• 0 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 24th, 2023

help-circle

  • Like almost any concept, the argument over free will really becomes semantic (and pedantic) when pushed to academic extremes. At a certain point it shifts to “is there a difference between free will and the apparent ability to choose what we do in any given moment?”

    This scientist claims that the inability to tease any choice from the infinite variables that affect that decision means that the decision isn’t ours. It is an equally valid conclusion that you don’t need to know every single thing that influences you in order to have agency among those influences.

    Moore’s take on the Cartesian question of “how do we know we exist?” is similar. It points out that the debate actually has nothing to do with existence, but what it means to “know” something, and that “knowing,” like anything, can of course be made impossible with philosophical and academic contortions (e.g., arguments like “but what if this is a simulation and there is a “great deception” that only convinces you that you exist?”). It is not that some form of knowing cannot exist, it is that people are capable of imagining fantasies in which knowing cannot exist, and Moore denies that we should let the ability to conceptualize something beyond the intended context of our language (i.e., perceived reality) pervert our ability to see and accept something concrete.

    Is Moore right? Who knows, but he gets at the point that the answers to questions of free will, existence, ontology, etc. have more to do with how the questions are framed academically and philosophically than with how the same concepts actually operate in real life. It will always be possibly to frame a question (or to define the words within a question) in a way that denies the possibility of knowing or agency. But the ability to do so doesn’t mean that other methods of asking or knowing are impossible.






  • Hereforpron2@lemmynsfw.comtoScience Memes@mander.xyzAAAAtoms
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Eh, it’s about the same as NY and winter is the only reason that homes aren’t even more expensive here, so I’ll take it. It’s the only major city that is near water, in a state that doesn’t suck m, and where I can actually afford to live. It’s pretty sweet with all those considered lol.




  • That’s fair, and same when it comes to trying to explain behaviors evolutionarily (though some are definitely just random, too, since if a characteristic doesn’t actually directly cause an early death/fewer reproductive years, evolution will never affect it). Such guesses just get further from reality as they get more specific. So it would make sense and likely be accurate to say there is an evolutionary explanation for the behaviors that we demonstrate to divergent levels, but it becomes a bit more strained to say that that evolutionary explanation has to do with neurodivergent people being more closely connected to cats than neurotypical people.


  • Hereforpron2@lemmynsfw.comtoAutism@lemmy.world[Theory] Neurodivergences = cat brain?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Most behaviors in mammals can be seen in other mammals (and in even less related species). Don’t read too much into it.

    I’m an introvert and easily overstimulated, so I like:

    • sitting still and relaxing
    • soaking up some sun in a window seat
    • the sound of wind and silence
    • water

    Is my brain part tree? (No, these are just qualities/behaviors easy to find in another living thing, and my brain is searching for a pattern.)

    Interesting observation, but it’s a bit extreme and fantastical that some shared behaviors would suggest neurodivergent humans have an evolutionary link to cats.