Is Free Will an Illusion? (Kingdom, choices, choice, evolution)

[keevelish]

There are examples of some animals who are as intelligent as children as old as 7


I'm not sure this is true. Humans at the age of seven are capable of representing objects mentally by words and other symbols, can respond to objects that are remembered but not present, and understand the concept of conservation of mass, number, and volume (e.g. - the same volume in two glasses of different shape). (Introduction to Psychology, Kalat) I can't think of any animal that can do these things, let alone read and write. Regardless of this, I think that children are capable of making choices as soon as they become physically independent. A bear may teach her cubs some survival skills, but ultimately they will rely on instinct as their primary survival mechanism. A human mother will teach her child survival skills, but also a basic moral premise. To me it seems the child can choose to obey this moral code set before it, or choose to disobey it. It's instincts would have no reason to be involved since survival is not dependant on their implementation.

Has anyone considered the studies done on Alex the African Grey Parrot? Dr. Irene Pepperburg began them in the seventies- she is still working with him now. I would say that he can display all of the above qualities that a seven year old displays.

[Mr Spinkles]

keevelish--

Originally Posted by keevelish

Has anyone considered the studies done on Alex the African Grey Parrot? Dr. Irene Pepperburg began them in the seventies- she is still working with him now. I would say that he can display all of the above qualities that a seven year old displays.

I think I recall there was a big documentary about the intelligence of various parrots on the Animal Planet network...it was really fascinating. I can't remember if the show involved Alex, but I think it also talked about some of the more intelligent apes, dolphins, and even squirrels out there. It's really remarkable what some of these guys can do!

[Brien]

As humans, we do need morality to get along with each other and therefore survive. Morality has become instinctual to us in a sense, and I think that if bears needed it, they would develop it and cubs would be taught morality as well as salmon fishing.

Morality, in a general sense, is not necessary to survive. How could having a particular set of moral principles help you to stay alive while coexisting with others that hold different morals? A large percentage of the population in the Southeastern United States consists of conservative Christians. But individuals who live within the same neighborhoods who believe and practice different things get along just fine even though some of their acts are viewed as ‘wrong’ by the conservative Christians. Of course being aware of certain moral standards help individuals to survive, those concerning murder and theft for example, but we tend call these ‘laws’ more often than ‘morals.’ There are moral principles taught in parenting that exists above the plane of moral standards (those necessary) held by our respective societies.

I personally think that all thoughts are memes (and therefore we don't have free-will) but I don't think that means we can't have original ideas, and as far as intinsic instincts and abilities, I believe certain memes (instincts, etc) can be inhereted much like genes.

I believe that the term as originally presented by Richard Dawkins was used only to describe the transfer of ideas in cultural evolution. Thus a thought can only become a meme once it is conveyed to someone else. Sensory perceptions, fantasies, and revelations do not immediately become memes. Suppose you discover a new species on an uninhabited island and study its structures and unique behaviors then formulate a theory on how it came into existence. These thoughts will only become memes after they are passed on to others.

Everyone's brain is unique and different. The way a person's brain processes and interprets information is different from everyone elses becaused it's based on how they think, which is unique to them. When a person is introduced to a new meme, their brain will interpret it in their own unique way. Likewise, within the brain, memes affect each other based on how the brain works, so the way my memes affect each other in my brain is different from yours, etc. That said, it is very easy to accept that people can still have original ideas with memes and without free-will...does that make sense?

Yes, when Einstein formulated the equation energy equals mass times the speed of light squared he used pieces of information that were already known. Yes, it was his unique abilities that allowed him to use these pieces of information that were known by others to create something that was not known by others. But it was his choice to use his reasoning abilities and discover the equation or to put it in autopilot and sit back. It is this primary choice that is both caused and necessitated by the nature of man. Given any set of circumstances, man must choose. The choice to focus or not is the expression of volition.

And as for where the memes came from, that's an excellent question! I would say that they evolved much like anything else. By the process of natural selection, those who possessed the meme 'eat when you get hungry' survived and those who didn't died off, etc.

Evolution of memes does make a lot of sense. Ideas can mutate – be cut in half, added together, changed here and there – but synonymizing the evolution of ideas to genetic evolution is oversimplifying the issue. DNA is composed of chemicals, ideas are formed with brainwaves. We sometimes observe analogous structures that are shared by two different organisms. According to the theory of evolution we presume the more advanced species inherited the structure from the more primitive species. If the structure is not helping the organism in any way, we presume the structure was passed on to the new species because it is genetically attached to a trait that is helping the species. This is supported through the observations of various genomes. Brainwaves, however, are different from the sections of DNA because they are not chemically attached to other brainwaves. We cannot say that we still have thoughts unnecessary for survival because they are attached to thoughts that are necessary. Yes, brainwaves are created via chemicals, but we can form new thoughts and alter old ones. This idea that thoughts can be changed indicates that thoughts are at least partially independent of our DNA. Evolution of memes can only explain how they have developed, not how they were created.

Has anyone considered the studies done on Alex the African Grey Parrot? Dr. Irene Pepperburg began them in the seventies- she is still working with him now. I would say that he can display all of the above qualities that a seven year old displays.

I actually did some research for this one and found out that Dr. Pepperberg’s studies have determined that the African Grey Parrot is able to: (1) request, refuse, quantify, identify, and categorize objects, and (2) control, to a limited extent, its immediate environment. (alexfoundation.org) While quantification and categorization are amazing abilities for an animal, it is very different from the example that I gave concerning the conservation of volume. Around age seven children typically enter a phase of development known as the concrete operations stage. The significance of the example is that it shows the child can perform mental operations on concrete objects and apply previously attained knowledge to new problems.

Of course arguing this is pointless since you could easily say, ‘Well what about a child that is six years old.’ However, if you look at a dog or a parrot in a comparable stage of development you will find that its abilities are not equal to the dog or the parrot that has become a fully developed adult. Comparing the capacity of a developed animal to that of a human child is irrelevant since the child still possesses the potential to exercise ‘free will’ at some point. Of course there are some adults that will never use their ability to reason; they would rather just float through life believing what others tell them and doing what others say. That is their choice. That is free will – the decision to use reason or to ignore it.

Many scientists are beginning to think that the difference in cognative ability is one of quantity not quality.

I’m not exactly sure what difference you are referring too, but I assume you mean the difference in cognition between humans and animals. Cognition is only the mental process of knowing. Yes, a major difference between human and animal cognition is how much we know. But another difference between humans and animals worth noting lies within our intelligence, which is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, especially in a purposeful, rational, and effective manner. (The Concept of Intelligence and Its Role, Sternberg)

[Ceridwen018]

Brien,

Morality, in a general sense, is not necessary to survive. How could having a particular set of moral principles help you to stay alive while coexisting with others that hold different morals? A large percentage of the population in the Southeastern United States consists of conservative Christians. But individuals who live within the same neighborhoods who believe and practice different things get along just fine even though some of their acts are viewed as ‘wrong’ by the conservative Christians. Of course being aware of certain moral standards help individuals to survive, those concerning murder and theft for example, but we tend call these ‘laws’ more often than ‘morals.’ There are moral principles taught in parenting that exists above the plane of moral standards (those necessary) held by our respective societies.

I think we're basically agreeing here. What you call laws, murder, theft, etc., I think of as necessary moral standings which help our society to get on. Even the example you used of the conservative Christians allowing other to live among them is an example of people exercising the moral of tolerance--without which, those 'others' wouldn't survive for long perhaps.

I believe that the term as originally presented by Richard Dawkins was used only to describe the transfer of ideas in cultural evolution. Thus a thought can only become a meme once it is conveyed to someone else. Sensory perceptions, fantasies, and revelations do not immediately become memes. Suppose you discover a new species on an uninhabited island and study its structures and unique behaviors then formulate a theory on how it came into existence. These thoughts will only become memes after they are passed on to others.

Maybe I need to find a new word besides 'meme' then. For lack of a better word as of yet, I'll continue to use 'meme' though.

Yes, when Einstein formulated the equation energy equals mass times the speed of light squared he used pieces of information that were already known. Yes, it was his unique abilities that allowed him to use these pieces of information that were known by others to create something that was not known by others. But it was his choice to use his reasoning abilities and discover the equation or to put it in autopilot and sit back. It is this primary choice that is both caused and necessitated by the nature of man. Given any set of circumstances, man must choose. The choice to focus or not is the expression of volition.

Here I would say that it was still not his 'choice'. His opinions are controlled by his memes, therefore, the question of 'to release the idea, or not release the idea' is based upon which way his natural tendencies and opinions lean.

[trishtrish10]

since when are we free of laws. disobedience is deadly as experienced by adam and eve and most everyone since then. God allows us to make wrong or immoral choices, that's our choice or free-will although sometimes we get carried away, and sometimes he intervenes. it is all relevant to what's on your heart not necessarily in your mind. he was, Jesus, tempted like us to do wrong, but chose not to, unlike us hypocrits.

[Ceridwen018]

since when are we free of laws.

The thread has to do with free-will, not being free of laws.

disobedience is deadly as experienced by adam and eve and most everyone since then.

Most everyone? Who are the lucky few who escaped such fate?

it is all relevant to what's on your heart not necessarily in your mind

Trish, things can't be 'on your heart'. The heart pumps blood, the brain thinks and spews out emotions.

unlike us hypocrits.

Well, I don't believe in god, so I guess that means I'm not a hypocrite. Woohoo.

[trishtrish10]

you are free to choose what u want to think. your environment contains ure body. u have plenty of choices to make and it's u who make them, no one else unless of course u are possessed.

mary and Jesus were the onlly perfect people who live.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen

Most everyone? Who are the lucky few who escaped such fate?

Mary, the mother of God.

Peace,
Scott

[Ceridwen018]

SOGFPP,

I am interested to know...I read somewhere that it doesn't say anything in the bible about the supposed 'immaculate conception' of Mary, or her supposed 'sinless' life. I checked it out myself (after having grown up Catholic, I was baffled to hear such a thing) and sure enough, I drew a blank. Am I missing something here?

[Mercellus]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

SOGFPP,

I am interested to know...I read somewhere that it doesn't say anything in the bible about the supposed 'immaculate conception' of Mary, or her supposed 'sinless' life. I checked it out myself (after having grown up Catholic, I was baffled to hear such a thing) and sure enough, I drew a blank. Am I missing something here?

Good question, Ceridwen018.