Author Topic: Daft Questions Thread  (Read 94360 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hanshithispantz

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2750 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:17:59 pm »
You see, I think we are in agreement on free will as a product of the anthropocentric uni. And under that definition it is a bad thing which can only be attributed to humans. But if you define free will as simply the freedom to experience your natural existence, then I think you get a much more balanced and realistic view of life.
If a mother bear feels that her cubs are threatened, she doesn't pause to consider the rights and wrongs of ripping the limbs from a predator. That is free will.

But isn’t that an argument against free will?

Online sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2751 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:20:05 pm »
You see, I think we are in agreement on free will as a product of the anthropocentric uni. And under that definition it is a bad thing which can only be attributed to humans. But if you define free will as simply the freedom to experience your natural existence, then I think you get a much more balanced and realistic view of life.
If a mother bear feels that her cubs are threatened, she doesn't pause to consider the rights and wrongs of ripping the limbs from a predator. That is free will.


I don't see how that is free will by any stretch of the imagination without changing the goal posts.

I'm trying to do more than move the goalposts man. I'm trying to deconstruct the entire anthropocentric model. I'd like a new one in it's place that had a spot for humanity.

Online sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2752 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:24:16 pm »
I think I might be with Thomas on this. Free will seems illusory to the human, because of how we define it. But if we observe the rest of the living kingdom they offer us a better definition.

Unfortunately the environment that humanity has created for itself, makes that appear terrifying.

Online QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2753 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:26:22 pm »
A demonstration on the lack of free will........

What's your favourite colour ? Can you honestly decide, right now, to change it ?
Is such a thing chosen or hard coded in one's DNA; similarly I hardly have free will to change my height whenever I want but I wouldn't say that that shortcoming would be an example of lack of free will.

For the record I'm in the deterministic camp, though to butcher Arthur C Clarke - any sufficiently advanced conscious decision is indistinguishable from free will; just because it's theoretically simulatable, the reality is we'll never be able to so it's not worth worrying about too much. The illusion of free will we have is sufficient given I'd never be able to tell the difference anyway.

Is that the reality though? How are we certain that it will not for all practical purposes be simulated one day?
That's the nitpick, tbh. We can probably approximate well enough but if I want to be a hardline determinist it's got to be 100% or nothing. We'd have to have a computer whatever larger than the universe to simulate the universe if you wanted 100% simulation.

The 100% simulation is obviously universally impracticable.  Approximations for all practical purposes are the likely best we will ever have anyway. Models that accurately predict motion to some uncertainty, and all that s***.

I still think that's different than likening sufficiently advanced decisions to free will.  One is about predicting human decisions, which requires accurate boundary conditions. Free will still suggests to me an absence of boundary conditions, which is why I am skeptical of it, and suspect that it still comes from our need to put ourselves at the right hand of the creator.
You still have to call it free will, or accept the illusion that it is. How could you ever jail murderers otherwise? They were simply automata acting out in a deterministic way that they were never in control of etc etc. WHO'S THE REAL VICTIM HERE, QUAKES? :lol:




That doesn't mean there is an absence of choices and responsibility, man. It's not a 1 or a 0 without any possibility of anything in between.

The social contract is a constraint required to live among your peers. If you opt to f*** people over, there should obviously be consequences.

I just think people use the term free will without really thinking it through. And if we are being honest with ourselves, we should consider our need to be at the center of existence as a reason to exalt and gild the idea of free will. You can still discard the idea and still hold onto values like compassion, as annoyingly some guys like Jordan Peterson seem to imply.

Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2754 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:27:05 pm »
I think I might be with Thomas on this. Free will seems illusory to the human, because of how we define it. But if we observe the rest of the living kingdom they offer us a better definition.

Unfortunately the environment that humanity has created for itself, makes that appear terrifying.

Then your view is that it's not free will but our view of it  ?
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Online QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2755 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:28:38 pm »
You see, I think we are in agreement on free will as a product of the anthropocentric uni. And under that definition it is a bad thing which can only be attributed to humans. But if you define free will as simply the freedom to experience your natural existence, then I think you get a much more balanced and realistic view of life.
If a mother bear feels that her cubs are threatened, she doesn't pause to consider the rights and wrongs of ripping the limbs from a predator. That is free will.


I don't see how that is free will by any stretch of the imagination without changing the goal posts.

I'm trying to do more than move the goalposts man. I'm trying to deconstruct the entire anthropocentric model. I'd like a new one in it's place that had a spot for humanity.

Then I wold also discard the idea of expressing one's natural existence, as that is a constantly evolving thing being filtered through natural circumstances.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Online QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2756 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:29:19 pm »
I think I might be with Thomas on this. Free will seems illusory to the human, because of how we define it. But if we observe the rest of the living kingdom they offer us a better definition.

Unfortunately the environment that humanity has created for itself, makes that appear terrifying.


Can't speak for thomas, but that is not what I got out of what he said.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2757 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:29:28 pm »
Oh and as for the mama bear, had she been brought up in captivity regularly beaten etc, maybe she wouldn't know to defend her young.

Is that free will or not ?
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Online QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2758 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:31:06 pm »
Ok, sadnestan. What would you define as free will for a human within the confines of their natural existence?
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2759 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:32:27 pm »
Ok, sadnestan. What would you define as free will for a human within the confines of their natural existence?
S'easy innit,  in keeping with the times....... .freedom of will means freedom of will.
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Online thomas

  • NO's Best Foreigner - Participant
  • General Member
  • this dog is judging the s*** out of that post
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2760 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:36:33 pm »
A demonstration on the lack of free will........

What's your favourite colour ? Can you honestly decide, right now, to change it ?
Is such a thing chosen or hard coded in one's DNA; similarly I hardly have free will to change my height whenever I want but I wouldn't say that that shortcoming would be an example of lack of free will.

For the record I'm in the deterministic camp, though to butcher Arthur C Clarke - any sufficiently advanced conscious decision is indistinguishable from free will; just because it's theoretically simulatable, the reality is we'll never be able to so it's not worth worrying about too much. The illusion of free will we have is sufficient given I'd never be able to tell the difference anyway.

Is that the reality though? How are we certain that it will not for all practical purposes be simulated one day?
That's the nitpick, tbh. We can probably approximate well enough but if I want to be a hardline determinist it's got to be 100% or nothing. We'd have to have a computer whatever larger than the universe to simulate the universe if you wanted 100% simulation.

The 100% simulation is obviously universally impracticable.  Approximations for all practical purposes are the likely best we will ever have anyway. Models that accurately predict motion to some uncertainty, and all that s***.

I still think that's different than likening sufficiently advanced decisions to free will.  One is about predicting human decisions, which requires accurate boundary conditions. Free will still suggests to me an absence of boundary conditions, which is why I am skeptical of it, and suspect that it still comes from our need to put ourselves at the right hand of the creator.
You still have to call it free will, or accept the illusion that it is. How could you ever jail murderers otherwise? They were simply automata acting out in a deterministic way that they were never in control of etc etc. WHO'S THE REAL VICTIM HERE, QUAKES? :lol:




That doesn't mean there is an absence of choices and responsibility, man. It's not a 1 or a 0 without any possibility of anything in between.
:lol: It absolutely is. If I could perfectly simulate the universe from big bang until present by observing simulated you it would be clear that nothing that you've ever done would have ever actually been your choice.

You were predestined to do it as a result of the laws of the universe chemistry/physics etc. You would have had the illusion that you were choosing it but the reality was you were hardcoded into doing it before this planet was even capable of supporting life. You could never have done otherwise. You had no free will to do different.

But since we can't do that we accept the illusion that the decisions(read: choices) we make are our own and we're better for it.

Quote
I just think people use the term free will without really thinking it through
Yeah I'm beginning to think that too.

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2761 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:43:26 pm »
A demonstration on the lack of free will........

What's your favourite colour ? Can you honestly decide, right now, to change it ?
Is such a thing chosen or hard coded in one's DNA; similarly I hardly have free will to change my height whenever I want but I wouldn't say that that shortcoming would be an example of lack of free will.

For the record I'm in the deterministic camp, though to butcher Arthur C Clarke - any sufficiently advanced conscious decision is indistinguishable from free will; just because it's theoretically simulatable, the reality is we'll never be able to so it's not worth worrying about too much. The illusion of free will we have is sufficient given I'd never be able to tell the difference anyway.

Is that the reality though? How are we certain that it will not for all practical purposes be simulated one day?
That's the nitpick, tbh. We can probably approximate well enough but if I want to be a hardline determinist it's got to be 100% or nothing. We'd have to have a computer whatever larger than the universe to simulate the universe if you wanted 100% simulation.

The 100% simulation is obviously universally impracticable.  Approximations for all practical purposes are the likely best we will ever have anyway. Models that accurately predict motion to some uncertainty, and all that s***.

I still think that's different than likening sufficiently advanced decisions to free will.  One is about predicting human decisions, which requires accurate boundary conditions. Free will still suggests to me an absence of boundary conditions, which is why I am skeptical of it, and suspect that it still comes from our need to put ourselves at the right hand of the creator.
You still have to call it free will, or accept the illusion that it is. How could you ever jail murderers otherwise? They were simply automata acting out in a deterministic way that they were never in control of etc etc. WHO'S THE REAL VICTIM HERE, QUAKES? :lol:




That doesn't mean there is an absence of choices and responsibility, man. It's not a 1 or a 0 without any possibility of anything in between.
:lol: It absolutely is. If I could perfectly simulate the universe from big bang until present by observing simulated you it would be clear that nothing that you've ever done would have ever actually been your choice.

You were predestined to do it as a result of the laws of the universe chemistry/physics etc. You would have had the illusion that you were choosing it but the reality was you were hardcoded into doing it before this planet was even capable of supporting life. You could never have done otherwise. You had no free will to do different.

But since we can't do that we accept the illusion that the decisions(read: choices) we make are our own and we're better for it.

Quote
I just think people use the term free will without really thinking it through
Yeah I'm beginning to think that too.
NOT sure about the pre destined bit but I see it as being a lot more fluid. The whole pre destined idea takes any chance out of it and it is there.
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Online sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2762 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:44:36 pm »
Ok, sadnestan. What would you define as free will for a human within the confines of their natural existence?

Free will is the divine gift that doesn't come from a higher power, but from our own minds.

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2763 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:44:46 pm »
Oh and I agree people bandy the term free will about without thinking it through..........those pesky humans do that a lot.
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Online sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2764 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:46:41 pm »
Oh and as for the mama bear, had she been brought up in captivity regularly beaten etc, maybe she wouldn't know to defend her young.

Is that free will or not ?

I would say the free will had been damaged through an unnatural environment, probably.

But it's interesting that you wrote that just as I was remembering the monkeys, with the bananas, and the ladder, and the hose.

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2765 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:50:53 pm »
Ok, sadnestan. What would you define as free will for a human within the confines of their natural existence?

Free will is the divine gift that doesn't come from a higher power, but from our own minds.
So can you change your favourite colour and be honest about it ? Can I decide to hate The Chameleons right now ? Can I wake up tomorrow and decide, right from now on I will be right wing purely because I want to express my free will ?
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2766 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:51:34 pm »
Oh and as for the mama bear, had she been brought up in captivity regularly beaten etc, maybe she wouldn't know to defend her young.

Is that free will or not ?

I would say the free will had been damaged through an unnatural environment, probably.

But it's interesting that you wrote that just as I was remembering the monkeys, with the bananas, and the ladder, and the hose.
What is a natural environment ? To that bear that is the natural environment. Do we live in a natural environment, what is a human natural environment. My guess is our environment is constantly in flux and  we share it with other species, they affect ours and we affect theirs.
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Offline newsted

  • General Member
  • Everything Louder Than Everything Else. RIP Lemmy.
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2767 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:51:35 pm »
Oh and as for the mama bear, had she been brought up in captivity regularly beaten etc, maybe she wouldn't know to defend her young.

Is that free will or not ?

I would say the free will had been damaged through an unnatural environment, probably.

But it's interesting that you wrote that just as I was remembering the monkeys, with the bananas, and the ladder, and the hose.

You watch some very niche porn, mate.
:) As you were.

Online QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2768 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:53:22 pm »
A demonstration on the lack of free will........

What's your favourite colour ? Can you honestly decide, right now, to change it ?
Is such a thing chosen or hard coded in one's DNA; similarly I hardly have free will to change my height whenever I want but I wouldn't say that that shortcoming would be an example of lack of free will.

For the record I'm in the deterministic camp, though to butcher Arthur C Clarke - any sufficiently advanced conscious decision is indistinguishable from free will; just because it's theoretically simulatable, the reality is we'll never be able to so it's not worth worrying about too much. The illusion of free will we have is sufficient given I'd never be able to tell the difference anyway.

Is that the reality though? How are we certain that it will not for all practical purposes be simulated one day?
That's the nitpick, tbh. We can probably approximate well enough but if I want to be a hardline determinist it's got to be 100% or nothing. We'd have to have a computer whatever larger than the universe to simulate the universe if you wanted 100% simulation.

The 100% simulation is obviously universally impracticable.  Approximations for all practical purposes are the likely best we will ever have anyway. Models that accurately predict motion to some uncertainty, and all that s***.

I still think that's different than likening sufficiently advanced decisions to free will.  One is about predicting human decisions, which requires accurate boundary conditions. Free will still suggests to me an absence of boundary conditions, which is why I am skeptical of it, and suspect that it still comes from our need to put ourselves at the right hand of the creator.
You still have to call it free will, or accept the illusion that it is. How could you ever jail murderers otherwise? They were simply automata acting out in a deterministic way that they were never in control of etc etc. WHO'S THE REAL VICTIM HERE, QUAKES? :lol:




That doesn't mean there is an absence of choices and responsibility, man. It's not a 1 or a 0 without any possibility of anything in between.
:lol: It absolutely is. If I could perfectly simulate the universe from big bang until present by observing simulated you it would be clear that nothing that you've ever done would have ever actually been your choice.

You were predestined to do it as a result of the laws of the universe chemistry/physics etc. You would have had the illusion that you were choosing it but the reality was you were hardcoded into doing it before this planet was even capable of supporting life. You could never have done otherwise. You had no free will to do different.

But since we can't do that we accept the illusion that the decisions(read: choices) we make are our own and we're better for it.

Quote
I just think people use the term free will without really thinking it through
Yeah I'm beginning to think that too.

I think you are assuming that I 100% ascribe to determinism, which I don't. I just asked you a question about the simulation you mentioned. On a side note, a 100% deterministic universe is on one hand what people of the faiths believe, yet at the same time champion free will without seeing the contradictions of holding both of these ideas at once.

I am merely talking about the limitation of choices based on obvious and not so obvious constraints, which is different than both sides of that coin. If anything, I believe that probability is more of a god than anything else.

Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Online sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2769 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:53:28 pm »
Ok, sadnestan. What would you define as free will for a human within the confines of their natural existence?

Free will is the divine gift that doesn't come from a higher power, but from our own minds.
So can you change your favourite colour and be honest about it ? Can I decide to hate The Chameleons right now ? Can I wake up tomorrow and decide, right from now on I will be right wing purely because I want to express my free will ?

Of course you can do any of those things. You only have to justify yourself, to yourself.

Online QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2770 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:54:10 pm »
A demonstration on the lack of free will........

What's your favourite colour ? Can you honestly decide, right now, to change it ?
Is such a thing chosen or hard coded in one's DNA; similarly I hardly have free will to change my height whenever I want but I wouldn't say that that shortcoming would be an example of lack of free will.

For the record I'm in the deterministic camp, though to butcher Arthur C Clarke - any sufficiently advanced conscious decision is indistinguishable from free will; just because it's theoretically simulatable, the reality is we'll never be able to so it's not worth worrying about too much. The illusion of free will we have is sufficient given I'd never be able to tell the difference anyway.

Is that the reality though? How are we certain that it will not for all practical purposes be simulated one day?
That's the nitpick, tbh. We can probably approximate well enough but if I want to be a hardline determinist it's got to be 100% or nothing. We'd have to have a computer whatever larger than the universe to simulate the universe if you wanted 100% simulation.

The 100% simulation is obviously universally impracticable.  Approximations for all practical purposes are the likely best we will ever have anyway. Models that accurately predict motion to some uncertainty, and all that s***.

I still think that's different than likening sufficiently advanced decisions to free will.  One is about predicting human decisions, which requires accurate boundary conditions. Free will still suggests to me an absence of boundary conditions, which is why I am skeptical of it, and suspect that it still comes from our need to put ourselves at the right hand of the creator.
You still have to call it free will, or accept the illusion that it is. How could you ever jail murderers otherwise? They were simply automata acting out in a deterministic way that they were never in control of etc etc. WHO'S THE REAL VICTIM HERE, QUAKES? :lol:




That doesn't mean there is an absence of choices and responsibility, man. It's not a 1 or a 0 without any possibility of anything in between.
:lol: It absolutely is. If I could perfectly simulate the universe from big bang until present by observing simulated you it would be clear that nothing that you've ever done would have ever actually been your choice.

You were predestined to do it as a result of the laws of the universe chemistry/physics etc. You would have had the illusion that you were choosing it but the reality was you were hardcoded into doing it before this planet was even capable of supporting life. You could never have done otherwise. You had no free will to do different.

But since we can't do that we accept the illusion that the decisions(read: choices) we make are our own and we're better for it.

Quote
I just think people use the term free will without really thinking it through
Yeah I'm beginning to think that too.

and that last part is a bit uncalled for.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Online QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2771 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:55:14 pm »
Oh and as for the mama bear, had she been brought up in captivity regularly beaten etc, maybe she wouldn't know to defend her young.

Is that free will or not ?

I would say the free will had been damaged through an unnatural environment, probably.

But it's interesting that you wrote that just as I was remembering the monkeys, with the bananas, and the ladder, and the hose.

What are you defining as unnatural? This is probably a bit pedantic, but that seems to be a very slippery slope.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2772 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:55:21 pm »
Ok, sadnestan. What would you define as free will for a human within the confines of their natural existence?

Free will is the divine gift that doesn't come from a higher power, but from our own minds.
So can you change your favourite colour and be honest about it ? Can I decide to hate The Chameleons right now ? Can I wake up tomorrow and decide, right from now on I will be right wing purely because I want to express my free will ?

Of course you can do any of those things. You only have to justify yourself, to yourself.
What if I can't?
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2773 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:55:58 pm »
Oh and as for the mama bear, had she been brought up in captivity regularly beaten etc, maybe she wouldn't know to defend her young.

Is that free will or not ?

I would say the free will had been damaged through an unnatural environment, probably.

But it's interesting that you wrote that just as I was remembering the monkeys, with the bananas, and the ladder, and the hose.

What are you defining as unnatural? This is probably a bit pedantic, but that seems to be a very slippery slope.
Just edited my previous post on environment to a similar effect.
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Online sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2774 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:58:37 pm »
Oh and as for the mama bear, had she been brought up in captivity regularly beaten etc, maybe she wouldn't know to defend her young.

Is that free will or not ?

I would say the free will had been damaged through an unnatural environment, probably.

But it's interesting that you wrote that just as I was remembering the monkeys, with the bananas, and the ladder, and the hose.

What are you defining as unnatural? This is probably a bit pedantic, but that seems to be a very slippery slope.

An environment in which a bear is caged. And beaten. And left unable to defend her young. Assuming that the bear that was caught would have done so.