Behaviour report by the London school of economics

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

lostinrates wrote: »

what a superbly interesting post. See...I change my mind afterwards too, often, but I still think the first instinctive response, even though...no longer correct, is valid: sometimes how you feel is equally important to how you ''think it through''. Actually sometimes its more important.

Perception can be as important, or more important than truth too.[/QUOTE]

I read this & I thought "great post"

However, despite that I didn't agree with it.:) Mainly due to the bits in bold.

If it is no longer correct, it is invalid - to argue it is still/more valid is the relativist issue.

Sir Humphrey eloquently highlights the danger of the distinction between truth & perception.

think, for example,of the single mums/benefits row. Time and time again people show what single mums might really be entitled too ...that we think they get more impacts on our vote, our belief of the country, our interaction with people..etc etc more than truth does if we buy the perception.


Insert might/could wereever I haven't...I've moved on and am being lazy here now
(nota bene, his is n example of a posibilty not a reflection of my own believe)

ninky_2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

For example, there was an experiment which determined that the decision-making parts of the brain triggered several seconds before an actual decision was made - the implication being that our decision making is an illusion and we are determined to always make the same decision in the same circumstances. I find this unconvincing for two reasons; firstly this was a decision to be made that could be anticipated in advance due to the experimental conditions. Secondly, it only offers evidence of when the decision was made, not it's outcome.

.

now we are getting into free will. i used to believe in free will but after a couple of sessions on the dawkins forum i changed my mind. i realised that free will can't exist. a scary thought.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

lemonjelly wrote: »

think, for example,of the single mums/benefits row. Time and time again people show what single mums might really be entitled too ...that we think they get more impacts on our vote, our belief of the country, our interaction with people..etc etc more than truth does if we buy the perception.

but there is actually a truth underpinning all that. and that is that people perceive single mums get more in benefit than they do.

perception is a scientifically observable phenomenon.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

a scary thought.

Only if you are allowed to think it.

Sir_Humphrey

ninky wrote: »

now we are getting into free will. i used to believe in free will but after a couple of sessions on the dawkins forum i changed my mind. i realised that free will can't exist. a scary thought.

There is no way of knowing either way. The argument goes that the universe follows a causal chain that goes back to the big bang. That is actually very similar to the first cause argument for God.

Looking backwards, how would you tell the difference between a deterministic universe, or one which was indeterministic but where particular decisions were made? You could not tell the difference.

My opinion is that most things in the universe are deterministic, but a certain level of true free will exists (by free will I mean the ability to make a genuine choice of action). However, that is simply a belief (see my first sentence in this post). This level of free will is futile compared to the enormity of the universe, but quite powerful in the cosmologically insignificant area where humans operate).

EDIT: In my experience, people who praise Dawkins and quote him on forums usually know jack doo-doo about philosophy.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

lostinrates wrote: »

but there is actually a truth underpinning all that. and that is that people perceive single mums get more in benefit than they do.

perception is a scientifically observable phenomenon.

I still don't think I know the truth on this. So I go on I have two percieved beliefs: what they might get according to DM type posters, what they might get according to ''entitled too'' devotees and a third perceived belief that they get money: I don't know what and that there is probably significant variance and impact.

Sir_Humphrey

I think these arguments boil down to the fact that some people crave certainly, and some people can cope with not knowing the answer to certain things.

I am one of the latter.

Ninky's horror at the thought of having no free will is a rite of passage for First Year Philosophy undergraduates.

ninky_2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

EDIT: In my experience, people who praise Dawkins and quote him on forums usually know jack doo-doo about philosophy.

the dawkins forum doesn't praise or quote dawkins in particular just as this site doesn't praise or quote martin lewis. there are a lot of people cleverer than dawkins on there. and quite a few more stupid too.

i'm not talking about observable differences between deterministic or nondeterministic universes but rather, if there were such a thing as free will, where would it actually come from. we are after all chemicals / sub atomic particles, interacting with the environment. it's hard to see where free will figures in that.

for anyone interested in free will as discussed on richard dawkins,
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=68411&start=950

Sir_Humphrey

ninky wrote: »

the dawkins forum doesn't praise or quote dawkins in particular just as this site doesn't praise or quote martin lewis. there are a lot of people cleverer than dawkins on there. and quite a few more stupid too.

Fair enough.

ninky wrote: »

i'm not talking about observable differences between deterministic or nondeterministic universes but rather, if there were such a thing as free will, where would it actually come from. we are after all chemicals / sub atomic particles, interacting with the environment. it's hard to see where free will figures in that.

That is the extrapolation of scientific evidence to wider philosophical questions. That is a not a scientific argument for any of those questions, and the potential for error in taking that approach is very high, as you require lots of unspoken assumptions.

All science is a work in progress, and there is enough evidence to persuade me that the vast majority of the universe is deterministic in nature. However, that approach conflicts with the raw empirical evidence I have for my own consciousness, and qualitative experience of colours and sound. The other question is why are humans so much more unpredictable than non-living things or indeed animals.

The other major problem with determinism is that of infinite regress. What was the thing that started that causal chain? Surely that thing would not be deterministic? Surely that thing would in factor have controlled the whole of existence? If so, is that thing not God?

ninky_2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The other question is why are humans so much more unpredictable than non-living things or indeed animals.

the same reason it is harder to predict the results of the national lottery than it is to predict the results of tossing a coin. you are working with a lot more data and variables.