TED Community » Joshua Beers

Comments

• TEDCred score: +2.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: If I had 100% of your genes and 100% of your environmental experience I would be you.

  May 15 2011: @Tony: Very very intriguing perspective, one that I will have to maul over for some time...I will say that the last part is the most important to me, because the "interference" seems to just be things we cannot/have yet to understand, but that doesn't take away the thought that "you" and "I" are LESS in control of our identity than we may think which was what I got out of such a "thought experiment."

• A reply on Conversation: If I had 100% of your genes and 100% of your environmental experience I would be you.

  May 14 2011: Yes, I don't see any other way around Thomas!

• A reply on Conversation: If I had 100% of your genes and 100% of your environmental experience I would be you.

  May 14 2011: @Thomas
  
  That seems to me, to be the very definition of compatiblism. Whose sole, major criticism is that while correct in fundamental rationale, it is incorrect in labelling its result "free will."

• A reply on Conversation: If I had 100% of your genes and 100% of your environmental experience I would be you.

  May 14 2011: This is where, I fundamentally disagree as well...I just can't wrap my mind around how this could even occur. (It seems so illogical to me)."The forces are so similar between the two that it is random happenstance that determines which is retrieved."....I just can't make sense of that, and fail to see how it translates to free will! But hey, "to each their own" I suppose!

• A reply on Conversation: If I had 100% of your genes and 100% of your environmental experience I would be you.

  May 14 2011: Hey, sometimes agreeing to disagree is all you can do! I thoroughly respect your position (even though I strongly disagree), and I really appreciate your participation in the conversation (and consequently having to deal with my tedious questioning!)
  
  I'll be honest and say, I haven't the slightest clue what you talked about at the end there...

• A reply on Conversation: If I had 100% of your genes and 100% of your environmental experience I would be you.

  May 14 2011: Sorry I'm not familiar with the idiosyncrasies of chaos theory, could you please tell me where the divergence would come from?..."chaos"???

• A reply on Conversation: If I had 100% of your genes and 100% of your environmental experience I would be you.

  May 13 2011: Thomas, with all due respect, I feel like you have yet to make the full case for truly random events let alone translating those repercussions into full blown free will. (I apologize for what what may be my inability to "connect the dots.")
  
  "When I look at situations that are occurring and take action to sway the outcome that is free will in action."
  
  Where do you think the decision to do that came from?

• A reply on Conversation: If I had 100% of your genes and 100% of your environmental experience I would be you.

  May 13 2011: I don't see how the received candy would be different....The alternate would grab the cinnamon as well. Where did the change from? I am not very smart, so I think this is why it is taking so long lol, so please spell it out for me....if the environment is 100% the same, the context, the candies would be in the EXACT same location in the room and the EXACT same location in the bowl. And "you", with your exact same genes (innate food preferences, hunger cycles, etc.), and environment would come in at the EXACT same time and take the EXACT same candy!

• A reply on Conversation: If I had 100% of your genes and 100% of your environmental experience I would be you.

  May 13 2011: Thomas, I guess we will have to agree to disagree, because I see things differently at a fundamental level. To me, there can never be a CHOICE that is "equal in all aspects" let alone a DECISION that is "equal in all aspects (how does the latter make any sense?...if you've made a decision how could it's factors be equal?) I guess you are saying that what makes it unequal is the "random variable", while I maintain that such a thing defy's logic, that the choice had a preference, no matter how small. Regardless we both seem to agree that there is always a choice made, so there always had to be an inequality somewhere....
  
  But even if you were correct, I think you still have quiet a ways to go before you label such a "random variable", typical "free will." What you describe seems to be miles away from the cognitive, intellectual freedom often implied in the definition. At the very least, it seems you would have to concede that you are at a loss of true control in your life.

• A reply on Conversation: If I had 100% of your genes and 100% of your environmental experience I would be you.

  May 12 2011: @Thomas, I agree with Austin. And I hope you aren't offended if I say that, in my opinion of course, you have a bizarre outlook on what free will is. From my understanding, you are making the contention that choices can be determined, but in the rare case that choices are equally favoured it becomes an absolute random affair. But I would argue that if there ever is a PURE 50/50 split, there would be no action taken, that AS LONG AS THERE IS A DECISION, there could not have been a 50/50....(there could be a 50.1/49.9). And I will echo Austin and agree that "just because something has a 50/50 chance of happening does not mean there is any less predictability or causation responsible for the result." In my opinion, this is very well put, for it gets at what seems to be the core of your argument.