Utopia Talk / Politics / Genes going out of science fashion

williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 11:22:55 Environment, not genes, plays starring role in human immune variation, study finds Improving gene-sequencing technologies have focused immunologists’ attention on the role of genes in diseases. But it appears the environment is an even greater factor in the human immune response. Mark Davis and his colleagues have discovered that our environment, not our genes, play a greater factor in shaping the human immune system. A study of twins conducted by Stanford University School of Medicine investigators shows that our environment, more than our heredity, plays the starring role in determining the state of our immune system, the body’s primary defense against disease. This is especially true as we age, the study indicates. Much has been made of the role genes play in human health. Stunning advances in gene-sequencing technologies, in concert with their plummeting costs, have turned many scientists’ attention to minute variations in the genome — the entire toolbox of genes carried in virtually every cell in the body — in the hope of predicting people’s future health. Such studies have revealed a genetic contribution to health outcomes. But, with some notable exceptions, very few individual genetic variants contribute much to particular health conditions. “The idea in some circles has been that if you sequence someone’s genome, you can tell what diseases they’re going have 50 years later,” said Mark Davis, PhD, professor of microbiology and director of Stanford’s Institute for Immunity, Transplantation and Infection. But while genomic variation clearly plays a key role in some diseases, he said, the immune system has to be tremendously adaptable in order to cope with unpredictable episodes of infection, injury and tumor formation. “The immune system has to think on its feet,” said Davis, senior author of the new study, which will be published Jan. 15 in Cell. Lead authorship is shared by former Stanford postdoctoral scholars Petter Brodin, MD, PhD, and Vladimir Jojic, PhD. Nature versus nurture “Unlike inbred lab mice, people have broadly divergent genetic heritages,” said Davis, who is also the Burt and Marion Avery Family Professor. “And when you examine people’s immune systems, you often find tremendous differences between them. So we wondered whether this reflects underlying genetic differences or something else. But what we found was that in most cases, including the reaction to a standard influenza vaccine and other types of immune responsiveness, there is little or no genetic influence at work, and most likely the environment and your exposure to innumerable microbes is the major driver.” To determine nature’s and nurture’s relative contributions, Davis and his colleagues turned to a century-old method of teasing apart environmental and hereditary influences: They compared pairs of monozygotic twins — best known to most of us as “identical” — and of dizygotic, or fraternal, twins. Monozygotic twins inherit the same genome. Despite inevitable copying errors when cells divide, which cause tiny genetic divergences to accumulate between monozygotic twins over time, they remain almost 100 percent genetically identical. Dizygotic twins are no more alike genetically than regular siblings, on average sharing 50 percent of their genes. Because both types of twins share the same environment in utero and usually share the same environment in childhood, they make excellent subjects for contrasting hereditary versus environmental influence. The immune system has to think on its feet. About two decades ago, study co-author Gary Swan, PhD, who was then at SRI International and is now a consulting professor of medicine at Stanford, began curating a registry of twins for research purposes. The registry now includes about 2,000 twin pairs. For the new study, the researchers recruited 78 monozygotic-twin pairs and 27 pairs of dizygotic twins from the registry. They drew blood from both members of each twin pair on three separate visits. The Stanford team then applied sophisticated laboratory methods to the blood samples to measure more than 200 distinct immune-system components and activities. All samples were sent immediately to Stanford’s Human Immune Monitoring Core, which houses the latest immune-sleuthing technology under a single roof. The power of environment Examining differences in the levels and activity states of these components within pairs of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, the Stanford scientists found that in three-quarters of the measurements, nonheritable influences — such as previous microbial or toxic exposures, vaccinations, diet and dental hygiene — trumped heritable ones when it came to accounting for differences within a pair of twins. This environmental dominance was more pronounced in older identical twins (age 60 and up) than in younger twins (under age 20). Davis and his associates also observed considerable environmental influence over the quantities of antibodies produced in members of twin pairs who had been vaccinated for influenza in a separate Stanford investigation directed by study co-author Cornelia Dekker, MD, professor of pediatric infectious disease and medical director of the Stanford-Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Vaccine Program. While many previous studies have suggested a powerful genetic component in vaccine responsiveness, Davis noted that those studies typically were performed in very young children who had not yet undergone the decades of environmental exposure that appears to reshape the immune system over time. At least for the first 20 or so years of your life ... this amazing system appears able to adapt to wildly different environmental conditions. In a striking example of the immune system’s plasticity, the Stanford scientists found that the presence or absence of a single chronic, viral infection could have a massive effect on the system’s composition and responsiveness. Three out of five Americans and as many as nine out of 10 people in the developing world are chronic carriers of cytomegalovirus, which is dangerous in immune-compromised people but otherwise generally benign. In 16 of the 27 monozygotic twin pairs participating in the study, one member of the pair had been exposed to cytomegalovirus but the other had not. For nearly 60 percent of all the features Davis’ group measured, cytomegalovirus’ presence in one twin and absence in another made a big difference. “Nonheritable influences, particularly microbes, seem to play a huge role in driving immune variation,” said Davis. “At least for the first 20 or so years of your life, when your immune system is maturing, this amazing system appears able to adapt to wildly different environmental conditions. A healthy human immune system continually adapts to its encounters with hostile pathogens, friendly gut microbes, nutritional components and more, overshadowing the influences of most heritable factors.” Other Stanford co-authors of the study are Atul Butte, MD, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics (systems medicine) and of genetics; Holden Maecker, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology and director of Stanford’s Human Immune Monitoring Center; former postdoctoral scholar Shai Shen-Orr, PhD; research associate David Furman, PhD; software specialist Sanchita Bhattacharya; and MD/PhD student Cesar Lopez Angel. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (grants U19AI057229, U19AI090019, DA011170, DA023063, AI057229, AI090019, ES022153 and UL1 RR025744), SRI, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Wenner-Gren Foundation and the Sweden-America Foundation. Information about Stanford’s Department of Microbiology and Immunology, which also supported the work, is available at http://microimmuno.stanford.edu/.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 15 11:29:05 of course, WTB and other fuzzies will make 2 gigantic and unsupported leaps from this: that genes are irrelevant, and the immune system is the same as intelligence.
cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Thu Jan 15 11:37:07 Is it true that diahrea is genetic because it runs in your jeans? I guess that works better verbslly
McKobb Member	Thu Jan 15 11:41:54 It's commonly known that natural active immunity is key in our immune defence. It's built to spot, ID, distrbute, and store (then react or over-react aka allergies) envionmental bodies that enter our systems. What I'm saying is this is a stupid study that really didn't give us much.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 11:49:15 SA is gonna do another "GW doesnt exist, Saddam was behind 911 and bought nukes from SA, and there are mobile chemical labs! Oh wait, 5 years later, I was wrong about everything!"
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 15 12:07:35 WTB so desperately wants genes to not matter(I wonder why?). Its like the toddler plugging his ears and screaming.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Jan 15 12:59:11 So how do you get from this article to: "Genes going out of science fashion" ? Please provide quotes when explaining this link.
Hood Member	Thu Jan 15 13:03:12 This seems like common sense. Like, really blatant common sense. A very basic understanding of vaccination, wherein you introduce an agent to your body so that your immune system can cook up a counter to it, should tell you outright that the immune system is dependent on environment. Like, holy fuck.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 13:06:23 genes going out of fashion refers to the initial popular belief that we had found the magical key, the root of creation, very recently, and since then have modified this belief drastically, to the point where we're realizing - of course - that genes are just one part of the whole huge amunt of causes that create change.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 13:07:57 of course, determinstic mechanism of people like Newton and Einstein would even reject genes being the cause of anything, basically
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Jan 15 13:22:54 >>genes going out of fashion refers to the initial popular belief that we had found the magical key, the root of creation, very recently, and since then have modified this belief drastically, to the point where we're realizing - of course - that genes are just one part of the whole huge amunt of causes that create change.<< That's not really new. It's also something whose truth varies wildly based on circumstances. Looks more like a straw man than anything else. >>of course, determinstic mechanism of people like Newton and Einstein would even reject genes being the cause of anything, basically<< So you're going from: "The idea that genes are responsible for absolutely everything is wrong" to: "Genes are responsible for absolutely nothing" ?
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 13:24:16 If you read again, you'll see youre making your usual stupid sam adams exaggerations which make me yawn as usual at you
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 13:24:58 But yeah, nwton would say absolutely nothing. Have fun being a smart alec towards newton.
McKobb Member	Thu Jan 15 13:27:33 Probably the best that could be done is isolate the code for more efficient and better differentiation of lymphoblasts during leukopoises. The problem is ballancing a more robust immune responce with autoimmune disorders they may create.
McKobb Member	Thu Jan 15 13:28:25 be done *with genetic manipulation is...
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Jan 15 13:30:38 You've got some other interpretation for "initial popular belief that we had found the magical key, the root of creation" and "would even reject genes being the cause of anything, basically"
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 15:56:27 Its also amusing that newton is Sams hero, considering Newtons deterministic mechanics reject that anything at all has its root in genes.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 15 15:59:30 "considering Newtons deterministic mechanics reject that anything at all has its root in genes. " wow. Newton studied genetics? Fuzzy studies science. This might be the dumbest thing WTB has ever said.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 16:06:39 So sam. you dont understand deterministic mechanics or ToE. What a scientist!
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 15 16:11:08 WTB read a word in his intro to science book (high level reading for a sociology major), misunderstood it, and now has a new buzzword that makes sense only in his inferior head. It is actually hilarious how stupid you are. Isaac Newton the geneticist. lulz.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 16:13:03 I realize I have to speak to you at a much lower level, sorry about that. Determinsitic mechanics is incompatible with the idea that anything has its roots in genes. Eintsein went son far in his determinsm, in fact, that he rules out the possibiliy even of free will. No charge for my quick lesson in science, sam, not between buds!
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 15 16:14:45 "considering Newtons deterministic mechanics reject that anything at all has its root in genes. "
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 16:15:55 the theory does indeed. The theory exists even after his death, you see. Im sure you get the drift, although perhaps the fact that Im used to talking to scientists is whats confusing you.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 16:17:18 Anyway, sam, Newtonian deterministic mechanics is completely incompatible with your peculiar delusions about genes being the root of anything at all. How do you feel about that?
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 15 16:17:22 "considering Newtons deterministic mechanics reject that anything at all has its root in genes. "
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 16:18:29 Yes, thats the third time youve agreed. But moving on, Newtonian deterministic mechanics is completely incompatible with your peculiar delusions about genes being the root of anything at all. How do you feel about that?
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 15 16:19:25 "genes don't exist, and isaac newton proved it" WTB's new conspiracy theory is just as stupid as anything kreel or bloodgabs has ever said. Maybe you should go make youtube videos about how the earth is hollow and that hitler is still alive inside the secret hollow earth.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 16:20:12 hehe, all everyone heres sees i you ducking, cos youre so stuck :D
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 15 16:28:05 This might be the most embarrassing thread of idiocy you've ever embarked upon WTB, and that is saying a lot. I'll just leave this thread here for everyone else to come in, point at you, and laugh. look mommy, a retard!
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 16:28:41 So, anyway, Newtonian deterministic mechanics is completely incompatible with your peculiar delusions about genes being the root of anything at all. How do you feel about that?
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 16:38:27 Its ok, Ill wait while you hurriedly google basic Newtonian physics.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Jan 15 17:18:05 Holy shit... WTB has gone far beyond Fucking Retard or Pedo Rod levels of stupidity. Put the crack pipe, or whatever heinous shit you smoke, down and go play in traffic or something. Really, our species does not need people like you.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 17:31:41 The free will debate is even more amusing. I always enjoy when liberals and conservatives go "Its all up to you!" and pit that against einstein: "In living through this "great epoch," it is difficult to reconcile oneself to the fact that one belongs to that mad, degenerate species that boasts of its free will. How I wish that somewhere there existed an island for those who are wise and of good will! In such a place even I should be an ardent patriot! I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will. The Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine philosophically. In that respect I am not a Jew. Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper. Human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but are as causally bound as the stars in their motions. I do not believe in freedom of the will. Schopenhauer’s words: ‘Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills’ accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of freedom of will preserves me from taking too seriously myself and my fellow men as acting and deciding individuals and from losing my temper. The fate of one individual invariably fits the fate of the other and each is the hero of his own drama while simultaneously figuring in a drama foreign to him—this is something that surpasses our powers of comprehension, and can only be conceived as possible by virtue of the most wonderful pre-established harmony - Einstein
Renzo Marquez Member	Thu Jan 15 17:35:16 Tilting at racist windmills again WTB?
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 17:37:22 Well, quoting the most famous brains in the known universe, actually. I tend to prefer the theories of the worlds greatest and most famous brains rather than UP trolls :D
Renzo Marquez Member	Thu Jan 15 17:37:29 Pretty much everyone on the right acknowledges that nature and nurture both play roles in behavior and cognitive ability.
Renzo Marquez Member	Thu Jan 15 17:38:46 However, the cognitive creationists on the left...
McKobb Member	Thu Jan 15 17:39:47 Einstain also rejected quantum mechanics which floods uncertainty into the universe.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 17:40:26 How does it flood uncertainty into the universe?
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 17:41:29 Today, we generally prefer chaos theory, a development of Det. Mech., which in no way has been invalidated by quantums - probably the very opposite, in fact
McKobb Member	Thu Jan 15 17:41:51 That's what them boys with the giant smashers are studying on.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 17:43:08 Well, who says it floods uncertainty into the universe? I dont think thats ever been said. It floods uncertainty into old theories based in euclidean math, I think (this is getting beyond my physics knowledge at this point, though)
kargen Member	Thu Jan 15 17:50:24 http://bcove.me/sp22rawc So much for Einstein. And even if there were no free will and we are all just parts of a machine genes would be among those parts. Newton was dismissing the intangible. Genes are tangible. They can be seen and they can even be manipulated.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 17:50:59 genes would indeed be among those parts and not a root of anything.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jan 15 17:51:56 Thinkg gebes are the roots of anything is like thinking the Israel Palestine conflict has its roots in the war a few months ago
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 15 18:11:41 "cognitive creationists" lol nice. "So, anyway, Newtonian deterministic mechanics is completely incompatible with your peculiar delusions about genes being the root of anything at all." pooor WTB, everyone is coming in and pointing at him and laughing. look mommy, a retard!
kargen Member	Thu Jan 15 19:43:54 And back to the original post. This study concentrates on the immunity system so of course you would expect the environment to be the main contributor starting with your mothers milk at birth. Recent studies have also shown a greater link to cancer and genes than was previously thought. So while genes may be considered less significant in some areas they are gaining greater significance in other areas.
obaminated Member	Thu Jan 15 20:16:44 WTB tends to start throwing out 5 dollar words when he makes a stupid mistake. He also starts to have meltdowns, as seen in this thread.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jan 15 20:26:37 Einstein's determinism is about as well-founded as Dante's creation of hell -- just imaginative bullshit. Einstein was a good scientist, but a poor theologian. Just keep in mind that he was the one who said, "God does not play dice with the universe"; he was proof that a person can be intelligent in one's field but an idiot in others, in his case likely because he was brought up Catholic and never realised what a debilitation it was to try to reconcile belief with reasoned thinking. Even a mind with the cognitive excess of "genius" can still lose overall cognitive faculties by diluting them in dysfunctional culture. That "Theory of Everything" movie brought this up, but one of Einstein's big failings was that he was good at the macro level, but he was poor at reconciling it with the micro level. Topically here, some wide-ranging determinism can make it -appear- that "[everything has been set into motion and thus free will has no meaning]," but that kind of "throw your hands up like you just don't care"-BS has no practical value. It's the philosophical equivalent of, "it's all God's plan." It's another human excuse or cognitive crutch. The reality is that on the human level, people react and are reacted upon. Some asteroid could collide with Earth and sure, "what choice was there?", but to our "micro" level, human decision is so easily observed that it is comically absurd to pretend that "it was all determined [by God! Whom I not so secretly want to justify!]" But of course, the conclusion to ultra-determinism is always, "we just need more variables to prove this. Infinity variables would be nice. Can we get that many?". Yeah, if only we could "know God's mind," right? Let's just move that goalpost to the infinity that cannot be experienced -- it's only in infinity that anything is determined, and infinity constitutes another useless heuristic for minds that should not be crutched by heuristics. .. Anyways, genes absolutely cause powerful and observable changes, but so does environment. Neither can be ignored. While two identical twins might have deviated successes dependant upon environmental variables, that doesn't mean that their genes can now be ignored. The fact is that some particular genes can be more resistant to environmental variables than others, and some genes can be particularly susceptible. And the multi-hit hypothesis of cancer isn't pure random "chance" either; persons with various gene combinations can find themselves more or less likely to even have cells mutate out of control in the first place. Genes need to be observed because they can produce certain outcomes, but environment needs to be observed to see how genes will interact with the wider world. Micro and macro both; can't avoid the total equation.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jan 15 21:40:08 Just to clarify something, Einsteins use of the word god had nothing to do with theology.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jan 15 21:43:50 So he meant "[Some general, but still personified universal figure] does not play dice with the universe"? I'd give Hawking that credit, but not sure about Einstein.. though I haven't looked at Einstein stuff in a while
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jan 15 21:51:50 No, Einstein specifically did NOT believe in a personal god. The closest thing you have is some kind of Pantheist. Hawkings is a well known atheist.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jan 15 22:00:29 That quote is related to Einstein uncomfort with Quantum Mechanics.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jan 15 22:09:10 Quantum Mechanics applies to my micro/macro argument from that quote, but I thought I'd read about Einstein juggling faith and science. Will read up later http://en....gious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
kargen Member	Fri Jan 16 00:30:52 "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." "The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that , compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Jan 16 00:48:14 See, I -knew- he was culturally retarded ;D
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 01:37:49 Actually, I dont really agree with determinism to Einsteins degree. I agree with chaos theory, however, and I agree with Einstein, Spinoza, schopenhauer and the others to the point that when you feel like buying an ice cream, as a very sinmple example, you have some choice in deciding whether to buy one or not - but you dont choose the initial state of feeling like an ice cream. As Schopenhauer says: Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he will
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 01:42:40 I would say it IS well founded, but einstein gets it wrong in thikning of the universe as a well ordered cosmos. Every single thing can be traced to an exact, determinite cause since the BB, but the complexity and the incredible amount of variations is utterly beyond us. Every billiard ball that gets bumped into on a billiard table moves according to a completely logical manner but the complexity of it at any level beyond a couple of billiard balls because impossible for us to predict.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 01:43:23 because impossible = becomes impossible
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Jan 16 07:40:01 >>Its also amusing that newton is Sams hero, considering Newtons deterministic mechanics reject that anything at all has its root in genes. << Or anything else, beyond the exact circumstances of first creation. Does determinism serve any useful purpose beyond allowing people to avoid responsibility for their actions, decisions or circumstances? And how do you tell the difference between having free will, and merely having the illusion of free will? Finally, why specifically apply this to genetics? If true, it's applicable to everything (and a rather pointless hypothesis)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jan 16 09:33:18 >>Does determinism serve any useful purpose beyond allowing people to avoid responsibility for their actions, decisions or circumstances?<< In a deterministic world, how do you avoid responsibility that isn't yours? You are not asking a real question, but making a statement.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Jan 16 09:47:32 >>In a deterministic world, how do you avoid responsibility that isn't yours? You are not asking a real question, but making a statement.<< Not legal responsibility, granted. Probably not the best choice of words, but it does allow someone to blame fate (or whatever) for that person's crap circumstances rather than take self responsibility. As an example: "stfu i am born superior with superiority genes. i just have bad luck that all. u dunt got a say what happens in life. everythin is pre determined from start." http://www...hread=71490&time=1421381152361
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Jan 16 09:48:42 To which the response from WTB was: "Amusingly, TC is actually unwittingly paraphrasing people from Newton to Einstein here" "Apart from him having superior genes, of course"
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jan 16 09:57:13 If you want to go down that road. But what about the other road, where you forgive someone trangressions and do not exact revenge because their behavior is the product of factors beyond their control? But even IF a determined universe doesn't appeal to your sensibility it has no bearing on whether it is true or not. There are alot of inconvenient truths that have no "useful purpose".
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Jan 16 10:09:11 >>If you want to go down that road. But what about the other road, where you forgive someone trangressions and do not exact revenge because their behavior is the product of factors beyond their control? << While I can think of many examples I'm interested in the specific examples you've got in mind. I'm asking this because it's open to a very wide-ranging range of scenarios. >>But even IF a determined universe doesn't appeal to your sensibility it has no bearing on whether it is true or not. There are alot of inconvenient truths that have no "useful purpose".<< Absolutely, it doesn't. Which is why I asked the next question on how you determine which is reality. To me, it seems impossible to determine the difference between actual free will, and an elaborately-constructed scenario in which choices appear free but are pre-determined. "And how do you tell the difference between having free will, and merely having the illusion of free will? " It's not even a potentially "inconvenient truth" it's just an interesting hypothesis for discussion. I may as well be asking what if the universe was constructed five minutes ago with the appearance of age?
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 10:21:22 Free will is a huge debate, of course. Neuroscience tends towards being very doubtful about free will, as well.
TJ Member	Fri Jan 16 10:21:58 For the tricky tongue-tied dribblers. 1. Aristotle, in his De Interpretatione IX, raised the question of whether the logical truth of a statement about the future might entail the necessity of the future event: "What is, necessarily is, when it is; and what is not, necessarily is not, when it is not. But not everything that is, necessarily is; and not everything that is not, necessarily is not. For to say that everything that is, is of necessity, when it is, is not the same as saying unconditionally that it is of necessity. Similarly with what is not. And the same account holds for contradictories: everything necessarily is or is not, and will be or will not be; but one cannot divide and say that one or the other is necessary. I mean, for example: it is necessary for there to be or not to be a sea-battle tomorrow; but it is not necessary for a sea-battle to take place tomorrow, nor for one not to take place—though it is necessary for one to take place or not to take place. So, since statements are true according to how the actual things are, it is clear that wherever these are such as to allow of contraries as chance has it, the same necessarily holds for the contradictories also. This happens with things that are not always so or are not always not so. With these it is necessary for one or the other of the contradictories to be true or false — not, however, this one or that one, but as chance has it; or for one to be true rather than the other, yet not already true or false. Clearly, then, it is not necessary that of every affirmation and opposite negation one should be true and the other false. For what holds for things that are does not hold for things that are not but may possibly be or not be; with these it is as we have said." If you negate free will you place yourself into bondage of your own accord or you can take responsibility for your personal choices that can alter the event that is causal and out of your control. You can determine result. There are a great many determinisms. Can't get away from isms'. chuckle
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 10:22:55 Or rather, has a belief that we do have some sort of free will, but we are far less in control of our will than we like to flatter ourselves with, much as I do.
TJ Member	Fri Jan 16 10:28:34 Your will is determined by your logic and reasoning ability. It is determined through a combination of genetics and environment. Chances are as chances are and will always be.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jan 16 10:28:47 I don't have any specific example in mind, but imagine you are attacked and trashed by crocodile, you survive the ordeal. Does it make much sense for you to be angry at the crocodile? Did the crocodile have a choice in trying to eat you? Not really. If we capture the crocodile and put in a zoo or far away from human settlement, does it now make sense for you to want the crocodile dead? I recommend reading Free Will by Sam Harris or listen to one of the many talks he has on the subject on youtube, he makes a compelling case and I believe he talks about your specific question, though I can not remember what. When back at a computer I will do some digging.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 10:30:25 All the theorists who have rejected or had very restrictive views of free will have had to face that this leaves them with the moral, unsolvable dilemma of guilt. If you google einstein, you'll find him speak on this. Other theorists may suggest solutions that Im unaware of.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 10:34:06 Its quite possible to completely reject free will by going deeper and debating whether consciousness actually exists in the way we think it is. If its all about chemicals and electricity, as science prcolains, f.ex., free will begins to seem unlikely.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 10:36:02 Probably, a belief in a free will demands a belief in some sort of soul.
jergul large member	Fri Jan 16 10:37:57 manual sticky.
TJ Member	Fri Jan 16 10:42:28 Morality is a developed certainty via nurture and every changing circumstances environment. To say one can avoid some sense of the idea is dim. It is a predetermined causal that creates outcome. Genetics takes a back seat in the interaction.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 10:48:18 Or the particles, quarks, electrons, atoms that you actually are composed of, and which compose this mental model we actually live in, in a world we have never actually ever seen because everything we see is the retranslation of reality in the brain, through the eye and the ear etc, which react to a tiny portion of stimuli around us - as does every single existing particle in the universe - continue its travel through space towards entropic disintegration
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 10:49:06 We are not outside the universe looking in, we are of the fabric of the universe.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Jan 16 11:05:04 >>Free will is a huge debate, of course. Neuroscience tends towards being very doubtful about free will, as well. Or rather, has a belief that we do have some sort of free will, but we are far less in control of our will than we like to flatter ourselves with, much as I do.<< Which then leads to: Then what? Outside of personal ego and those who are either ignorant or mentally disabled, what difference does it make? >>I don't have any specific example in mind, but imagine you are attacked and trashed by crocodile, you survive the ordeal. Does it make much sense for you to be angry at the crocodile?<< Not particularly. It wouldn't care. >>Did the crocodile have a choice in trying to eat you?<< Yes. However, based on the information your average crocodile has to work with, there's not much reason for it to not try. >>Not really. If we capture the crocodile and put in a zoo or far away from human settlement, does it now make sense for you to want the crocodile dead? << None whatsoever. It's a pointless exercise. I'm also against punishing those who are simply obviously mentally incapable of understanding what they've done. What's the point? However, the point remains that if they're a danger, they must be made safe. In this case, it's not about punishment, it's about damage mitigation (just as is relocating the croc) Sociopaths hold a slightly grey niche, but over all, they understand what they're doing, they know, at least intellectually, that what they do isn't considered acceptable, they're just incapable of caring. As their sociopathy isn't an obvious, punishment still has a deterrent value to others (including other sociopaths. I'm fairly sure they value their own skin) >>All the theorists who have rejected or had very restrictive views of free will have had to face that this leaves them with the moral, unsolvable dilemma of guilt. If you google einstein, you'll find him speak on this. Other theorists may suggest solutions that Im unaware of.<< Which, as a practical matter, is my big problem with it. Whether we have free choice or not (and given it's obviously impossible to tell the difference in most case, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion) what difference does that make? Assuming we decide we don't have free will, what would/should that change? Keeping in mind that one of the factors that guides our decision-making process is a fear of punishment or other consequences. >>Its quite possible to completely reject free will by going deeper and debating whether consciousness actually exists in the way we think it is. If its all about chemicals and electricity, as science prcolains, f.ex., free will begins to seem unlikely. << And again we get back to: Outside the obvious practical application of mind control (and someone who's under some form or other of that really shouldn't be held responsible for his/her actions. Fortunately so far it's pretty damn rare outside of cults) then what? >>Probably, a belief in a free will demands a belief in some sort of soul.<< Which is such a widely-defined term amongst the various cultures it's entirely possible, or even probable, that we have *some form* of what *some people* would consider to be a soul. It's like with the definition of what is/isn't a god. There's enough (normally quite poor) definitions of what one may be that it's probably possible for any intelligent, determined person to become defined as one. If you're a Drop the Dead Donkey fan, there's a classic case in the final episode of it.
TJ Member	Fri Jan 16 11:06:01 The physical and the first huge idea of determinism by Leucippus and Democritus later by others to be considered the Laws of Nature or of a God. Personally, I consider that to be myth determinism in order to combat the very idea of free will when confronted with actual determined events. Free will, if you will, will always be a debate of uncertainties.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Jan 16 11:10:15 On the anger @ crocodile bit. During the attack, there's a reason to be angry. It helps you stay alive. Immediately afterwards, it makes sense to still be angry. It takes some people time to calm down. But two weeks later? Against that specific crocodile? After it's been made safe? No, pointless. Although it does make sense to be angry that crocodiles are in a place that humans commonly frequent. It drives that person to fix the problem.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 11:12:00 Who cares what the truth of the universe is? Can I sell it?
TJ Member	Fri Jan 16 11:15:16 The falsehood is sold everyday in countless ways. Some gain financially, but most gain nothing, but the free will to do so.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Jan 16 11:17:53 >>Who cares what the truth of the universe is? Can I sell it?<< How do you determine that it's the truth? It's why I've been asking how you tell the difference between actual free will, and simply believing that you've got free will?
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 11:19:57 Yes, you tell me. Clearly there is a problem with the dumbed donbw example I posteed earlier: You can feel like buying an ice cream and make a decsion based on that, but feeling like buying an ice cream - i.e. the source of the issue - was not a conscious decision.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 11:21:30 Was the act of buying the ice cream then the conscious act of free will or the bumping pf a coin down an automatic chute and releasing a toy truck at the end?
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Jan 16 11:23:38 >>Yes, you tell me. Clearly there is a problem with the dumbed donbw example I posteed earlier: You can feel like buying an ice cream and make a decsion based on that, but feeling like buying an ice cream - i.e. the source of the issue - was not a conscious decision.<< Clearly there is. Particularly given that there's no doubt that there's a large amount of situations in which there is effectively no free will. However, not having complete free will in all situations != not having free will.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Jan 16 11:25:03 >>Was the act of buying the ice cream then the conscious act of free will or the bumping pf a coin down an automatic chute and releasing a toy truck at the end?<< I couldn't say. I couldn't even say if the decision to do this is the result of free will, or simply something I was effectively "destined" to do. fwe[0ifo;ashgfuiwah\0[gwqhevow\ba9gb w, I couldn't even say whether or not that exact combination at that exact time wasn't something that was pre-ordained at the beginning of time.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 11:25:12 I agree, and have said something similar several times.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Jan 16 11:25:33 If I could say, I wouldn't be asking how you tell the difference. Feel like taking a shot at the answer?
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 11:26:32 Not only can you not deny that, as you say, but contrary to religion, this theory actually argues very logically - completely scientifically in fact - for its case.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 11:29:06 yeah, I dont believe consciousess is what we believe it is, but thats a whole different issue.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Jan 16 11:31:03 >>Not only can you not deny that, as you say, but contrary to religion, this theory actually argues very logically - completely scientifically in fact - for its case.<< Ok, so that leads us somewhere we can start. Can you think of a way in which this could be falsified?
TJ Member	Fri Jan 16 11:32:41 The one was predetermined from environment and senses and the other was a decision of free will. Lets say you craved the ice cream, but you are strictly adhering to a diet that disallows. Damn, another event that a decision of free will demands. To say we need a God to have free will is absurd and what a religion determinism demands. You only need to breath and confront natural chance occurrences that do happen because of a natural chain event that isn't controlled by your will. It is easy to say whatever happens I had no control in the natural chain.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 11:32:46 start with what?
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 11:33:28 I said soul, not God.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 11:34:19 It probably demands that wé believe we are mnore than just the chemicals and electricty that science so far can only prove.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Jan 16 11:35:01 >>start with what?<< You said that this theory (presumably the idea that we do/don't have free will, if not, please state explicitly which. I'm running on three hours sleep) argues very logically, completely scientifically, in fact, for its case. How do you falsify this?
TJ Member	Fri Jan 16 11:37:30 You have an energy that maintains your life. It is your free will to decide the cause. One thing you can be certain of is from the first spanking cry you begin to die. God, soul, energy, of your choosing.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 11:38:38 Errr, every remark referring to physics and chemistry, entropy of everything that exists in the universe, chaos theory, pick one.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Jan 16 11:39:26 I dont know if its the truth, man. Its one of the possible perspectives. Think I know whether w ehave free will or not?
	show deleted posts