Izzy

Bro you have no control over whether or not you love someone. Your entire personality (from the sports you like, to intellect, and yes, love) is predetermined by your genetic make up, and there's no way to get over this. It's why you laugh at the jokes you think are funny and why you like certain colors more than other. (Okay, there's also a nurture component, but its influence here is limited.) It's your choice whether or not you act on your feelings, but it's not your choice if you love someone, because you're a victim of chance. Think about the people you've liked over the years, and notice the similarities. They aren't similar by coincidence, you and everyone else are attracted to a certain type of person (the specific qualities can be anything, from intelligence to hair length) because of your DNA. I'll take your point the pseudo-love from chocolate and drugs doesn't mean you're in love because it's a temporary effect, but with MDMA (far more than chocolate), the brain activity is almost indistinguishable, and for that period of time, you *are* in love. Haha, I know what you mean. Sometimes it's just like "Screw it, I'll make a video post.."

1.Then explain what you meant, because you weren't very clear."Science can't explain it, but we can" really seems to imply some sort of religious explanation, meaning you're taking it entirely on faith, and are, beyond a reasonable doubt, wrong. Chemicals aren't stupid. Chemicals literally make up your every action and every thought you think. Every choice you make is determined by a balance of chemicals in your brain. They control every emotion, including love, btw. 2. Lust is a part of love, of course they aren't the same thing. Well, sexual love, anyway. Obviously "Oh, I love my cat" has no part in that sort of love, but that isn't what this thread is discussing, so the point is irrelevant. It depends on the situation. If my family dislikes my bf/gf to the extent that they're trying to separate me from him/her, I'm going to choose my partner over them, because they're being intolerant morons. If it's like "Your plane is on fire.. you can save one person", then *shrugs* I'd rather not think about it. ...What. Yes, chemicals create the feelings of love, and we call these feelings "love", ergo chemicals create love? I don't understand where you were going with that. You weren't right whatsoever (with this statement: "Infatuations with chemicals isn't love: it just happens to give similar emotions, but it's never complete"). Yeah, it starts as speculation, but science has gotten to the point where they can explain love, and it's all backed up by models, and has been crafted into a theory. If it were wrong, it would die under scrutiny. ..It hasn't. Have I fallen in love? Eh. Sort of, but I don't want to talk about it because it's complicated and didn't have a very happy ending. =/ I've dated, and yeah, I love my family. I wasn't arguing about what you were saying about the levels of love. I understand that, I was just saying that since the chemicals form the emotions, of course the emotions are complete. Look, EVERYTHING in our life is chemical, and science is the tool we use to figure these things out. If everything we've ever observed, in the history of observance is chemical, why would love be exempt from this? It has a chemical explanation that makes complete sense, so what doesn't make sense is to ignore the explanation and come up with something you think is better for the sake of doing so. (By all means, questioning the standard for further scientific inquiry is an *awesome* thing, but in cases where we already know full well what's going on, it's a massive waste of time.) Spiritual? Yeah? Prove it. It has nothing to do with having the last word or me being right. If I *am* right, obviously I'll spread the rightness. If I'm wrong, so be it.

At what point exactly did you decide science can't describe love? Paraphrasing Wiki: It's been shown that love is a mammalian drive, similar to hunger and thirst occurring in three stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Increased testosterone and estrogen levels spark the initial lust. Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which act in a manner similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain's pleasure center and leading to side effects such as increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Attachment is the bonding that promotes relationships lasting for many years and even decades, has been linked to higher levels of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin to a greater degree than short-term relationships have. Studies have shown that brain scans of those infatuated by love display a resemblance to those with a mental illness. Love creates activity in the same area of the brain where hunger, thirst, and drug cravings create activity. So, MDMA, or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine stimulates the brain similarly to dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. When someone uses it, it actually dumps all their serotonin, and replaces it with MDMA, because the brain prefers it. Of course, this is bad, because the MDMA presence is only temporary and the serotonin levels need to be rebuilt (which takes time). Consequently, MDMA users have a recovery period when they're pretty depressed, and anything from loving. Ergo, the absence of serotonin caused this, meaning it is, without a doubt, an agent of love. EVERYTHING in life is chemical. Moreover, just because science can't describe something (which most certainly isn't the case here), you don't automatically default to being right at science's expense. If a five year old described love as a phenomenon occurring because a magical dragon turned the enchanted tree into ashes and pixies fly around sprinkling this dust on everyone, well, she isn't right. Now, if she's proven to be wrong, and a little boy instead says "Oh, no, it's the gnomes that dispense the ash!", he isn't right just because the girl was wrong. He's just as wrong as she is. ...Though, that's possibly a bad analogy because science actually knows what it's talking about and isn't merely speculating.. meh. Longish (eh, not really) post. Enjoy, Nick.

Not a lot. Our choice is pretty much limited to whether or not we decide to act on our feelings. You can control who you love no more than you can control the types of food that you think taste good. You can resist foods you like about as much as you can people you like. ...It sucks.

Er, are you just making up statistics? Men dying from heart attacks from sex? Seriously? It only takes 1-2 days for sperm to replenish. If what the man is *trying* to do is impregnate a chick, staying with the same partner for a month (assuming both are fertile) will yield a child. The rest of your argument has no merit because genetic defects go both ways. And hey, the dude is trying to have 200 kids. This is the real world. He doesn't care what's best for society, he has the evolutionary yearning to ensure his lineage is conserved. Also, twenty women each caring for one child from the same father will create more healthy (physically and mentally) than one woman with twenty children all from different men. Not to just throw in the stereotypical gender roles here, but the mother's have to nurture their youth, at least to some extent. Twenty kids? Foo' you trippin'.

Er, no. Consider the animal kingdom. Females, once impregnated, have to carry and then raise their youth, which is facilitated by the help of their male partners. Once pregnant, it's unlikely she'll get pregnant again while still pregnant. Considering JUST offspring here, one female human can have about one child a year (a little more if multiples are taken into account), while males can go out, and if fertile, impregnate as many women as they can score. When women mate for life, statistically, their chances of raising healthy offspring is increased (totally not ragging on single moms here, I believe it has more to do with the stability of a home than the amount of parents, but the amount of adult figures in a child's life certainly contributes), so it's in their best interest to stay with their man. For men, this is technically also true, but the more women they copulate with, the even greater their chances are for successful offspring. By animals, I meant like penguins. I know it's a little different for humans, and as a species with already a larger population than ideal, obviously I don't support the above.

^There's also social libertarianism (what I am - sort of), where what you said above holds true, but the government also collects taxes to make roads, schools, provide public health care, etc. Oh my gawds, I was so wrong..

Hahaha. You know it broski. I still stick to the chemical definition. Yay dopamine and serotonin (and ketamine and norepinephrine!) ((I *think* those are song lyrics. The ketamine is questionable, but it first syllably.. )) ..But I digress. Love is very "real", if you want to delude yourself. Which I encourage, it's nice to have that tingly feeling and forced smile whenever you're around the person you like. I'd assume we're the same as animals, if not a little more advanced. Some animals mate for life, and this is evolutionarily stupid for the males, considering it downs there chances of reproductive success. Ergo, love!

(With only reading the title, bus comes in like ten minutes). Because there's no reason for it not to? If you have an infinite amount of time (well, it wasn't really time at all, but for lack of a better work) when nothing exists and nothing in happening, something only had to happen once. That doesn't mean it can't have happened multiple times, but it only had to happen once for us to get here. The universe isn't specific at all; people only think that because it's the only one they know about. "Why are the trees specifically green?" "Oh, they have chlorophyll." Well, yes, but not exactly. They're green because they have an energy level that we interpret as green. ...And bus. Bah. I'll finish this up after school. Don't reply to it yet, please, because I'm nowhere near done.

Hey, I might have to drop this thread because it's too time consuming and I don't really have time for the internet if I want good grades, enough sleep, and a social life.

Need to leave for the school bus in like two minutes, so making this quit (and sort as a result =/), but determinism itself was proven wrong. It's impossible to know both the location and velocity of a particle, and because the particle has a wavefunction, it doesn't exactly behave like a particle at all, and as far as anyone understands, *it* doens't even know where it is, and likely doesn't have a single location, so even if we had a super computer large enough with all possible information plugged into it, we still woudn't know enough to predict the future. Not because we don't have enough information, but simply because it's impossible to know the speed and velocity, meaning we only either know where it is or how fast it's going (but not where). Even if this super computer was God (if he existed), he, in his infinite knowledge, wouldn't know. So, I'm an indeterminist, and free will agnostic. Which is what I meant, but I think I wrote it backwards.

Nothing that completely disproves this, either: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm As science advances, the gaps for gods to hide behind become considerably smaller, and religions keep adapting/changing the interpretation of their texts to keep up. It's only a matter of time, but until we get to the point where we can explain everything, that link is some food for thought.

I see why you think that right now, but really once you start looking into it more, there's overwhelming evidence against Gawd. I really recommend reading that book I mentioned a little further up.

Bah. Lack of free will (still agnostic on the issue) makes the universe even more pointless than it already is. I mean, not only is there already no point, no underlying reason, no purpose, no reason for survival. That I could handle, it meant I was justified to have fun. Now there's the possibility that I don't even control myself and my actions; that I do everything I do because of circumstances I have no control over? Feh. If that's the case, the universe is some cruel joke, and I don't know.. if.. I.. want to participate. =/

Disagree. There's a possibility of multiple futures, and while only one will come true, that doesn't mean others didn't have the chance of also becoming true. ...I can't explain it, but neither can you, so I think it's safe to assume the only fair stance here is free-will agnostic, until someone comes up with an actual explanation. I think.. that.. eugh I don't know what I think.

...Ffs. I convince myself to go offline, have one more idea, type it out, and then Firefox crashed. Okay, here we go again. My example includes an experiment and a set of twins. Imagine I conduct an experiment, it doesn't matter what, every five years. The experiment uses identical products, and is carried out exactly the same (to the best of ability human error allows). Since I can't use the same materials, the materials I use are from different manufacturers, wrapped differently, etc. Basically, the only sense in which they are alike is that they are the same thing. Okay, cool, easy enough to understand. My results from these experiments are very similar, differing only in decimal places, if at all. From a deterministic view, this makes perfect sense. Now, consider a pair of twins, created, carried, and born identically. Exposed to the same everything. When born, why do they differ so immensely? From other experiments, it would make sense that twin A's favorite color is dark blue while twin B's favorite color is the same blue, one shade lighter. This is pretty much never the case with twins. Okay, you can argue they've been exposed to different things as they've grown up. But what about the noticeable personality differences as babies? A deterministic world means they'd be similar, but the two think differently, meaning consciousness is.. special. So, either the mind transcends the laws of physics (it *can't*), or we have free will.

Again, I'm not claiming to know one way or another, so this is all just speculation. What if we were able to conduct a perfectly controlled experiment in which no outside forces (aside from, like, gravity, but that's constant anyway) act upon the object. Construct a coin flipper, that flips the coin with the same amount of force every time in.. some sort of controlled space. Idk if that's feasible, but can't we make computer simulations or something? Also, I realize that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so I see how it makes sense that one thing led to another. However, until the human mind is better understood, it's impossible to know one way or another and it's sort of silly to say you do. Think of dreams as an example. Until we know precisely what stimuli causes them and how neurons interact with one another during once, it's impossible to link them to a previous cause. I know we're bound by the laws of the universe, but with conscious thought, I think the difference is that we can now do what we want while still abiding by those laws. For example, the atoms that make up my fingers as I type this don't know what they're doing or why they're being pushed around. Only my brain knows why. So while atoms (even though my brain is composed of atoms) move around in a deterministic fashion, my consciousness controls them to my will, and all of a sudden they aren't doing what they would be doing if I wasn't conscious. So, it all comes down to whether or not the random yet deterministic motion of atoms controls my thoughts. ..I don't think so, because I find it difficult to believe that the universe's forces would have something be manipulated in such a way that it thinks. ..If that makes sense. Actually, I think I read something about this at one point. Off to raid mah bookshelf. Ah, okay, found it. Read this in the full. From Quantum: A Guide For the Complexed Sorry this got so lengthy, I was trying to be entirely clear. I didn't have time to finish writing it (there's a note at the bottom), but.. I'll get there eventually. "In fact, until the quantum revolution, scientists were confident that [predicting the future] was indeed possible in principle, suggesting that even if we could not predict them all future events were preordained and destined to take place. Isaac Newton believed that every particle in the Universe should obey simple laws of motion subject to well-defined forces. This mechanistic view - one that is still shared universally by scientists and philosophers more than two centuries later - states that no matter how complex the working of nature are, everything should be ultimately reducible to interactions between the fundamental building blocks of matter. [...] But in principle, if we could know the precise position and state of motion of every particle in a give system, no matter how many are involved, then we should be able to predict, through Newton's laws, how these particles will interact and move, and hence how the system will look at any given time in the future. [...] This is known as determinism. [...] Indeed, simple mechanistic examples, such as the ones [that Izzy omitted] pale to insignificance when we consider how we might deal with the immense complexity of the human brain in order to understand the nation of free will. But the principle is always the same: since humans are ultimately made up of atoms too then Newton's laws should also apply in our brains. So when we make what we perceive to be a free choice about something, this is simply the mechanical process and atomic interactions in our grey matter following deterministic laws just like everything else. [...] One of the most profound changes in human thinking brought about by the quantum revolution was the notion of indeterminism - that is, the disappearance of determinism, along with the concept of the clockwork universe. So I am sorry to break the news to you, but 'fate' as a scientific idea was proven to be false three-quarts of a century ago. In quantum mechanics, things are very different. Let us take a closer look at the origin of quantum unpredictability and indeterminism. *describes determinism again and the accuracy of Newton's laws on macro objects, showing how accurately we can predict things if all knowledge is known* So why can we not apply the same equation to describe the way a microscopic particle, such as an electron, moves? If the electron moves over here now, and we apply a certain force to it, for instance by switching on an electric field, then we should be able to say for definitite that it will be in such and such location five seconds from now. Not so. It turns out that the equations that govern the behavior of everyday objects, from grains of sand to footballs to planets, are useless in the quantum world. Paraphrasing: Shrodinger didn't like de Broglie or Bohr's idea, so devised a new equation that describes not the way a particle moves, but the way a wave evolves. Solving the Shrodinger equation provides us with a mathetmatical quantity called the wave function. This is where all probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics comes in. For the case of an electron, for instance, the wave function does not give us the precise location at a moment in time, only the likelihood of the electron being found somewhere if we were to look for it there." ..And oh my god, I am bored of typing. Picture instead, yeah? ...Stupid pictures didn't upload. ..And oh my god, it takes this dude like the rest of the book to sum up what he's saying. I read this in like 6th grade, and don't remember enough to do it justice myself. D: ...But.. yeah. Idk. I seriously have to do homework now, I might post more exerts of the book when I have the time.

I'll admit I haven't read much beyond UtF's first post with the copied universe situation (school started today and I have four tests this week ), but I'll get through it at some point. But, I sat here for a while thinking about that situation, and here's what I came up with: Even if the universe started out exactly the same, with an identical Big Bang, I don't think everything that follows would be identical to what's currently happening. I don't have a lot to back it up with (I wish I understood the forces behind the brain a lot better), but the dispersion of the particles after the big bang was random. Those particles, then, eventually became what we are today. Think of a random number generator. Before you tell it to generate a random number, it's turned off, so ultimately dead to the world. No information is inputted whatsoever. Clicking one button doesn't (I think?) stimulate the generator in a way to make the number it outputs predictable, otherwise if the button is pressed again and again in a certain way under controlled conditions (somewhere where it isn't affected by *anything*, we should receive the same output, but we don't. I saw it simulated with a pool table to one point (can't remember if it was on TV or online). From that (man, I really wish I had more to back it up with, I need to find the link), we can see randomness is real. And I don't see why that wouldn't carry on into an uncontrolled world. I think that can be compared to the mind.. somehow. Basically, I'm unsure. It might just be wishful thinking on my part that I'd like to know my life isn't predestined. Going back to the random generator, think about StumbleUpon. Assume I stumble upon a website talking about free will like this. It depresses me, and I decide to kill myself (lol, don't worry, just an extreme example, it isn't going to happen). Had the generator given me *any* other output, the situation would have been different. I'm not saying our personalities aren't dominated by genes sort of pre-defining us, but I think the little random things influence us enough that if the big bang is recreated exactly how it happened, things wouldn't be exactly the same.

I think you and unreality should discuss it. I've yet to be convinced one way or another.

Oh god, can we not talk about AP History classes? I'm so screwed for tomorrow because I didn't do any of my APWH work. Wait, free will as in the deterministic kind, like "I am deciding to move my arm right now", or free will as in freedom within our nation? Free will as in I'm predestined to type this exactly as I am, up to every typo that needs to be back spaced?

Lol, yeah, Dawh tends to be right about.. everything. Nono. I understand that there is some validity to your reasoning, but I cannot fathom why you would hold that view in the first place, regardless of reasoning. Eugh, words are tricky and I can't think (or find) a good synonym. Back to the Twilight example. If you told me you liked Twilight because Edward is hot, I wouldn't be like "That's not a good enough reason for me to hold that view.", I would be like "While your reasoning is valid, I don't understand how you could think that." Like.. Bah, idk how to word it. Like, okay, here. Do you see the difference in these two scenarios? Tom: I don't understand why the printer printed in red when I told it to print in black. --- Jack: *prints out essay in red* Tom: Wow, I do not understand why you would want to do that. ..Do you understand? I know it's getting a little confusing, and linguistics are not my speciality. So, again, I understand your reasoning, but I don't understand why you would hold that view, because I disagree, and apparently am not good at empathizing with your view. Omg, there we go. I was using this understand: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathize: Related Words for : empathize empathise, sympathise, sympathize, understand

I can agree with you, but I'm only going to agree if what you're saying is something I actually agree with. Like, if you say "Star Wars is awesome!", I'm going to agree. If you say "Twilight is awesome!" I'm going to be like "I don't understand.." And omfg, that's what I've been saying this entire time. Well, okay, the first time when you said it, it didn't make sense because you didn't elaborate enough for anyone to comprehend what you were saying. After that, I understood what you were getting at but it still didn't make any sense (as in, the "sense" mentioned above.). Also, I'll term what I say however I want. It's not like understanding is exclusively used to describe the comprehention of something. It has multiple meanings, one of which I've been using for the last who knows how many pages. (Which I assumed was evident, obviously not, meh.) Wow. That was.. a massive waste of time.. for nothing. I guess we were both guilty in omitting a "because" in our answers. *glares at the English language*

We've been over this and why it would never work. It's not a unified government if everyone obeys different rules, and progression would ultimately cease. If people are exempt from taxes, we won't have the money to pay for anything, and all schooling, health care, probably even roads, etc. become privatized and available only to upper-middle class America. The lower and lower-middle classes would have a helluva time surviving, and while I know some people like you don't exactly care, you're destroying what the constitution stands for. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I still like the thought of, "If you don't like it, gtfo." Again, you're more than welcome to form your own nation, but don't expect American benefits in the process. And, again, when you run out of land to secede in because no one in your country universally agrees on a set of rules so all form their own countries, don't expect our sympathy, because we told you. *edit*Don't reply. We've already had this exact conversation. Clearly neither of us changd our minds. Figure out something new to discuss.

We're actually funding out enemies right now anyway, for the sole reason that if we don't, they'll turn to the Taliban. A million or so dollars honestly wouldn't make much of a difference. There's also the potential to stop the terrorist attack, saving the people that you pessimistically assume would die. There's no chance the baby would survive. WHILE I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING, I don't understand how you could hold that view. (Just to make sure we're *absolutely* clear here.) Right, the one I posted last night. Not the other one. Looks like someone didn't read my posts. But don't worry, I won't get offended and type in size seven font to express my annoyment.