|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
posted June 01, 2019 01:43 AM |
|
|
artu said: The Real Reason Fans Hate the Last Season of Game of Thrones by Zeynep Tüfekci
Very astute!
Whenever I try to explain to people why I like GoT I say it's because it's based on and inspired by the social structure of late medieval Europe, of which I am a descendant of. It's kind of like learning about your past. It's this sociological framework that provides the 'meat' for the interactions between the characters.
It goes even further than though!
Western civilization has always made it their mythology that they have a disdain for eastern style despotism. This stretches back all the way to classical times. Dany's returning to Westeros is kind of this fear made manifest - eastern style despotism descending on western freedom. You even have some of the 'noble savage' stuff mixed in there as well with the freefolk and the Dothraki.
All this sociological stuff got tossed out the window when D&D had to rely on their own wits.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted June 01, 2019 12:06 PM |
|
|
Yes, the Dothraki is certainly inspired by the Mongols and conquests of Cengis Khan.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted November 11, 2019 02:08 AM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted January 25, 2021 10:53 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:43, 25 Jan 2021.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 25, 2021 01:58 PM |
|
|
Hmm.
The Milgram Experiment
I think the connection is pretty obvious and paints a pretty clear picture of what happens when there is no "moral responsibility" (in this case because a higher authority takes it), but there is also the fatalistic angle; if it's all kismet anyway, why struggle against it?
In practise, "moral responsibility" is something that's checked upon in each individual case for which it becomes a relevant factor anyway, for example at court.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted January 25, 2021 02:15 PM |
|
|
I know the experiment, yes. But the article is rather about if a moral compass is only possible by the existence of free will. If you read it to the end, he also quotes people sharing your concern. I’m not exactly on the same page with him either, but it’s also a neat summary of all the positions ragarding the subject.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 25, 2021 04:02 PM |
|
|
Yes, but it's an article in Psychology Today, and it's basically an article with psychology in mind. The problem as such is basically a mix of philosophy and physics.
I think we had a similar discussion already - I'm not at all happy with mixing all these angles and treating them similarly.
Free will or not, philosophically, started out with the question whether humans are free in their will or whether there is something like "fate" (whether via gods or any other unknown mechanism), which amounts to the question whether our future has already been decided for us (reflected in fairy tales and lore and so on, in which often things are "fated").
So the basic question isn't, actually, free will or not; it's "fated" or "open" (personal future).
Much later, when sciences started, the determinism issue seemed to have a lot in common with the question, since, basically, determinism says, if you have all variables acting in any given system and all interaction laws you can predict every future state of the system (provided no new variables enter).
The real question here is not whether this is true or not, the real question behind this is, whether this is possible (is it even theoretically POSSIBLE to determine all acting variables and their laws of interaction in any given, meaningful system )- or are we living in a reality that is PROBABILITY driven (in which case determinism isn't wrong as a hypothesis, but on the same level as the proclamation of an all-knowing god).
Switch to humans and free will and the probability-based model is fine, because it works well.
And this is what the psychological angle is all about. We are influenced decisively by genetics, upbringing, environment, experience, society and so on, which means that our decision-making can be analyzed and PREDICTED (with a a certain probability).
But that wasn't the actual initial question - the actual question was, whether our future has already been determined for us when we are born or not, and phrased like that it makes a difference.
Because phrazed like that it's either or - but in reality, when you can predict a decision with a significantly higher or lower probability than 50%, then it means that free will is INHIBITED; in other words, the decision is biassed. Which is in the nature of things.
So the psychologist means, yes, it might be great to admit to the will not being free (due to all the factors that influence our decision-making) in order to soften the guilt/punishment circle - but that's not actually the core of the free will discussion and I hate things becoming so mixed-up.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted January 25, 2021 05:02 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:03, 25 Jan 2021.
|
He’s not a psychologist: Link
I’ll get back to the rest later, I don’t think it’s as binary as you formulate.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 25, 2021 10:59 PM |
|
|
Philosophically, yes, it is binary. Either the course of my life is determined or not.
The term "free will" is just clouding the real issue. Humans learn and develop behavior patterns, especially after traumatic events and experiences, so the will gets more and more "unfree". Habits are developed. Skills are acquired, and people tend to try and cater to their skills. Which means, the more is known about a human being the more predictable is their behavior.
However, we are talking about probabilities here and a certain predictability. Not more.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted January 26, 2021 03:15 AM |
|
|
The habits are already all there in a one month old, albeit they're not very sophisticated. People are already creatures of habit in infancy.
Old people are harder to change, but that's not necessarily because of less neuroplasticity as this can remain quite high throughout life, provided they are healthy. It's just that they've seen more. A young person is constantly being bombarded with experiences and ideas that are novel and fresh for them, so they're going to change a lot more and go from one thing to another. A 40-something-year-old has seen a lot more and heard a lot more and a lot of life become repetitive. They don't change their mind as often because if they would have changed their mind they would have done so already, back when they were soaking in lots of new experiences. Now, if they do get a new experiences or a new spin on something, they can change, but these changes are usually more nuanced compared to the madness of youth. On the other hand, put a 60-year-old in a completely new environment, like fleeing to another country and bombarding them with lots of new and scary/exciting experiences, and they can change rapidly similar to how a kid will. It's just that for the vast majority of people, that doesn't happen. Life falls into a predictable and comfortable pattern and significant changes grind to a halt.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 26, 2021 08:36 AM |
|
|
Yes, that's the practical side of "free will". People don't make necessarily use of it, because they question their decision-making less and less.
But that's actually not the root of the philosophical problem that's called "free will or not".
To give an example that happened to me yesterday: my mom is in a very bad way currently (and it's likely she won't get better). She's living alone. I had scheduled myself to a visit yesterday, wanting to make a soup for her, as I have done recently (he has trouble eating due to a radio treatment). However, I decided against it - free will - in the knowledge, that a) she probably wouldn't eat much anyway and b) she has professional people who look after her 3 times a day and do everything necessary. So I decided to delay the visit until today. Free will.
However, later in the afternoon I got I call - my mum had managed to set fire to the table cloth of her wooden kitchen table which had started smouldering as well ... Nothing happened, but could have easily and in the end it's a lot more trouble now than if it has been, had I taken the scheduled visit, because the fire almost certainly wouldn't have happened (or I had discovered it way earlier for way less damag, at the least).
And therein lies the problem (it's what made the ancient philosophers think) - free will or fate. Was it SUPPOSED to happen that way?
This viewpoint naturally has changed over time and put the stress on the question of guilt or responsibility: if everything is fated anyway, am I even at fault? Christians started discussing this pointing to Judas: if god's plan HAD TO work, was Judas even at fault for his betrayal? Still the same question: if he followed god's plan and was FATED to betray Jesus ... was he responsible?
Fate (whether in the ancient sense or represented by god) is a supernatural element in the equation, though. You can easily argue that the supernatural element's plans could work on a probability planning based on a very specific knowledge. In other words, fate/god is quite good when it comes to predictions/prophecies ... and plans accordingly.
However - when we talk science, we don't have a supernatural element, which leaves a free will, that oftentimes is quite inhibited by circumstances. Which is nothing new. Wanting to do something is one thing. Being able to quite another.
From the psychological side, I'd say, if you want humans to exert free will, you have to educate them accordingly as children, by giving them responsibility and let them make mistakes, instead of forcing them to do this or that and decide matters for them. If you want morally responsible people, educate them accordingly. This isn't the case, though, very often, and the bottom line is, people SHOULD be morally responsible, since they have the capacity to become so, but often aren't because education fails and circumstances are against them.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted January 26, 2021 12:27 PM |
|
|
I've taught students ranging from kindergarten to university, and it's impossible to force a kid to do anything No problem there. About the best you can do is make them think it is was their idea instead of yours.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 26, 2021 01:20 PM |
|
|
You can make all (or most of) the decisions for your children, though. For example, you can give them
a) no allowance (when they are still very young) and pay for stuff as you see fit;
b) a small allowance that is free-to-spend, whereas you pay for everything "necessary";
c) a bigger allowance from which to pay necessities as well, say "school gear"
d) a very big allowance from which kiddo has to pay everything except food
To name just a few.
Depending on the option you pick as parents, kiddo will make different experiences, since the responsibilities are different.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted January 26, 2021 01:29 PM |
|
|
Well, what are your thoughts on diet? If a parent is vegetarian should they be allowed to make their kid eat vegetarian and prohibit meat for them? (provided they're not causing any nutritional deficiencies)
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 26, 2021 03:31 PM |
|
|
If one parent is vegetarian and the other is not - how would you justify forcing your children to follow one? (I'd consider it a bad move to even try it.)
If both parents are vegetarian, they'll cook vegetarian, and it's certainly ok then, if they don't OFFER their kids alternatives. However, if the kids would buy themselves a burger or whatever with their allowance - why should they invite their kids to lie to them by forbidding it. (Same things with sugar products, mind you - you may never buy sweets, but if children get an allowance, which they should, they can obviously buy themselves sweets.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted January 26, 2021 04:11 PM |
|
|
Kids can be surprisingly good (maybe not perfect) at following house rules even when they're not being watched if they respect their parents and the parents respect them. "No sweets ever" is pretty anal but they will still follow it if there is mutual respect and especially if the parents also follow the rule. This can even happen with peer pressure working against them. Peers are a LOT more influential when a kid doesn't have respect for their parents because they need some sort of anchor in their life and if they can't find it with parents then they'll branch out and try find it wherever they can.
It's true that a lot of times rules are made simply to be quickly broken, but a lot of that comes from lack of respect, not because following the rule is unmanageable or too difficult. It's not really any different with adults. If a boss makes a rule at work but they're a jerk about it, then it's like 10 times more likely people will ignore the rule (or break the rule discretely) compared to if there's mutual respect in the building.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 26, 2021 05:04 PM |
|
|
But the thing is, you don't want your kids to learn that they have to follow rules because they are made by people you are supposed to respect, once they reach an age where they are able to understand and talk about the reasonings for a rule.
This goes hand in hand with learning to take responsibility for your actions, especially when a rule is broken.
Respect is all well and good - you deserve some as parents and elders (as authorities), but in the end this has its limits.
I EDIT this to add: Forbidding sweets will be great for the health of your kids, forbidding meat won't.
In fact, when all you are interested in is the well-being of your children, you'll LIMIT both to healthy levels, even if you are no vegetarian, but you won't ban any of those completely.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted January 26, 2021 05:30 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said: But the thing is, you don't want your kids to learn that they have to follow rules because they are made by people you are supposed to respect, once they reach an age where they are able to understand and talk about the reasonings for a rule.
This goes hand in hand with learning to take responsibility for your actions, especially when a rule is broken.
Respect is all well and good - you deserve some as parents and elders (as authorities), but in the end this has its limits.
But it isn't unusual that some rules need to be followed for no other apparent reason than that. I'll bring in US politics, because why not : Trump won the 2016 election through the electoral college despite losing the popular vote. A person could persuasively argue that the electoral college is a stupid system that should be abolished, but they'll still accept the rule of law for the 2016 election because it's vastly better than chaos.
Or maybe there's an existing policy that is debated, but if it is currently the policy in place, then people need to respect the system and to follow it until when/if it is changed. You can't have half the people who like the policy follow it, and the other half of people who don't like the policy not follow it.
This is especially true for young children who quite literally - because of hardware - have not developed some cognitive skills that are in adults, so greater responsibility is something that is given to them gradually, but in the meantime they need to follow certain rules largely out of respect, which is what they want anyway. They want anchors and nurturers in their life and they'll pro-actively try to find them wherever they can.
Quote: I EDIT this to add: Forbidding sweets will be great for the health of your kids, forbidding meat won't.
In fact, when all you are interested in is the well-being of your children, you'll LIMIT both to healthy levels, even if you are no vegetarian, but you won't ban any of those completely.
It's not really relevant to the thread, but anything found in meat can be easily supplemented with other choices. Some meats (like seafood or venison or emu) are more nutritious than others but none of them are absolutely necessary.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 26, 2021 06:16 PM |
|
|
Blizzardboy said:
This is especially true for young children who quite literally - because of hardware - have not developed some cognitive skills that are in adults, so greater responsibility is something that is given to them gradually, but in the meantime they need to follow certain rules largely out of respect, which is what they want anyway. They want anchors and nurturers in their life and they'll pro-actively try to find them wherever they can.
I agree, but the older they are, the more you want them to understand the rules, and what you don't want is admitting to them that a rule made no sense, was arbitrary or unfair or stupid. And by the way, rules that are true for ALL (like your Trump example) are something else entirely than rules exclusively made for one kid - personal rules.
Quote:
It's not really relevant to the thread, but anything found in meat can be easily supplemented with other choices. Some meats (like seafood or venison or emu) are more nutritious than others but none of them are absolutely necessary.
Uh oh. I don't think the necessity argument holds any water. Next thing you know you'll be asked about the necessity of all manner of things, and you certainly don't want to be limited to things that are objectively necessary.
Vegetarianism (if that word even exists) is more like a philosophy and for some even a religion. These are fields, people should exert their free will in, once they have the authority to decide. It's fine to convey the teachings of a philosophy or religion, but forcing them onto children is something I oppose.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted January 26, 2021 06:36 PM |
|
|
But if a kid grows up in a house with two vegetarian parents, and if they don't buy meat and they don't want their kids eating meat, the kid will probably obey the rule if they've become accustomed to it and if they respect their parents, even if they get older and even if peer pressure rubs against them. It's very unlikely they'll never deliberately ingest some animal protein, but between the habit already being set in place and the respect they have for their parents, they are likely to follow the same vegetarian lifestyle.
Now, if the parents act obnoxious about it, then that changes the game completely. The kid will almost certainly go through a rebellion phase, but that is only if they lose respect for the parents. Rebellion isn't something that automatically happens when somebody reaches later adolescence; it's just something that happens more often than not because adults can often be a disappointment and teenagers lose their respect for the people they previously thought were amazing when they were little children and weren't able to think reasonably. They just accepted whoever was there to give them affection. So when they're little, mom was amazing in every way, but as they get older, they realize that mom is kind of a loser due to X, Y, and Z thing, and so her authority erodes.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
|
|