Most Interesting Question.

[Neomega]

And, you are saying we have a better perception of mortality than animals?

Example: A male zebra charging a lioness to protect its family members knows that the lioness is a dangerous predator. If the family members were not there it would have ran. So it knows that it is in mortal danger and that it may die. So it is aware of its mortality.

How is our awareness of mortality any better? { in fact, I can argue that it is actually worse, because it is all clouded by relegion etc. }

Absolutlely. And you have shifted focus from where I began, which is betraying instincts. A male zebra does what it does out of instinct.

You will never see a male zebra, dissatisfied with the life it is living, drown itself.

The soldier who jumps on the grenade is jumping on that grenade because his brain has been molded through years of interaction with other brains leaving him to place a high degree of value on concepts such as valor, bravery, sacrifice for one's colleagues. At the moment of the decision the brain is merely causing this course of action based on how the different choices are valued. It's the same brain system that causes a mouse to choose to eat a chocolate chip over a piece of mouse chow.

You say it is the same, yet obviously it is not. The mouse is reacting based on it's own experience. The soldier reacts based on the experience and interactions of others... interaction with other brains.

As I have stated, language, and the ability to pass on this language, many times trumps genetics. The soldier who jumps on a grenade, is for all intents and purposes, a fool. But he has been taught that fighting his instincts is good, productive... "honourable". Do animals have any of these senses? Absolutely not. And I have never seen a male zebra charge a lion on nature shows. In fact, they all tend to run together.... evolution has made behave this way, and even gave them stripes to help.

 

[Pirate]

Free will is not an illusion. Going against your instincts has to be proof of this.

A soldier who hops on a grenade executes free will. As do most forms of suicide. But there are also a lot of other, well thought out processes, like quitting smoking, deciding not to have sex with someone, eating salad instead of beef....

In fact, I think, humans must be the only animals who know death is inevitable. This is a far greater understanding of life and consciousness than any other animal.

But it's not free will according to the explanation I described. The stimulus of light in his eyes, the nerual pathways that reinforce the image of a grenade, the chemical paths of memory, the relative levels of certain brain chemicals, all cascade irreversibly to a syncronous firing of muscle fiber cells to force his body on the grenade. No different than eating an apple.

But what is a thought? These chemical reactions happen whether anyone observes them or not. There is no need to 'decode' them in a 'conciousness' - they are the same type of chemical and metabolic pathways that make plants grow towards light. Conscious plants might think 'ah, light, I need that, I'll bend that way' but it's not the thought that makes it bend, it's the degredation of growth promoting chemicals by sunlight that bends a stem.

Conciousness is still a big question, but I'm not speaking at the same macro level that you are when you say 'free will.'

 

[Mark1031]

You say it is the same, yet obviously it is not. The mouse is reacting based on it's own experience. The soldier reacts based on the experience and interactions of others... interaction with other brains.

Well if this is your definition of free will then my mouse has free will as I can make him change his behavior based on interactions with other brains-human brains or mouse brains. In fact, I can alter his behavior for the rest of his life.
For clarity I define free will as the percieved ability to control ones own thoughts and actions.

As I have stated, language, and the ability to pass on this language, many times trumps genetics. The soldier who jumps on a grenade, is for all intents and purposes, a fool. But he has been taught that fighting his instincts is good, productive... "honourable". Do animals have any of these senses? Absolutely not. And I have never seen a male zebra charge a lion on nature shows. In fact, they all tend to run together.... evolution has made behave this way, and even gave them stripes to help

Yes, and evolution has given us the instincts of a social creature. We value our position in the social hierarchy. The soldier is just expressing this instinct and in him it has been molded to trump the survival instinct. If I display valor I will move up in the social hierarchy, I will comand more resources, more women will mate with me. Heck maybe I'll even become President

 

[Marla_Singer]

Knowing my personal interests which are far from physics or biology, I consider the origin of the Civilization is the most important question in my eyes even if we have already a good explanation about it.

 

[Neomega]

But it's not free will according to the explanation I described. The stimulus of light in his eyes, the nerual pathways that reinforce the image of a grenade, the chemical paths of memory, the relative levels of certain brain chemicals, all cascade irreversibly to a syncronous firing of muscle fiber cells to force his body on the grenade. No different than eating an apple.

But what is a thought? These chemical reactions happen whether anyone observes them or not. There is no need to 'decode' them in a 'conciousness' - they are the same type of chemical and metabolic pathways that make plants grow towards light. Conscious plants might think 'ah, light, I need that, I'll bend that way' but it's not the thought that makes it bend, it's the degredation of growth promoting chemicals by sunlight that bends a stem.

Conciousness is still a big question, but I'm not speaking at the same macro level that you are when you say 'free will.'

Well, you may not have free will, but I do.

ANd if you want to say you have it, just admit it. If not, live in your chains.

 

[Mark1031]

Knowing my personal interests which are far from physics or biology, I consider the origin of the Civilization is the most important question in my eyes even if we have already a good explanation about it.

I'm not sure we have a great explanation for it. I mean Homo sapien sapien was around for many 10s of thousands of years. Then within a few thousand years different cultures capable of writing, math, engineering etc. arose separately and independently. Why? What triggered this? Someone said population density. But local populations in fertile regions would not have required 10s of thousands of years to reach critical mass.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I'm not sure we have a great explanation for it. I mean Homo sapien sapien was around for many 10s of thousands of years. Then within a few thousand years different cultures capable of writing, math, engineering etc. arose separately and independently. Why? What triggered this? Someone said population density. But local populations in fertile regions would not have required 10s of thousands of years to reach critical mass.

Everything has started when people got the idea for the first time to cultivate their own field and to grow their own beasts. Once this was done, it has lead people to become sedentary. That has boosted the food available, boosted the population, and then the first people were able to live without spending most of their time to look for food. Once guys had time to think about other things, knowledge could finally boom.

However, be careful. Gatherers-hunters men weren't cavemen saying "hooga!hooga!", for instance, the sioux people were gatherers-hunters. What is impossible to know is when the language started, but that was a lot of time before civilization.

 

[Neomega]

Everything has started when people got the idea for the first time to cultivate their own field and to grow their own beasts. Once this was done, it has lead people to become sedentary. That has boosted the food available, boosted the population, and then the first people were able to live without spending most of their time to look for food. Once guys had time to think about other things, knowledge could finally boom.

However, be careful. Gatherers-hunters men weren't cavemen saying "hooga!hooga!", for instance, the sioux people were gatherers-hunters. What is impossible to know is when the language started, but that was a lot of time before civilization.

I disagree, language was prime influence number one on humanity disconnecting from the rest of the animal kingdom. Language passed on ideas about growing food beyond direct observational learning, so that people could learn to farm.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I disagree, language was prime influence number one on humanity disconnecting from the rest of the animal kingdom. Language passed on ideas about growing food beyond direct observational learning, so that people could learn to farm.

Yeah but the civilization didn't start with the language ! And there had been generations and generations of talking people who weren't growing their own fields. Look at the Sioux for instance !

Human beings talk since a very long time. I don't know if there's any way to date the appearance of the language, but what is considered as the beginning of "civilization" is the appearance of farming and settling process, about 8,000 years ago.

 

[Neomega]

Yeah but the civilization didn't start with the language ! And there had been generations and generations of talking people who weren't growing their own fields. Look at the Sioux for instance !

Human beings talk since a very long time. I don't know if there's any way to date the appearance of the language, but what is considered as the beginning of "civilization" is the appearance of farming and settling process, about 8,000 years ago.

I suppose that would have to be a definiton of civilization as non-nomadic.

But using that definition, the Pacific Northwest Natives where i live would not be considered a civilization, because they did not farm, yet had thriving, sedentary communities.

 

[Mark1031]

Well certainly language is critical and much older than history/culture. The main paradox for me is why cultures arose independently at about the same time. OK I can see that someone comes up with the idea to farm. Great idea and it starts the ball rolling and through language he can teach it and any other idea to others so things take off fast. Why did this happen indpendently in different places? Certainly new world/old world were not communicating and were seperated before the idea of farming. Why did they both start doing it within a couple of thousand years of each other? If it was an easy/high probability idea to come up with why didn;t it happen in the 10s of thousands of years prior?

 

[Pirate]

Well, you may not have free will, but I do.

ANd if you want to say you have it, just admit it. If not, live in your chains.

Well, that's why it's my most important question. I want to know how thoughts and free will arise from predetermined mundane reactions. I want to know if I do have free will or if it is just an illusion. I want to know if there is some uncertainty in the mechanism. I want to know if there is an outside conciousness in that uncertainty.

 

[Pirate]

However, be careful. Gatherers-hunters men weren't cavemen saying "hooga!hooga!", for instance, the sioux people were gatherers-hunters. What is impossible to know is when the language started, but that was a lot of time before civilization.

Interesting you mention the Sioux. They were originally farmers near the great lakes and eastern woodlands (much like the Iroquois) that were pushed into the plains by the neighboring Chippewa and/or the arrival of the white man. In less than 70 years they mastered horseback riding and a nomadic hunter gatherer lifestyle. A complete 180 degrees.

 

[Neomega]

Well, that's why it's my most important question. I want to know how thoughts and free will arise from predetermined mundane reactions. I want to know if I do have free will or if it is just an illusion. I want to know if there is some uncertainty in the mechanism. I want to know if there is an outside conciousness in that uncertainty.

Seems pretty obvious to me. You can "simplify it" down to the biochemical reactions, (which at the deepest level, the brain is definitely not quite understood). Or you can go on your own personal experience, and take it in as a whole.

I tend to notice I can control my train of thought. I can imagine up new things. If it is all chemical reactions, where does novelty and discovery fit in, the art of creation? Is it all part of a chemical reaction process? Where does the creativity come from? Instinct?

It is alot like Calvinism. Or the notion that the future is set. It is possible, but I doubt it.

 

[PantheraTigris2]

Other: The existence of intelligent E.T. life...

(Hey, something new to add to the discussion )

 

[Marla_Singer]

Interesting you mention the Sioux. They were originally farmers near the great lakes and eastern woodlands (much like the Iroquois) that were pushed into the plains by the neighboring Chippewa and/or the arrival of the white man. In less than 70 years they mastered horseback riding and a nomadic hunter gatherer lifestyle. A complete 180 degrees.

Well, ok, bad example then.
But anyway, it was just for people to get an idea.

 

[stormbind]

Maybe, having the answers, and removing the wonder, would make life less interesting?

 

[Singularity]

An alternative ultimate question would be: Is there life after death?

I think a clear and uncontested answer to this would have a quite interesting effect on our way of life Not that I would pick it though. I went for #1.

 

[Pirate]

Seems pretty obvious to me. You can "simplify it" down to the biochemical reactions, (which at the deepest level, the brain is definitely not quite understood). Or you can go on your own personal experience, and take it in as a whole.

I tend to notice I can control my train of thought. I can imagine up new things. If it is all chemical reactions, where does novelty and discovery fit in, the art of creation? Is it all part of a chemical reaction process? Where does the creativity come from? Instinct?

It is alot like Calvinism. Or the notion that the future is set. It is possible, but I doubt it.

You are asking the same thing I am trying to ask, namely where do creative and original thoughts come from? I questioned imagination in my very first post. We agree on most points and I really don't want to prove that we have no free will, but where we disagree is on the nature of perception and choice. You say I can go about my personal experience and make a choice, but that choice is seemingly the result of a chain reaction of electrical and chemical impulses in your brain that causes you to articulate a series of words or perform a certain action, whatever the decision is. If we could trace the inputs into my brain through all the myriad of pathways they take to finally end up with an output, in this case a decision, we will see a chain reaction of chemical and electrical signals swirling around my neurons, along pathways that have been reinforced by other stimuli (internal and external) ever since their creation. At no point, seemingly, do we see an ethereal force or cause that steers a reaction in a certain direction, or adds a component to the chain - seemingly we will not notice a conscience. However the swirls of neural firings will activate certain pathways relating to different options and criteria we have learned for making a decision, creating the sensation that we are considering a choice. In fact we are, but there is no conscience in the drivers seat. The decision is made by the presence of certain signals and pathways that allow the chain reaction to persist towards a final thought. This is where my question appears. Perhaps there is some quantum uncertainty in the bonding of molecules or path of an electron that adds an element of chance to destiny. Perhaps we will find a link between thought and this unseen element so that there is an element of will in the chance. I can only hope and question.

 

[Pirate]

Well, ok, bad example then.
But anyway, it was just for people to get an idea.

No, I think it was a great example. The origin of civilization was not made by a single choice to plow a field some day long ago. It was a complex interaction of many factors which no doubt forced people into and out of 'civilization' until one finally took hold and grew. It's a great question.