0
   

are we just then about mechanics ?

 
 
north
 
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2011 11:32 pm

through all the threads of free-will , with genetics etc........

is that all we are ? mechanics

Newton saw the Universe as mechanical

Einstein thought different , realitivity , perspective , the result of observation and the consequences of

thoughts
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 659 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 01:35 am

the definition of mechanical is ;

3) done by machine : seemingly , uninfluenced by mind or emotions , AUTOMATIC

5) : caused by , resulting from , or relating to a process that involves a purely physical as apposed to a chemical change
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 01:38 am

its seems that we are MORE THAN JUST THE PHYSICAL
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 02:33 am
@north,
The problem is that consciousness is a nebulous thing to define. If you could define it, you could probably also define will, and perhaps even free will.

Incredibly large tracts of our mind is automated. I personally believe in free will, but with an overall outcome that is very heavily influenced by automatic processes. We can by the way, choose to 'rewire' many of our automatic processes.

Mind you, I overall will discount any theory that doesn't have balance to it, and/or doesn't serve to create - that's not to say they aren't valuable to a degree...but simply that if they don't meet those two criteria, they won't serve me in this life.
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 02:42 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

The problem is that consciousness is a nebulous thing to define. If you could define it, you could probably also define will, and perhaps even free will.


agreed

Quote:
Incredibly large tracts of our mind is automated. I personally believe in free will, but with an overall outcome that is very heavily influenced by automatic processes.


hmmm... the mind is automated , how so ?



Quote:
We can by the way, choose to 'rewire' many of our automatic processes.


how ?

north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 03:29 am

I'm challanging you vikorr
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 03:52 am
@north,
Why on earth are you challenging me? That seems like an ahh...odd thing to do.

Have a look into the term neuroplasticity ( I think I got that right).

All your habits are automated.

English comes fairly automatically to you right? Do you know how speak Ethiopian? Probably not, and if you had to learn, it would be rather difficult...because you have no automatic associations with Ethiopian words or structures of the language.

Have you ever heard of the term 'muscle memory'?

Is walking automated? Yes, because you need balance to do so, and balance is learned (try tight rope walking, or water skiing, or surfing - all these things you need to learn balance for, same with walking).

Your beliefs are automated - they are 'wired' into you. You can change them yes, but until that time they 'guide' you.

What makes Roger Federer a great tennis player? Studies of reflexes of elite athletes show they don't have that much better reflexes than us. What they do have is much better automated programs.


Do you know why people visualise doing difficult processes?

Is the process of driving automatic to you now? Do you remember how you had to concentrate to keep the car straight when you first started, and you had to focus...but now (if you have been driving long enough) you can virtually switch off?

Most of your fears are automated (do you really think you get a choice in them?)

How do you handle yourself in a heated conflict? Does it show a certain pattern? Why do others handle themselves differently? And why is it that you can learn to handle yourself a different way?

How many patterns do you see in the way you live your life?

Seriously, this topic can go on into almost every aspect of your life. And if you dig deeply enough, you'll find something affecting your decisions and actions that is automated.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 03:54 am
@north,
Quote:
how ?

That's the subject of numerous volumes of books and a lot of ongoing research.
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 04:00 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
how ?

That's the subject of numerous volumes of books and a lot of ongoing research.


perhaps

but needn't be , just re-adjust the way your thinking

in this context;

Quote:
The problem is that consciousness is a nebulous thing to define. If you could define it, you could probably also define will, and perhaps even free will.

Incredibly large tracts of our mind is automated. I personally believe in free will, but with an overall outcome that is very heavily influenced by automatic processes. We can by the way, choose to 'rewire' many of our automatic processes.



vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 04:15 am
@north,
Quote:
perhaps

but needn't be , just re-adjust the way your thinking

in this context;
Most people would find it incredibly difficult to readjust their way of thinking. It's easy enough to change what we are thinking (if there's no emotional attachment to it)...but the way we think what we are thinking?

It's also easy enough to adjust perspective with new information. The resultant perspective though, isn't particularly automated...but the process taken in reaching that perspective (and the contributing components : beliefs/values/memories etc) has a lot of automation to it.
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 04:37 am
@vikorr,

Quote:
perhaps

but needn't be , just re-adjust the way your thinking

in this context;


Quote:
Most people would find it incredibly difficult to readjust their way of thinking. It's easy enough to change what we are thinking (if there's no emotional attachment to it)...but the way we think what we are thinking?

It's also easy enough to adjust perspective with new information. The resultant perspective though, isn't particularly automated...but the process taken in reaching that perspective (and the contributing components : beliefs/values/memories etc) has a lot of automation to it.


true

thats all well and fine , but we don't get out of this automation the Universe will gooble us up , quite frankly

we have have to adapt , otherwise we as a being will be eliminated
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 04:52 am
@north,
Quote:
true

thats all well and fine , but we don't get out of this automation the Universe will gooble us up , quite frankly

we have have to adapt , otherwise we as a being will be eliminated

It is consciousness that is out of the automation loop....but try and define that !

But the automation is also necessary to functional life. All our muscle memory, all our 'skills', all of the unconscious 'way we do things'...consciously having to do those would be difficult and tiring, and in an emergency, could get us killed.

The problem is, sometimes those automations no longer serve us (they all served us at one point or other), yet we carry them and use them still. It's the redundant ones that we want to change, and even the useful ones we should always be refining.

By the way, humans are very adaptable. Every time we have to adapt to a new situation, our mind adapts, forming new nueral connections. I daresay those neural connections are responsible for our automations.
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 04:59 am
@vikorr,

Quote:


true

thats all well and fine , but we don't get out of this automation the Universe will gooble us up , quite frankly

we have have to adapt , otherwise we as a being will be eliminated


Quote:
It is consciousness that is out of the automation loop....but try and define that !


awareness of both the within and without




Quote:
But the automation is also necessary to functional life. All our muscle memory, all our 'skills', all of the unconscious 'way we do things'...consciously having to do those would be difficult and tiring, and in an emergency, could get us killed.


a given

Quote:
The problem is, sometimes those automations no longer serve us (they all served us at one point or other), yet we carry them and use them still. It's the redundant ones that we want to change.


it is the the redundant that keeps us grounded when we go past the automations
G H
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 12:06 pm
@north,
It's one descriptive approach among many -- no need to reify it. Like different methodologies, each conceptual outlook could also have its own strengths, limitations, and biases (the strong points sometimes depending on the era when "whatever" was most in vogue). If you were contending this "mechanization" to be a specific formal model, then Hawking's recent "model-dependent realism" might be an example of practicality to offer-up in response, but hardly the only anti-centrist view prescribed in philosophy of science:

"According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If there are two models that both agree with observation ... then one cannot say that one is more real than another. One can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration. [...] It might be that to describe the universe, we have to employ different theories in different situations. Each theory may have its own version of reality, but according to model-dependent realism, that is acceptable so long as the theories agree in their predictions whenever they overlap, that is, whenever they can both be applied."

physics.about.com/od/stephenhawking/f/ModelDependentRealism.htm
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 12:28 pm
@G H,
That´s precisely why TRUTH is in the dynamic and not in the description...
(every model can fit if the dynamic is right)
TAOISM comes in handy time to time...
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 02:49 pm
@north,
Quote:
it is the the redundant that keeps us grounded when we go past the automations
'it' wouldn't be redundant then. By redundant I mean 'old patterns/habits/automations/fears' that no longer serve us. By no longer serving us, I mean they prevent us from growing.

But once again, automation is necessary to human life, and it is not all of human life.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2011 02:38 pm
@G H,
G H wrote:

It's one descriptive approach among many -- no need to reify it. Like different methodologies, each conceptual outlook could also have its own strengths, limitations, and biases (the strong points sometimes depending on the era when "whatever" was most in vogue). If you were contending this "mechanization" to be a specific formal model, then Hawking's recent "model-dependent realism" might be an example of practicality to offer-up in response, but hardly the only anti-centrist view prescribed in philosophy of science:



Quote:
"According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If there are two models that both agree with observation ... then one cannot say that one is more real than another. One can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration. [...] It might be that to describe the universe, we have to employ different theories in different situations. Each theory may have its own version of reality, but according to model-dependent realism, that is acceptable so long as the theories agree in their predictions whenever they overlap, that is, whenever they can both be applied."

physics.about.com/od/stephenhawking/f/ModelDependentRealism.htm



true but to what degree of each , 50-50 , 60-40 , 70-30 , 80-20 , 90-10 , and any inbetween

any SOUND THOERY , I would think has at least a 80-20
0 Replies
 
longfun
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 04:16 am
@north,
hrough all the threads of free-will , with genetics etc........

is that all we are ? mechanics, Technicly yes,
But it is better, it's "just" about interacting " potential" properties
as Einstein thought , relativity , perspective , the result of observation and the consequences of thoughts (just properties interacting, the rest is history)
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 09:05 am
@longfun,
1 - Just what do you think "observation" means ?
2 - "Consequences of thoughts" ??? Could you be more specific on that ?

...stick only with the first half...
Quote:
But it is better, it's "just" about interacting " potential" properties
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » are we just then about mechanics ?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2019 at 11:16:28