Freewill: an evolved homo sapiens sapiens ability, one shared with many other species.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Traveller between Worlds said:

 

Kalbear, to make it completely clear you've been dishonest in every exchange we've had:

Your idiotic claim the Y chromosome is only a 'tad smaller', it's hugely smaller, all that means is the differences between people are small when the whole homo sapiens is taken into consideration two individuals can widely differ but not on a basis of chromosomes, the differences we do see are hugely a result of cultural pressures.  Reality still exists underneath LGBTQIA+

I never said that the Y chromosome is a tad smaller; I said that humans do not get all their data from only the X or the Y chromosomes, and the difference between men and women as far as that goes is not that big a deal. Most of the way a human is made up comes from the non-sex linked chromosomes. That shouldn't be up for debate.

As to differences seen are only cultural, that's a huge citation needed and I know of no scientist that indicates that whatsoever. If you're talking differences between genders that ALSO appears to be incorrect; cultural differences do not explain consistent sexual dimorphism, as an example. 

Mostly, you continue to state assertions without any actual citations. As @denstorebog rightly pointed out, that may fly at 4chan, but it doesn't fly here.

Just now, Traveller between Worlds said:

Your idiotic denial of federal law making it a criminal offence to deny accommodations to any group at public event.  Who even would believe that could be true in 2017, seriously GTFO.

And yet it's not against the law to deny accomodations to a specific part of an event provided you make accomodations to others. Sorry, it's just not. Again, if you were correct things like women and men's bathrooms would be specifically against the law. They are not. You may wish that they were, but they are not.

Just now, Traveller between Worlds said:

Your idiotic claim the sample size was small in that study when it was stated by scientists involved as being very large.

 

Did you bother reading the study? It was 90 people from one school in the UK, followed up by 23 people. It was so small that they didn't even have anyone who self-identified as 'very' conservative. How you call 113 people a large study is beyond me. It's certainly enough to make a decent study, but it's also not remotely pancultural or even particularly intracultural, as it self-selects for people who are a certain age AND go to a specific university. This is akin to my doing a study at my high school and declaring it applies to octogenerian Japanese people. 

 

[Kalbear]

As an example of what I meant for the Y: the Y chromosome represents about 1% of the total DNA of mammals (including humans). There are about (we think) 20,000 protein-coding genes on all the chromosomes, and the Y has about 70 which code for protein. (the X has about 10 times the amount). 

Not that it matters much; the genes express and the body changes dramatically based on the hormones, diet, environment and culture that are experienced, and much of that is sex-linked. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear

+1

[Jo498]

On 24.6.2017 at 5:51 PM, Kalbear said:

No, it isn't. The perception of free will is a requisite; one could argue quite well (and indeed, many people have) that rationality and experimentation are the result of millions of inputs that result in the output of 'I want to figure this out'. 

And yet this is one of the most basic common philosophical thought experiments, going back to Calvinist days.

They are old, yes, probably as old as the Stoics. But they are also not easily compatible with a materialist modern worldview. (I think it is not at all compatible with that and therefore materialist "reasons" for the denial of free will amount to self- contradiction, if there could be something like selfcontradiction in a materialist world) If this is granted, I am content to leave it at that.

I still think that either one is (or at least can be in certain circumstances) rational or one is just something through which inputs and outputs pass (creating "illusions" of rationality on their way) and one can always retort that one needs to accept an idea like the latter for rational reasons and not because one has been conditioned by respective inputs. (I am not even getting into the practical problems that follow, e.g. that there are no deeper differences between rational behavior (because this is an illusion anyway) and madness (being completely conditioned and helpless against outer impulses and respective reactions.))

[The Marquis de Leech]

I'm ignoring the loaded nonsense about conservatives being less evolved (and I say this as a democratic socialist).

As for Free Will, I'm inclined to think it is an illusion. It's just that so many factors (environmental or otherwise) contribute to decision-making, it is a very, very good illusion - so good, in fact, that there is no discernible difference.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Does an electron (or a photon or proton, I dont discriminate on the basis of spin), when faced with a double slit, have free will?

[maarsen]

5 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I'm ignoring the loaded nonsense about conservatives being less evolved (and I say this as a democratic socialist).

As for Free Will, I'm inclined to think it is an illusion. It's just that so many factors (environmental or otherwise) contribute to decision-making, it is a very, very good illusion - so good, in fact, that there is no discernible difference.

In other words , determinism makes me believe in free will? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

In other words , determinism makes me believe in free will? 

If free will doesn't exist how can criminal law have any appliciablity in human societies?

[Seli]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If free will doesn't exist how can criminal law have any appliciablity in human societies?

Tradition and conservatism.

Because we think we have free will, and can't prove otherwise at this point.

And of course reality is so sensitive to starting points, and chaotic details, that it is very very difficult to tell.

Finally because the sentencing is pre-determined as well . 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If free will doesn't exist how can criminal law have any appliciablity in human societies?

Because one can be taught to do different behaviors. As pointed out above, the illusion of free will is reasonable enough to allow us to basically act as if it does exist, and one of the reasons is that people's negative behaviors can change.

Alternately, because it is important for monkeys to punish other monkeys who break tribal rules, and if we didn't have criminal laws we'd go and kill them or rape them or something. 

[Dr. Pepper]

On 6/28/2017 at 9:09 PM, Traveller between Worlds said:

 

Kalbear, to make it completely clear you've been dishonest in every exchange we've had:

Your idiotic claim the Y chromosome is only a 'tad smaller', it's hugely smaller, all that means is the differences between people are small when the whole homo sapiens is taken into consideration two individuals can widely differ but not on a basis of chromosomes, the differences we do see are hugely a result of cultural pressures.  Reality still exists underneath LGBTQIA+

Your idiotic denial of federal law making it a criminal offence to deny accommodations to any group at public event.  Who even would believe that could be true in 2017, seriously GTFO.

Your idiotic claim the sample size was small in that study when it was stated by scientists involved as being very large.

 

So where does one fall on the evolution spectrum when they're stupidly ignorant?  Can one freely choose to be dumb?  Just asking out of curiosity, no specific person in mind.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,

What is free will versus the illusion of free will?  If free will is an illusion why behave as the if it is real?  If the illusion is necessary why pretend free will doesn't exist?

[Kalbear]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Kalbear,

What is free will versus the illusion of free will?  If free will is an illusion why behave as the if it is real?  If the illusion is necessary why pretend free will doesn't exist?

As far as I am concerned whether or not you have free will is immaterial to how I treat you. IE, if you have the illusion of free will but I know that you have no choices and everything you do is done, then rationalized, I can treat you precisely the same way as if you had free will because ultimately it doesn't matter as far as my experience with you. 

For the purpose of criminality it is especially important. 

The illusion isn't necessary; it simply doesn't matter one way or another. It doesn't change anything meaningful. It's like quibbling about the quantum effects of wave-particle duality when talking about colliding cars.

[maarsen]

12 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Because one can be taught to do different behaviors. As pointed out above, the illusion of free will is reasonable enough to allow us to basically act as if it does exist, and one of the reasons is that people's negative behaviors can change.

Alternately, because it is important for monkeys to punish other monkeys who break tribal rules, and if we didn't have criminal laws we'd go and kill them or rape them or something. 

Poor monkeys.

[Egalitarianism Always]

On 24/06/2017 at 4:55 PM, Kalbear said:

I mean, heck, from the paper I cited, here's their experimental setup, which says itself that it's not representative:

Furthermore, none of the participants registered as 'very conservative' by their own value system at all. None!

Sorry, but 90 college students in the UK are not particularly a great way to extrapolate across all cultures and all people and all ages. 

In the paper: "In a large sample of young adults, we related self-reported political attitudes to gray matter volume using structural MRI. We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala." 

What part of that word don't you understand?

I'd explain sample sizes to you as they relate to the depth of the scientific study being undertaken but it would be lost on you just as my repeated explanation concerning  public accommodations which are protected by civil rights laws, go open a hall to the paying public say you are denying one demographic, watch as you are shut down.  Why someone would want to deny large sections of the public, think that's even an intelligent thing to do, disruptive presences can be removed peacefully, conservatives are ones who resort to violence, over strong group affiliation.  It's their evolutionary survival strategy, the group is betrayed and then their family and then themselves, that's what happens to exclusionists they  end up excluding even themselves.  Self implosion, bad thing is they take many others with them.

@Ser Scott, that you claim a scientific fact and yes this is a fact, if you don't know what scientific facts are just like the meaning of scientific theory you should go make yourself scientifically literate.  Anyway claiming this scientific fact will do what your political class does repeatedly is beyond a sick joke, what science is saying is anyone capable of switching from an amygdala controlled brain to a frontal lobe controlled brain should do so no matter their upbringing, their religious indoctrination and social circle pressure.  Your irrational amygdala response which ignores all the atrocities your political affiliation has committed says you should attempt to switch to using your frontal lobe, no-one can be this illiterate, loyalty to religion, family and social circle might give an emotional reason for the illiteracy, but it doesn't do good for the person's mental health.

[Egalitarianism Always]

On 24/06/2017 at 3:03 PM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The above paper appears to have been published by Colin Firth. Great Actor. Poor scientist.

How can you still be using the great Jon Snow's name when you're a Tory? lol.  You do know what he said about the Tories right? lmao.

Jon Snow accused of chanting 'F*** the Tories' at Glastonbury festival

Oh and btw Colin Firth is infinitely more intelligent than someone who doesn't even know what the real person they are using as an avatar is like haha.

[The Marquis de Leech]

46 minutes ago, Traveller between Worlds said:

How can you still be using the great Jon Snow's name when you're a Tory? lol.  You do know what he said about the Tories right? lmao.

My favourite author is one J.R.R. Tolkien. He happened to be an arch-conservative (in the classical sense), and was sympathetic to General Franco. Doesn't stop me from appreciating him and his work.

To poke another hole in your ridiculous claims - what about people who change their views over the course of their lives? What sort of brain do they have?

[Egalitarianism Always]

1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

My favourite author is one J.R.R. Tolkien. He happened to be an arch-conservative (in the classical sense), and was sympathetic to General Franco. Doesn't stop me from appreciating him and his work.

To poke another hole in your ridiculous claims - what about people who change their views over the course of their lives? What sort of brain do they have?

Scientific fact go look it up you ridiculous person, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, the study provides this.  Means nothing to you I know.  You want to provide a study that contradicts the one which is the basis for this hypothesis please do.  Oh and the  hypothesis is not mine, it's on wiki where Kalbear's study is quoted as one of it's scientific bases.

J R R Tolkien in 1961 sharply criticized a Swedish commentator who suggested that The Lord of the Rings was an anti-communist parable and identified Sauron with Stalin.  If he was the hackneyed simpleton you try to paint him as, then he'd have agreed with the commentator.  Just as the Republican party has gone from Lincoln to Trump when Lincoln was anti-slavery, conservatism has been completely corrupted.

Understand J R R Tolkien wasn't a rabid amygdala driven conservative of the left, the center or the rightwing.  You see there's conservative simpletons like yourself who divide into fake left, fake center and rightwing, you see the world in simplistic scientifically illiterate terms.  Then there's the human liberation movement which sees beyond classes, uses science to awaken people, we don't see a division that is insurmountable among people.  Tolkien was part of this human liberation movement, he placed worth in Elves, Dwarves Hobbits and men. Read his writings you'll  understand this.  Only the deeply physically changed human-types were beyond help i.e the orcs.  I personally don't agree wit that but that was Tolkien's stance.  Tolkien argued that the author of Beowulf was addressing human destiny in general, not as limited by particular tribal politics, understand he didn't see people as us and them, reconfigure how your brain works if you're capable, if you want to be exclusionist go right ahead and may you personally reap every single piece of karma for it as you're undoubtedly doing already.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

42 minutes ago, Traveller between Worlds said:

Scientific fact go look it up you ridiculous person, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, the study provides this.  Means nothing to you I know.  You want to provide a study that contradicts the one which is the basis for this hypothesis please do.  Oh and the  hypothesis is not mine, it's on wiki where Kalbear's study is quoted as one of it's scientific bases.

J R R Tolkien in 1961 sharply criticized a Swedish commentator who suggested that The Lord of the Rings was an anti-communist parable and identified Sauron with Stalin.  If he was the hackneyed simpleton you try to paint him as, then he'd have agreed with the commentator.  Just as the Republican party has gone from Lincoln to Trump when Lincoln was anti-slavery, conservatism has been completely corrupted.

Understand J R R Tolkien wasn't a rabid amygdala driven conservative of the left, the center or the rightwing.  You see there's conservative simpletons like yourself who divide into fake left, fake center and rightwing, you see the world in simplistic scientifically illiterate terms.  Then there's the human liberation movement which sees beyond classes, uses science to awaken people, we don't see a division that is insurmountable among people.  Tolkien was part of this human liberation movement, he placed worth in Elves, Dwarves Hobbits and men. Read his writings you'll  understand this.  Only the deeply physically changed human-types were beyond help i.e the orcs.  I personally don't agree wit that but that was Tolkien's stance.  Tolkien argued that the author of Beowulf was addressing human destiny in general, not as limited by particular tribal politics, understand he didn't see people as us and them, reconfigure how your brain works if you're capable, if you want to be exclusionist go right ahead and may you personally reap every single piece of karma for it as you're undoubtedly doing already.

 

TbW,

You may want to look at RBPL's blog and its subject matter before you call him a "conservative simpleton":

https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/

[The Marquis de Leech]

23 minutes ago, Traveller between Worlds said:

Scientific fact go look it up you ridiculous person, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, the study provides this.  Means nothing to you I know.  You want to provide a study that contradicts the one which is the basis for this hypothesis please do.  Oh and the  hypothesis is not mine, it's on wiki where Kalbear's study is quoted as one of it's scientific bases.

J R R Tolkien in 1961 sharply criticized a Swedish commentator who suggested that The Lord of the Rings was an anti-communist parable and identified Sauron with Stalin.  If he was the hackneyed simpleton you try to paint him as, then he'd have agreed with the commentator.  Just as the Republican party has gone from Lincoln to Trump when Lincoln was anti-slavery, conservatism has been completely corrupted.

Understand J R R Tolkien wasn't a rabid amygdala driven conservative of the left, the center or the rightwing.  You see there's conservative simpletons like yourself who divide into fake left, fake center and rightwing, you see the world in simplistic scientifically illiterate terms.  Then there's the human liberation movement which sees beyond classes, uses science to awaken people, we don't see a division that is insurmountable among people.  Tolkien was part of this human liberation movement, he placed worth in Elves, Dwarves Hobbits and men. Read his writings you'll  understand this.  Only the deeply physically changed human-types were beyond help i.e the orcs.  I personally don't agree wit that but that was Tolkien's stance.  Tolkien argued that the author of Beowulf was addressing human destiny in general, not as limited by particular tribal politics, understand he didn't see people as us and them, reconfigure how your brain works if you're capable, if you want to be exclusionist go right ahead and may you personally reap every single piece of karma for it as you're undoubtedly doing already.

1. There have been lots of claims based off studies for a very long time. If every one of those was a "scientific fact", we would have some highly contradictory facts. How about waiting for multiple replicated results before jumping to conclusions, eh? Reproducibility being one of the cornerstones of the scientific method.

2. I truly love how you are accusing me of labelling others as "hackneyed simpletons". Just because one is a conservative (as Tolkien was, though not in the American tradition) does not mean that they are only capable of writing thinly disguised allegory. Do you want me to dig up some appropriate quotes from his letters?

3. This must be the first time in my life I've ever been called a conservative simpleton. Just so you know, I'm a democratic socialist, and probably to the Left of you on economics. I just have this funny idea that people might legitimately disagree on how society should be run, and certainly don't feel the need to label non-socialists "simpletons with undeveloped brains".

(Seriously, of all the people you had to call conservative...).