tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post2063593376338254280..comments2024-02-27T14:44:07.868+01:00Comments on Greedy goblin: But I love you, don't you see?!Gevlonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-13444788275883018212010-10-30T06:28:47.509+02:002010-10-30T06:28:47.509+02:00@ Aljabra: "In true deterministic world it do...@ Aljabra: <i>"In true deterministic world it doesn't matter. It can be calculated long before either of you are born, therefore this "change" doesn't change anything."</i><br /><br />If you understand determinism, then you understand why this discussion isn't 'pointless'. It had to happen. The fact of the matter is, we aren't capable of calculating the future, so for us, from a subconscious level, it is still a change from one static to the next.<br /><br />@ Taemojitsu: <i>"1) People cannot be relied on to improve in a predictable way, that accomplishes their own goals in tandem with the goals and desires of other people. (seen from the answer of "false" to the question of whether people will improve their performance when informed of their mistakes)"</i><br /><br />This argument defies logic, and as such, I am ignoring everything else that you've said. My answer of 'false' was to the question of whether I said that, not whether I agreed with your statement, thus, your entire argument of your posts is based on a false premise.<br /><br />Come back when can string a logical thought together.Squishalothttp://www.wowhead.com/user=Squishalotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-87072042666525890922010-10-29T15:18:14.599+02:002010-10-29T15:18:14.599+02:00@Squishalot
"then his thought has changed (fr...@Squishalot<br />"then his thought has changed (from static A to static B), as it was always intended."<br />In true deterministic world it doesn't matter. It can be calculated long before either of you are born, therefore this "change" doesn't change anything.Aljabranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-73774461598562871192010-10-29T10:16:01.515+02:002010-10-29T10:16:01.515+02:001) specialization in different areas of progress. ...1) specialization in different areas of progress. Just because someone has attained competency in raiding in WoW, does not mean they are comfortable with their progress or education in the 'real' world. Many tasks require substantial time investment for effective performance. This is especially relevant in countries that have NOT reached the same stage of social/physical capital and infrastructure development (as well as oil-burning capacity) as the United States, such as North Korea in the 1990's where they literally did not have enough oil to run farm equipment or transport food to cities nor enough fertilizer to boost crop yields.<br />2) relative scarcity of attention and effort for 'helpful' people, in all aspects of life, compared to people who feel no obligation to society; and the effect momentary actions have on future progress. Of course economics and money flow is complicated, but someone who spends all their time helping people now, will find it much more difficult to achieve the necessary prerequisites for higher-order growth and effectiveness, limiting the scope of any actions they take while their competition (economic, ideological) may have no such inhibitions.<br /><br />In other words, this particular simplification is not a helpful or efficient one. Which is why most people have no problem with isolating or rejecting the "bads" who refuse to improve or meet their obligations.Taemojitsuhttp://daughterofankh.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-22508139870697870092010-10-29T10:12:56.269+02:002010-10-29T10:12:56.269+02:00In other words, Squishalot's argument is that:...In other words, Squishalot's argument is that:<br />1) People cannot be relied on to improve in a predictable way, that accomplishes their own goals in tandem with the goals and desires of other people. (seen from the answer of "false" to the question of whether people will improve their performance when informed of their mistakes)<br /><br />2) People WILL change their behavior as other people do form part of their "environment", just not in any predictable or reliable way. (as seen from the implication that it is possible for Gevlon's thoughts to change, in any direction, as a result of Squishalot's words)<br /><br /><br />The 'determinism' tangent is mostly irrelevant, but the pattern of thinking and the assumptions leading to the above premises can be described. Note that a discussion of the philosophical nature of reality does not change what reality is.<br /><br />The simplification underlying this, and many other models of reality is that "if something is not well understood and cannot be described, it is ignored when describing the model". In one case you could say "the basis for making decisions in a consistent way independent of the transitory environment is not well-understood", and the logical (but incorrect) conclusion of deciding to eliminate this from a model of reality would be that "if someone is not presented with a supporting environment, they cannot improve, and the behavior of a so-called 'M&S' who comes from a poor-quality background has no reflection on the intrinsic value of their person". However, in this particular situation Squishalot contradicted this conclusion by stating that someone would NOT improve when presented with knowledge that would allow them to do so, removing the most obvious logical explanation for many of his statements.<br /><br />The second case is the perspective that "the quality of information presented by other human actors with their own goals, as opposed to say 'obvious' information like the presence or absence of a physical object, is of unreliable quality or trustworthiness", with the simplification for the purpose of a model that this particular type of human-derived information has no predictable or reliable effect on someone's behavior.<br /><br />The consequence of such a simplification is that "people are not responsible for judging and making decisions based on information presented to them by other people". The <i>implication</i>, which is entirely different from the previous conclusion, is that people should not be TREATED differently because the model does not differentiate between the <i>intent</i> of those who improve their performance, and those who do not.<br /><br /><br />The reason for choosing a simplification which includes this implication is the assumption that the amount of "positive good" for those who do not improve their performance outweighs the relative cost for those compensating for them, including the system inefficiencies from the conscious or unconscious effect this has on the decisions on the poor-performing person, since after all the assumption of the model is not that no improvement is foreseeable, only that no judgement can be made on the information content of any single social interaction.<br /><br />One of the assumptions for this is the idea that "if anyone is helping, it is because they themselves have already fulfilled any immediate needs and are in a sustainable position, greater than the social average and well into the region of diminishing returns of utility over consumption/effort". This is not a valid assumption for two reasons:Taemojitsuhttp://daughterofankh.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-72225897051454664452010-10-28T23:02:43.215+02:002010-10-28T23:02:43.215+02:00@ Aljabra:
"So when you say, that we need to...@ Aljabra:<br /><br /><i>"So when you say, that we need to change environment to stop it from producing more M&S, you are being inconsistent, as we are byproduct of the world as well, and as such we can't change it. Deterministic world can be only changed from outside, inside it's set and fixed."</i><br /><br />It's not inconsistent. I'm just playing my part in the deterministic world. Gevlon thinks 'A' at the moment. If he thinks 'B' in a month's time as a consequential result of my actions, then his thought has changed (from static A to static B), as it was always intended.Squishalothttp://www.wowhead.com/user=Squishalotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-87567086824587581142010-10-28T13:31:15.882+02:002010-10-28T13:31:15.882+02:00@Squishalot
"No, I said the world will hold ...@Squishalot <br />"No, I said the world will hold you responsible irrespective of whether you had any choice."<br />You can't be <i>held responsible</i>, as it would require that those, who hold you responsible have free will. If they don't have it, it's not responsibility, it's just an reaction of environment on the reaction of environment.<br /><br />"Then you don't understand what I'm talking about. "<br />Unfortunately, it's you who don't understand, what you are talking about.<br /><br />"When I talk about changes, I am talking change in environment, not change away from the natural (fixed) order. The world is constantly changing - nothing is static."<br />In case of determined world there are no change of environment, as all this "changes" are defined from the very first moment of the world existence. As constant linear movement is complete analogy of staying still, such "changing" world are perfect analogy of static one. In it you can easily view the time as only one more dimension, in which you can move and see different parts of the static world.<br /><br />"I have said right from the start - the M&S do not choose to be stupid. It is a byproduct of the deterministic world."<br />Yes, you did say that, but you don't even look at the other implications of that - that in this case those, who don't like M&S and want to get rid of them are as much as byproduct of the very same deterministic world. If M&S can't be held responsible for what they are, others can't be held responsible either. For anything, really, as anything is a byproduct of the same deterministic world.<br />So when you say, that we need to change environment to stop it from producing more M&S, you are being inconsistent, as <b>we</b> are byproduct of the world as well, and as such we can't change it. Deterministic world can be only changed from outside, inside it's set and fixed.Aljabranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-72123764914014207702010-10-28T11:43:54.579+02:002010-10-28T11:43:54.579+02:00@ Aljabra:
"If there are no free will, there...@ Aljabra:<br /><br /><i>"If there are no free will, there are no responsibility (and you say there are)."</i><br /><br />No, I said the world will hold you responsible irrespective of whether you had any choice.<br /><br /><i>"If there are no free will, there are no decisions. If there are no free will, there are no way you can change the natural order of things, every change will be the part of this order, and you mention changes, that you can decide to make, many times."</i><br /><br />Then you don't understand what I'm talking about. When I talk about changes, I am talking change in environment, not change away from the natural (fixed) order. The world is constantly changing - nothing is static.<br /><br />I have said right from the start - the M&S do not choose to be stupid. It is a byproduct of the deterministic world. Nothing I have said is inconsistent with that. For more evidence, as you reply, just look to your left, and see my first post:<br /><br />"This, as I've argued before, is the key point about the M&S - it's <b>not that they choose to be bad</b>, but it's a <b>byproduct of life</b>."Squishalothttp://www.wowhead.com/user=Squishalotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-17713453986289446142010-10-28T07:57:36.627+02:002010-10-28T07:57:36.627+02:00@Squishalot
"Does that help you understand m...@Squishalot <br />"Does that help you understand my argument?"<br />No, as it directly contradict your own words. If there are no free will, there are no responsibility (and you say there are). If there are no free will, there are no decisions. If there are no free will, there are no way you can change the natural order of things, every change will be the part of this order, and you mention changes, that you can decide to make, many times. One moment you talk about determinism, other you talk about things, that have no place in determined world. Your clarification can mean only one of two things - either you don't understand this contradiction yourself, or that you are lying in one of the cases.Aljabranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-2101819228345124722010-10-27T15:58:59.808+02:002010-10-27T15:58:59.808+02:00@ Aljabra: "Determinism as a philosophical co...@ Aljabra: <i>"Determinism as a philosophical concept is like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism - as you can see, there are either determinism (everything is preset right from the start of the universe), or free will - when you can really change something, because you decisions may be determined by the past, but not necessary. You trying to merge this concepts, freeing people from the responsibilities (as if they live in determined world and can't help it), but retaining they capability to do things on they own (as if they don't live in determined world and can change it). It's impossible, it's either one, or another, never both."</i><br /><br />I'm not trying to merge the concepts. I don't believe that there is free will. Does that help you understand my argument?Squishalothttp://www.wowhead.com/user=Squishalotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-66858592385306733412010-10-27T09:39:42.578+02:002010-10-27T09:39:42.578+02:00@Squishalot
"With this statement, I realise ...@Squishalot <br />"With this statement, I realise that I'm not explaining what determinism is well enough for you to understand it."<br />You don't need to, as it's not your exclusive idea and I've met it descriptions more than enough times before. What you trying to explain is not, in fact, determinism. Let me try to explain it, though I'm not sure I can do it properly. Hope, Wiki will help where I fail.<br />Determinism as a philosophical concept is like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism - as you can see, there are either determinism (everything is preset right from the start of the universe), or free will - when you can really change something, because you decisions may be determined by the past, but not necessary. You trying to merge this concepts, freeing people from the responsibilities (as if they live in determined world and can't help it), but retaining they capability to do things on they own (as if they don't live in determined world and can change it). It's impossible, it's either one, or another, never both.Aljabranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-8402439157686267002010-10-27T01:16:09.096+02:002010-10-27T01:16:09.096+02:00@ Aljabra:
"Then, in determined, world there...@ Aljabra:<br /><br /><i>"Then, in determined, world there are no knowledge."</i><br /><br />With this statement, I realise that I'm not explaining what determinism is well enough for you to understand it. It seems to be too subtle an idea to bridge the communication gap between us.<br /><br />I'll find topics that are easier to discuss with you in future.Squishalothttp://www.wowhead.com/user=Squishalotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-48768059765695657702010-10-26T15:32:58.721+02:002010-10-26T15:32:58.721+02:00@Squishalot
"Assuming that it exists, you can...@Squishalot<br />"Assuming that it exists, you can only study it. But to study it, you must assume it exists. That is the same circular logic that religious people use."<br />Not only them, scientists study a lot of things they can't prove exist. In some cases to prove something existing you must assume it is exist, or that it don't (both methods are the integral part of modern science).<br /><br />"It changes in a pre-programmed manner."<br />Sure, so we can't even decide to stop or continue it, as it must be also preprogrammed. Therefore it's pointless.<br /><br />"Knowledge = change in environment. Change in environment = change in what you are."<br />Then, in determined, world there are no knowledge.<br /><br />"Who says there is no responsibility? The world still contains laws to hold you responsible for your actions."<br />You. If my and your actions are determined by our environment, how we can be held responsible? We don't chose to do something, there are no free will, so responsibility is completely meaningless word, as it can be only in places, where there are something, that depend on you. We can still be punished, but that means nothing, as the punishment in this case is the part of the system, as well, as we are. System make us do bad things, system punishes us for them. That's determinism in it's finest.<br /><br />"Likewise, a raid leader can hold a poor DPS responsible by excluding them from raiding (the equivalent of real life jail)."<br />He can't. He's a robot. He's programmed by his environment to react certain way on certain input. It's not a responsibility - you can't hold the force of gravity responsible for people falling down.<br /><br />"the most effective thing to do is create an environment that result in less stupidity. "<br />You can't. If your environment had programmed you to do it... well, then you don't actually change anything, everything happens naturally.<br /><br />"The WoW equivalent of school is the leveling process."<br />Wrong. WoW levelling is equivalent only of basic, elementary school - and very nice equivalent, as in most countries elementary school is obligatory, and levelling in WoW is obligatory as well. It teach you to "read and count", but no more, than that.<br /><br />"Realistically, people who end up at 80 and are incompetent are the result of poor schooling "<br />Realistically, they are exactly the same, as the people, who get with they elementary school degree to work on a job with the requirement of Ph. D. Blizzard can't and never was expected to teach everything in game - they provide enough information there and on forums for anyone interested to learn.<br /><br />" From a deterministic view"<br />...they can't do anything, unless they own environment will tell them, that some changes are necessary. If they don't change something, then from deterministic point of view they are forced to act that way and don't decide anything.<br /><br />"Chasing them from the game (as Gevlon wants to do) is the equivalent of killing them in real life."<br />Not quite. I don't see illiterate program developers around, so I assume, that illiterate people somehow are filtered from the developer communities, despite it is usually technically possible to have several illiterate M&S on board and still get the work done. But I highly doubt, that developers do kill illiterate people.<br /><br />"It simply forces successful people to perform all the 'bad' jobs in the world themselves (eg, farming herbs, skinning animals, taking out garbage)."<br />No, of course not. You had lost a difference between the man, not smart or educated enough to do the more sophisticated work, but ready to do work they have the resources for, and M&S, that don't want to do any work at all, but still want to receive the pay-check. The former isn't a trouble at all, there are usially more than enough simple, though maybe unpleasant, work for them, latter is unacceptable.Aljabranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-10131834226092039742010-10-26T14:22:28.506+02:002010-10-26T14:22:28.506+02:00@ Aljabra:
"No, it's quite hard one, as ...@ Aljabra:<br /><br /><i>"No, it's quite hard one, as we only have one thing to study and understand it with - that being the intellect itself."</i><br /><br />That's begging the question. Assuming that it exists, you can only study it. But to study it, you must assume it exists. That is the same circular logic that religious people use.<br /><br /><i>"Because the discussion in this case is preprogrammed and, therefore, can't change anything. And as it can't change anything, there are no difference if it happen, or if it don't, therefore it's just a waste of energy."</i><br /><br />Wrong. Everything changes. It changes in a pre-programmed manner. Your opinion at the end of this discussion is pre-programmed. That doesn't mean that your opinion at the end of this discussion is unchanged from your opinion at the start of this discussion. This discussion is merely one part of your 'environment'.<br /><br /><i>"What knowledge? What is determinism and how it describe the world?"</i><br /><br />Knowledge = change in environment. Change in environment = change in what you are.<br /><br /><i>"Normally this concept is so comforting, as it doesn't involve any responsibility at all, that many people tend to keep to it even when they grow up and begin to make they own decisions."</i><br /><br />Who says there is no responsibility? The world still contains laws to hold you responsible for your actions. Likewise, a raid leader can hold a poor DPS responsible by excluding them from raiding (the equivalent of real life jail).<br /><br />The key point that I was making when I first brought determinism up is that being stupid is not a choice. It is a byproduct of the environment. Therefore, to reduce stupidity, the most effective thing to do is create an environment that result in less stupidity. <br /><br />The WoW equivalent of school is the leveling process. The tooltips, 'teaching' quest lines and other Blizzard-implemented learning tools are the equivalent of school. Leveling in a guild that teaches you as you go is like having supportive friends. Soloing your way to 80 is like home-schooling.<br /><br />Realistically, people who end up at 80 and are incompetent are the result of poor schooling (Blizzard's poor tooltips and education), poor support (guild which doesn't know anything / doesn't teach) and/or poor self-teaching (eg, facerolling by grinding to 80). From a deterministic view, to reduce incompetence, you would encourage improvement in one of these areas - my suggestion would be improvement in Blizzard's communication of game mechanics.<br /><br />Chasing them from the game (as Gevlon wants to do) is the equivalent of killing them in real life. It simply forces successful people to perform all the 'bad' jobs in the world themselves (eg, farming herbs, skinning animals, taking out garbage).Squishalothttp://www.wowhead.com/user=Squishalotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-90449216060596078062010-10-26T12:46:56.223+02:002010-10-26T12:46:56.223+02:00@Squishalot
"You call it the 'intellect&#...@Squishalot<br />"You call it the 'intellect'"<br />Not only me, it's quite common term, though there are no clear explanation to what it really is, you are right on that account.<br /><br />" It's an easy explanation for things."<br />No, it's quite hard one, as we only have one thing to study and understand it with - that being the intellect itself.<br /><br />" I don't see why it makes the discussion pointless."<br />Because the discussion in this case is preprogrammed and, therefore, can't change anything. And as it can't change anything, there are no difference if it happen, or if it don't, therefore it's just a waste of energy.<br /><br />"Knowledge can only improve your actions in future, whether you believe in determinism or not."<br />What knowledge? What is determinism and how it describe the world? Well, there are no news in it, really, as it's a concept any human with any brains formulate by himself at pretty early age, in fact, that's a time, when he can do it from the personal experience (as in most cases kids don't decide much and they life is quite determined by they parents). Normally this concept is so comforting, as it doesn't involve any responsibility at all, that many people tend to keep to it even when they grow up and begin to make they own decisions.Aljabranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-58759177659142279312010-10-25T23:11:11.845+02:002010-10-25T23:11:11.845+02:00@ Aljabra: "No matter, what define the intell...@ Aljabra: <i>"No matter, what define the intellect in your view, it's still there and it's still working."</i><br /><br />You call it the 'intellect' - I'll use that term from now on. There is as much evidence for the existence of the intellect as there is for God. It's an easy explanation for things. It's easy to blame. It's not required, and there is no physical, tangible, visible evidence. <br /><br /><i>"If you deny intellect the ability to change environment (which is it's primary function after all), you can as well deny it existence. In this case we are all very hi-tech biorobots and this discussion is pointless."</i><br /><br />The principle behind determinism does suggests that we are all very hi-tech biorobots, because we have no free choice. I don't see why it makes the discussion pointless. Knowledge can only improve your actions in future, whether you believe in determinism or not.Squishalothttp://www.wowhead.com/user=Squishalotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-39749742406501412282010-10-25T19:17:37.087+02:002010-10-25T19:17:37.087+02:00@Squishalot
" The physical part of the human ...@Squishalot<br />" The physical part of the human is given to him - it is out of his control. You cannot choose your flesh, your blood, your brain. You cannot choose your family."<br />True, you can't chose it, but that's only a starting point. You can start from it and improve - and you can stay on it and don't. <br /><br />"I would rather attribute their failure to tangible, causal environmental factors, instead of blaming fairies that live inside them."<br />You don't need fairies for that. No matter, what define the intellect in your view, it's still there and it's still working. If you deny intellect the ability to change environment (which is it's primary function after all), you can as well deny it existence. In this case we are all very hi-tech biorobots and this discussion is pointless.Aljabranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-8134876058495906452010-10-25T14:29:03.644+02:002010-10-25T14:29:03.644+02:00@ Aljabra:
Thanks for the clarification. Don'...@ Aljabra:<br /><br />Thanks for the clarification. Don't worry too much about the translation - I understand how hard it must be, which is why I've never raised it before. Most of the time, I can understand what you are saying.<br /><br /><i>"Physical or not, it's inside the human and part of decision-making process, which is the only thing relevant to our discussion."</i><br /><br />The reason I emphasise the 'physical' part is a religious one. The physical part of the human is given to him - it is out of his control. You cannot choose your flesh, your blood, your brain. You cannot choose your family.<br /><br />The non-physical part may not exist. The 'spirit', or 'soul' is a metaphysical construct (or device) that people use to help identify themselves as 'unique'. It is just as provable as 'God' is.<br /><br />I will not blame someone's spirit for their failure, because it is as pointless as blaming God for their failure. What evidence is there for its existence? I would rather attribute their failure to tangible, causal environmental factors, instead of blaming fairies that live inside them.<br /><br />If you acknowledge that their actions are caused by environment, by definition, you must acknowledge that they cannot actually choose. They can only 'be' bad or good.Squishalothttp://www.wowhead.com/user=Squishalotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-61965934131832195732010-10-25T13:38:21.976+02:002010-10-25T13:38:21.976+02:00@Squishalot
In short, that was about the lines &q...@Squishalot <br />In short, that was about the lines "I was talking about something else, but it was not an important part of the point".<br />Physical or not, it's inside the human and part of decision-making process, which is the only thing relevant to our discussion.<br />Sorry for the long sentences, they do look good before I begin to try to translate them.<br /><br />"Physical differences are environmental."<br />If it's a part of a human, why someone beside that human would be responsible for them? Your point is, as it seems, that no human is living his life, some environment is doing it for him - after all every action or inaction can be traced to some kind of reason or, at least, some brain damage.Aljabranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-89213766223384817612010-10-25T13:00:20.232+02:002010-10-25T13:00:20.232+02:00@ Aljabra: "No, you are wrong, though there a...@ Aljabra: <i>"No, you are wrong, though there are no solid evidence, that this "non-physical" don't exist and, therefore, are not the reason of some parts of decision-making process."</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, I can't understand what you're saying - your use of 'though', commas and 'and' is non-standard and your sentence contains a triple negative ('no', 'don't' and 'not'). Instead of trying to guess what you mean, I would ask you to try to express yourself in more direct sentences. This reduces the chance of misinterpretation.<br /><br /><i>"I see, where you trying to go. Indeed, if someone is deaf, he can be considered an victim of environment and can't be held responsible, but only in situations, that require him to hear. And in fact, some people manage to overcome even that."</i><br /><br />Whether they overcome it is a choice they make, which is why I am asking you how you think choices are determined. Physical differences are environmental. The only non-environmental differences are metaphysical ones.Squishalothttp://www.wowhead.com/user=Squishalotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-28921116689540732472010-10-25T12:21:28.942+02:002010-10-25T12:21:28.942+02:00@Squishalot
"When you say 'within the hum...@Squishalot<br />"When you say 'within the human', you mean something non-physical, am I right? "<br />No, you are wrong, though there are no solid evidence, that this "non-physical" don't exist and, therefore, are not the reason of some parts of decision-making process. We don't know it. But that doesn't matter, as it's not the point. No matter, what people use to think, it's still the integral part of the complex system we call human, so it may be considered within.<br /><br />"Or are you talking about a physical difference in the person?"<br />I see, where you trying to go. Indeed, if someone is deaf, he can be considered an victim of environment and can't be held responsible, but only in situations, that require him to hear. And in fact, some people manage to overcome even that.Aljabranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-65028325960973745912010-10-25T11:59:30.519+02:002010-10-25T11:59:30.519+02:00@ Aljabra:
"Add that fact, that human can ac...@ Aljabra:<br /><br /><i>"Add that fact, that human can actually make proper logical decisions, based on completely wrong set of the experience, and you may see, why there are no clear answer to the question, what is the real reason for the decisions some human make. We can only guess.<br />...<br />From this we can assume, that whatever the difference there is, it's not an environment, but something within the human. "</i><br /><br />When you say 'within the human', you mean something non-physical, am I right? Or are you talking about a physical difference in the person?Squishalothttp://www.wowhead.com/user=Squishalotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-61360114460117897252010-10-25T10:32:43.297+02:002010-10-25T10:32:43.297+02:00@Squishalot
"But you are suggesting that a p...@Squishalot <br />"But you are suggesting that a person's choice is not determined by their experiences."<br />Really? Because I didn't said that. It can be determined by the experience, why not? But it's not necessary, as even people without the experience can and do make they choices. Add that fact, that human can actually make proper logical decisions, based on completely wrong set of the experience, and you may see, why there are no clear answer to the question, what is the real reason for the decisions some human make. We can only guess.<br /><br />"So I'm giving you the opportunity again to tell me what you think it is determined by."<br />Exactly as with quantum physics, there are no visible determination. It doesn't prove that there are none (it may be something, that we don't know yet), but on the current level of the knowledge quantum effects are random and humans rise to the top from the same place, where others dive to the bottom. From this we can assume, that whatever the difference there is, it's not an environment, but something within the human. There are even the prime suspect there, the one thing humans tend to distinguish themselves with from all other life forms, intellect.<br />Probably, I had a lot of unpleasant experience with the people, that you didn't (lucky you in this case), that involves people of various backgrounds making exactly this choice - to learn a little and easily help themselves, or to be morons and rely on others to do things for them, even if it turns out to be much harder. At first I was shocked to see, how many people, who's not dumb, not ill, have good education (some are way better, than my own), actually are capable of learning new things and aware (from personal experience), that learning a bit will help themselves a great deal, chose to go for the second option.Aljabranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-19038979140777371352010-10-25T09:21:54.505+02:002010-10-25T09:21:54.505+02:00@ Taemojitsu: You only asked a single question - ...@ Taemojitsu: You only asked a single question - "True or false?"<br /><br />Therefore, my answer is 'False'. No, I didn't say that. If you want to put quotes around words associated with my name in future, please use words that I've actually said / written.Squishalothttp://www.wowhead.com/user=Squishalotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-21623058646762172072010-10-25T08:28:56.335+02:002010-10-25T08:28:56.335+02:00Squishalot, obviously it was the cosmic ray that o...Squishalot, obviously it was the cosmic ray that originated in a supernova in a distant galaxy 200 million years ago, that caused an electrical impulse in the person's brain that made him rob a jewelry store. It is unfortunate that we occasionally have to put celestial entities on trial ^__^<br /><br />If you don't answer <i>my</i> question, I'm not talking to you anymore!!11Taemojitsuhttp://daughterofankh.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-2704108400044126122010-10-25T01:23:40.987+02:002010-10-25T01:23:40.987+02:00@ Aljabra: I'm going to ignore all your other...@ Aljabra: I'm going to ignore all your other things until you can answer this:<br /><br /><i>"You think, that this reason is one and only possible? Because I always thought, that everyone have they own reasoning."</i><br /><br />I don't think there is only a single reason. But you are suggesting that a person's choice is not determined by their experiences. So I'm giving you the opportunity again to tell me what you think it is determined by. Just an example, it doesn't need to apply to everybody.<br /><br />You're either choosing to avoid the question, or you're not comprehending what I'm asking. If it's the latter, then tell me, and I'll try to explain myself better. If it's the former, then I'm not interested in talking with you anymore.Squishalothttp://www.wowhead.com/user=Squishalotnoreply@blogger.com