There has been another school shooting. Now every politician, therapist, and lawyer with an agenda is trying to convince us video games are the problem. We write this off fairly quickly though. We call it bunk and move on.

This is not what I came here to talk about, but rather the theory it is based on. The Sum of our parts.

The sum of parts is actually a math equation. Basically if X + Y = Z then X = Z - Y

This equation has been adapted to contemporary psychology basically saying that certain phychological factors in our histoy shape us to what we are and dictate every decision we ever make ever.

The antithisis to this is free will. The theory of free will is esentially we are all variables in and of ourselves. Our choices may effect what happens around us, but in the end we are ultimatly in control of our actions and have the ability to do whatever we want to do. I subscribe to this theory, and all of our laws are based upon it.

What I want to know is what you believe, are we the sum of our parts? Or are we something more?

I'm gonna have to say "something more" based of the concept of synergy. A person with the strength of ten men can't lift something as easily as ten men. (Although I think that may have something to do with balance, really.)

Events can shape us, but for the most part they cannot control us. Exceptions include events so overwhelming they drive one to madness. And for that, we have other people to talk us out of our madness.

At least, in a perfect world. Nowadays, we have people who deliberately provoke you into madness, persecute you for snapping, and capitalize off of your failure. (Fortunately, I'm not speaking from experience. Also, I have no evidence on me to support this claim. This is just a theory. Shoot it down if you must, but let me throw it on the table first.)

The straw that breaks the camel's back is an interesting concept in this. In an event involving said straw, what is the blame? The straw, the person dumping the straw on you, or you for your weakness?

And after that, how does that event shape you? What do you become?

Perhaps it is not so much that one is shaped by events, but merely integrates the data and uses it to set them on autopilot.

Of course, personal willpower plays a strong role in this too. Perhaps some people are only the sum of their parts, and some are more. Perhaps some are even less. Perhaps some are more but don't realize it and are confined to being less than or equal to for the rest of their lives. Perhaps one who is less than or equal to the sum of their parts merely has to realize that they are more and thus become more.

...

...I really do get weird when I get tired.

Neuropsychology, which is one of the few parts of psychology that can even pretend to call itself a science, tells us that our personality is genetic expression modified by sensory input. A naturalistic view of the world also reveals that actions, being effects, are caused by the physical reactions of your parts and the universe.

So yeah.

So Jogurt, you believe every one of your choices is predetermined? Taking any sence of control out of the situation?

Not really. Remember that consciousness, as we understand it, is just a gestalt of neural activity. So you choosing to do something is just a way to say that your neurons are firing in such a way as to make you do it, and they're doing it because that is the response your combination of genetic and sensory data gives to that stimulus.

So while, yes, actions and choices are as predetermined as quantum stuff allows, that doesn't absolve people of responsibility or anything like that.

I can't see us being a "sum of parts" in the sense you're talking about.

Experience can teach us things, yeah, but it doesn't mean we won't do something similar. "History repeats itself" and all that.

I mean, if someone gets burned they can learn to stay away from fire or to at least be cautious around it. That still doesn't stop some people who have been burned from being pyromaniacs :P

You do something stupid, doesn't mean you learn from it.

And you can learn from the actions of others, too. Someone drinks heavily, you see what happens to their life and you decide to stay away from it. Or someone who dies from overdosing on drugs. These are not your experiences and yet you learn from them.

It's... human life is a lot more complicated than people seem to want to make it out to be. Hell, life in general is more complicated than what we humans want it to be. Who knows what goes on in the head of a dog. Or a dolphin. Or an aphid. I really wish that people would stop trying to narrow it down to one thing.

It's like my biology teacher always used to say: "Never say 'never' and never say 'always.'" Anomalies will exist. There will be an exception to every rule. Fate will do her damnedest to piss people off by making these anomalies apparent when you really don't want them to. These are some of the only real constants I can find in life. Life is one giant oxymoron at times. Deal with it people.

... will you marry me??

...Liked it that much, did you?

:wub: Quite, yes... :wub:

I think its a combination of both, the chemical and electrical reactions in our mind affect how we think and act, but there is something more to it something that makes different people react to different stimuli.

For Example

I hate my father, he is a despicable loathsome human being and deserve what he got in the end, the main reason for this was the fact that he was an admitted Racist, he hated anyone who wasn't white. He did everything in his power to Try to teach me to believe what he did, and I rejected it because I felt it was wrong, but someone else in that same situation with the same experiences as me might have become like my father.

Um, what do you think this "something more" is? You seem to think that the naturalistic view is only looking at the sum of sensory experience as a definer of what one does, but as I said, genetic expression will also take part in how one reacts, because those two, in addition to the physical environment itself, will effect the makeup of your brain.

I suppose the best answer to that would be a Soul.

It's quite easy to explain why you rejected it.

You were probably more exposed to the outside world than he was. You probably went to school where they taught tolerance, and possibly with people of other races, making friends and generally seeing that everyone can be a cool person. Your father seemed harsh and cruel by contrast, and you rejected his view of reality for the nicer, more accepting one that you learned outside of home. Racists are portrayed very badly in many places; you probably absorbed that. On a purely selfish level, you probably realized you had more to gain and nothing to lose by rejecting your father's veiws, as keeping them would have made living in the outside world much more difficult.

It's not like you spontainiously decided to reject his views. If they had been all you knew, you most likely would have absorbed them.

...That last sentence is a scary thought.

...I don't have anything to add, but I just had to say that.

Oh yes that is quite scary, but I really didn't have friends in high school.

You lot are basically my first real group of freinds

Hrm... I can respect that viewpoint.

If you wanna know what I believe... well its rather complicated and convoluted. :P

See my thread on aspergers to see how I think and get an idea of what kinda stuff I believe(if you look carefully).

I don't know, there is truth to your statement but I feel there are exceptions, I mean there are plently who are taught to act with kindness and the world tells them to and don't. Racist, murderers these people aren't exactly glorified in our society yet exist even when their families don't agree with their sentiment.

I think we're more then the mere sum of our parts and even if we weren't, so what? We don't have the ability to truly understand how each individual person works, so how would we control the individual? How would a scientist say that person A can handle violence but person B can't, I don't really think they can.

*gasp* rules have exceptions?

I would never imagine. Personally can't think of a rule that doesn't... except maybe tinstaafl(there is no such thing as a free lunch).

Its basically a reverse version of the the conservation law, which only looks at closed systems(something that doesn't really happen in reality). Basically says that you can't perform work without wasting at least some energy(in some form of heat, exaust, lost charge, etc). That said, wasted energy can always be less than energy coming into the system(but that just means that energy isbeing lost in a larger system).

Of course, I still debate that we've ever proven that the energy that leaves a system is the same as the potential energy, if waste is accounted for, but w/e I guessXD.

Silly conservation laws. Sometimes I wonder about them.

And some people wonder about the roundness of the Earth. Reality doesn't much care about whether or not you wonder about it.

Conservation of Mass and the earth being round is a bit different, the former is a theory that while all evidence points to it being true today could someday be shown to be wrong, the latter is pretty much a fact, considering we've seen the shape of the earth from the outside.

Though you are right, reality doesn't care what we think, it is what it is, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't question what reality appears to be.

The conservation laws are implied by certain symmetries (such as CoEnergy being implied by the invariance of physical laws and constants over time), just as the roundness of the Earth is implied by various observations.

The conservation laws also are the basis of all physics. Physics would still be the same if discovered by people living on some sort of crazy cube or something.

Well try this rule, "There is at least 1 exception to nearly ever rule."

Physics is based on science, which is based on the scientific method, which allows for induction, which this is?

Still, questioning the theory of conservation of mass and energy is far more reasonable than questioning whether the world is round.

Its roundish, yes. :P

You can see pictures of the Earth now, thanks to exploration in space. You can see the Law of Conservation in action via mathematical equations. People are definitely going to believe pictures more than math, especially if they just plain suck at math- and I mean suck at it.

Error! Math is based on an equality operator.

Physics is not. Imbalanced equations are used. That means that the equality operator is not being used and has been overridden, or the equation used is inaccurate. Its not equality, its showing change over time.

Mathematical logic and several of the hard sciences are at odds.

Yar.

Blah. Accidental double post.

You want to explain what you're talking about here? Using words that make sense?

All of the equations that "prove" the conservation law have mismatched terms.

You can reason from any particular one a value for mass, Newton, or the Juele but it will be different for each equation.

Thats an invalid equation using the mathematical definition of the equality operator.

What are you even talking about here? Those equations don't give values for anything; they just look at a symmetry and see which property pops out as conserved.

This post got us on a tangent and I still have no idea what the hell it has to do with anything.

It doesn't. JP just likes to burst out into his "I have better ideas than the world!" ramblings any time he posts more than three words.

GREAT ARGUMENT.

No seriously, this is an old point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

That's a nice link and all, but your argument isn't that page...

Also your argument has nothing to do with the discussion at hand....


This is like mea saying "I prefer Lilacs to roses" in a Star Wars "who shot first" debate

Its closely related to the argument of determinism, actually.

I agree that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. As for the 'sum of our parts' thing, personally I think that while conscience is nothing more than the illusion caused by the information aggregating machines we call brains deciding the body it's attached to, and the ideas it spawns as 'me,' it's a very relevant and shared illusion. I mean illusion as something different than lies; lie implies something designed to be false, illusions are what appears to be true. Illusions are important. I have an illusion of a keyboard, which if you look closely enough, is a bunch of molecules.

I don't feel like trying to explain it any more. Plato did that better
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave
I love Wikipaedia's philosophy articles.

We are no more than the sum of our physical parts, the ghost in the machine/brain is an illusion, but so is our entire way of seeing the world. In the context of human understanding, we have more inside us than our minds can hold illusion copies of, so we are more than our parts, if by parts you mean something we could understand.

If you mean something we could never understand on our own, then I run away from your elder god wisdom so as to keep my sanity, I can only be rational philosophically, I try to empathize with people.

I'm reading The Selfish Gene by Dawkins, and he argues in one of the early chapters that it seems likely that consciousness and self-awareness are consequences of having mental simulations complex enough to simulate the self.

I haven't read it, but I can imagine that when people grew the ability to predict other people, we started applying that to ourselves as well.