Bubba: mutation's not an answer because I could theoretically explain my reasoning to another person that before that had no urge to set himself on fire, and after our discussion, we could be convinced that there's merit to my position, thusly setting himself on fire as well. Is he genetically mutated then? If any man has such 'space' for mutation, then that's another manifestation of free will as well.
Besides that as for me being weeded out by evolution, I'm using 'setting oneself on fire' as an extreme example of anti-instinctual stance. But it's not the only example. I could just as well have said that as a method of one's anti-instinctual reasoning, he makes an urge to stop acting on emotional impulses (as is my case). This is not nec. self destructing, but it does stem from a strictly anti-instinctual argument, and again if we are simply part of this grand deterministic machine, I should not have been able to be in this position. So in effect, I could continue to exist but gradually step out of how humans interact and concieve their social structures and the latter would not neccessarily remove me. I deviate from the obvious path but still I exist. There are many other such examples where man simply is able to do that which doesn't seem to serve a deterministic purpose, or even goes again of the 'safer, productive' model. Take arts for example. Why the hell would men cultivate culture? It largely does not serve any deterministic purpose (although the societal structures we create around it are filled with pack mentality, alpha males and sexual persuing). There are other examples. There seems to be *choice* somewhere in there.
Quote:
|
By setting yourself on fire you have effectively prevented overall destruction. If you mate and your tendency for lighting oneself on fire was to eventually diffuse into our whole race, societies and communities would grow to accept self destruction through fire as natural and instinctual, leading to a lesser safety.
|
A person carries instinct and genetic memory. The genetic memory appears to be almost a sort of universal empathy. We carry inside us both the basic mandates of instinct, and thousands of years worth of human experience. In this sense it could be as in the above example, a posibility for me to 'teach' setting oneself on fire to the rest of humanity until it was embedded in our genetic memory. Genetic memory CAN become stronger than the basic instinctual directives (as in extreme examples of brainwashing) but that is a result of altered chemistry and the like whereas I am proposing action based on reason. Does it make sense for a man to be equipped in such a way mentally, that he can override his nature simply because he thought of a reason to? Again, choice...
Also yeah this board sometimes makes for very interesting discussion. We've actually had another one on free will where Spinster provided an interesting position that has since been reason for the latering of my own oppinion on the subject. It goes to show that the internet arguments CAN change you :O
Quote:
|
is what i said really that hard to understand?
|
No and I've probably been a little unfair in my comments but I just can't help but feel the positivists' anxiety when I read your poetic philosophizing. It just reads so open-ended and interpretative that I just can't help but want to set it on fire and laugh while it runs around screaming.
As to deterministic. It means more than just the past influencing our futures (to which I obviously agree). It means the past predetermines the future completely.
As to the social way in which you interpret deterministic perfection, it is largely irrelevant because the term is used in decidedly more base situations like day to day survival than juvenile aspiration and the wavering of such. In fact it is an argument for free will how man has so completely reinterpreted his way of life so that he can make of it so many different things and how 'success' isn't about staying alive for another day for some.