How ”free” is free will in relation to ctb?

[Epsilon0]

I know that the subject of free will has been debated before, but, unless I am mistaken, I doubt that these two particular questions have been discussed in great detail:

How "free" is free will? And why is suicide an expression of free will?

Let's start from the definition of free will: free will is the freedom to make choices according to your preferences and desires. You are a free agent, and you control your choices, which in its turn means you exert control over your actions.

So far, so good. Now let's look at a simple example.

Mary is hungry and there is a basket with apples and pears on the table. Mary can chose an apple, or a pear, and up until the moment she actually takes a bit of the apple, she is completely free to change her mind, and go for the pear.

It follows then that Mary has free will. Or, does she?

As illustrated by the example, Mary's choice is based on options, and the problem I see with free will lies precisely in that options must come from somewhere. Free will may be the lack of constraint upon her decisions, but, even if there are no outside factors which predetermime Mary's choice, there are causal influences which affect and narrow her options, i.e. there only being two types pf fruits.

It could be argued that Mary might, actually, prefer prunes, but since there are no prunes in the basket, they are not an option. So, Mary is, in fact, hindered by the lack of other options, and her seemingly free choice, is not absolutely free.

This brings me to my next observation: we only have free will, if, and only if, we can make any and all decisions, and our free agency is not constrained by other factors, such as, for instance, options.

Furthermore, it follows that suicide is an expression of free will, because the decision to ctb presents two, and only two, options. There are no external conditions which might expand of narrow the field of options. It is a situation where the agent is in posession of all available options and can, thus, make a free decision.

Any thoughts on this? Feel free to find holes in my arguments. I love a good debate!

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

No arguments here. Excellent analogy.

Not to mention if Mary had prunes, she would probably poop better. Less shit = better life.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

I may have a stab at this tomorrow on the pc. Suffering now I'm afraid and feeling very beaten down. In the mean time there's this

Does free will exist in the universe?

One of the major fundamental questions in physics concerns the presence or absence of free will in the universe.

cosmosmagazine.com

I know I know I'm being lazy but it says it better than I can.

 

[Epsilon0]

No arguments here. Excellent analogy.

Not to mention if Mary had prunes, she would probably poop better. Less shit = better life.

I should have chosen a different fruit, one that makes for less "vivid" associations.

I may have a stab at this tomorrow on the pc. Suffering now I'm afraid and feeling very beaten down. In the mean time there's this

Does free will exist in the universe?

One of the major fundamental questions in physics concerns the presence or absence of free will in the universe.

cosmosmagazine.com

I know I know I'm being lazy but it says it better than I can.

Oh, dear @Underscore I am sorry to hear you are in pain. I will gladly read the link you posted and get back to you. Hang in there!

 

[Deleted member 1465]

I'm here. Just walked to the shop as my brother forgot stuff when he kindly did my shopping for me. There was actually a break in the rain and it was good to get out, but hard to walk with the neuropathic pain and I can only carry a few items.

Anyway, I digress...

In a deterministic universe, then there is no free will. Everything is pre-determined by your genes, which are pre-determined by more fundamental existential factors. This would mean that fate exists and the future could technically be predicted.
However, there is chaos. Is anything random? Again, one could argue that no, every movement in nature is ordered at a fundamental level, even the seemingly random nature of Brownian Motion, we just can't see it, because observing it changes its nature, so we can never actually know.
But... at a higher level, in living things, we can see that genetic variability holds what appears to be a random element, otherwise genetic mutation wouldn't work and we'd all look the same. Not to mention be extinct, life wouldn't work. If there's any doubt, just look at all the fossils from the Burgess Shales, especially our old friend Hallucigenia.
But is this random? It doesn't surprise me that religious people see the hand of God in this 'design', but is this just the Anthrophic Principle at play?

We naturally assume that determined or random must be mutually exclusive. Surely, either there is free will or there isn't. But why?
That's our logic and the universe behaves in way that defies much of what we observe, simply because we observe it.
Every event can be expressed as a probability density function that is only realised when its waveform collapses as it occurs. The order contains within itself the seed of randomness and ultimately degenerates into chaos, just as the randomness in nature will always attempt to achieve order. This is a dynamic equilibrium that is ultimately paradoxical. That is why everything is always in motion. Some call it the Tao.

Here's a clip I like, the ending is interesting even if it's not entirely on point...

It's all in his head!

Edited: seem to be making more mistakes typing, you'd never have thought I worked for journalists:/

 

[Epsilon0]

Perfect example of six degress of separation between Free Will and Harry Potter! Well done, @Underscore

I had to look up the archaelogical references you made, so thank you for that piece of knowledge. To be honest, I wouldn't want a Hallucigenia crawling up on my bed at night.

Going back to the article you posted, as well as your mention of evolution, I think a distinction ought to be made between non-reflective and reflective matter (i.e. humans).

Non-reflective matter might very well be ruled by causality, as it does not posess agency and can, therefore, not be the source of choices. As far as I understand free will, it pressuposes an active doer who can reason as to the outcome of possible alternatives and make choices based on preferences and desires.

Evolution through natural selection is not a reflective process, there is no agent behind it controlling the choice of which genes should be passed on to the next generation.

Neither can we talk about quantum phenomena in terms of free will. The realm of the very small is non-reflective, just as the macroscopic (non-human) world is. The quantum world might be governed by uncertainty, but that cannot be construed to prove the existence of indeterminancy and free will.

In order for there to be free will, there must first exist a rational process which is based on deliberation and comparison of potential outcomes.

 

[BPD Barbie]

There is no free will in suicide. Its one of the those things where our existence is basically dictated by others. We aren't allowed to chose if we live or die. It's not changing any time soon.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

That's a good point and well made about reflective/non-reflective matter as you call it. Self awareness and volition.
That's kind of the heart of the argument though isn't it? Is self awareness truly reflective if fate is determined by fundamental principles beyond our control? I know it sounds silly, but are sub atomic quanta truly unaware/un-reflective? Well of course they are, silly huh, but...and this is just to be argumentative here, not saying this is necessarily how i feel...but...
It depends how you define life and consciousness. As humans subject to the anthropic principal we have a set of criteria defined for what is 'alive'. Does nature have similar criteria? Life arguably exists on a continuum of increasing complexity, giving rise to consciousness. Are the criteria we use to define 'life' arbitrary or absolute?
There appears to be no agency behind evolution, but that is because we don't think over millions of years. And evolution is just the expression of deeper principals as expressed in biological matter. Some would argue that God is the agency behind evolution and who's to say that this whole universe isn't a single thought in the mind of God. Evolution actually does appear to make guesses and fails and looks to some like an experiment. Are we saying that there is a different rule for biological matter compared to non-biological matter? Is there further a different rule for self-aware biological matter?
Maybe that point of choice and free will is what gives rise to what people regard as the spirit or soul. After all, in Genesis IIRC it was freewill that allowed us to sin; freewill given to us by God. If you look at this allegorically, its interesting. Adam & Eve chose knowledge, but God gave them that curiosity and choice. It's essentially the Nature or Nurture argument.
I think my point is that regardless of the criteria we use to try and understand such things, it may be that that pre-determination and free will may not actually be mutually exclusive. I know that sounds like nonsense, but I think things are a little bit weirder than we realise.
Get this: if we assume that we know very little about what is really going on and that all our obvious arguments, that make sense to us, are going to be the tip of the iceberg, doesn't it follow that the real nature of things is going to be so far out it would currently seem like nonsense to us now? Honestly, I don't know the answer to that, I just like to...well, think outside the box.

 

[Sensei]

I'd like to apply an (overly?) pragmatic perspective. I think one can argue that the "set up" for a suicide can be deterministic, as heritage and environment can, but not always have to, dictate one's life. However, I believe the act itself is an expression of free will. Only a very small minority can supress or ignore the animal insticts we have inherited, and the most dominant one is obviously the self-preservation instinct. I'd say that overcoming such a dominant instinct requires strong willpower and conscious choice.

Then we have the great anomaly. The groups in society which have the highest suicide rates are people suffering from the most severe mental disorders, i.e. schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and borderline personality disorder. There's a genetic component involved, but those people are not born ill, they become ill and it takes a trigger to get ill. One could argue that their decision to suicide isn't necessarily influenced by external factors, but rather by internal factors. Their thought processes are influenced by their illnesses although it's impossible to say to which degree, and thus it's impossible to say if it's an expression of free will or not.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

With mental illness people often seem to spend their whole lives fighting to survive, almost as if they are fighting this predetermination. Suicide can often be seen as an expression of free will to counter this. Maybe that self destruct mechanism is built in and gets expressed by difficult life circumstances. And yet, some people go through hell and survive, even flourish, while others are triggered by events that wouldn't effect others in that way.
I hesitate to say this, but... suicidality could be (to a certain extent, some circumstances would floor anybody) another negative feedback mechanism that nature puts in place to remove individuals from the gene pool. Yeah, this is harsh, but nature is harsh. So many of the things we do in life seem to attempt to go against nature - even actually surviving sometimes seems to be to try and thwart the ultimate entropy that claims us all. Again, its this sodding paradox that drives us.

Note: you'll see from many of my answers on subjects like these that my thoughts are nebulous and contradictory. I don't necessarily believe many of the things I put forward are true, they are merely things I think about. My mind is open and I think the confusion and contradiction that may come across in my posts is actually reflective of the nature of our understanding of such ephemeral things.

 

[Sensei]

I hesitate to say this, but... suicidality could be (to a certain extent, some circumstances would floor anybody) another negative feedback mechanism that nature puts in place to remove individuals from the gene pool. Yeah, this is harsh, but nature is harsh.

Interestingly, this is not the case, at least not when it comes to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. These disorders have a genetic component and the probability of developing the disorders can be inhereted and people suffering from these disorders statistically get fewer children. So, logic dictates that the prevalences of these disorders should go down. Strangely enough, they remain stable. The Nazis made an attempt to eradicate schizophrenia by sterilizing and euthanizing all Germans suffering from schizophrenia, and perhaps as many as 75 % or more died. Not very surprisingly, the prevalence was low after the war, but the incidence was high. Eventually, the prevalence returned to pre-war levels. The explanation is suspected to be evolutionary, e.g. because traits like creativity, openess to new ideas, and cognitive disinhibition are more common in these groups, especially among people suffering from bipolar disorder, than in the general population and that these traits are valuable for survival. So, in this particular case, your theory doesn't seem to hold water.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

I didn't realise that. I sit corrected. So if people suffering from such disorders statistically have fewer children but have many traits that may engender creativity, do you think that potentially gives them a selective advantage or disadvantage in terms of evolutionary theory?

 

[Epsilon0]

@Underscore

"Are the criteria we use to define 'life' arbitrary or absolute?"

Since humans do not have a god's eyeview of the universe (if there even is such an all-encompassing perspective) any criteria we use to define ourselves and other animate or and inanimate objects around us, is arbitrary.

What actually constitutes life, I dare not venture to say - I believe you, as an archaeologist, are better equipped to elucidate this question; but, I would go so far as to claim that the ability to reflect and reason (through language) is what sets us apart and makes the question of free will anthropocentric.


"Evolution actually does appear to make guesses and fails and looks to some like an experiment."

That is a very good observation, but is it enough to add weight to the idea that there is an agency at work driving evolution?


"Some would argue that God is the agency behind evolution."

Yes, modern day christians proclaim there is no incompatibility between the the genesis according to the Bible and evolution according to natural scientists. The former, they say, is an allegorical description, the latter a factual account. Efforts to unite religion and science are not new, scholasticism set out to achieve a somewhat similar goal in The Middle Ages. But, I always try to steer clear of religion: religion deals in beliefs, morality and the supernatural, which have no bearing whatsoever in the discussion of determinism (this is my opinion, I know ethics and free will are often discussed together by philosophers).


"After all, in Genesis IIRC it was freewill that allowed us to sin."

Yes, the Bible says that "god created man in his image" meaning that god endowed man with the freedom to chose whether to obey him or not.


"I think my point is that regardless of the criteria we use to try and understand such things, it may be that that pre-determination and free will may not actually be mutually exclusive."

I suspect you are right. I think the jury is still out there, and the final chapter is yet to be written.




@Sensei

I think one can argue that the "set up" for a suicide can be deterministic, as heritage and environment can, but not always have to, dictate one's life. However, I believe the act itself is an expression of free will.

I could not agree more.


"Not very surprisingly, the prevalence was low after the war, but the incidence was high."

An interesting fact, and not at all shocking, considering the trauma of having experienced the horrors of WW2. Is it a fair assement to say that the stress caused by the war triggered the activation of dormant genes in individuals which might not have developped these illnesness in a different context?

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Once again I'm on my phone now and I'll have to postpone comments till I'm on a real keyboard or you'll get even more gibberish than usual.

 

[Sensei]

I didn't realise that. I sit corrected. So if people suffering from such disorders statistically have fewer children but have many traits that may engender creativity, do you think that potentially gives them a selective advantage or disadvantage in terms of evolutionary theory?

That's one of the theories, yes. Genetics and mental illness is a very complicated and still a complete mystery in many ways, though. I can take myself as an example. I am de facto bipolar, but as far as I know I don't have a single realtive with a mental health condition of any kind. With the exception of a third cousin on the other side of the Atlantic, I don't have a single relative who has committed suicide either. It's as if I've been struck by lightning and I am by no means unique in this respect. One must have one genetic sequence, out of an unknown number and with unknown compositions, to develop bipolar disorder, or at least that's what the current theory is. So, has this sequence been dormant in my family line for a couple of generations or more? Or is it something which is dormant in the whole population and reoccurs at regular intervals? No one knows.

 

[one4all]

Which one does Mary prefer more. apples or pears?

 

[Sensei]

"Not very surprisingly, the prevalence was low after the war, but the incidence was high."

An interesting fact, and not at all shocking, considering the trauma of having experienced the horrors of WW2. Is it a fair assement to say that the stress caused by the war triggered the activation of dormant genes in individuals which might not have developped these illnesness in a different context?

That's a possiblity, but it doesn't explain why the prevalence remains stable today. Another strange thing is that bipolar disorder is as common in men as in women, in all social strata, and in all countries in the world. It's "spread out evenly" everywhere. This doesn't apply to any other mental health condition. It's seems unlikely that it's a coincidence.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

That's one of the theories, yes. Genetics and mental illness is a very complicated and still a complete mystery in many ways, though. I can take myself as an example. I am de facto bipolar, but as far as I know I don't have a single realtive with a mental health condition of any kind. With the exception of a third cousin on the other side of the Atlantic, I don't have a single relative who has committed suicide either. It's as if I've been struck by lightning and I am by no means unique in this respect. One must have one genetic sequence, out of an unknown number and with unknown compositions, to develop bipolar disorder, or at least that's what the current theory is. So, has this sequence been dormant in my family line for a couple of generations or more? Or is it something which is dormant in the whole population and reoccurs at regular intervals? No one knows.

Or is it random?! Back to that again. Really interesting and you've clearly thought about it a lot. Do you have any further reading? I've always been interested in mental health from an evolutionary point of view but never got round to studying it.

As an aside, I did applied genetics at college. The only thing I remember is killing all the drosophila in the sex/phenotype practical because the little buggers wouldn't go to sleep.

That's a possiblity, but it doesn't explain why the prevalence remains stable today. Another strange thing is that bipolar disorder is as common in men as in women, in all social strata, and in all countries in the world. It's "spread out evenly" everywhere. This doesn't apply to any other mental health condition. It's seems unlikely that it's a coincidence.

That seems to indicate purely genetic rather than environmental influence then. And between different ethnicities too I assume?

 

[Sensei]

Or is it random?!

Perhaps. However, since the gene sequences necessary to develop bipolar disorder may consist of as many as 100 genes or more, it's very unlikely to be completely random.

Do you have any further reading?

Not off the top of my head. I'm actually writing a book about bipolar disorder and I've literally read hundreds of studies and quite a few books, so I don't remember them all. Something which is problematic is that there are so many theories and so many new discoveries that books are somewhat limited sources if one wants to approach the topic.

As an aside, I did applied genetics at college. The only thing I remember is killing all the drosophila in the sex/phenotype practical because the little buggers wouldn't go to sleep.

Poor creeps. :D That sounds like a very interesting line of work. May I ask if you currently are working with genetics?

That seems to indicate purely genetic rather than environmental influence then.

That depends on how you look at it. An environmental trigger is necessary to develop bipolar disorder. It could be stressful conditions such as shift work or a stressing event such as the death of a family member. However, these stressors can take very different shapes. For instance, an estimated 30-50 %, admittedly a very shaky estimate, of all who develop bipolar disorder have experienced childhood trauma. So, it's difficult to say if environmental factors contribute to the disorder or simply are triggers.

And between different ethnicities too I assume?

There are differences between some ethnic groups, but they are small.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

. May I ask if you currently are working with genetics?

Nah. I'm an archaeologist by trade with a background in geology. However I spent most of my career in graphic design. These days I'm on benefits due to illness.
I so miss work.

I'll have a think about things and might reply tomorrow when I'm at the main pc. Can't do a thread like this justice on my phone. Plus... exhausted.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

@Underscore

"Are the criteria we use to define 'life' arbitrary or absolute?"

Since humans do not have a god's eyeview of the universe (if there even is such an all-encompassing perspective) any criteria we use to define ourselves and other animate or and inanimate objects around us, is arbitrary.

What actually constitutes life, I dare not venture to say - I believe you, as an archaeologist, are better equipped to elucidate this question; but, I would go so far as to claim that the ability to reflect and reason (through language) is what sets us apart and makes the question of free will anthropocentric.


"Evolution actually does appear to make guesses and fails and looks to some like an experiment."

That is a very good observation, but is it enough to add weight to the idea that there is an agency at work driving evolution?


"Some would argue that God is the agency behind evolution."

Yes, modern day christians proclaim there is no incompatibility between the the genesis according to the Bible and evolution according to natural scientists. The former, they say, is an allegorical description, the latter a factual account. Efforts to unite religion and science are not new, scholasticism set out to achieve a somewhat similar goal in The Middle Ages. But, I always try to steer clear of religion: religion deals in beliefs, morality and the supernatural, which have no bearing whatsoever in the discussion of determinism (this is my opinion, I know ethics and free will are often discussed together by philosophers).


"After all, in Genesis IIRC it was freewill that allowed us to sin."

Yes, the Bible says that "god created man in his image" meaning that god endowed man with the freedom to chose whether to obey him or not.


"I think my point is that regardless of the criteria we use to try and understand such things, it may be that that pre-determination and free will may not actually be mutually exclusive."

I suspect you are right. I think the jury is still out there, and the final chapter is yet to be written.




@Sensei

I think one can argue that the "set up" for a suicide can be deterministic, as heritage and environment can, but not always have to, dictate one's life. However, I believe the act itself is an expression of free will.

I could not agree more.


"Not very surprisingly, the prevalence was low after the war, but the incidence was high."

An interesting fact, and not at all shocking, considering the trauma of having experienced the horrors of WW2. Is it a fair assement to say that the stress caused by the war triggered the activation of dormant genes in individuals which might not have developped these illnesness in a different context?

What constitutes life is the big question. I have an odd view on this, that others will probably scoff at.
Our definitions of life, while obvious to us, are anthropic. Nature doesn't define things, label or classify stuff in the way we need to. Our understanding is refracted through the prism of our unique human perspective.
I see life simply as the product of increasing complexity of motion, the interaction between matter and energy. A person has more complexity than a dog which has more complexity than an ant which has more complexity than a rock which has more complexity than an hydrogen atom, as nature strives to defeat entropy.
The decision to say an ant is 'alive' and a rock is not seems obvious to us, but nature doesn't care. Why not think of a mountain as alive? I've heard people describe the sea as alive and to describe the entire planet as a living organism.
We determine free will based on how much agency there is at a particular level of complexity too. We have more free will than an ant or a tree or a rock, but so what? Who's to say a mountain doesn't have free will in a sense? Determinism? Again, an anthropic view (which is all we have, so fair enough). Just because a mountain can't go down to the pub and have a pint? Maybe a mountain's free will acts over millions of years and is ephemeral and kind of rocky (lol) without distinct boundaries. Obviously not thought or awareness, but presence of a kind. I know it sounds silly, but I'm trying to 'think' like a mountain, which is obviously silly.
I think it all exists on a continuum and to attempt to define an arbitrary point of consciousness or free will is only useful up to to a point, that being we need to put labels on things to attempt to understand them, but in doing so we limit our understanding.
The very fact that we search for meaning so hard, means that we are less likely to find it. To approach anything from one direction, automatically closes off the other directions at the time.

I like comparing deterministic, religious and philosophical views. As an archaeologist, you tend to realise that the ancients had a very in depth understanding of many aspects of their world and universe that we are only now coming to discover again. They didn't yet have the technology to express it in the way we do, but it came out in different ways, often couched in what we might consider more primitive forms. The complexity of construction of many ancients monuments speaks of this profound understanding.
We may think of it as ritual (a favourite word for all archaeologists when they don't understand something they've found) or religion or magic, but I wouldn't be surprised if many 'primitive' cultures intuitively understood what we observe and attempt to prove these days. There's many examples of monuments plotting the movements of the heavens over thousands of years, a remarkable feat. The ancient Britons in the neolithic appeared to understand precession long before we'd credit it possible. I remember reading a book once that tried to illustrate the idea of there being 10(11) spatial dimensions. The resultant diagram bore an uncanny resemblance to the Quabalistic Tree of Life. When pointed out to the author he swore that it was coincidence.

[*sigh* another rough night and finding it hard to type, especially hard to try and be even vaguely eloquent on what is by its nature going to be a difficult topic, especially with my daft meanderings. And , no I don't believe a mountain 'thinks' lol its just my way of attempting to broaden my perspective.]

Perhaps. However, since the gene sequences necessary to develop bipolar disorder may consist of as many as 100 genes or more, it's very unlikely to be completely random.



Not off the top of my head. I'm actually writing a book about bipolar disorder and I've literally read hundreds of studies and quite a few books, so I don't remember them all. Something which is problematic is that there are so many theories and so many new discoveries that books are somewhat limited sources if one wants to approach the topic.



Poor creeps. :D That sounds like a very interesting line of work. May I ask if you currently are working with genetics?



That depends on how you look at it. An environmental trigger is necessary to develop bipolar disorder. It could be stressful conditions such as shift work or a stressing event such as the death of a family member. However, these stressors can take very different shapes. For instance, an estimated 30-50 %, admittedly a very shaky estimate, of all who develop bipolar disorder have experienced childhood trauma. So, it's difficult to say if environmental factors contribute to the disorder or simply are triggers.



There are differences between some ethnic groups, but they are small.

I found this interesting...

Evolutionary origin of bipolar disorder-revised: EOBD-R - PubMed

The hypothesis of the evolutionary origin of bipolar disorder (EOBD) synthesized ideas about the biological clock and seasonal shifts in mood (Rosenthal, Wehr) with theorizing that bipolar disorder descends from a pyknic (compact, cold-adapted) group (Kretchmer). The hypothesis suggested that...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Sensei]

I found this interesting...

Evolutionary origin of bipolar disorder-revised: EOBD-R - PubMed

The hypothesis of the evolutionary origin of bipolar disorder (EOBD) synthesized ideas about the biological clock and seasonal shifts in mood (Rosenthal, Wehr) with theorizing that bipolar disorder descends from a pyknic (compact, cold-adapted) group (Kretchmer). The hypothesis suggested that...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

That's very interesting! I've never seen this study before. I'm a bit puzzled, though. As mentioned before, the gene sequences necessary to develop bipolar disorder may consist of as many as 100 genes or more, but we have an estimed 20,000–25,000 genes. Can the small genetic contribution from Neanderthals to the human genome really be that dominant?

As for differences in the prevalence of bipolar disorder in people of European and African descent, respectively, I'm a little bit sceptical. The main reason is that people of African descent more often are misdiagnosed than people of European descent. For instance, they are four times more likely to be misdiagnosed as schizophrenic. I'm not saying that this assumption must be incorrect, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

The rest makes much sense, though. The so-called clock genes do de facto work differently in bipolar people. If the hypothesis in this study can be confirmed, it could potentially lead to a breakthrough in the treatment of bipolar disorder.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

That's very interesting! I've never seen this study before. I'm a bit puzzled, though. As mentioned before, the gene sequences necessary to develop bipolar disorder may consist of as many as 100 genes or more, but we have an estimed 20,000–25,000 genes. Can the small genetic contribution from Neanderthals to the human genome really be that dominant?

As for differences in the prevalence of bipolar disorder in people of European and African descent, respectively, I'm a little bit sceptical. The main reason is that people of African descent more often are misdiagnosed than people of European descent. For instance, they are four times more likely to be misdiagnosed as schizophrenic. I'm not saying that this assumption must be incorrect, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

The rest makes much sense, though. The so-called clock genes do de facto work differently in bipolar people. If the hypothesis in this study can be confirmed, it could potentially lead to a breakthrough in the treatment of bipolar disorder.

I read a few things but it was run of the mill, I did think this study looked interesting. I think its entirely possible that the Neanderthal genetic contribution could be significant. Whilst I don't necessarily believe in a guiding hand in all of this (!), It does often feel like evolution is 'aiming' for something and I wonder how things like bipolar fit into that story. its prevalence makes me think it is potentially important.

 

[Sensei]

I read a few things but it was run of the mill, I did think this study looked interesting. I think its entirely possible that the Neanderthal genetic contribution could be significant. Whilst I don't necessarily believe in a guiding hand in all of this (!), It does often feel like evolution is 'aiming' for something and I wonder how things like bipolar fit into that story. its prevalence makes me think it is potentially important.

Could be. As you already now, evolution is not always linear, though. An organism which is better fit to the environment than it's predecessors may simply be annihilated by an asteroid and that's that. An organism may keep an inferior trait simply because there's no need for adaptation. That mental disorders have survived for so long suggests that they play some role in evolution, but they might as well not.

 

[Jean4]

I know that the subject of free will has been debated before, but, unless I am mistaken, I doubt that these two particular questions have been discussed in great detail:

How "free" is free will? And why is suicide an expression of free will?

Let's start from the definition of free will: free will is the freedom to make choices according to your preferences and desires. You are a free agent, and you control your choices, which in its turn means you exert control over your actions.

So far, so good. Now let's look at a simple example.

Mary is hungry and there is a basket with apples and pears on the table. Mary can chose an apple, or a pear, and up until the moment she actually takes a bit of the apple, she is completely free to change her mind, and go for the pear.

It follows then that Mary has free will. Or, does she?

As illustrated by the example, Mary's choice is based on options, and the problem I see with free will lies precisely in that options must come from somewhere. Free will may be the lack of constraint upon her decisions, but, even if there are no outside factors which predetermime Mary's choice, there are causal influences which affect and narrow her options, i.e. there only being two types pf fruits.

It could be argued that Mary might, actually, prefer prunes, but since there are no prunes in the basket, they are not an option. So, Mary is, in fact, hindered by the lack of other options, and her seemingly free choice, is not absolutely free.

This brings me to my next observation: we only have free will, if, and only if, we can make any and all decisions, and our free agency is not constrained by other factors, such as, for instance, options.

Furthermore, it follows that suicide is an expression of free will, because the decision to ctb presents two, and only two, options. There are no external conditions which might expand of narrow the field of options. It is a situation where the agent is in posession of all available options and can, thus, make a free decision.

Any thoughts on this? Feel free to find holes in my arguments. I love a good debate!

You know I love you. Right?

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Damn, you are right. I sometimes forget that. Its all about adaptation. Any organism that doesn't need to evolve to survive, doesn't. It's just survival and there is always the temptation to anthropomorphize some intentional purpose. I'm just as prone to that as anyone else, because it does feel like that.

 

[Epsilon0]

First of all, thank you both for your answers. It's a true intellectual feast to read your posts!

@Sensei

It makes sense that you are currently writing a book about BD. I have often wondered at the amount of facts you know about this illness, and now I understand that it must be partly due to all the research for your book. Do you write it in your first language, or in English?



@Underscore

Your definition of life is not strange; you are, after all, a geologist, so of course you think rocks are alive. Am I right in assuming your favourite song is "Go tell it on the mountain"?

Joking aside, I really like how you draw on several fields whenever you make a point. I am beginning to think, I should follow your example, and not be so quick to dismiss religion, for instance. What you wrote about ancient knowledge is certainly correct. I am so blinded by my modern way of thinking, that I often forget a lot of knowledge has been lost due to the passage of time, wars and, as you point out, lack of techonology and the means to pass it on.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

First of all, thank you both for your answers. It's a true intellectual feast to read your posts!

@Sensei

It makes sense that you are currently writing a book about BD. I have often wondered at the amount of facts you know about this illness, and now I understand that it must be partly due to all the research for your book. Do you write it in your first language, or in English?



@Underscore

Your definition of life is not strange; you are, after all, a geologist, so of course you think rocks are alive. Am I right in assuming your favourite song is "Go tell it on the mountain"?

Joking aside, I really like how you draw on several fields whenever you make a point. I am beginning to think, I should follow your example, and not be so quick to dismiss religion, for instance. What you wrote about ancient knowledge is certainly correct. I am so blinded by my modern way of thinking, that I often forget a lot of knowledge has been lost due to the passage of time, wars and, as you point out, lack of techonology and the means to pass it on.

I thought you'd just think I was nuts lol so thanks for not thinking that
I have always favoured a broad perspective approach to everything. It gives me an unusual way of looking at things that can be hard to follow and seem freaky and contradictory to some. Unfortunately it also means I've never really specialised in anything, so I lack a depth of knowledge in any given field. Advantages and disadvantages
Did you know the ancient Greeks had a computer?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
We've been here before!

 

[Epsilon0]

I thought you'd just think I was nuts lol so thanks for not thinking that
I have always favoured a broad perspective approach to everything. It gives me an unusual way of looking at things that can be hard to follow and seem freaky and contradictory to some. Unfortunately it also means I've never really specialised in anything, so I lack a depth of knowledge in any given field. Advantages and disadvantages
Did you know the ancient Greeks had a computer?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
We've been here before!

I have seen the Antikythera on some documentary on Tv, but as far as I understood, they don't really know what kind of device it is. It could very well be an espresso machine...

 

[Deleted member 1465]

I have seen the Antikythera on some documentary on Tv, but as far as I understood, they don't really know what kind of device it is. It could very well be an espresso machine...

That would be even better! Whatever it is it looks pretty advanced. Archaeologists often don't know what stuff is. I had to draw one of these once...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dodecahedron
I mean really, what IS it?