9 ms·

Thinking isnt even a path to "free will". Thinking is pretty clearly determined by exterior stimulus just like feeling is.

mistermann 2y ago
Where does "clearly" originate, and what does it refer to? Is "just" a synonym for "exactly" in this context?
- MeImCounting 2y ago
  "Clearly" refers to the obviousness or self-evidence of the statement. In this context, "just" means "similarly" or "in the same way," or ig "exactly" if you like. "Clearly" because exterior stimuli clearly influence both thinking and feeling, a concept supported by common experience and scientific understanding of human cognition and emotions.
  - poochkoishi728 2y ago
    Influence != Determine
    - MeImCounting 2y ago
      Yes it is indeed possible that in that small and shrinking gap of behavior that isnt explained by some complex set of circumstances and stimuli there lies some magic immaterial soul that grants the ineffable quality of free will. Bbbut since we have yet to find any evidence for such a thing I wouldnt keep my hopes up. Also theres much more interesting questions to be asking.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        Might "explanations" have a (perhaps private, or semi-private) epistemic value attribute? That could certainly change the game up.
        MeImCounting 2y ago
        Well most of the explanations I personally am interested in have a public and therefore high epistemic value. Since they are published and repeatable. Certain behavioral tests or self-report surveys on the other hand have lower value because of the private nature of what were intending to test. They still have some value though. Private experiences may be very important for individuals and like I said elsewhere, free-will is certainly a useful idea in religious contexts. I do not believe this has any bearing on practical matters such as our ability to predict or understand the actions taken by any given system such as humans or computers.
        mistermann 2y ago
        > Well most of the explanations I personally am interested in have a public and therefore high epistemic value. Since they are published and repeatable. Are you saying that these two claims have some sort of scientific ~proofs: 1.Thinking isn't even a path to "free will". 2a. Thinking is pretty clearly determined by exterior stimulus 2b. just like feeling is. Note: a definition for "determined by" (in percentage of total causality) would be required in the specification, as would a non-ambiguous definition for "just like".
        MeImCounting 2y ago
        > Are you saying that these two claims have some sort of scientific ~proofs No. I think this statement is a conclusion only indirectly supported by scientific fact. This is a logical leap from more and more behaviors and internal states being correlated with various external stimulus over time. I believe it only a matter of time until it becomes entirely possible (though silly and will likely not be done because it only serves to prove a foregone conclusion and would be a unfathomably huge undertaking) to provide a complete accounting of all the factors that influence a system bringing it to the state where it reacts in a given way to some stimulus. The only other conclusion I can see is that human beings are not deterministic and there is some magical spark IE everlasting soul making randomized decisions for us.
        2y ago
  - mistermann 2y ago
    How are all of these measured?
    - MeImCounting 2y ago
      Theres actually a ton of different ways. The most obvious is probably MRIs of which many have been conducted with the subject having a huge variety of different stimulus. Then theres the good old fashioned behavioral studies ranging from the classic "does the subject jerk their hand back in the presence of heat?" to the more recent hungry judge phenomenon. I wouldnt think the fairly self evident assertion that exterior stimulus changes both the internal state of a person as well as their behavior would be controversial. At this point in history "free will" is really just the god of the gaps and those gaps shrink every year. Its probably a useful religious concept but as far as reality goes its the least interesting question one could ask about the whole human experience.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        Did you remember to check/contemplate whether your "measurements" are correct? This seems like a rather recursively self-referential problem.
        MeImCounting 2y ago
        Im not really sure what you mean here, could you elaborate?
        mistermann 2y ago
        Well, above you seem to be describing "how things are". What if what you're describing is not the things themselves, but rather only a model of the things? Like, where are the details of how you are "measuring" these things? And what measurement instrument returns values like "is clearly" and "is really just"? I can think of only one.
        2y ago
goatlover 2y ago
How would thinking be determined by exterior stimulus, when we all vary to some extent to the same stimulus? Behaviorism was found wanting because it didn't account properly for goes on between the ears. And the rest of the body, which makes us individuals. The idea of free will comes from the fact that people do make different choices. We make different choices than our past selves did. From a compatibilist perspective, one could say free will comes from being part of determining what goes on. Things don't just happen to us. We participate in what does happen. We're not simply puppets on the string of the external world. We're just as much a part of causing things as everything else is.
- MeImCounting 2y ago
  > How would thinking be determined by exterior stimulus, when we all vary to some extent to the same stimulus? Because, and this may shock you: we are not all the same person You make an excellent point that people respond differently to a given stimulus. This is explained by those people having had different genetics, environments, upbringings and even breakfasts leading up to the point of the test. It has been demonstrated that your metabolic state will vastly change your response to stimuli throughout a day. I ate something different for breakfast today than yesterday because one sounded tastier than the other. I made this decision not because I have an eternal soul making randomized decisions like a roulette machine but because yesterday I craved salty food and today yogurt sounded better. I am different person today than I was yesterday. My gut, brain and everything else has been changed by all the stimulus I experienced yesterday and is now influencing my responses today.

mistermann 2y ago

Where does "clearly" originate, and what does it refer to? Is "just" a synonym for "exactly" in this context?

MeImCounting 2y ago
"Clearly" refers to the obviousness or self-evidence of the statement. In this context, "just" means "similarly" or "in the same way," or ig "exactly" if you like. "Clearly" because exterior stimuli clearly influence both thinking and feeling, a concept supported by common experience and scientific understanding of human cognition and emotions.
- poochkoishi728 2y ago
  Influence != Determine
  - MeImCounting 2y ago
    Yes it is indeed possible that in that small and shrinking gap of behavior that isnt explained by some complex set of circumstances and stimuli there lies some magic immaterial soul that grants the ineffable quality of free will. Bbbut since we have yet to find any evidence for such a thing I wouldnt keep my hopes up. Also theres much more interesting questions to be asking.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      Might "explanations" have a (perhaps private, or semi-private) epistemic value attribute? That could certainly change the game up.
      - MeImCounting 2y ago
        Well most of the explanations I personally am interested in have a public and therefore high epistemic value. Since they are published and repeatable. Certain behavioral tests or self-report surveys on the other hand have lower value because of the private nature of what were intending to test. They still have some value though. Private experiences may be very important for individuals and like I said elsewhere, free-will is certainly a useful idea in religious contexts. I do not believe this has any bearing on practical matters such as our ability to predict or understand the actions taken by any given system such as humans or computers.
        mistermann 2y ago
        > Well most of the explanations I personally am interested in have a public and therefore high epistemic value. Since they are published and repeatable. Are you saying that these two claims have some sort of scientific ~proofs: 1.Thinking isn't even a path to "free will". 2a. Thinking is pretty clearly determined by exterior stimulus 2b. just like feeling is. Note: a definition for "determined by" (in percentage of total causality) would be required in the specification, as would a non-ambiguous definition for "just like".
        MeImCounting 2y ago
        > Are you saying that these two claims have some sort of scientific ~proofs No. I think this statement is a conclusion only indirectly supported by scientific fact. This is a logical leap from more and more behaviors and internal states being correlated with various external stimulus over time. I believe it only a matter of time until it becomes entirely possible (though silly and will likely not be done because it only serves to prove a foregone conclusion and would be a unfathomably huge undertaking) to provide a complete accounting of all the factors that influence a system bringing it to the state where it reacts in a given way to some stimulus. The only other conclusion I can see is that human beings are not deterministic and there is some magical spark IE everlasting soul making randomized decisions for us.
        2y ago
- mistermann 2y ago
  How are all of these measured?
  - MeImCounting 2y ago
    Theres actually a ton of different ways. The most obvious is probably MRIs of which many have been conducted with the subject having a huge variety of different stimulus. Then theres the good old fashioned behavioral studies ranging from the classic "does the subject jerk their hand back in the presence of heat?" to the more recent hungry judge phenomenon. I wouldnt think the fairly self evident assertion that exterior stimulus changes both the internal state of a person as well as their behavior would be controversial. At this point in history "free will" is really just the god of the gaps and those gaps shrink every year. Its probably a useful religious concept but as far as reality goes its the least interesting question one could ask about the whole human experience.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      Did you remember to check/contemplate whether your "measurements" are correct? This seems like a rather recursively self-referential problem.
      - MeImCounting 2y ago
        Im not really sure what you mean here, could you elaborate?
        mistermann 2y ago
        Well, above you seem to be describing "how things are". What if what you're describing is not the things themselves, but rather only a model of the things? Like, where are the details of how you are "measuring" these things? And what measurement instrument returns values like "is clearly" and "is really just"? I can think of only one.
        2y ago

goatlover 2y ago

How would thinking be determined by exterior stimulus, when we all vary to some extent to the same stimulus? Behaviorism was found wanting because it didn't account properly for goes on between the ears. And the rest of the body, which makes us individuals. The idea of free will comes from the fact that people do make different choices. We make different choices than our past selves did. From a compatibilist perspective, one could say free will comes from being part of determining what goes on. Things don't just happen to us. We participate in what does happen. We're not simply puppets on the string of the external world. We're just as much a part of causing things as everything else is.

MeImCounting 2y ago
> How would thinking be determined by exterior stimulus, when we all vary to some extent to the same stimulus? Because, and this may shock you: we are not all the same person You make an excellent point that people respond differently to a given stimulus. This is explained by those people having had different genetics, environments, upbringings and even breakfasts leading up to the point of the test. It has been demonstrated that your metabolic state will vastly change your response to stimuli throughout a day. I ate something different for breakfast today than yesterday because one sounded tastier than the other. I made this decision not because I have an eternal soul making randomized decisions like a roulette machine but because yesterday I craved salty food and today yogurt sounded better. I am different person today than I was yesterday. My gut, brain and everything else has been changed by all the stimulus I experienced yesterday and is now influencing my responses today.