CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Because they've evolved to be. They've constructed a society where it is required to be. They omit all factors that reveal this cruelty so they can happily continue to be. And they justify this omission with absurdities so their happiness can never depart from their obscured reality.
Cruelty is a subjective human conception, commonly juxtaposed with kindness or compassion. The subjective judgement of cruelty is projected onto human behavior as a form of interpersonal behavioral moderation, but the behavior itself is not objectively cruel. The language surrounding cruelty/kindness is less about describing objective reality, and more about influencing one another in our respective behavioral patterns. Prevailing conceptions of cruelty and kindness within and between groups are the consequence of evolutionary selection and honing of the "moral" sensibilities of the individual and collective.
My point is that the only reason humans are "so cruel" at all is because we have rather arbitrarily determined due to evolutionary forces to identify some of our behavior as cruel and some as kind. We exhibit that behavior because of evolution, and we understand it differently and subjectively as cruelty due to the same force of nature.
That is more or less accurate to my point, yes. It is hardly superfluous, however, since "cruelty" as a subjective phenomenon still exerts considerable influence on human interpersonal behavior.
That's not a good argument for why things are the way they are.
It's equivalent to me saying that the force known as gravity exists only because I say so and I could also remove it from existence just by saying it doesn't exist and everything would fall apart just like your silly argument.
"More or less" is just a turn of phrase; it signifies that your summation of my point was close enough to not need any significant correction.
That's not a good argument for why things are the way they are.
Evolution is not a good argument for explaining why things are the way they are?
It's equivalent to me saying that the force known as gravity exists only because I say so and I could also remove it from existence just by saying it doesn't exist and everything would fall apart just like your silly argument.
No, not really. I think perhaps you do not entirely understand my argument.
Through the process of evolution our species gained a conscious awareness, and with that a capacity for projecting our perceptions (subjective) onto actual reality (objective). Among such projected perceptions exists cruelty (gravity is not a projected perception, but rather a descriptive term used to refer to an objective phenomenon). Cruelty cannot reasonably be argued to be objective, since it is inherently non-universal and would not exist outside of our perception of it (whereas gravity continues to exist outside our perception of it). Cruelty is one perceptive judgement among many that our species has evolved to regulate our interpersonal behavior; it does not reference any objective reality.
Auditory and visual processes themselves are objectively observable phenomenon, however the way we interpret the information as it is processed becomes at least partially subjective.
For demonstrative purposes, consider sight. There is an objectively observable phenomenon whereby light enters the ocular organ, is received by photoreceptors, and is translated into electrical energy to be passed through the ocular nerve into the brain. Interestingly, the area occupied by the optical nerve lacks photoreceptors and we actually have a blind spot for which no light is received (no objective sight occurs) but for which the brain fills in based on the most probable stimulus (a subjective process derived internally). (Source)
Using the example of sight one might argue that while eyes are a necessary tool for sight, it actually happens entirely in the mind. One can be hypnotized to blindness. A head injury can cause irreversible blindness. This illustrates the point that while sight is a subjective experience of the mind, it is an objectively observable phenomenon which lies more in the brain than in the eyes.
To bring it back to the discussion at hand I would argue that while cruelty is experienced and judged subjectively, the process of determining that which is cruel may be less arbitrary than earlier implied.
While colors and light are experienced subjectively, there is an objectively existing, specific kind of stimulus which causes sight. An objectively existing, specific kind of stimulus causes the recognition of cruelty. This is true regardless of people seeing this stimulus differently, or even not at all.
Sight does not happen entirely in the mind. Our interpretation of sight happens entirely in the mind. With hypnotic blindness, the objective process of sight is still occurring but the brain has failed to interpret that process accurately. With physical nuerological blindness the objective process of sight is occurring but the brain cannot register the process. With physical organ loss blindness the objective process of sight is not occurring and the brain is interpreting accurately. Regardless, the interpretation of seeing remains entirely subjective.
You have done little by way of substantiating the parallel you are attempting to draw, beyond simply asserting that it is an accurate analogy. However, you have demonstrated no objective process or object cruelty that would parallel for the objective process of sight. Yes, the perception of cruelty is generally responsive to external, objective existence but that does not mean that cruelty itself is an objective phenomenon.
I also do not believe I ever stated that cruelty was an arbitrary process, merely that it was a non-universal subjective projection.
What a load of Politically correct GARBAGE! There is right & wrong! There is moral & immoral & it is not some subjective human conception. The kinds of fools who spew that garbage are the ones who say nothing when late term abortions for any reason are a choice. Now that is CRUEL!
I wonder if it would be cruel for someone to kill you & your family or is that just some old traditional subjective human conception.
I bet I know what would be cruel to you.... hunting animals, killing Baby seals but of course killing Baby humans is just a subjective human conception.
Use some bigger words, maybe it might impress the low end voters.
As an anti-moralist, I assure you that the amoral stance is far from being politically correct. My view on morality is substantiated by a growing body of interdisciplinary research regarding the evolutionary origins of our moral sense. Cruelty, of course, is not actually interchangeable with morality since the conception of it can exist independently of the moral conception (i.e. something may be cruel without necessarily being wrong).
Most people would consider your casual threats to my life and those of my family to be immoral. Most would consider your actually carrying out those homicidal ideations to be cruel. Personally, I would not. However, that would not make me passive in any such situation; far from it, I would lack any and all compunction against doing whatever I had to in order to ensure you failed. And you would fail. I do not need morality or the idea of cruelty to tell me I should defend my life or the lives of those I care about against those who would take that life.
You fail to grasp my stance entirely; I do not consider hunting animals cruel nor abortion because I do not consider anything cruel. I do consider the divergent moral opinions upon both matters to be entirely subjective. I suggest you present some objective basis for your disagreement, or that you stop wasting my time with your threats (or, you know, keep YELLING... it might impress the low end voters).
Well at least you are no different than Liberals. They also twist facts to make their point. I NEVER said i wanted to kill you or your family, there was no threat! I said would it be cruel for SOMEONE to kill you or your family. But don't let the truth get in the way of your theory.
Evolution is a THEORY! You as most evolutionists constantly state it as fact just as the nature shows on TV, where they say this animal evolved speed or camouflage to capture their prey. No talk of a theory, it is always as if evolution is proven fact.
Maybe you think of yourself as an animal, I am a human being. In order for anti moralists or anti religion activists to justify man's evil or cruelty, they had to bring us down to the level of animals, thereby excusing away the evil or selfish immoral CHOICES man makes each day. We are not driven by evolutionary forces, we are driven by self love where we justify our actions out of selfish motivations.
You know, when I read your views, I hear an over educated individual with a touch of narcissism. You enjoy showing off your big words & impressing people with your book smarts. When I see people like this it takes me back to a verse I remember from the Bible. It speaks to people who are intelligent when it comes to certain things in life but they lack the wisdom and common sense that comes from true knowledge. There are people who could read a book & memorize it word for word. Others would hear them speak & think that they are intelligent. That same person could never balance his budget nor could he figure out why he keeps meeting the wrong people in relationships.
There is such a thing as wisdom which supersedes book smart by a thousand times. Our culture is a direct result of people such as yourself explaining away irresponsible immoral choices, taking away all accountability for one's actions. For me it comes down to total insecurity, never wanting to be judged or blamed for personal choices in life.
"ITS THE FAULT OF EVOLUTION! WE ARE JUST FOLLOWING OUR ANIMAL EVOLUTIONARY PROGRAMMING"! That is the culmination of all your education, programmed in you by Liberal professors, not evolution.
Well at least you are no different than Liberals. They also twist facts to make their point. I NEVER said i wanted to kill you or your family, there was no threat! I said would it be cruel for SOMEONE to kill you or your family. But don't let the truth get in the way of your theory.
You are clearly incapable of grasping diverse ideologies that fall outside the partisan rhetoric you have learned.
I never stated that you wanted to kill me or my family. There is a difference between a threat and the will to carry it out, and your statements legally do constitute a threat (though not a serious one, which is why I labeled it a casual threat).
Evolution is a THEORY! [...]
The scientific community is effectively unanimous in their validation of evolution. I will absolutely take the substantiated observations of literally thousands of qualified scientists over the utterly baseless claims of creationists.
Maybe you think of yourself as an animal [...] we are driven by self love where we justify our actions out of selfish motivations.
I consider myself both human and animal; only ego necessitates placing ourselves separate from or somehow above nature as you do. More importantly, I have never stated anything indicating that cruelty or other anti-social behavior should be permissible.
You know, when I read your views [...] why he keeps meeting the wrong people in relationships.
I could care less if you think I am an over-educated narcissist with bad relationships and a poor credit score. Your personal opinion of me is entirely non-responsive to my arguments. That you make a habit of attacking people rather than their arguments is indicative that you lack anything substantive to refute those arguments with.
Our culture is a direct result of people such as yourself explaining away irresponsible immoral choices, taking away all accountability for one's actions. For me it comes down to total insecurity, never wanting to be judged or blamed for personal choices in life.
I have never argued that we should not be held to account for our actions. Explaining why we act the way we do is not the same as making all behavior permissible.
"ITS THE FAULT OF EVOLUTION! WE ARE JUST FOLLOWING OUR ANIMAL EVOLUTIONARY PROGRAMMING"! That is the culmination of all your education, programmed in you by Liberal professors, not evolution.
That is not my argument, nor did I acquire my nihilistic views through a higher education institute.
Evolution is a THEORY! You as most evolutionists constantly state it as fact just as the nature shows on TV, where they say this animal evolved speed or camouflage to capture their prey. No talk of a theory, it is always as if evolution is proven fact.
Maybe you think of yourself as an animal, I am a human being. In order for anti moralists or anti religion activists to justify man's evil or cruelty, they had to bring us down to the level of animals, thereby excusing away the evil or selfish immoral CHOICES man makes each day. We are not driven by evolutionary forces, we are driven by self love where we justify our actions out of selfish motivations.
You know, when I read your views, I hear an over educated individual with a touch of narcissism. You enjoy showing off your big words & impressing people with your book smarts. When I see people like this it takes me back to a verse I remember from the Bible. It speaks to people who are intelligent when it comes to certain things in life but they lack the wisdom and common sense that comes from true knowledge. There are people who could read a book & memorize it word for word. Others would hear them speak & think that they are intelligent. That same person could never balance his budget nor could he figure out why he keeps meeting the wrong people in relationships.
There is such a thing as wisdom which supersedes book smart by a thousand times. Our culture is a direct result of people such as yourself explaining away irresponsible immoral choices, taking away all accountability for one's actions. For me it comes down to total insecurity, never wanting to be judged or blamed for personal choices in life.
"ITS THE FAULT OF EVOLUTION! WE ARE JUST FOLLOWING OUR ANIMAL EVOLUTIONARY PROGRAMMING"! That is the culmination of all your education, programmed in you by Liberal professors, not evolution.
In order for anti moralists or anti religion activists to justify man's evil or cruelty, they had to bring us down to the level of animals, thereby excusing away the evil or selfish immoral CHOICES man makes each day.
You blame it on eating a piece of fruit. You are way worse.
I blame man's selfish evil & cruelty on man! His self love is what drives his choices in life. It's not rocket science. The analogy of taking marijuana and moving to harder drugs is a perfect example of what happens when man starts following his will rather than the moral values that come from faith in God. He starts out lets say with tame R rated movies and then wants more & moves into X rated movies, and then when that no longer titillates him he moves to even darker movies, etc. and this is how a nation's core values goes from one of love for others to one of self love. One step at a time down that slippery slope.
The way you believe you can judge who is moral and who isn't and who deserves help and who doesn't is absolutely abhorrent. Thankfully most Christians are not like you. I think it must be an anger management issue with you. God bless.
because we have the natural instinct of evolving. while many people evolve from bad to good beings, there are also others, who fall prey to the natural human behavior of desire, and caught in the vortex of "me, myself, I", evolve from good to bad inhabitants.
so if something is an act of cruelty for a group of populace, it could just be an act towards accomplishment of something for others. basically intentions behind the cruel actions, may be relative from one person to another, but the consequences undoubtedly remain cruel.
If cruelty is relative, how can any consequence be "undoubtedly" cruel in any meaningful sense? It seems to me that if some define cruelty one way and others another, none have any basis from which to claim an actual knowledge of what constitutes cruelty.
I would also challenge the idea that we evolve from bad to good, primarily because I think science has demonstrated that pro-social and anti-social behavior and disposition are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Nor do we all start with the same pro/anti-social dispositional composition. Your thoughts?
Some humans are just like this. Some have a reason and others don't, but for reasons it can be is almost endless and that's that. Some may have been raised by this and may think that it is right. There is so many reasons that it cant be just one.
Mostly a lack of empathy or reciprocation of how they feel they've been treated. Mix that with limited resources and you have a bunch of meany-weenies.
Though one person's "cruel" could simply be the reality of the situation to another person. Or tough love, which I think is mostly overused, but does have its place.
A person can commit cruel acts with inadvertence--justifiable (in their own perspective) or not. The act itself would still be cruel, whereas, their intentions, perhaps, "cruel-mindedness," is a subjective standpoint. For example, execution, if you have the ability to just shoot someone in the head to execute them but instead to chop them into pieces (e.g. their hands, feet, genitalia, etc.), your act is still cruel based off the fact that you knowingly had a better way to end the individuals life. Now, the justification, as to why you chose the route that you did, purely subjective.
I'm not sure why you disputed my statement. I covered your first point by mentioning a lack of empathy. As far as subjectivity, I mentioned that in me second paragraph. All told, I agree with you and I believe you agree with me.
It's because we live in a sinful world. And the devil is living in this world. But greater is the one living inside of me than he who is living in the world.
Alternatively, you are a human being with mixed impulses conditioned by thousands of years of evolution. That would be the scientific explanation though. Clearly, you prefer your Bible.
You just love to try and prove me wrong. Don't you? You say I prefer the Bible but I like to think of it as I prefer the truth. You prefer to believe the most difficult explanation. You prefer the explanation people took years to make up. But you know the truth. Why don't you believe? Why do you hate God? How can you hate God?
You just love to try and prove me wrong. Don't you?
I have disproved your statements already, repeatedly. Allow me to do so once more.
You say I prefer the Bible but I like to think of it as I prefer the truth.
The Bible is replete with empirically disproved observations, and I am entirely certain that you cannot find any actual evidence external to the Bible that substantiates its greater claims (e.g. God exists).
You prefer to believe the most difficult explanation.
If by most difficult you mean most substantiated, then yes.
You prefer the explanation people took years to make up.
I prefer the view that people took years to research, test, and validate.
But you know the truth.
No, not really. I suspect I am closer than you though.
Why don't you believe?
No proof. (Notably, you have proffered none whatsoever in any of our exchanges.)
Also, plenty of reason to consider religion to be an evolutionary byproduct (per my other arguments you have not yet responded to).
Why do you hate God? How can you hate God?
I do not hate God, nor have I ever made any statement to that effect.
Alright, I see. I'm not so sure I could give evidence that you would have already heard or dismissed already, but if I do find some, or you would like to post your reasons in my newest debate I can try to answer them to the best of my abilities.
Let's get one thing straight here. God is real. Period. You are far from the truth and I actually do have proof. I am talking to you, aren't I? that's my proof. And there is nothing empirical about the Bible. Tell me what happened in your life that was so bad? I know something happened in your life that was just awful and don't you dare lie to me. And how many times do I have to tell you that Jesus hated modern day religion. You can't win this, trust me. Jace that's my response for you.
God is real. Period. You are far from the truth and I actually do have proof. I am talking to you, aren't I? that's my proof.
slowly claps at first and then claps faster :') th....thank you. I am now a christian!
Tell me what happened in your life that was so bad? I know something happened in your life that was just awful and don't you dare lie to me. And how many times do I have to tell you that Jesus hated modern day religion. You can't win this, trust me. Jace that's my response for you.
What makes you assume something bad happened to him in the past? I left the religion for other personal reasons. It had nothing to do with negative things happening to me.
Almedude, maybe for you its not negative but something did happen and it affected you greatly and that's why you gave up. And when I said that I am talking to him and that's my proof. What I meant is that I am not suppose to be alive. I survived because of Jesus. And also just look around you everything he made is so beautiful.
Ah, religion saved your life. I understand your inability to critically interrogate your beliefs now. The reality, though, is that your belief in something making your life better does not actually prove that that belief is true; it only demonstrates that holding the belief makes you feel better about life (which we already knew). You are applying circular reasoning here.
You know next to nothing about me, and certainly nothing notable about my personal life. Stop acting like you do. You are committing an argumentum ad hominem (i.e. rather than addressing the actual issue you are making the debate about the personal character of the person you are engaging with). To make matters worse, you explicitly state that no matter what I say you will give preference to your entirely unfounded assumptions.
This will likely be among my final exchanges with you, since you are quite evidently not at a place in your life where you are able to have others critically challenge your views. There is nothing wrong with that, certainly, but it hardly makes for an interesting debate.
Nice! I really mean it. You are are really good at what you do. I have to say debating is definitely your thing. But being a perfectionist is my thing. So it's not over yet. I don't like to lose and I never lose. Here is the deal, you are saying that religion makes my life better. You couldn't be more wrong. My life is this uncontrollably tornado that will never stop. My life is worse than it was in Haiti. Yes, I have a huge house, food, water, clothes, and shines on my feet. Inside I am painfully and slowly dying. Being a Christian didn't make my life better. The fact is more people who follow Jesus doesn't have a better life here on Earth. Pastors, missionaries, and anyone who goes out into a different country where you are not allow to preach the gospel are being killed. Being a Christian is something you feel. It's what gives people hope and peace. They know when they die they will go to heaven and have everlasting joy. This doesn't have to be personal. It just has to real. Haven't you ever wondered what it's like to be in so much pain and yet have so much peace? Haven't you ever wondered what life will be like when Jesus comes back? Haven't you ever wondered how those missionaries and pastors can go preach the gospel when they know they will die because of it? Where do you think your sole will go when you die? Where does your hope come from. Someone once told me that, short term pleasure equals long term consequences.
You could be more wrong. My life is this uncontrollably tornado that will never stop. My life is wrist than it was in Haiti. Yes, I have a huge house, food, water, clothes, and shines on my feet. Inside I am painfully and slowly dying.
Nice! I really mean it. You are are really good at what you do. I have to say debating is definitely your thing.
Thank you. It is something I enjoy a good deal. I think that has driven me to hone my skills in it.
But being a perfectionist is my thing. So it's not over yet. I don't like to lose and I never lose.
Likewise. ;) Power to you.
Here is the deal, you are saying that religion makes my life better. You could be more wrong. My life is this uncontrollably tornado that will never stop. My life is wrist than it was in Haiti. Yes, I have a huge house, food, water, clothes, and shines on my feet. Inside I am painfully and slowly dying. Being a Christian didn't make my life better. The fact is more people who follow Jesus doesn't have a better life here on Earth. Pastors, missionaries, and anyone who goes out into a different country where you are not allow to preach the gospel are being killed.
Apologies, my statement was vague; I did not mean to indicate that religion makes external circumstances like these better. Obviously, believing in God does not make one immune to suffering and hardship.
Being a Christian is something you feel. It's what gives people hope and peace. They know when they die they will go to heaven and have everlasting joy.
This is what I was getting at. Religion affords hope and serenity as coping mechanisms to make things better emotionally for people facing hardship. I would speculate that as terrible as things are and feel to you now, that they would be much less manageable (if not entirely unmanageable) without your faith; is that inaccurate?
Haven't you ever wondered what it's like to be in so much pain and yet have so much peace? Haven't you ever wondered what life will be like when Jesus comes back? Haven't you ever wondered how those missionaries and pastors can go preach the gospel when they know they will die because of it? Where do you think your sole will go when you die? Where does your hope come from. Someone once told me that, short term pleasure equals long term consequences.
I have lived through my own hardships, and to a somewhat lesser extent still do today. I did not get to where I am today through religion, and hope only ever held me back. To hope is to attach to our desires; it is a short term emotional pleasure with the long term consequence of potentially persistent disappointment. I learned to stop hoping for things, but to still demand what I wanted without expecting it to happen; this made me realistic and more flexible to setbacks, but still working to be in a better place with myself.
With respect to Jesus, no, I have not wondered what life will be like when he comes back because I never believed in Jesus or God to begin with. The same to be said about my soul; I do not believe we have them.
With respect to missionaries who risk their lives, I wondered briefly about it and came to understand it as a sincere but misguided effort to help other people.
What happened to you? Who in your life let you down? Who broke a promise to you? Who died that you loved? I encourage you to look up the movie, "Gods not Dead." I strongly ask you that you would just at least look it up.
You have asked questions like these before, and my response is largely the same. What makes you think that simply because someone is an atheist something terrible must have happened to them? I have always been an atheist, meaning that my lack of belief long precedes all of the hardship I have subsequently faced in my life.
With respect to the movie God's not Dead, I have seen part of it but found its cinematography a bit too lacking to get through the whole thing (sorry, a bit of a movie snob). The premise struck me as unrealistic, as did the sudden revelations and conversions at the end (I read the summary to find out how it ended). I can see that you seem to have drawn some of your perspective from it though - the "Why do you hate God?" bit in particular, as well as the notion that atheists lack belief because something bad happened to them. As I have said, however, I neither hate God (as the movie itself points out, how could I hate that which does not exist) nor did hardship precede my atheism in any way.
Also, I will reiterate the points above that you have dropped - namely, that religion does function as an emotional coping mechanism that creates shorter term mental health benefits for those who use it.
This is a waste of my time. You know the truth. Even though I spend my time crying in pain. I still believe. When I get home from school or any other place I take off my mask and break down. My friends think I am always happy but my best friend knows the real me. The point is that even though I am in pain crying all the time I still have peace. That's why I prefer the Bible. It's the reason I prefer Jesus.
I do not care if you personally find the Bible and Jesus helpful. If anything, it underscores my point that religion functions as a coping mechanism; that is not an inherently bad thing. If this is what you need to get through what you are going through, then use it accordingly.
Religion totally aside, I hope you can move through the suffering in your life to a place where it is less prevalent. Keep your supportive friends close - they are among the best things in life a person can have, in my opinion - but let yourself believe in your own inner strength too.
Are we cruel because of autonomy... or because we lack it entirely? Science definitively indicates that if we have any free will at all it is more limited than we perceive it to be, and even increasingly supports the conclusion that we lack free will entirely. This would suggest that we are "cruel" not because we choose to be, but because our predispositions when acted upon by environmental stimuli compel us towards that behavior.
Then how is it that we can resist our temptations to act a certain way in particular environments? Or how is it that I can type this, and if I truly wanted to type anything, type at all? What predispositions affect me when making the decision to type? Are we 100% bound be predispositions? I think not, but I don't know.
Scientific studies have indicated in laboratory settings that the human perception of willful action is preceded by the neurological activity that initiates that action. In other words, the action is already set in motion before we perceive ourselves as having made the choice to take that action. Or, put another way, we have a scientific basis from which to conclude that our perception of free will is unreliable and cannot itself provide evidence that we have free will. An increasing array of human thought and behavior is explainable by genetics and environment (i.e. not free will), yet there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to indicate that any cognitive or behavioral processes are the consequence (even in part) of free will.
We resist our temptations because our genetics and experiences interact to cause us to resist them. We act certain ways in particular environments, type these exchanges, type in general, and generally do everything else for the same exact reason. Or, at least, that is what the preponderance of evidence suggests. By comparison, free will rests its assertion purely upon that assertion itself.
So then it seems like we have some autonomy after all then. What if we are just controlling those neural impulses? I mean it would make sense for us to enter an environment and we tell our brains what to do and it does it.
So then it seems like we have some autonomy after all then.
I fail to see how that follows from anything I just wrote.
What if we are just controlling those neural impulses?
As expressed above in greater length, science has actively disproved this contention in multiple contexts. By contrast, there is zero proof that we can ever exert such control at all.
I mean it would make sense for us to enter an environment and we tell our brains what to do and it does it.
Not really, particularly if you follow the science. The only reason this might seem sensible to one is because they still find their perception of free will to be credible (even though, again, science has proven that sense to be unreliable).
I fail to see how that follows from anything I just wrote.
Sorry that was very unclear. I thought when you were talking about the neurons acting before we make decision would prompt some room for autonomy if we activate those neurons consciously, by this is most likely a byproduct of the debate and not specifically on topic so forgive me for that.
By contrast, there is zero proof that we can ever exert such control at all.
That's almost freaky.
The only reason this might seem sensible to one is because they still find their perception of free will to be credible (even though, again, science has proven that sense to be unreliable).
Sorry that was very unclear. I thought when you were talking about the neurons acting before we make decision would prompt some room for autonomy if we activate those neurons consciously, by this is most likely a byproduct of the debate and not specifically on topic so forgive me for that.
In these studies the progression goes very clearly from non-conscious initiation of action and then to conscious awareness of the action. This rather precludes the possibility of our having fired those neurons consciously, at least in the instances studied in the research.
That's almost freaky.
For whatever reason, I do not recall ever having strongly believed that we had any free will so the freakish element of this has always rather eluded me. I find it more fascinating than anything; that our perception could be so dominant over reality and also so integrated into our day to day lives... yet we still function (more or less).
This rather precludes the possibility of our having fired those neurons consciously, at least in the instances studied in the research.
Interesting, how does one go about measuring that? Do we have tools to see that close up in the brain? I know from taking some psychology courses that neurons are rather small.
I find it more fascinating than anything; that our perception could be so dominant over reality and also so integrated into our day to day lives... yet we still function (more or less).
Absolutely, it's crazy to me. I mean, does that mean my thoughts are also pre-planned as well?
Interesting, how does one go about measuring that? Do we have tools to see that close up in the brain? I know from taking some psychology courses that neurons are rather small.
Yes; a basic MRI scan can detect neuron activity with adequate detail to draw these conclusions. This article explains the research in a little more detail if you are interested.
Absolutely, it's crazy to me. I mean, does that mean my thoughts are also pre-planned as well?
Probably; thoughts are effectively just a form of internal action. While research increasingly indicates that all of our actions (including thoughts) are pre-determined, a lot more still needs to be conducted before we can state that with reasonable certainty.
Yes; a basic MRI scan can detect neuron activity with adequate detail to draw these conclusions. This article explains the research in a little more detail if you are interested.
I will look into this then. This is pretty interesting to me.
Probably; thoughts are effectively just a form of internal action. While research increasingly indicates that all of our actions (including thoughts) are pre-determined, a lot more still needs to be conducted before we can state that with reasonable certainty.
Oh, so the results and current postulations aren't definite, but they hold weight in support for genetic predetermination. Is that correct?
I will look into this then. This is pretty interesting to me.
Should you do so, please let me know what you find. I would be interested to hear your interpretations of the information, as well as to know if you find any points for objection that I may have overlooked.
Oh, so the results and current postulations aren't definite, but they hold weight in support for genetic predetermination. Is that correct?
I would be interested to hear your interpretations of the information, as well as to know if you find any points for objection that I may have overlooked.
I found this quote rather interesting.
"Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done,"
So, with regards to that quote, what exactly is consciousness? Is it an actual mechanism in the mind, an illusion of free will and choices, or merely a created concept?
These following paragraphs also intrigued me.
"Caveats remain, holding open the door for free will. For instance, the experiment may not reflect the mental dynamics of other, more complicated decisions."
"Real-life decisions -- am I going to buy this house or that one, take this job or that -- aren't decisions that we can implement very well in our brain scanners," said Haynes.
So, are they saying that it's possible that simple actions, or primitive if you prefer, are most likely hard wired genetics and thus an illusion of control is in front of us when truly our brains our acting out our genetic motives? Also would this portion of the article be saying that higher order actions, such as deciding to pull out a bank loan, choosing what car to buy, or deciding upon a major in college are things that they postulate are non-wired and thus are truly up to our will to control?
Finally, this quote also intrigues me.
"It's not like you're a machine. Your brain activity is the physiological substance in which your personality and wishes and desires operate," he said.
From what I understand you have a blank slate for personality at birth correct? However you have predispositions that lean you towards a particular personality, but as we age outside forces influence and shape our personalities. If this is true then is it societies wishes and desires that our brains operate on?
Thanks, for showing me this article as well, I have actually learned a lot of valuable information and would like to continue our little engagements on the site. You seem to be my "information pool". :D
Humans beings being cruel involves many factors let alone just because we want to be cruel. Under the name of justice, humans do pretty horrible things to achieve peace. While others are psychopaths, and love causing pain. Being morally right or wrong doesn't change the fact that we will one day bring pain or suffering to someone else. A person can't change, but they can change how they cause it from ever happing again. That is what I believe.
Not all humans are cruel for the most part. Those who vote for the pro choice politicians(for any reason at any stage which is what the Democrat party supports) have much cruelty on their hands. The GOP party in Texas tried to limit abortions to five months except in cases of life of mother or extreme cases and the Democrats refused to support it. They ALWAYS fight against any limits on abortions! Remember when Democrats told us all that Roe v Wade would only allow 1st trimester abortions, unless life of mother. Remember their lies?
We, the humans, are willfully causing pain and suffering to others through our actions, and whilst this may be true to a certain degree, we cannot conclude as to why this is until we have fully analyzed the question. What is "cruel"? everyone has their own ideas, some some see it as mistreatment of animals, others greed and desire, though in whole, they are all simply the by-product of a motive that lives in each and every one of us, not just humans. Let us consider the following scenario: Why does a Lion kill a baby Antelope? it has its reasons, to feed, to deliberately target the weak and vulnerable to heighten the chances of self-gain, sound familiar? the actions of humans can indeed come across as cruel, but as to why they are done there could be any number of plausible explanations, the only thing we know for sure is that actions are done for a purpose, normally to benefit another through someone else's suffering, but hey, the world was never made of sugar, it strengthens and develops itself in any way it needs to, survival of the fittest. For this reason, I disagree with the topic that humans are unnecessarily cruel.
You have no idea what's happening. All of you are so blind. Look at the world around you. None of it is a theory. God made this world, we sinned and now the devil walks on the face of the earth. But God promises a day when that will be over for all who believes in him. Humans are cruel because they have a heart that's made of rock.
