Posts by lonegardener

Forgiving someone can often be just another way of acting morally superior. Real forgiveness is quiet; you don't even realize you've done it because you don't even hold onto the debt anymore.

If you find yourself vividly remembering the moment you decided to forgive someone—especially if that memory gives you a little ego boost—there’s a good chance that self-satisfaction is actually the whole point, rather than true mercy.

It's pretty clear that people rarely truly forgive, which aligns with what we see in everyday life. When someone claims to be a forgiving person, they’re usually just burying grievances deep down. Those grudges just sit there waiting for the right moment to resurface—like during a massive blowout fight where someone suddenly drags up something they supposedly "forgave" twenty years ago.

Maybe only God can truly forgive, assuming He exists. For us humans, perhaps the best we can do is decide not to seek revenge, or simply try our hardest to forget the offense entirely. That’s enough. In fact, choosing to move on might be a lot healthier than pretending you've reached some state of perfect, saintly forgiveness.

wannabenot said:The method used was incredibly primitive, there's no debating that. As for alternatives to life imprisonment, I honestly think it would be far more useful to take the money spent on his upkeep and use it to feed starving children in developing nations.🙂

Look, since we're talking about profitability and feeding hungry kids, I also think it would be much better if we took all the money used to buy luxury yachts worldwide and redirected it toward food aid. To me, the resources required to keep Saddam Hussein maintained for a few more years until he passes away naturally seem like a mere drop in the bucket.

Mary said:everything is fine and you don't need to explain it to me, because I had genetics and evolution in school too. It's clear to me that evolution brought us here.
But doesn't it seem to you that this selection process in humans is either happening imperceptibly slowly (okay, it's always been incredibly slow) or isn't even occurring in a natural sense anymore? I mean, it's not just the intelligent, the attractive, or the resourceful who survive. Even though intelligence is inherited. Think about it—if you don't believe in science fiction and the idea that one day we'll turn green or have three arms and so on. I don't believe in that. I'm more inclined toward your "time bomb" theory. How much has a human actually evolved since, say, the ancient Greeks? Where is that selection? What stopped it?

Everyone had genetics and evolution in school, but most people were thinking about something else entirely while the professor was lecturing. 😬

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you; I'm just justifying my tendency to be overly detailed. In this case, I figure there's no harm in providing extra info—if you already know it, feel free to skip, but if you don't, it's better I explain so we don't run into misunderstandings later.

Regarding evolution and humans, a few things are escaping you here. First, evolution moves at a glacial pace. The entire recorded history of mankind is far too brief for any evolutionary change to actually occur or be noticed. Second, evolution doesn't work by having the less capable die out in a few years or even centuries. Extinction takes an incredibly long time, unless there's a massive global catastrophe like what happened to the dinosaurs. Third, there are good reasons to believe that natural biological evolution can no longer be applied to humans, because cultural evolution in our civilization is so much stronger than natural evolution that the latter can't even make an impact. Also, thanks to technology, natural "advantages" aren't as clearly defined anymore. It's hard to imagine any "mutation" being so widely accepted in modern society that it could spread and displace the current gene pool (and obviously, I'm not talking about nonsense like X-Men, which don't even follow the basic laws of thermodynamics). For instance, would having three arms actually be useful? Not really, because any practical benefit would be outweighed by social and cultural factors.

Man, I got so carried away that I can't even remember what this discussion was originally about. 🤔

mellon said:It’s an interesting point, but if mutations don't happen with a specific purpose—meaning they're just random accidents—then there probably wouldn't be any living creatures on Earth right now. How could those same creatures adapt to new, more extreme environments through "random mutations"? A bird doesn't just accidentally grow a long beak, and a deer doesn't just accidentally end up with a long neck.

Like I mentioned before, that’s how things work if you subscribe to the modern version of Darwin's theory of evolution. If that theory holds up—and most biologists, aside from creationists, seem to agree it does—then mutations really are random. So, yes, a bird gets a long beak by chance, and a deer gets a long neck by chance.
Of course, you have to look at that "randomness" in context. These visible phenotypic changes likely result from a sequence of mutations rather than just one single event. Here’s the breakdown: mutations occur relatively frequently. The vast majority of them are useless. But occasionally—which is why evolution moves so slowly, relatively speaking—one of those useless or even harmful mutations will be a rare winner, giving an organism a slight edge in survival and reproduction over its competitors. That’s how long beaks and long necks come to be. It happens by chance (or pseudo-randomly, if we're looking at it through the lens of DTK).

The alternative is believing everything was designed with a specific purpose by a supernatural, purposeful being—God. That’s what creationists believe. Are you a creationist? I'm just asking so I know where we're standing in terms of our starting positions.

hotnix said:Look at it this way... you’re just a few dice rolls—genetics is simply the numbers on those dice.
What else do you need? You just need the situation where you actually throw them.🙂
Give me a break... playing with dice is easy, but have you mapped out every possible scenario on paper?😬

Human emotions aren't as straightforward as math.🙂

That's easy to say if you haven't spent your time solving Schrödinger's equation in three dimensions.🤣

Mary said:What purpose does self-awareness serve, when animals survive just fine with only basic consciousness?

That’s an excellent question. My only critique is that you phrased it as if self-awareness must have a specific purpose. Mutations don't happen *for* a reason. A bird doesn't grow a long beak specifically so it can reach into a tree hollow. Instead, that beak develops through a pseudo-random mutation; because it turned out to be useful, birds with that trait had an edge over those without it, helping them survive and pass on their genes (I'm assuming you agree with the fundamental principles of Darwinian evolution here).
By that same logic, self-awareness has no inherent "purpose." It is simply a fact of our existence. If we assume self-awareness emerged naturally through evolutionary processes, then it arose via pseudo-randomness, just like any other mutation—without a goal in mind. However, individuals possessing this trait (humans) proved superior in terms of ensuring the survival of our species. At least, that's how it looks today. There's no guarantee that self-awareness isn't a ticking time bomb that might eventually lead to human extinction, much like what many contemplative sci-fi writers "predict"—though "imagine" is probably a better word.
By the way, when I use the term "pseudo-random," I'm referring to randomness as understood through deterministic chaos theory, where true randomness doesn't actually exist because everything is determined. Even chaos follows a pattern, even if it looks random from the outside and we can't even prove it isn't truly random. Man, if Plato knew about DTK...

Mary said:Oh, my bad. That was a typo. The last sentence should actually read: So. FREE WILL??

...Or maybe it’s just that certain "something" that makes us individuals, beyond just our genes and experiences.

Just to be clear: I’m not saying I’m 100% certain about this. It is entirely possible that free will truly exists, but I am fairly convinced it doesn't emerge from any scientific observation. Therefore, free will remains firmly in the realm of mysticism (faith, religion, esotericism, etc.).

But let me get back to my point. How do identical twins develop into two distinct, non-identical people? Honestly, explaining this is pretty trivial. All you need is an hour to look into the most basic layer of deterministic chaos theory. You can practically find anything you need on Google regarding IBM; it’s typically illustrated with a bifurcation diagram of a population equation. There is so little math involved that even a middle schooler could wrap their head around it, and it perfectly illustrates the core aspect of IBM. Don't let all those intimidating terms scare you off—deterministic chaos, bifurcation diagrams—it's actually an incredibly straightforward theory.

Once you grasp that fundamental idea behind IBM, the explanation will likely occur to you immediately. Identical twins differ in countless ways. For instance, during the prenatal stage, they aren't positioned in exactly the same spot. Once they are born, they don't occupy the same space either; they exist in different locations. As adults, people don't always address both twins at the exact same moment—one might hear something while the other isn't even nearby. Every tiny discrepancy like that can trigger what people call the "butterfly effect." And just like that, you end up with two different individuals without ever having to factor free will into the equation.

Of course, this isn't "proof" that free will doesn't exist. It's simply proof that free will isn't a necessary concept to explain the phenomenon. So, by applying Ockham's razor, we can just leave it out of the calculation.

lacerta said:🙂

It’s not quite as simple as the chicken and the egg.
I’d go as far as to say there isn't a single chicken to be found in the coop this morning. 😬

Sure, but that would require—as you put it—making a conscious change.
When you really start digging into how the brain works, it’s fascinating to look at the interplay between electrical and chemical activity. It isn't just one or the other; it's a constant, complex dance between the two. Think of the electrical side as the lightning-fast signaling—those rapid-fire impulses traveling along neurons to get a message from point A to point B. But that signal can't jump the gap between cells on its own. That’s where the chemistry kicks in. Once the electrical pulse hits the end of a neuron, it triggers the release of neurotransmitters—the chemical messengers that cross the synaptic gap to pass the baton to the next cell. It’s a perfect loop: electricity drives the chemistry, and the chemistry facilitates the electricity. Without that delicate balance, our thoughts, movements, and even our moods would essentially grind to a halt.
He basically took full control of his own biology.
First things first, you’ve got to use your head.

If you ask me, everything described above is entirely doable.
Explain it without even bringing up free will.
I don't see any reason to hire her for this.

Because of the environment they were raised in, given everything they had to deal with back then...
They managed to cover a few bases, which is exactly what gave them the edge.
They really did have luck on their side.

When it comes down to what we actually want versus how much freedom we’re willing to exercise, you really only have two ways this can play out:
Is free will something that’s always there, quietly running in the background, or does it only manifest in specific, defining moments?

Let's look at the first possibility: what does "from the very beginning" actually imply?
Does a baby have free will? And if so, does a fetus have it too?
Does that mean they have external stations too? 😕
It seems to me that the first option is actually a possibility.
So, we're talking about "souls" being the drivers of free will, are we? Interesting take.
Bringing a soul into the narrative feels like an unnecessary complication to me.

wow. I feel a deep sense of resonance with what’s been said here. That isn't necessarily a compliment; I’m just saying that reading this feels a lot like reading my own work. It’s that specific feeling of recognizing certain lines of thought.

I’m starting to feel like free will is more of a hypothesis than something backed by hard science. To be honest, the only thing actually supporting the idea of free will is my own subjective experience. It *feels* like I have agency—like I can choose whatever I want—but that’s just how perception works. It’s like looking at a circular plate from an angle; it looks like an ellipse, even though it isn't. Our senses can be incredibly deceiving.

I am certain of one thing, with as much conviction as I can muster: I am aware of myself. In other words, I possess self-awareness. It isn’t particularly difficult to break down what that actually means. Let's start with "consciousness." Consciousness is essentially just the process by which the brain handles sensory input. Any animal with a brain possesses this type of consciousness; they use it to process everything they take in through sight, sound, touch, and so on. You could say consciousness "perceives" a sensation. Self-awareness, then, is clearly the ability of a more advanced consciousness to "perceive" itself. Instead of focusing on an external stimulus, that consciousness turns its attention inward. It becomes capable of observing and analyzing its own existence, much like it would any outside force. As far as we know, among all living creatures on Earth, this is a capacity unique to human consciousness—though even then, most people, and certainly most children, rarely spend time focusing on themselves. Usually, their minds are occupied with more pressing matters. Kids are busy finding new ways to play, while adults are likely preoccupied with following the latest drama on a Netflix series. For those individuals we might describe as being "self-aware," their consciousness is almost always partially focused on itself. Every time they perceive something from the outside world, they are simultaneously examining their own reaction—the very process of perception itself. This parallel act of self-observation actually modifies both the initial perception and the subsequent reaction to it.

Free will—if we can even call it that—seems to stem from self-awareness. But honestly? I’m starting to think it’s just an illusion. So many "decisions" we claim to make happen entirely beneath the surface of our conscious mind. To me, there's no reason to label those unconscious impulses as actual decisions, let alone use them as proof that free will exists. Even when we do make conscious choices, I suspect they might just be a byproduct of how our self-awareness functions. It feels like a loop: after enough iterations, our consciousness "forgets" exactly where the initial impulse came from. This makes us feel like we conjured the decision out of thin air, when in reality, it’s more like a mental stew. We take a messy blend of past memories and subconscious cravings, throw them into a pot, and our self-awareness serves up a finished dish. If that's all it is, I don't see how we can justify calling that process "free will."