate), and the non-physical - such as the marriage that the physical document supposedly verifies.

Now, please try to reason this through – is the REALITY in the above;
A. The marriage certificate, or
B. The relationship between the two parties (that such document attempts to establish)????

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Intelligence is a product of evolution

A conveniently abstract slogan!

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I think of our brains as functioning largely in the same way that an advanced computer would

A more enlightened statement – indeed one that sounds eerily similar to a previous Reject post or two – which interestingly added a little by way of detailed explanation.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

It has a basic operating system (determined by our genes) which kicks in from the moment we are able to process senses in the womb.

Setting your ‘genes’ aside for the moment, what exactly do you mean by ‘kicks in'? In any case, Intelligence has clearly and verifiably ‘kicked in’ (by whatever definition you select) long before your first ‘senses’ were being processed.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

We then take in information as it comes in and make judgements as to what to keep and discard

Correction! We ‘keep’ all of it – every speck, jot and tittle, even if we subsequently choose to disregard or lose track of portions thereof – referring to natural/normal brain activity, of course.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

This judgement is influenced by what is already there and is made by both the subconscious and the conscious, either in combination or in isolation.

You have conveniently neglected by far the most essential portion of the existence pie! So please - what effectively constitutes your suggested genetic and authoritative - ‘conscious’ and ‘subconscious’? You might honestly (this time) seek to investigate a few more previous Reject posts for the basic answer to this question.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Emotions drive us and intellect enable us to solve specific problems through imagination.

I would applaud this, but you have already explained that you accept only proof, test results, scientific evidence; so do you have a scientific test explaining the above? If not, why do you believe it?

Could your problem here, possibly be because such are OBVIOUS by simple reasoned observation alone – similar to a man, planet or tree, and therefore can only be verified (as with the above marriage/certificate illustration) through reasoned Intelligent vision? But alas, you cannot agree with this, for in so doing, you will begin to sound like a Reject. Hmmmmm.....

See the point? These are certainly NOT, as you suggest; supernatural inventions of a Reject, but plain, simple, natural, obvious, everyday, conventional (how many more adjectives need I employ?) CORE REALITIES!

Originally Posted by KALSTER

No part of this is conceptually impossible to achieve with only physical components, i.e. you could possibly build a robot that would be able to learn, think and experience things in much the same way that we do, emotions included.

Flying pink unicorns, Santa Clause, atmospheric half man-half skydaddies, leprechauns at the end of a rainbow and such can all be achieved ‘with only physical components’ – as long as we are speaking conceptually.

When, on the other hand, we decide to speak actual science, our reasoning may acquire more sagacity.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

You don't need to invent non-physical realities to explain the existence of intelligence or emotion.

Again – just as a man, planet or tree; the non-physical realities require no invention, for they simply ARE – emotions and Intelligence - ARE! Moreover; everything physical is an outcome from such, therefore it is your conceptual physical robot that is clearly the ‘invention’ – if it ever materialises, at least.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

The physical reality of evolution is more than capable of producing exactly the kind of thinking and decision making organism that we are.

Wowsers! Evolution is physical – tangible, corporeal?????? Please point me to where I might acquire a portion of this corporeal substance called ‘evolution’ to run my physical fingers over. Once you have, perhaps you can demonstrate by scientifically tested definition, just how this amazing physical reality managed to ‘make’ us - what we are?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

The existence of intelligence can readily be explained using only natural means. No supernatural elements are needed. Why invent them?

What supernatural elements am I inventing? I have NEVER – not even once suggested anything approximating ‘supernatural’ – I’d suggest this is per your subjective ‘reality’, not mine.

Let’s get this right, now. You are attempting to invent robots with ‘emotions’ and ‘intelligence’, but I am inventing nothing whatsoever. Rather I am trying to explore core creative essences that already exist – in all of us - long before I was an itch in my father's groin!

Or are you perhaps suggesting that Intelligence and emotions have somehow become my invention? If so, please prove it so I can claim all the royalties that are owed me for all the intelligent thoughts throughout history - becoming the wealthiest man who ever lived.

The English language apparently does not have enough adjectives for a Reject to convey this, so – again and again and again; I have only ever proclaimed natural, observable, consistently verifiable, manifest, self-evident - although unrecognised due to a generic subjectivity occasioning (an overall) inverted reasoning.

A relevant side note; subjectivity pervades the mentality of all of us, at least until such time we consciously step back in challenge of such natural perception - perhaps during an epiphanal moment.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I believe the sheer complexity of this evolved system creates the illusion of free will. Our decisions are inextricably influenced by our experiences since birth and any genetic predispositions or framework we might have. I cannot think of any decision that could be made without the influence of past experiences.

Really? How about the fireman who enters a house aflame, in order to rescue a child or even cat? How about a soldier who chooses to throw himself onto an activated hand grenade to insulate his fellow soldiers, or a factory worker who chooses to plunge his hand into an industrial mincing machine in order to receive financial compensation? Media accounts would indicate all have eventuated, yet I would suggest every parameter; including past experience and genetic predisposition, to demand an alternative (intuitive) choice to action.

So how does your ‘illusion of free will’, and for good measure 'physical reality - evolution', explain such impulsive, disproportionate and patently counter-intuitive actions?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

You become who you are and think what you think as a result of the processes as given above.

More inverted reasoning. We (conversely) become who we are, predominantly through our choices – all of them to that point. We think what we think largely as a result of who we are, which in turn gives rise to our emotions of any moment, and we therefore make our choices at that moment, from this (emotions) platform.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Could suicide bombers that are the product of life-long brainwashing really be blamed for being brainwashed? They have been subjected to stimuli that are designed to produce a personality that is capable of a particular, normally counter intuitive, action. They don't really have a choice in the matter, since they are effectively incapable of not being suicide bombers.

Whilst a suicide bomber’s ‘brainwashing’ may be to some degree out of his control, he still makes choice to follow through (or not) with the expectations of his leader – particularly after his brain has developed and connected to the point of providing adequate discernment over such choice. Clearly, this becomes more cloudy (and evil) an issue with such as younger, more immature mentality - strangely being why the warlords of 'humanity' have always aimed their evil sights in such direction.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Similarly, every single one of us are essentially brainwashed from birth by our experiences.

I’m sure you meant to type another term for ‘brainwashed’, at least I am hoping you did.

Indeed it can be argued that we are all changed, and sometimes even ‘manipulated’ to some extent by our experiences, but I doubt you intend to suggest that every person (if two exist) who receives identical experiences, are destined to make identical choices throughout their lives.

Secondly, the concept of brainwashing infers an outcome arising from an ongoing single purpose, so please define how all parents who ever lived, as well as everyone else in any position of influence, have displayed a singular purpose for every child ever born - whilst acknowledging a different purpose and outcome for each? That would be another extremely interesting explanation, I would suggest.

Third, and regarless of all the above; the vast majority of our experiences throughout our lives, come our way via our choices, in contradiction to your converse ‘brainwashed’ model.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

A lot of people come up with the argument of "this guy did it, why can't that guy do the same" as justification for blame, but no two people's experiences and genetics are the same. Essentially, given the exact same set of circumstances, the resulting individual will always turn out exactly the same. Any decision that is made could only ever have gone one way given the exact same set of circumstances. Where does free will enter into it if this is true?

Free will entered ‘into it’ long before your father’s sperm secured a ticket to your mother’s birthday party. They (your parents) indeed began the process via their physical action of free will – with you being the worthy and respectable result.

So in conclusion, I now ask - how could the awesome result of the party, preclude the existence of the party?

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

I have been wondering again....

We get angry, and feel it is right to be angry, at people who behave in stupid ways. In such context, calling somebody an idiot is more or less the ultimate criticism.

At the same time, we show (or at least we know that we ought to show) kindness, patience and understanding to people with medically identifiable mental handicaps. Which include idiocy.

Could it be that, besides the mental conditions for which the sufferers cannot be blamed, there exists a kind of stupidity that occurs through a person's own fault?

I believe the reason we tolerate the one group over the other is, their hearts are in the right place. "Heart" is a necessarily elusive concept. We know it implicitly.

Perhaps the reason we're afraid to dissect this heart is that it's really one heart we all share, and it's alive.

Originally Posted by Pong

I believe the reason we tolerate the one group over the other is, their hearts are in the right place. "Heart" is a necessarily elusive concept. We know it implicitly.

Perhaps the reason we're afraid to dissect this heart is that it's really one heart we all share, and it's alive.

Whilst it would be too easy to take the cynical and narcissistic slew so often favoured by some (obvious) of this forum; perhaps we can first note the inconsistencies in the above, and from there; effectively make a progressive discussion of it.

Whilst one would expect the contradiction between "an elusive concept" concomitant with "implicitly known" - similar to a “non-existent reality”, to suggest antithesis - failing a concordance even within itself, and therefore requiring of some serious explanation???

Far more essentially however; for our purposes, the concept of ‘heart’ can generally be either;

(A.) The physical, and therefore scientifically observable corporeality – that is; the beating muscular organ within the chest cavity. Or;
(B.) According the mystical; in some manner non-physical definition, and considered outside the spectrum of; scientifically observable – therefore (as suggested) founded upon a faith based perception.

However the weighty dilemma into which this forum seems to be sliding, is that emotions do not at all fall under any known religious banner of ‘faith’. For regardless of the observation (please prove me wrong) that science has no way to observe/prove/disprove/measure/quantify or even qualify any, much less all emotions, the same nonetheless emerge from within our very corporeality, and per a great degree; present to every human being who ever lived; certainly underpinning every choice - whether religious or otherwise, made under his/her respective administration.

So if the human mantra exists and the pivotal essence of this existence is indeed his choices, then the controlling input underlying those very choices, is a long way from being inconsequential or inapropos, but are contrarily; quintessential and genetic! So I would suggest science very much owes it to itself and everyone else on the planet, to now GET REAL, and come to terms with this controlling essence.

As his reference would suggest, Pong's focus is upon the latter (B.) interpretation, and beyond. For his definition relies upon that common mystical ‘heart’ – according the intrinsic emotions of an individual, yet he takes this perspective one step further, by extrapolating it as a ‘universal’ essence. I would suggest this to be a particularly difficult stance to maintain, particularly on a consistent basis - for it is also suggestive of an extrinsic dimension to our entirely intrinsic emotions, which in turn; renders the argument unsustainable.

As previously suggested by other worthy contributors – unless it can be shown otherwise, such perspectives are clearly outside the parameters of ‘scientific observation’. Furthermore; simple observation would concur with this, for there is nothing which would suggest all events or concepts, to produce a similar, much less ‘universal heart’ – ie. emotional response - for the very reason that emotions are entirely intrinsic!

Whilst noting the courage of Kalster, in taking this serious dilemma between the teeth rather than, like so many others seeking a degradation to ridicule or inconsequence, it really must be noted, that the second (antithetical) genetic essence into the choices that surely underpin everything that humanity is at any point, is even less of an enigma, less ‘unknown’, less unobservable, less unqualifiable, less irrelevant, less unscientific – for a whole plethora of reasons.

So INTELLIGENCE is also a core genetic input (the second) into every individual's every choice to action, and as a result remains the quintessential definition of humanity itself, yet is a very different CORE ESSENCE - in that it is infinitely more essential, profoundly more verifiable, certainly more consistent and undeniably more scientific - once we correctly define this genetic essence along scientific lines.

The question remains however - will we indeed manage to maintain a resolve to explore such self-evident realities under scientific guidelines, rather than further slide into the quagmire of misunderstanding and denial, that looks a little too eeeeerily like religious fear and it’s ancillary indoctrination?

Go get an education instead of just making shit up. It will certainly benefit us, it may even benefit you.

At the very least learn how to condense your thoughts into concise, yet comprehensive utterances. The flowery, touch-feely, allegedly concrete, yet wholly ephermeral hogwash you spout delivers nothing and inspires contempt.

Be brief. Spear the heart of the concept. Eschew obfuscation.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Go get an education instead of just making shit up.

How surprising – more sniper activity! Bertrand Russel wrote; “Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education.”

Ok, let’s just see if a perfectly (as much as an uneducated shit-maker can manage at least) concise approach, using as simplistic a terminology as possible satisfies, although it must be noted - for the likes of the brigade of obtuse nit-pickers; such result would be highly unlikely. Even so, perhaps it is valid to define all this in a more simplified point form, such;

1. The emotions of an individual are very often expressed in accordance with his/her “heart” – being Pong’s reference to which my reply was initially directed.

2. These emotions; in and of themselves, have no discernable physicality.

3. Despite this, emotions emerge entirely from within the human physicality - the body - flesh and bone.

4. As a result of 2., it is virtually impossible to scientifically isolate, measure, or otherwise identify/verify emotions.

5. As a result of 3. and 4., emotions – even though they surely present as extant and powerful on an individual basis, appear to be essentially discounted - disregarded by science, as if non-existent.

6. In such disregard, emotions seem to be often equated to religious ‘faith’, and not worthy of investigation – until perhaps someone suffers depression or becomes suicidal.

7. Science predominantly explores existence via the realm and parameters of what is physical - corporeal.

8. Scientific definition will often explain that anything outside the realm of “existence” - therefore the non-existent realm, as “mythical”, with little between.

9. As emotions have no discernable physicality, they do indeed represent another realm of definition, however ‘mythical’ is clearly not appropriate.

10. Therefore I would suggest the term ‘spiritual’ applies adequately, and would further maintain this definition to be authentic. Regardless;

11. As emotions emerge from our physicality, they in turn present an impulse into our consciousness which in turn offers a selection to action – one of two core inputs - "B." - underlying each and every choice ever made.

12. This processing is incredibly harmonious with that of a computer – both having a binary (double opposing) code – 'A' and 'B' or 'On'/'Off'; being the identical selection from which to make choice at every step along the pathway towards the completion of any and every chosen task.

13. The second core input "A" into this (human) binary code, is via INTELLIGENCE.

14. So every choice and sub-choice along the pathway towards completion of any given task, is made from between these same two selections - emotions and Intellect - "A" and "B", yet always representing the mentality/reasoning towards the action, as being processed at that moment.

15. The result of every choice to action is as a (very often imperceptible) step along the road of evolution - of that particular individual.

16. Therefore from one moment to the next, we are all, incrementally evolving - towards our termination/destination.

17. Most of the intermediate steps (choices) between commencement and completion of any task, are made via a 'default' setting - as programmed much earlier in the process.

18. Even though these two (binary) core inputs underpinning our every choice might appear to be quite similar, they are in fact, by every definition apart from one; opposing, for they are both ‘spiritual’ – ie. they neither belong in the physical realm nor the mythical – but the rather the intermediate 'SPIRITUAL'.

19. Perhaps the main differences between the two are; emotions are essentially conceptual, whilst Intellect is factual, emotions are subjective - Intellect objective, emotions are sourced intrinsically - Intellect extrinsically, emotions negative - Intellect positive, emotions about death – Intellect about life.

Note: Clearly these comparisons (and more) each require further explanation.

20. There are other essences to our existence that likewise belong in this ‘spiritual realm', such as consciousness, memory, affection and relationship between individuals. Of course, everything else in this realm refers back to the very same two genetic core inputs - 'A' and 'B' - Intelligence and emotions - Life and death.

21. Religion has spent 2000 years and more convoluting all the above along the lines of myth and doctrine – placing it outside the parameters of the recognisable, however the basics are patently self-evident - particularly now we have the computer model from which to draw reference.

**The above could perhaps be extended another 20 or 30 details, however I’m not naïve enough to expect nit-pickers to be satisfied with any of the above, so why extend their tribute? On the other hand, if I may now suggest; any further comments perhaps addressing an issue or two, rather than the nugatory sniping about the author.

Ok that is enough. Apopohis Reject: Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are talking crap. My explanation for my assessment of your mental diarrhoea and incessant wining about being persecuted will have to wait for tomorrow, but rest assured, it is coming. I can understand you are trying to figure something important out and are taking this seriously, but at every turn where someone vehemently disagrees with you or your inability to be coherent while using overly complicated language (I am no dummy) you stomp your feet and moan about being picked on. Get over it and try to make sense. Many of these people have been here for a long time and have been communicating quite comfortably the whole time. Maybe consider for a second that the problem lies with you?

To be continued.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Ok that is enough. Apopohis Reject: Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are talking crap. My explanation for my assessment of your mental diarrhoea and incessant wining about being persecuted will have to wait for tomorrow, but rest assured, it is coming. I can understand you are trying to figure something important out and are taking this seriously, but at every turn where someone vehemently disagrees with you or your inability to be coherent while using overly complicated language (I am no dummy) you stomp your feet and moan about being picked on. Get over it and try to make sense. Many of these people have been here for a long time and have been communicating quite comfortably the whole time. Maybe consider for a second that the problem lies with you?

To be continued.

If I didn't know better, I'd suspect a baiting!

Truly, I'm more than happy to communicate in whatever manner is deemed appropriate for forum discourse. But why in your opinion, would it be wrong/inappropriate to request for any responses to be directed towards an issue or two rather than the incessant diarrhoea and wining about the author? I mean, if it wasn't flung my direction in the first instance, I would not have cause to be mentioning it, now would I?

And you wouldn't, in turn be required to warn me - as if no-one else notices, huh?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Maybe consider for a second that the problem lies with you?

Oh the problem certainly lies with me, yet contrary to the charges, I have invented nothing - at least, that I can recognise. Ultimately, all I have presented here, is a WITNESS to the way things are - but if I’m incorrect on any issue above, or if it's all "crap" - please; one of the more educated amongst this community correct it by honestly (this time) explaining where I am mistaken, rather than salaciously attacking my writing style.

That would seem a simple enough objective if all my observations are crap, would it not?

Hey, when I commenced upon this, I didn’t have any inkling such recognition of the obvious is where it would lead. Is it now to be considered my fault that no-one seems to have previously taken a similar step back into objective air, in order to recognise such plain realities of us all? For mine this is one of those cases where folk have generally taken the OBVIOUS for granted. That’s right – this is largely all about the palpable, manifest, so the real question perhaps should be why hasn’t it been recognised previously? My answer would be – because we have all been making the same small but fundamental error, which has had the generic ripple-effect of turning our perception on its ear – virtually inverting our reasoning in this regard.

So the question may be asked - how could a minor miscalculation create such a major ripple effect? The answer is because it is a genetic (core) miscalculation – commencing with our perception of who we are in the midst of existence. We have forever individually placed virtually all our regard as well as efforts in the satisfying of ‘my’ emotional demands upon ‘me’, as if they are ‘my’ master. Yet once we take a step back in a dispassionate and objective look at the overall picture of existence, we will soon enough recognise that human emotions have not given humanity one solid benefit in all our history – apart from perhaps a continuation of the species to this point.

It is rather; the opposing genetic core (of the human binary code) input that we, have effectively disregarded in our personal hierarchical order, which is singularly responsible for our every advancement throughout human history. Think about it for a minute – have we invented such things as bridges spanning great divides, 100 storey office blocks and space shuttles primarily on the back of a feel-good to achieve such feats?

Such a suggestion is highly offensive, for it is again - SELF EVIDENT that none of the above could ever have been conceived, much less realised without man employing his INTELLIGENCE. Sure he might have had a desire (emotions) to develop a way to (for instance) escape the earth’s atmosphere, and that may well have been the catalyst, but a catalyst is an entirely useless intermediary if there is no ACTUAL commodity for its effect and result for its promotion.

Come now. You, the reader are more than likely considered an INTELLIGENT member of the world’s community, so why should you be offended by any suggestion that it is your Intellect that is superior to your emotions, and should be respected in such manner? On the other hand, would you be content to be considered ‘emotional’ – numbered perhaps amongst those who have been so controlled by their emotional slave-master that they now fill penitentiaries and form cues at the door of the local drug dealer?

Truly, would you rather be remembered as an intellectual who used his available capabilities to develop a new drug towards curing the common cold, or an emotional basket-case addict who used the stuff to wipe himself out?

Surely we all have both within us – the core genetic input ’A’ – INTELLIGENCE, and the core genetic input ’B’ – emotions. We indeed have and are the result of both, yet the question is; which are we choosing to honour and serve? You might be surprised to realise that the answer to this question is pre-destined as a ‘default’ (to B - emotions) into our human consciousness, which is an order – a primary default setting I strongly suspect can be accessed and switched - by choice; yet only via an informed choice to do so.

However, we need to become informed in the first instance - prior to making any such primary conversion.

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

I have been wondering again....

We get angry, and feel it is right to be angry, at people who behave in stupid ways. In such context, calling somebody an idiot is more or less the ultimate criticism.

At the same time, we show (or at least we know that we ought to show) kindness, patience and understanding to people with medically identifiable mental handicaps. Which include idiocy.

Could it be that, besides the mental conditions for which the sufferers cannot be blamed, there exists a kind of stupidity that occurs through a person's own fault?

Some of us (saying that, because there are people, who doesn't care about others, or some others) feel patience and understanding for VERY stupid people (with idiocy for example), people who are named. However, if we meed some guy (mostly 9.99/10 persons around here), who is just stupid, just a member of the general public with an IQ of ~80 (no offense anyone), we get angry, because he is not named, and he is not THAT stupid, he can tie his shoes, he's even capable of remembering stuff and understanding, that that tree is not talking to him...

I get angry at people almost every damn day, but I am a calm person and I don't show that most of the time. Just because they don't understand something, what seems perfectly logical to me, or just because they don't know what you are talking about because of a complex word, or because he doesn't think you added something to a thing you were just talking...

I must say that this exchange is getting tiring. Not so much because of the subject matter, but because any response requires an extensive backtracking to recapture the gist of it.

As your participation in this subforum has continued, you have created the distinct impression in the minds of quite a few of our most established and respected members that your musings and conclusions have taken a distinctive religious hue. This has largely come from exhibitions of confirmation bias (which you deny), the ying and yang characterisations of emotion and intellect, and references to spiritual or "extrinsic" realities.

My chief concern during all of this has been your use of the word "spiritual", which on a second reading you seem to have essentially changed the meaning of, if to a somewhat confusing one. For instance:

1. Unlike our emotions, Intelligence does NOT have an inbuilt time frame, nor terminal quality about it.

2. Once we commence our investigation upon a consistently verifiable scientific platform, it becomes clear - Intelligence is not only superior by every definition [apart from our default choice], but is clearly extant AND INTELLIGENT; with the evidence in great profusion everywhere we care to look.

3. Unlike our emotions, our Intellect does NOT emerge from within our personal earthly flesh, but rather from without – through our personal ‘Heaven’, being our conscious or sub-conscious mentality.

4. Even though our Intellect in comparison to our emotions, is infinitely more genuine and superior, it (more correctly 'He') effectively submits to the support role in deference to our (maternal) emotions – whilst such continues as our default choice. Our biggest problem however, being that we are generically unaware that we have an alternative choice available to us, so mostly continue as subservient to an unforgiving non-entity slavemaster for the duration of our days.

5. Quite obviously then, we each present as both 'Heaven' and 'Earth' - Mind and Body - Spiritual and Physical - Archetype and Type - Life and Death - Yah and Weh; and upon such prevailing basic definitions, are our constantly recurring options per choice - A. and B. based.

None of this (nor most of the post it was found in) strikes me as scientific in any way and can only be described as philosophical at best, religious in a negative way and complete gibberish at the least.

Take point one. In what possible way could intelligence be described as eternal in exclusion of emotion? When you die, your intelligence vanishes along with your emotions and personality and along with everything else that might have been called "you" at some point. No explanation of your concept of intelligence has given any scientific reason to consider it as special in some way.

Point two is just confusing. Are you saying intelligence is in some way intelligent itself? Because how on earth could that statement be considered as anything other than religious?

Point 3: This seams to be the main false premise from where you build your ideas. See, I don't quite understand how you could see intelligence as being separate or external to the flesh in a way other than would be the case for emotions as well. Our subjective experience of consciousness, our thinking processes and our conscious processing of information is a process that is wholly grounded in the physical. These processes are emergent of the patterns of variation in the physical brain and exists as patterns of energy transfer. This means that if you make an exact physical copy of a person, then you would have exactly the same person, with the same faculties of intelligence and the same set of associative emotions, until differing experiences of environment start to drive them to diverge.

These patterns of energy are objectively real in every sense of the word. They are real in a full scientific sense and indeed are studied intensely. Intelligence and emotion are faculties that have evolved and direct analogues of them exist in other animals. Are you familiar with the field of evolutionary psychology? Animal psychology? A casual reading of the relevant Wiki pages or other descriptions of the field would make it patently clear that our faculties of intelligence or emotion are only unique in scope. A casual reading of the mountains of scientific research being done on emotion, intelligence and behaviour should surely be sufficient to convince you of how seriously it is taken by science. How you can describe science's take on emotion as: "emotions – even though they surely present as extant and powerful on an individual basis, appear to be essentially discounted - disregarded by science, as if non-existent." is beyond me and forces me to think that you have not read much about it or something. I have no idea how you could say such a thing, hence my description of a lot of your utterings as "crap".

Emotions have evolved as a driver for our behaviour and is inescapable, essential and positively integral to our experience of the human condition. You say that emotions have only ensured our survival up to this point? Well, surely that points towards the HUGE importance of emotion, wouldn't you say? Just because we live in a slightly more modern word does not suddenly diminish the importance of emotion. You can make a very strong case for the benefits of giving our intelligence a bigger role in our decision making, and I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but to assign such an overwhelmingly powerful role to intelligence is more than slightly naive I must say. Do you have a fantasy of becoming like a Vulcan one day?

Your entire physical self belongs to you, because your physical self represents the whole of you. Not only your mind and brain, but your whole body exists "merely" as a pattern of elements and energy transfer. When the pattern dissolves, so do you. When you come into contact with a piece of knowledge or a concept, you form an approximated copy of it, a physical copy in the form of a pattern. These patterns are then stored as bits of information with associations attached to them based on the now developed interpretative toolbox you have that have developed due to life experience. When you recall this information, be it concepts, images, complex emotions, you reinterpret these bits of information and reconstruct them into an interpreted copy of the original by using these inbuilt faculties of association. It does this in much the same way that a program interprets a pattern of 1s and 0s off of a CD and presents it as an image, music or concepts. The analogue between these processes in our brains and in a computer is direct. Nothing external need exist.

Points 4 and 5 shows again how you digress into matters of philosophy. Do emotions play a very strong role and even dominant role in the decision making processes of the vast majority of humanity? I think so. Should we endeavour to increase the role intelligence play in our decision making processes? Most certainly. But should we endeavour to make intelligence or logic the fiercely dominant element in our decision making process to the virtual exclusion of emotion? Most certainly NOT. Don't you want to enjoy life? Don't you want to make decisions that are appropriately geared towards an emotional reward? Our willingness to live in this world and make it a better place is entirely contingent on a strong emotional element. What would drive us if not for emotion?

As a last point, the term "spiritual" should be kept to mean what it is supposed to mean, which is something that is non-physical (whatever the religious think that means), i.e. not space, matter or energy; something supernatural. Patterns of space, matter or energy are in fact still physical. "Spiritual" is often used to describe the experience of a feeling of intense wonderment or a flood of emotion. I have no problem with that though.

So, again, if you want to continue to discuss these issues of personal philosophy, then this subforum is not the place to do it in.

Initially, I regret a failure to recognise your reference to becoming a 'Vulcan one day', however one of your signatures suggests;

Originally Posted by Harry

All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it. – Harry Block”

and yet you seemingly struggle to recognise the incongruity with your statement;

Originally Posted by KALSTER

“When you die, your intelligence vanishes along with your emotions and personality and along with everything else that might have been called "you" at some point.”

Now if I were to assess which of the above two discordant statements were more astute, I would have to side with Harry, yet I’m guessing you don’t quite recognise the contradiction between the two. As mentioned previously; you certainly are not to be solely blamed, yet perhaps the remainder of this post will help clarify this and your other issues to some extent - if it isn't gibberish, that is.

I keep referencing the following and describing it, but you and others seem to continue a failure to recognise it, yet I take some of the blame here, for I am finding it a somewhat complex issue to define in a manner that doesn’t satisfy nugatory snipers who yearn towards inflamation with helpful terms such as ‘gibberish’ and 'shit'.

Our Intelligence clearly deals ONLY with the truth, for the two are exclusively convergent, so our emotions can only relate to this coupling from a position external to this indestructible bond - which must be the case, for again and again - emotions are intrinsic but Intelligence is extrinsic – each derived from two separate domains - remote from each other!

Additionally, this obvious separation and conflict is essential, for unlike your premise, upon our demise ONLY emotions vanish along with the flesh; or more correctly; the life within our (portion of) earth – for our 'flesh’ is constituted of the two. So contrary to your proclamation, our Intelligence CANNOT by definition ‘vanish’ for a whole raft of fundamentals, yet the core of this generic misapprehension being; we have never really appreciated what be ‘INTELLIGENCE’, much less it’s inherent nature.

A. Unlike our emotions at any moment, Intelligence is certainly NOT subjective to any degree. Indeed emotions are all about the intrinsic and personal, therefore subjective and erratic and terminal – for that is precisely what they are. However Intelligence is NONE of the above – being conversely;

1. Entirely objective – about the raw truth of existence. Once any subjectivity enters the picture frame of our reasoning, Intelligence has immediately been compromised and therefore usurped by our emotional perspective (of that moment).

2. 'My’ Intelligence (or portion thereof) never belonged to ‘me’ in the first instance, so by definition CANNOT be personal. Please consider for a minute the stuff of Intelligence (eg.) – two apples in my left hand and two apples in my right hand – inevitably means I am holding four apples. This is a pure fact of Intelligence that commenced not with the introduction of my hands, the development of my consciousness, the planet's season of growth, my appreciation or application of this dynamic, or whether or not I feel kindly towards it. Nor will any of it ‘vanish’ with my last breath. This immutable fact will remain a reality for eternity. For by definition; there can exist no time limitation whatsoever, on this or any portion of Intelligence.

Likewise there is no time limit on the following (second) example of objective Intelligence (all Intelligence being objective); you (KALSTER) personally (presumably via computer and internet at around 9:30am - according the site time stamp) on Saturday 6th. November 2010, posted your previous observations on thescienceforum.com. This piece of fact will likewise endure for as long as the universe exists – long after your final breath and this relevant site has ceased operation [apologies to (In)Sanity] – indeed, even after the planet has vanished.

Such facts are now part of the universal and eternal domain of INTELLIGENCE and are not (and will never be) contingent upon my approval, nor warmth nor agreement with it, nor even awareness, nor that of anyone else – for they are again - an objective perpetual reality of existence, which again - is exclusively equitable with ‘Intelligence’ - alone, which again is in direct contradiction with any and all emotions.

3. Therefore in distinct contradiction to my erratic (subjective) emotions which will surely cease with my last breath, my (portion of) Intelligence, is entirely stable for eternity – unshakable by the very definition of the term, and does not so much as depend upon my physical existence or awareness! So as for Intelligence, and yet another contradiction to transient emotions - time itself clearly does NOT even exist.

B. So again, ALL Intelligence is objective, extrinsically sourced, and by it’s very nature; regardless whether such words are used for religious purposes; ETERNAL - for it will all, forever remain unchallenged - yes even after the cessation of apples, thescienceforum.com, KALSTER and indeed the planet upon which we all exist.

In combination of the above then, it becomes patently obvious that Intelligence and Emotions are very different quintessential inputs supporting our awareness and therefore both underlying our consciousness; even conspicuously opposing elements, both emerging within each of us yet from entirely contradictory sources/realms.

However, only one of this double core (living binary code) input, is eternal and superior.

So for mine Harry Block’s observation is extremely astute; for all truth is the same for every one of us and for eternity, and therefore anyone who wishes to discover any portion whatsoever of truth; will indeed find exactly the same details as the next guy – for it is all entirely objective and immutable, however we all manage, or more correctly choose to distort it from the moment we introduce subjectivity into the picture through our consciousness, which invariably includes our (erratic) emotions.

I now have to admit a struggle in appreciating your ‘extrinsic realities’ reference, yet as per your chief concern, according the word ‘spiritual’; I would firstly note that the term is used widely, both in a religious and general (non-religious) context for varying purposes, yet my reference has always been far more closely aligned with the latter. So even though mine has certainly been a growth in awareness, your assumption is incorrect for I certainly have never changed my ‘meaning’ except in minor details pertaining to this growing appreciation.

Whichever reference (outside the religious) one might envisage the term ‘spirit/ual’ being used, it (as you note) generally refers to an emotional experience such as a particularly beautiful sunset or an apparently sudden realisation coming as it were; from ‘out of the blue’, which may invoke intrinsic sensations of excessive beauty and/or a sense of peace that all is right with the world. Ultimately though, this ‘spiritual’ sensation is entirely internal, therefore isolated and faithful to the personal emergent emotions of that moment, which likewise is my application of the term.

Where you likely feel alarmed (rightly I might add), is when I separate this ‘emotions’ concept from ‘my’ Intelligence, which indeed makes sense – as long as your perception of Intelligence – as your definition suggests, is likewise intrinsic, subjective and terminal. However my friend, clearly NONE of these definitions have ever applied!

Certainly particular portions of the universal, eternal Intelligence (yes I admit all that sounds religious) are tolerated for an interval within our individualistic mentality/consciousness, however upon closer investigation; our emotions are constantly labouring to usurp such unshakable realities, contaminating them for our attention along the lines of subjectivity, in favour of perhaps; how we ‘feel’ about it/them at any moment. This in turn also makes perfect sense, for any objective stable fact – being extrinsic in nature, surely presents as an unwelcome intruder into the entirely erratic realm of our intrinsic subjective and unstable realm - of 'self'.

Moreover, as long as we consider self as ‘mine’ – as such would indicate;

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Your entire physical self belongs to you, because your physical self represents the whole of you.

well ......... such inverted confusion will continue as the standard.

So indeed the subjective and transient personal realm cannot enduringly tolerate the objective, unshakeable and non-personal, and as noted at the outset – the latter will be required to be entirely rejected by that moment of our last breath, for death itself is not only exclusively personal and transient, but I suggest; is only a factual and intelligent event from a remote, objective position.

So right up until the moment just prior to death, our consciousness becomes an increasingly personal, terminal reality, yet the very next moment, the same event transitions to an entirely impersonal fact of eternal dimension. So at that instant, the totally subjective becomes totally objective; when the pure emotions terminate and are replaced with an equally pure interminable Intelligence – ushering a new piece of timeless fact into the fold of all the other INTELLIGENCE that ever IS!

And another penny drops. It appears that your use of the word intelligence is incompatible with mine and the rest of the thinking community, because you are using it as a term that describes something different again.

What you have been relating by using the word intelligence, in a thoroughly confusing manner I might add and sufficiently so that nobody has been able to make heads nor tales of it, it seems was in fact the, as you would put it, "extrinsic" or objective existence of LOGIC and the LAWS OF NATURE.

In fact, our intelligence (and that of other animals) is the genetic and experientially derived faculty of trying to make sense of our surroundings by being able to predict the outcomes of actions. Our intelligence (the rest of the world's definition of it) is our faculty for understanding INTELLIGENCE (your definition of the word, meaning logic and natural laws). See the problem? Don't you find your signature ironic now?

*to be continued.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

See the problem?

Indeed I see the problem – as I have from the outset! For regardless of the reasoning behind the generic perspective of "the rest of the thinking community", I have stood precisely upon the same ladder as yourself right now – well ...... admittedly at perhaps a less ‘educated’ rung! Yet my appreciation of these core realities of human existence was basically in accordance with yours as it presently stands, for such is unquestionably the generic perspective - as adopted from birth and through thousands of years of religious indoctrination.

On the other hand and without any hint of arrogance; you have NEVER stood where I am, and believe it or not, this effectively defines the ‘problem’.

You suggest that my use of the term ‘Intelligence’ would initially equate with ‘Logic’ – an “extrinsic” or objective existence, yet again this is wanting.

1. Whilst logic would indeed suggest an affinity with Intelligence, it is a passive outcome rather than an active contributor.

2. I would define logic/al as an intrinsic striving rather than an extrinsic anything.

3. Logic would be an entirely human faculty of reasoning, or more correctly - a relative quality of such. Whenever one reasons, he is necessarily selecting a mixture of the two living binary inputs into that reasoning. More input ‘A’ (Intelligence), and a more logical result is achieved. Extra input ‘B’, and a relatively emotional outcome.

Please now imagine a continuum – 1 to 10, being representative of all my choices ever made. Every particular choice will sit somewhere along this continuum between 1 (entirely ‘A’; Intelligent), and 10 (totally ‘B’; emotional). ‘Logical’ would place around 2-4, with perhaps ‘excited’ or ‘volatile’ around 7-9. Every resultant choice to action then, will inevitably be a child of my selected mixture of its respective parents ‘A’ and ‘B’. So by definition, ‘logic/al’ would merely place the choice and subsequent action closer to the ‘A’ end of this spectrum, with perhaps the opposing extremity suggesting ‘passionate’ or ‘fanatical’.

Note; For mine, no choice or its respective action, can sit entirely at either extremity.

4. As you have likely recognised, emotions can only be intrinsic. On the other hand, whilst Intelligence is fundamentally extrinsic by nature (per your observation), for adopted portions thereof; it must also emerge intrinsically - presenting 'A' per our living binary code towards reasoning. Even so, it must always remain objective and by definition; inimical.

Your reference to the ‘LAWS OF NATURE’, provided I adequately understand the context, would again be insufficient, for I would initially expect ‘LAWS’ to be an outflow from Intelligence rather than INTELLIGENCE itself. However I am already cognisant of this being too vague an explanation – similar in mark to your attempt to elucidate ‘the rest of the world’s version’ of Intelligence.

Now please if you will, imagine you have taken it upon yourself to scientifically explain the colour yellow to me – a man blind from birth. You might sense the (virtual) futility in such labour, however in this instance it is you who has been suffering a (universal) birth defect, yet I am attempting to explore an obviously more complex and far less universal perception than any colour – whilst enduring a heckling for my efforts.

So whilst I can deal with the heckling, when next you again seek comfort via the repeated observation, such as (my)

Originally Posted by KALSTER

thoroughly confusing manner I might add and sufficiently so that nobody has been able to make heads nor tales of it

you might take pause to consider the relative value of such qualities as empathy and affinity, perhaps in the stead of censure and indifference.

If not, I will deal with that outcome.

I find trouble in the fact that you have attempted to separate emotion from intelligence. I believe that the separation of the two is a total falsehood and wishful thinking at best.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

I find trouble in the fact that you have attempted to separate emotion from intelligence. I believe that the separation of the two is a total falsehood and wishful thinking at best.

So I guess you see no separation between (let’s say) a choice to design and construct a new truck, and another choice to steal that truck, fill it with explosives and attempt to indiscriminately blow away as many people as possible, huh?

Some folk might see the divide between these two choices, as a comparison between ‘Intelligent’ and ‘emotional’, so how would you now explain their expectation as a falsehood?

A wrongful accusation. Of course I see the difference between the two scenarios. What I do not recognize is the attempt to polarize choices between intelligence and emotion. They are not separate, with the exception of clinical psychopaths.

Study shows that every choice you make has an emotional component. This has been recorded in physiological terms as neural activity taking place running through the Limbic system, with the exception of clinical psychopaths, in whose brains the Limbic system is bypassed (hence their living experience excludes emotion altogether and they cannot make a choice with any emotional component in it).

Intelligence is comprised of a wide variety of factors, emotion is one of them. It cannot be separated from intelligence.

The two choices you presented to me both contain strong elements of emotion.

There exists a select, arrogant group that holds the notion that emotion has no place in logical decisions, and these people strive to eliminate it from every choice they make. What they do not realize is that they have not eliminated emotion from their choices. Rather, they have blinded themselves to its influence. They have become deluded by their own wishful thinking. These people also think they can casually have sex with someone without getting attached, yet an outsider can see the effects of strong emotional elements in their decisions. Also, documented evidence to date suggests attachment forms from sexual activity by an unavoidable, chemical mechanism.

The separation of intelligence and emotion is wishful thinking, and impossible for a healthy individual to achieve. [/i]

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

The separation of intelligence and emotion is wishful thinking, and impossible for a healthy individual to achieve.

Still, you can wrap that kind of man 'round your finger, because he needs you, more than he knows.

Must individuals be autonomous, to be "healthy"? How about mutually supportive relationships?

I was asserting "healthy" in the sense that the Limbic system is not bypassed.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Study shows that every choice you make has an emotional component. This has been recorded in physiological terms as neural activity taking place running through the Limbic system, with the exception of clinical psychopaths, in whose brains the Limbic system is bypassed (hence their living experience excludes emotion altogether and they cannot make a choice with any emotional component in it).

There exists a select, arrogant group that holds the notion that emotion has no place in logical decisions, and these people strive to eliminate it from every choice they make. What they do not realize is that they have not eliminated emotion from their choices. Rather, they have blinded themselves to its influence. They have become deluded by their own wishful thinking. These people also think they can casually have sex with someone without getting attached, yet an outsider can see the effects of strong emotional elements in their decisions. Also, documented evidence to date suggests attachment forms from sexual activity by an unavoidable, chemical mechanism.

The separation of intelligence and emotion is wishful thinking, and impossible for a healthy individual to achieve. [/i]

I agree. I recently read a study about people who had lobectomies or brain injuries and were emotionally stunted by it (i think it was frontal lobe injuries though, not limbic). They were unable to make decisions, even as simple as what to have for breakfast, without long deliberation and much angst. I will try to find it out if you're interested. It would seem to support your position.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

A wrongful accusation

Whilst it is true that accusations, denigrations, sniper diarrhoea and insults are much too often thrown about on this forum like confetti at a funeral, on this occasion you appear to have mistaken a question for such. You will shortly notice another question or two, yet in the spirit of healthy discussion; still no accusations.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

What I do not recognize is the attempt to polarize choices between intelligence and emotion.

So let me get this right – you have never acted upon a choice in perhaps ‘the heat of the moment’, and later thought back and concluded you perhaps could have taken a more intelligent course of action? If your response is ‘no’, you warrant the admiration of those of us who are imperfect.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Study shows that every choice you make has an emotional component.

Whilst I have never carried out such a study, you may find that this has been my point from the get-go.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

(re. clinical psychopaths) hence their living experience excludes emotion altogether and they cannot make a choice with any emotional component in it

All choices have an emotional component to them, otherwise they would fail at fitting the definition. Additionally I would argue that a psychopath has a mental illness which will result in his choices having LESS of an intelligence component rather than your suggested converse. In the afterglow however, he will often display little or no emotion - presenting as if he was disinterested or even unaware of the action.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

The two choices you presented to me both contain strong elements of emotion.

As mentioned above, they do indeed both contain emotion, yet wouldn’t you assess one as more intelligent and the other less so, or alternatively; far more emotional? Perhaps you can explain where in the comparison, you necessarily see an equally ‘strong emotional element’ in the truck maker?

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

There exists a select, arrogant group that holds the notion that emotion has no place in logical decisions, and these people strive to eliminate it from every choice they make. What they do not realize is that they have not eliminated emotion from their choices. Rather, they have blinded themselves to its influence. They have become deluded by their own wishful thinking.

Even though it is fair to say that many thinking folk would rather they made more Intelligent/less emotional choices, the vast majority of human (and animal) actions have palpably been founded upon emotions, for by definition if I didn’t WANT to make the (whatever) choice, I simply wouldn’t. So quite obviously anyone who thinks they have or can remove emotions from their choices, are mistaken – although I haven’t myself heard of such a group.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

The separation of intelligence and emotion is wishful thinking, and impossible for a healthy individual to achieve

Perhaps you didn’t notice my note in my most recent reply to KALSTER, such;

Note; For mine, no choice or its respective action, can sit entirely at either extremity.

In any case you seem to be referring to the nature of things post the choice being made and action taken. At this stage of proceedings you are correct – there is an amalgamation set in stone as it were - both emotion and Intelligence in relative degrees, eternally conjoined through each respective choice.

Such actions per choices made, are all essential to ‘me’ at any moment along ‘my’ life’s journey, for it is on the agglomerated back of each of these respective actions that defines our personal evolution - who and what we in fact are at any point between commencement and culmination.

Even so, my focus is not so much about the closed deal, but rather upon the pre-choice scenario – the opposing double-strand input into, and underpinning each and every choice to action - the two emergent quintessential essences that underscore life itself - the living binary code which constitutes consciousness.

Looking back on that last reply to TheDr.Spo, I see a couple of responses were left seriously wanting, so this post is by way of filling in a little of the missing detail.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

What I do not recognize is the attempt to polarize choices between intelligence and emotion.

I quite appreciate your struggle to recognise the emerging perception of these underlying core dynamics. For we generally relate to ourselves in a way such as a choice being the separated starting point (of whatever each is about) and the action/s pursuant to that choice as the completion, unless of course there are some obvious consequences that subsequently, in turn need dealing with via more choices resulting from the relevant action/s.

For some reason we appear to have faltered at investigating the genetic core beyond and underpinning the choice being made - into what effectively constitutes the choice in the first instance, which would seem quite an oversight if we are ever going to satisfactorily grapple with and truly understand by far the most pivotal aspect to being a functioning human being.

Additionally there is another obvious argument that seems to be largely overlooked – that the completion of the action is NOT the end of the story any more than the momentary choice was the beginning. For again, we each present at any moment as an ever changing/evolving result of the accumulation of each and all previous choices to action.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

(re. clinical psychopaths) hence their living experience excludes emotion altogether and they cannot make a choice with any emotional component in it

If clinical psychopaths were able to bypass their emotions in some or all their choices, one would expect to witness a mentality which is far more founded upon their Intelligence quotient – with the individual at least presenting as choosing more Intelligent actions via a reduced emotional involvement. I sincerely doubt any observation, much less clinical study would accuse a psychopath of displaying a more intelligent choice of behaviour.

On the other hand, I might have thought there to be an argument about where we may see an increased Intelligence ratio into the mentality and the choices that eventuate from it – in some specific area at least, would perhaps be associated with FAS and savant syndrome, where post some brain injury, various folk subsequently discover they have a new ‘miraculous’ ability of some variety, such as suddenly being able to play piano like a concert pianist, or as immortalised in movies such as Rain Man, where Dustin Hoffman’s character had a genius ability remembering and applying numbers.

I recall watching an extremely interesting study around 5 or 6 years back, which was about a man around 25 years old, who after a head injury suddenly discovered he could paint like Picasso, even though his artistic ability prior to the injury was basic. The amazing thing about this man’s new found ability, was one of his favourite subjects was extremely detailed depictions of an Italian city – if memory serves me correctly; Verona or Naples – even though he had never been to Italy nor had any way of previously viewing the subject matter of his portraits. Amazingly the investigators would take each of his paintings to the exact locations where the details of his work could be compared with the actual scenery – and the results were precise.

In failing an attempt to locate some information on this particular investigation, I instead found these; Stephen Wiltshire , Daniel Tammet , and Alonzo Clemons

Whilst some might theorise such results as perhaps; through the injury accessing a ‘previous life’, yet I think it a far more likely conclusion that we are here witnessing previously unrecognised aspects of Intelligence itself being DIRECTLY tapped into through the physical adjustment related to the injury, and in this way the interruptions/interference to their mentality presented by their emotions, which would normally emerge into the reasoning as some aspect of fear, being largely by-passed.

The aspect I find quite amazing to consider is just how many of our choices are the result of various ‘default settings’ – sub-choices, as set up in our mentality long before the necessary respective actions were ever considered, and how most of these subsequent repetitive choices eventuate over and again, perhaps millions of times for each during the course of a normal lifetime.

We generally think along the lines that we will make a cup of coffee (seemingly a simple enough example), and will often reason this to be a single choice which may consume around two minutes of our day plus perhaps another couple to drink it and a little more time to wash up the cup and teaspoon. So a simple choice lasting perhaps around 5 minutes would appear to be a relatively common subjective conclusion.

However, appearances can indeed be exceptionally deceiving, until we consciously step back a little into objective air; indeed to witness the obvious yet compounding realities that underpin our very existence - second by second.

In this simple action, our expectation would normally be per one or two choices, however these are invariably supported by an aggregated array of sub-choices as based upon a less obvious consciousness - arguably perhaps a thousand or five over the duration of that five minute period. However, even though we are yet responsible for making each, we are virtually unaware of the subsequent action related to them, much less the vast majority of the choices that drive every one to completion.

When we break down the above experience, we will soon recognise that the chosen outcome initially involved a choice to cease the action that was a part of a previous choice. Then we have to stand up and place one foot in front of the other to get to the kettle – all of which involve separate choices to action. We then need to open and close the faucet in filling the appliance, turn on the power, seek out and position the cup, coffee, milk and sugar etc., pour, replace appliance, stir, take numerous steps back, place cup to lips a few times, return via more steps etc.

Each of these motions plus the a great many intermediate others not mentioned for brevity, subsequently in turn each require their respective choices, however in general, they are all accessed and achieved through a pattern of repetition, and therefore with a minimum of awareness. As such we can recognise the essential nature of these ‘default’ choices – being those vast array we all make, very often without recognition that we in turn made them towards the completion of our original choice.

So an action that we may have generally regarded as of one or two choices, has with just a little open-eyed awareness, now exponentially blown out to perhaps 30 to 50. Yet there is an even greater exponential factor underlying each of these respective choices – via a range of even less obvious default settings, becoming not only an increasingly complicated issue to witness, but more difficult to explain.

Consider for example the action of simply standing still. We will often relate to such as (at most) one choice – one action, however unless our mentality/consciousness was receiving perhaps hundreds of electrical impulses comprising multiple sensory inputs, encoding them, weighing them in the balance and reformulating the required calculations, then instantaneously issuing an even greater quantity of pulses in the correct degree to the precise region at the very moment each is required in order to maintain the pose and balance through an entire range of muscles – for each second our stance lasts, and consequently underpinning that choice, well ....... it simply would not be possible.

Of course, taking a simple step whilst maintaining that same balance would be an even more complicated action, yet it too is clearly and verifiably underpinned by a whole range of default settings, as instituted by the time we were (normally) around 1 or 2 years of age, and so continues for the vast remainder of our lives, provided we don’t in the meantime suffer some unfortunate interruption to the natural system.

Now someone will say that these are not in themselves choices or even sub-choices, yet I will wholeheartedly disagree with the observation that at any moment, one would have no option but to drop to the floor – ceasing whatever respective action in an instant, if our consciousness did not continue to provide the ammunition to support our choice - via a great many subsequent and supporting default choices.

Therefore a choice is not nearly as simplistic an event as we might generically imagine, for each is underpinned by perhaps thousands of default choices along the duration of it’s continuity.

It seems that your objective is to present a distorted view of my statements and subsequently attack that view. The tactic, I believe, is an argumentative fallacy called a Straw Man. Due to the prolixity of your posts, there are far too many of them that I care to correct, but I will take care to address the one that I find most important.

I claimed that a clinical psychopath does not include an emotional element in decision-making. Never did I state or even give an implication that the lack of emotional involvement would result in more intelligent choices or result in behavior founded on the intelligence quotient of the individual. You presented this notion as my converse to yours, which was never the case. My implication was that there exists an exception to the measure of intelligence being inseparable from emotional influence. I did not take a stance either way as to what what possible benefit or deficit the condition may elicit.

Furthermore, the example was meant to display the inapplicable nature of your scale which uses 'intelligent' and 'emotional' as the two poles. With the emotional element removed in the case of a psychopath, who does not recognize fear, does not show any signs of empathy and does not experience shame, guilt, remorse or sadness, your scale disintegrates. It's simply left with the 'intelligent' pole, which you deemed a no-man's-land and a counter-intuitive result for a clinical psychopath.

As a side note, I believe an earlier post argued your use of the word "intelligent" to be a bit at odds with general acceptance of the word's use. It is quite likely that my qualms have sprung from the misuse of the word "intelligent". May I offer a more clear word? Logical, perhaps? Calculated, maybe? Or, a variant or combination of words of the sort would be better suited for your theory. However, I am not implying that 'emotional' should remain in place as the other pole. I still remain strongly against the concept of emotional behavior being standalone from other factors.

As for the particular example you put forth, its profound lack of definition and description give rise to an immense degree of subjectivity. It should no longer be mentioned....for brevity (By the way, I found your use of the word ironic ).

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

It seems that your objective is to present a distorted view of my statements and subsequently attack that view.

Again – I am absolutely NOT about attacking you or anyone, so perhaps I misunderstood your point. If so, hopefully by the end of this post we can sort all that out, however in the meantime its fair to note that due to a perceived difference in perspective to yours, and in the interests of honest discussion, it becomes my task to either honour you by bringing such discrepancy to your attention – or alternatively dishonour you via indifference. So take your pick.

Moreover I will reject – every time – claims of (intentional) distortion, for if indeed I have a distorted perspective of your view, I am more than happy to have it corrected, and you have surely had my invitation to do just that. However you may do well to initially recognise that I already have a decent appreciation of your perspective, however you have little of mine.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

I claimed that a clinical psychopath does not include an emotional element in decision-making. Never did I state or even give an implication that the lack of emotional involvement would result in more intelligent choices or result in behavior founded on the intelligence quotient of the individual. You presented this notion as my converse to yours, which was never the case.

Huh? After accepting your view, I subsequently explained why my position makes more sense to me – offering in some detail; my reasons. So, where again do you see the problem?

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Furthermore, the example was meant to display the inapplicable nature of your scale which uses 'intelligent' and 'emotional' as the two poles. With the emotional element removed in the case of a psychopath, who does not recognize fear, does not show any signs of empathy and does not experience shame, guilt, remorse or sadness, your scale disintegrates.

Detachment, when it comes to one’s emotions is certainly NOT the same thing as non-existence. For mine your psychopath has a detachment issue, where he seems unable or reluctant to continue an emotional attachment to the implications of his chosen action – which he nonetheless makes primarily on the basis of his emotions, but for some (again emotional) reason, cannot see his way to being personally responsible for, once effected.

Secondly, your failure to distinguish the separation between the emotional input into a choice and the emotional (or lack thereof) outflow from it appears to be the issue. Perhaps this may help; please consider a firework display, where your attention is on the excited splash of colour and noise in the heavens on NYE, whilst mine is on the raw constituents which silently went into the relevant package prior to ignition. It is still on either side of the equation; explosive - yet completely separate examples and definitions of the same term. The difference is I also recognise the starburst in the sky.

Now if to you all that yet remains a strawman, perhaps my explanations need to be a little more detailed.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

As a side note, I believe an earlier post argued your use of the word "intelligent" to be a bit at odds with general acceptance of the word's use. It is quite likely that my qualms have sprung from the misuse of the word "intelligent". May I offer a more clear word? Logical, perhaps? Calculated, maybe? Or, a variant or combination of words of the sort would be better suited for your theory.

It’s a pity your side note is the portion that best relates to ‘progressive’ as far as this discussion is concerned. Ultimately, your observation – as with the above pre/post differentiation for the term ‘emotions/explosive’, is quite correct - my "Intelligent" is admittedly at VARIANCE with the general acceptance of the word's use - for very valid and good reason I might add.

Additionally your clear words are an admirable attempt, even though it’s just as clear that until you can differentiate between your post-ignition atmospheric display and the genetic input into that outcome, your qualms on both counts, will most likely continue to struggle for appropriate definitions. Mind you; I doubt you even have a decent definition for either of your 'generally accepted' versions of the two emergent factors.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

I still remain strongly against the concept of emotional behavior being standalone from other factors.

Indeed that is just the point. Emotional behaviour is entirely dependant upon all kinds of other factors and influences, for by it’s nature and definition, it becomes so volatile, unpredictable, erratic. On the other hand, our second core genetic input into consciousness and therefore the decisions that come from it - Intelligence - presents no such whimsicality.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

As for the particular example you put forth, its profound lack of definition and description give rise to an immense degree of subjectivity. It should no longer be mentioned....for brevity (By the way, I found your use of the word ironic

So let me get this right, on the one hand you complain about a “profound lack of definition and description” and on the other you find my striving for brevity ironic? Hmmmm ……. do you think some might consider that just a little ironic?

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

So let me get this right, on the one hand you complain about a “profound lack of definition and description” and on the other you find my striving for brevity ironic? Hmmmm ……. do you think some might consider that just a little ironic?

You are confusing lengthy ramblings with definition and description. I have previously tried to tell you Apophis that you ramble. You waffle. You suffer from verbal diarrhea. You pile ambiguity on lack of clarity. You misuse words. You fail to define terms. You conflate opposites. You ignore contradictions. In short, you make very little sense.

I have offered these observations in the hope that you would be more rigorous in your editing and thus more effective in communicating your ideas. You have treated it as flaming. You can ignore the implicit advice - I expect you will - but that is most certainly your loss.

Gee, and I thought TheDr.Spo was handling OUR discussion rather well thus far, even without your inflammatory interjections.


Hey! Here’s a really novel idea - just in case you happen to be ethical and legitimate about your attacks – thereby proving me incorrect about them (as being from an obtuse sniper), why don’t you honestly (this time) single out one or two issues that are causing you all that confusion? Then I will do my very rigorous best to help you out with as "effective communication" as I can manage.

You can ignore the implicit invitation - I expect you will - but that is most certainly your loss.

Almost everything you write has the negative elements I have referred to. Your last post was the first one of yours I have seen that was coherent and delivered a clear message. Well done. This demonstrates you can communicate clearly. Now all we have to do is to make it habitual.

Here are some examples of your hugely frustrating fluff:

It’s a pity your side note is the portion that best relates to ‘progressive’ as far as this discussion is concerned. Ultimately, your observation – as with the above pre/post differentiation for the term ‘emotions/explosive’, is quite correct - my "Intelligent" is admittedly at VARIANCE with the general acceptance of the word's use - for very valid and good reason I might add.

The sentence in red has no obvious meaning.
The remainder could usefully be written thus,
"You are correct. I am giving 'intelligent' an unorthodox meaning. I am right to do so."


I quite appreciate your struggle to recognise the emerging perception of these underlying core dynamics. For we generally relate to ourselves in a way such as a choice being the separated starting point (of whatever each is about) and the action/s pursuant to that choice as the completion, unless of course there are some obvious consequences that subsequently, in turn need dealing with via more choices resulting from the relevant action/s.

Get real! Apparent semantic content zero. Piling dependent and independent clauses, one on top of another, does nothing for clarity and everything for obfuscation. You may have intended something by that verbose outpouring; the message was not received.


Etc.

Is it just a Reject that generates this alternating binary current in you - from inflaming sniper to beneficent writing tutor? I mean, even though your penchant to inflame extends far and wide, and I admit to being more appreciative than you probably realise for your fatherly nourishment in regards my literary style; yet I haven’t noticed anyone else on this site securing similar social succour.

Or are you applying for the job of editor for my work?

I have always regarded writing as being about the transmission of ideas, so I find it a little confusing that even though you complain about how your first frustrating fluffy example was originally composed, you evidently managed reasonably well to comprehend it. I have to admit though; even the first (red) sentence still makes relative sense – in my opinion. You obviously disagree, yet as a reader of it, I sincerely doubt any compromise that even a nurturing patriarch needs to make, will cause him too-great-a loss of sleep.

So to your second example; even though I feel it adequately conveys the point at which I was aiming, I admit it could have been written better. So when next my exertions are extended towards getting real, as well as my message being received, I will aim extra hard to keep clarity and intergenerational sleep patterns uppermost in mind – with many thanks to your presentable patronage.

Now all the semantics fluff is done; what do you say; like two honourable men, we move our attention onto weightier matters? So I’m wondering if there is anything in my posts (other than the manner of their composure) that also causes you outrage?

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Is it just a Reject that generates this alternating binary current in you - from inflaming sniper to beneficent writing tutor?

Get this concept on board. All my attacks have come from the same intent: to educate where I can and to condemn stupidity wherever I see it. Many of your ideas are trivial, trite, or simply wrong. I point that out vigorously. You disagree and view these as flaming attacks. They aren't. They are condemnations of your espoused beliefs because I believe those beliefs to be a) poorly formulated b) poorly expressed c) screwed up.

This is a discussion forum. The basis of most of my posts directed to you is "You are wrong!" I have often stipulated why you are wrong. I have detailed the reasons. You have consistently referred to this as flaming. It isn't, but it seems to make you feel more secure in your wrong ideas to call it that.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

yet I haven’t noticed anyone else on this site securing similar social succour.
Or are you applying for the job of editor for my work?

I routinely apply the same rigorous comments to what I see as sloppy thinking or disjointed verbiage.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I have always regarded writing as being about the transmission of ideas, so I find it a little confusing that even though you complain about how your first frustrating fluffy example was originally composed, you evidently managed reasonably well to comprehend it.

I comprehended it only be reading it several times, considering alternative explanations, simplifying, revisiting it, then contemplating it for a time. Should I have to make that effort? Of course I frigging shouldn't.
Your persistence in writing flowery, vacuous phrases not only means you go largely unread and ignored, it is ****ing rude. You place an unwarranted demand on your readers because you are a lazy writer. It isn't good enough.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

You obviously disagree, yet as a reader of it, I sincerely doubt any compromise that even a nurturing patriarch needs to make, will cause him too-great-a loss of sleep.

I mean, what the **** did that mean. I've read it six times and it still makes no sense. Don't try to explain, I've lost interest. I've almost lost the will to live.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Now all the semantics fluff is done; what do you say; like two honourable men, we move our attention onto weightier matters? So I’m wondering if there is anything in my posts (other than the manner of their composure) that also causes you outrage?

Yes. As I've said before: your posts are wrongheaded. You abuse language. You assign reality to speculation. You claim concepts based on introspection not evidence. You fail to define terms, then define terms ambiguously. Your thinking is a mess. Need I go on?

I've pinpointed issues with which I strongly disagree on other threads. Your reaction has been to accuse me of flaming. It is impossible to conduct an honourable discussion when one of a party of two rejects bona fide criticisms as flaming.

As far as I can see you pompously persist with all this fluffy ambiguity about how unsatisfactorily I compose my posts, even though others seem to deal with them quite adequately. So perhaps you could do worse than relax your emotional semantics rigidity a little, might I suggest?

On the other hand and more essentially, I notice your consummate failure continues to specify anything of a substantial nature in regards my observations, apart from the usual churlish and pouting playground insults such as ‘Get an education you wronghead!’

Ouch!!!!!

Now get this on board; it is impossible to conduct an honourable discussion when one of a party of two arrogantly rejects protocol for Intelligent honourable discussion, favouring instead dishonourable playground emotions – sniper diarrhoea included.

Need I go on?

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Need I go on?

Typically you do, even when it is pointless.

I would define logic/al as an intrinsic striving rather than an extrinsic anything.

3. Logic would be an entirely human faculty of reasoning, or more correctly

No. Logic exists with or without an intelligence to contemplate it.

Apopohis Reject, I have to bid you farewell and urge you one last time to take your musings to an appropriate subforum as they are not in the slightest scientific in nature.

even though others seem to deal with them quite adequately.

You are labouring under a delusion then. You most certainly have assigned your own definitions to terms everyone else uses differently and page upon page has been filled with people trying to make sense of your overly verbose word salads. I would think that it is a pretty simple concept to get across if you tried to be succinct and to the point, but your penchant for what you think is sophisticated language has made this an impossibility. It doesn't matter who you are. If you want to get a point across you have to be concise and as unambiguous as possible. Instead you react violently to any attempt at getting you to make more sense. In this way you are acting exactly as indignantly as every other blow-hard "visionary" that have crossed through this forum. As I said before, maybe you should consider that you are at fault here and make an effort, because it does not appear that you have been doing so up to this point.

But as I said, I bid you farewell from this subforum as your participation has not brought any value that I can discern and have insistently continued espousing your personal beliefs, claiming them to be scientific. This is unwelcome.

From now on any posts made by you in this subforum will be deleted or sent to an appropriate subforum.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by m84uily

From a deterministic standpoint I'd say that there's no such thing as a stupidity that occurs of one's own fault.

from a strict deterministic standpoint we are all automatons. If we grant, at least for argument, free will exists, then there are certainly individuals whose behaviour is infuriating. Those whom I would tend to call idiot are those who behave in anti-social ways.

Its just a hypothesis, however i think that if everyone had a complete understanding of their actions and were not put in a situation where it would be more convenient to them to do wrong instead of right it would be very difficult for them to act antisocially by free will.

first example that came to mind.

bully at school. bullies other kids in order to gain a sense of superiority and approval from other members of his group, thus he has an incentive for bullying. his failure to empathise with his victim can be seen as ignorance from his part, this ignorance acts as a non incentive.

now think of that bully in a different scenario. He now understands the pain he is causing and is able to empathise with his victim, this acts as an incentive for him to stop the bullying. He might still continue with his bullying in order to gain acceptance from his 'group'. Change the circumstance again: group no longer accepts members depending on their 'superiority' status, and I believe the bullying would stop immediately.

Could it be that, besides the mental conditions for which the sufferers cannot be blamed, there exists a kind of stupidity that occurs through a person's own fault?

Sure,
what are called world from humans are built that way.
Theres money activity and commerce propaganda,
that to gain money you must be in set to believe....

The trap set for it,intelligence are affected simple that you can see it out there,
"can happen to anyone"is what society wear on a spit way of moral.
The violence than is the base to reply those other mistakes built on shame.

A true world wide story,
is party activity against some study.
The party ends with the betrayal of friendship split by to share dependences.
The study can keep to create something that can enjoys party a too.

The automobile industries are made fools as free as a trapped bird on the cage.
The birds are pretty and can sing always till his death,
that like the commerce business saw its drives consumers no where to go than
to lie about till they death.

The party as the bird sings does not make it freedom,
to share the shame for the world.To sell and buy another....

Its what i call for other more strong aspects the Privatization Of Public Space.