Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

[c1ue]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

But that one can control one's own will is a fundamental truth. And it is this truth that is at the core of ethics/morality, responsibility or not, even collectivism vs individualism.

You'll note that I've never said you cannot control your own will.

What I've said is that most people do not.

The reasons why can be physical, it can be subconscious, it can be ignorance of other choices, bias, etc etc.

If you don't have full awareness of choices as well as knowledge of the consequences of your actions, is this then free will?

Having the capability is vastly different than exercising it.

We can all run 6 minute miles in potential, but the ones who actually are able to do it are the ones who have exercised themselves towards that capability.

If we recognize these physical limitations, why then can we not recognize the mental equivalent?

[vinoveri]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Free will exists.

But it is far rarer and unusual than you would like to think.

The choices we fail to make can be due to fear of non-conformity. It can be due to bias. It can be due to inability to conceive. It can be due to poverty.

There are myriad reasons why choices are rarely free.

Free will exists.

Agreed that the exercise of it is subject to bias and pressure that calls into question innate, spontaneous and unhibited volition.

But that one can control one's own will is a fundamental truth. And it is this truth that is at the core of ethics/morality, responsibility or not, even collectivism vs individualism.

I believe it was the stoic philosophers who said that the only thing that an individual has control over is what they do, i.e., their will.

To me, life would have little meaning and be a bore w/o this freedom; we would be mere cattle.

The people we remember, famous and infamous, tend to be individuals of strong wills. Socrates, Thomas More, and every other martyr; Hitler and every other tryant.

[Sharky]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

sharky, you espouse an ideology- a consistent belief system which does not admit of disproof. thus it fails popper's criterion for a scientific hypothesis. since i prefer science to ideology, and since i find ideological argument disturbing and distracting, i will cease replying.

It's curious to me that so many scientists tend to reject "ideology," while silently adapting an ideology of their own. It's also surprising since philosophical areas of study such as epistemology are so central to the work they do (really "we"; I'm a scientist too). In science, how can you ever know that you truly know something, without a solid philosophical base?

Limiting yourself to falsifiable hypotheses (Popper's criterion) strikes me as a very narrow view of science and the world. Much of what we know comes from induction, which is not falsifiable. Given that ideology, though, I can see how you prefer skepticism and uncertainty.

OK, I'm done here now, too.

(no reply required)

[c1ue]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

There are many colors that we don't have words for, yet I can both see them and describe them. There is no "inability," just a lack of desire to conceptualize -- which is a willful act.

In fact, if you deal directly with cultures that lack the same description, these people cannot in fact distinguish blue from green.

So you can say they 'see' blue, but in fact what they see is something different than what you think.

The author of the article has confused cause and effect. Words and language are a reflection of concepts, not the other way around. The people he writes about who don't have words for right and left don't need those words because of their ability to determine compass directions. The words don't drive their ability to navigate; their ability to navigate drives the words.

The author of the article seeks to illustrate a point, but the argument you use in effect assumes that concepts are identical everywhere.

In fact, this is untrue.

You again are assuming that your world view is identical to everyone else's. When I lived on Guam, there were many Guamanians who could not navigate in the street number/name sense, but could describe in great detail the landmarks of paths through the undergrowth. Clearly their concept of navigation is radically different than yours, and works better in their own context.

Take a step back. How do people adopt a belief system in the first place? It's not forced on them; they aren't born with it. It's a matter of choice.

So yes, I agree that a belief system can influence people. However, since the adoption of belief systems is willful, so is the resulting influence.

Wrong again.

You are exactly born into most of your beliefs.

The beliefs your parents have, for example, form the single largest influence on any person.

Even those who are rebels or contrarian, are oppositional to specific modes of belief, as opposed to truly original.

Or are you going to try and tell me that you were formed fully rational and educated even as a child?

It is exactly these types of bedrock belief systems which build the most insidious and pervasive biases.

I'm saying that each decision we face is subject to choice, and therefore free will.

And so, the anti-Calvinist known as the modern rationalist again exercises dogma in the face of countervailing evidence.

And again, you insist all activities are choice, when in reality most people don't even see the full menu.

Are you denying free will? Or do you think that we are free to make some choices and not others? If the latter, which choices are we not free to make?

Free will exists.

But it is far rarer and unusual than you would like to think.

The choices we fail to make can be due to fear of non-conformity. It can be due to bias. It can be due to inability to conceive. It can be due to poverty.

There are myriad reasons why choices are rarely free.

[jk]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

sharky, you espouse an ideology- a consistent belief system which does not admit of disproof. thus it fails popper's criterion for a scientific hypothesis. since i prefer science to ideology, and since i find ideological argument disturbing and distracting, i will cease replying.

[Sharky]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

If your language has no word for blue, you can't say or see it.

From the link you posted:

Can we see something for which we have no word? Yes. The Greeks were able to distinguish shades of blue just as vividly as we can now, despite lacking a specific vocabulary for them.

Is then your inability to see or say blue a 'willful' act?

There are many colors that we don't have words for, yet I can both see them and describe them. There is no "inability," just a lack of desire to conceptualize -- which is a willful act.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010...-guy-deutscher

The author of the article has confused cause and effect. Words and language are a reflection of concepts, not the other way around. The people he writes about who don't have words for right and left don't need those words because of their ability to determine compass directions. The words don't drive their ability to navigate; their ability to navigate drives the words.

What about the numerous example of subconscious bias I've posted? The research which shows that many people - including scientists - are influenced by their belief systems despite a clear agenda to seek the truth?

Is this also willful?

Take a step back. How do people adopt a belief system in the first place? It's not forced on them; they aren't born with it. It's a matter of choice.

So yes, I agree that a belief system can influence people. However, since the adoption of belief systems is willful, so is the resulting influence.

The problem with your dichotomy is that it is backwards: you assume that just because the optimal course wasn't taken, that the only proximate cause is lack of will - and you engage in all sorts of twisty rationalization to prove it.

I'm saying that each decision we face is subject to choice, and therefore free will.

The Calvinist doctrine of predestination has much the same dogma - and much the same responses. Only the Calvinists are buttressed by their dogma that God is omnipotent and omniscient, therefore there cannot be free will - whereas you believe choice is omnipotent and omniscient, therefore there can only be free will.

Are you denying free will? Or do you think that we are free to make some choices and not others? If the latter, which choices are we not free to make?

[Sharky]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

i prefer doubt to dogma, and flexible analysis to rigid belief. certainty is comforting, i know, but unfortunately it is usually wrong.

Certainty is usually wrong? I am certain that I am typing on a keyboard. I am certain that I am alive. I am certain that I am breathing. There is very little in my world that I am uncertain about -- and for those things, I am confident in my ability to become certain if I put in enough time and effort.

2. how many neuroscience courses have you taken, sharky? how many papers have you published in relevant fields? why should we accept your view of what shapes behavior? you are welcome to whatever belief system you wish to hold, but i think you are foolish to assert its validity quite so dogmatically. i have been impressed over the years that those who know and understand the most are quite aware of the limits of their knowledge.

Arguing from authority is weak; my background should be of no import. You should only accept my view if it makes sense to you.

The things I'm saying are readily provable to anyone willing to put in the time and effort to understand them, with no reliance on authority or faith.

Oh, my view is that the questions we are discussing here have nothing to do with neuroscience. They are issues that more reasonably fall in the area of epistemology, or perhaps the subfield of psycho-epistemology: the areas of study that address how we know things.

if you want to say that what you are asserting constitutes a religion or ideology, then of course it cannot be questioned. but face it, that's what you are propounding.

What I'm doing is arguing from a certain philosophical perspective -- it's the same thing that everyone does, although not always explicitly. Perhaps I'm more confident in my beliefs than others because I've taken the time to understand them and to prove them to myself.

[DSpencer]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

My perspective:

Consciousness and Free Will are two different concepts and not equivalent. Making a conscious decision does not mean it's isolated from outside influence nor does it mean that "free will" made the choice.

I believe that humans are wired to make decisions they perceive to be in their own best interest. They may make decisions that don't achieve the desired goal (and may even have no chance). They also prioritize based on different factors and different time frames. The decisions are generally conscious decisions but the basis for why they are made is shaped by many factors which can simplified into the concepts of nature and nurture.

I think this is where the idea of "unconscious impulses" comes into play. A person may make a conscious decision to eat a steak rather than a hamburger but he may not fully understand why he considers it preferable. Some of it may be predisposition to liking the flavor. Or maybe a recent steak advertisement. Or health concerns. He may or may not even bother to question why he makes that particular choice.

Given that I believe in cause and effect and that decisions are made through physical processes, I don't see how "free will" would exist, depending on how it is defined. Many people seem to consider it some type of mystical quality that humans have. I admit that I don't particularly "like" to believe there is no free will. I also don't like some of the implications of that belief.

[cjppjc]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

As Gurdjieff said, the worst thing you can tell a man is that he is asleep.

[vinoveri]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

1. have you LOOKED at my avatar and understood it? i prefer doubt to dogma, and flexible analysis to rigid belief. certainty is comforting, i know, but unfortunately it is usually wrong.

2. how many neuroscience courses have you taken, sharky? how many papers have you published in relevant fields? why should we accept your view of what shapes behavior? you are welcome to whatever belief system you wish to hold, but i think you are foolish to assert its validity quite so dogmatically. i have been impressed over the years that those who know and understand the most are quite aware of the limits of their knowledge.

if you want to say that what you are asserting constitutes a religion or ideology, then of course it cannot be questioned. but face it, that's what you are propounding.

I have also found that the wisest tend to be those who recognize the limitations of their own knowledge.

"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" ... is really a statement reflecting this principle. Humility. All cultures as far as I know throughout history have recognized and given thanks to "the gods".

In my view atheism is the easy route (and is its own dogma). Man doubt's God, Truth, purpose and meaning, but fails to doubt himself (and what we have is a narcissistic culture as a result).

When faith (read: humility prevailed), man doubted himself, but did not doubt that there is Truth, meaning, and purpose, and so sought those out, always doubting himself living up to the Ideal. The age of Ideals, chivalry, etc, are more preferable than the age of narcissism IMO.

If "Faith and Reason" is objectionable to atheist, how about "Humility and Reason"?

[c1ue]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

The primary cause is a willful suspension of one's consciousness; the refusal to think. It's a form of evasion; not blindness, but a refusal to see. It's not automatic, or imposed; it's a conscious choice.

If your language has no word for blue, you can't say or see it.

Is then your inability to see or say blue a 'willful' act?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010...-guy-deutscher

What about the numerous example of subconscious bias I've posted? The research which shows that many people - including scientists - are influenced by their belief systems despite a clear agenda to seek the truth?

Is this also willful?

The problem with your dichotomy is that it is backwards: you assume that just because the optimal course wasn't taken, that the only proximate cause is lack of will - and you engage in all sorts of twisty rationalization to prove it.

The Calvinist doctrine of predestination has much the same dogma - and much the same responses. Only the Calvinists are buttressed by their dogma that God is omnipotent and omniscient, therefore there cannot be free will - whereas you believe choice is omnipotent and omniscient, therefore there can only be free will.

[jk]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Really? An ad hominem is the best you can do? No questions about how I can support the things I said? You just dismiss them out of hand? Why?

I'm an atheist too. Care to heap on any more sarcasm? Maybe with a dish of dogma or two?

1. have you LOOKED at my avatar and understood it? i prefer doubt to dogma, and flexible analysis to rigid belief. certainty is comforting, i know, but unfortunately it is usually wrong.

2. how many neuroscience courses have you taken, sharky? how many papers have you published in relevant fields? why should we accept your view of what shapes behavior? you are welcome to whatever belief system you wish to hold, but i think you are foolish to assert its validity quite so dogmatically. i have been impressed over the years that those who know and understand the most are quite aware of the limits of their knowledge.

if you want to say that what you are asserting constitutes a religion or ideology, then of course it cannot be questioned. but face it, that's what you are propounding.

[Sharky]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

As I see it, we have been enormously influenced by what I have come to believe is the primary influence; instinct.

An instinct is a fixed, innate behavior; something you are born with.

Can you give an example of a behavior in humans that you think is instinctual -- something that requires no learning and therefore no use of concepts or rational thought? Religion, for example, isn't instinctual, because it requires concepts, learning and thinking, and we aren't born with it.

[Sharky]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Because there are so many examples where both groups and individuals, even entire populations, repeatedly engage in behavior which is not just unknowingly negative, but knowingly negative.

In other words, the so called free will of these decision makers decided on behavior which was bad in every sense of the word.

Until this behavior can be explained - and stupidity isn't the only reason - the idea that there is nothing but free will is and will continue to be a myth albeit an attractive one.

Engaging in behavior that is knowingly negative doesn't happen because of a lack of free will.

The primary cause is a willful suspension of one's consciousness; the refusal to think. It's a form of evasion; not blindness, but a refusal to see. It's not automatic, or imposed; it's a conscious choice.

The motivation is wanting to have your cake and eat it too -- to want things that are contradictory, such as smoking and health, or overeating and being skinny, etc. Since it's impossible to deny reality, people evade it instead; if they don't think about something they don't like, then they can pretend it's not real. If they do this enough, it can appear automatic (although it isn't), but that doesn't change the fact that the behavior is ultimately there by choice.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

This is a subject dear to my heart; but for different reasons. As I see it, we have been enormously influenced by what I have come to believe is the primary influence; instinct. A good example is if you move your hand towards a butterfly, it will "instinctively" move away from your touch. That, as such, our instinctive reaction to many events in our lives comes not from the use, or application of, knowledge; but instead, we are reacting to our instinctive impulse to react. Moreover, that such instincts take us right back to the beginning, many billions of years ago. That our instinctive reactions, long before knowledge, have shaped the way we think today. Even more so, shape "of action", must therefore be seen to be based upon each individual experience, built upon all those billions of years, of instinctively reacting to each individual event, along our individual lines of separate evolution.

That religion, (as an example), is in fact, our "instinctive" reaction to that which, in the past, we had no knowledge base upon which we could base a rational explanation for events we could not understand. That even the simplest things we take for granted today; lightening, thunder, plants dying off in the winter and re-growing in the spring, wind and rain; all must have seemed inexplicable a thousand years ago, let alone one hundred million years ago. As we all evolved from creatures that lived themselves with the same "instincts" of the butterfly; we carry that as our evolutionary burden.

It is time to move on into a more enlightened future.