next »

[Melly]

DERAIL TIME

I heard somewhere, somehow, somewhen, that all decision we make are actually made within our brain before we're even aware of them. All we do is become aware of and rationalize our decisions.

Could be a load of bull of course, but who even knows how the brain really works?

[Chris Whitman]

I love a good derailing!

Tons of decisions are made without rational intervention, but I'm sceptical of the theory that rationality is just some after-the-fact accident, since the kind of conscious analysis we can perform gives some pretty major benefits.

But a lot of motor functions and even some complex, trained tasks actually do not involve rational thought in any way.

For example (more fun tidbits from my friend in neuropsych) there's a type of brain injury which results in the inability to consciously process visual information. You can still see, and your optic nerve is functional, but you simply are not conscious of receiving any visual stimuli. The majority of people who suffer from this condition in fact believe themselves to be completely blind. However, they are fully capable of navigating around objects in a room while walking, and they can even solve relatively complex visual problems like the children's puzzle where you fit differently shaped blocks into corresponding holes.

Interestingly enough, commonly they will have no idea how they were able to solve said puzzle, since they are completely unaware that they can actually see. And of course, they can't read books or perform tasks which revolve around actually interpreting stimuli, but even then they are surprisingly functional.

Edit: actually, there's probably an evolutionary reason for how little we actually use our rational faculties -- it turns out that rational thinking consumes enormous amounts of energy. The decision-making process burns crazy calories as your body ramps up its stress response to get your brain working.

But all of this is probably more from a neurological perspective. If you're talking about a metaphysical perspective, the theory you're discussing is called epiphenomenalism. I think it's kind of bullshit, but then I think philosophy of mind is all kind of bullshit.

[s0]

I'm hardly an expert on this but what I've been told is that the subconscious "knows" a lot more but isn't capable of structured thinking and the conscious is there to "order" subconscious thought with the drawback that it works relatively slow or something along those lines.

[laserghost]

I wonder if Mario rationalizes his decisions after-the-fact, like when he butt-stomps Toad or shoots all his starbits on Luigi.

[Rob Lach]

DERAIL TIME

I heard somewhere, somehow, somewhen, that all decision we make are actually made within our brain before we're even aware of them. All we do is become aware of and rationalize our decisions.

I'm of a personal belief that no one really makes any decisions since we all just live in a universe bounded by deterministic physics. Our brain just does a little rationalization dance every time we approach a "decision" and because the number of variables going into such an event is near infinitely high, it is completely reasonable to think we have some sort of free will and are actually making a difference.

Although this sort of thinking does start to fall apart when you introduce quantum mechanics where the possibility of randomness actually does enter the equation. I'll have to philosophize about that prospect for a couple years and figure out where my new outlook stands.

[SirNiko]

I want to know the name of the condition that Chris mentioned. That sounds like something interesting to research!

-SirNiko

[Tumetsu]

I'm hardly an expert on this but what I've been told is that the subconscious "knows" a lot more but isn't capable of structured thinking and the conscious is there to "order" subconscious thought with the drawback that it works relatively slow or something along those lines.

I think that I read about this a while ago from rather respected scientific magazine published here in Finland so I think that's true (at least so is though now). It also would explain why signal to raise a hand can be detected before it's observed consciously. So subconscious is in control for simple mundane tasks which would overload your conscious mind rather quickly while conscious mind has to handle more complex thinking and decisions.

About the free will though, one can approach this problem from many perspectives. It's problem if we assume that physics and universum is deterministic or if one believes in one or other all knowing and controlling god/deity. However, in the end the question is rather mindless. Personally I think that we have free will since I don't think the physics are deterministic since physics are predictable only in macro level.

[laserghost]

Let's get back on topic. Seems like this discussion is of interest to a lot of people, so maybe a new thread for it is in order.

Question: what happens when a luma turns into a new galaxy? Does it die and sacrifice itself for it's creation? Does that make it a god? Is it still alive within every grass blade and winter chill of that realm? Are we all just a connected meta-consciousness experiencing the world subjectively? (Okay, I'm digressing back to the psyche theories now too- but still: new thread please.)

[Chris Whitman]

Yeah, I'll try to find out the name of the condition if I see my neuropsych student friend around. I don't remember it off the top of my head.

Anyway, it's possible to have complete determinism and also free will. In a sense, it's obvious that free will exists because we exercise free choices all the time. This comes down to the same issues as so-called "folk psychology," where people claim that most emotions simply don't exist because they don't fit directly into neurochemical models, even though we experience these emotions all the time.

The problem is, all these theories and interpretations are the result of a brain which is still enmeshed in phenomenal experience. So the idea that free will is an illusion is a conclusion which is actually parasitic on the existence of free will.

The catch here is that the conclusion that our normal experience is in some way false compared to a supposedly objective, scientific standard must be made in the context of that experience, so you wind up with statements like, "After reviewing all the evidence, I decided that all decisions are meaningless illusions," which is nonsensical.

I read a good essay about the neuro-novel, or novels that treat the human brain solely like a chemical system (which, physically of course, it is, but this doesn't let you get around interpretation). This approach winds up taking a sort of solipsistic stance where the speaker pretends to have a mind consisting of separate, non-physical mental events in order to have anything at all to talk about, but then recklessly medicalises the behaviors of others.

If you believe free will doesn't exist, then you'd have to concede that hunger and love and boredom and life and death probably don't exist either. Materialists would classify these as "brain states," but are unclear on how we'd classify them or know whether not we're in a brain state of hunger without having to appeal back to an ostensibly folk psychological reason like, "Well, I feel hungry."

All these materialist explanations, including that of free will, suffer from the same problem, which is the need to return to the phenomenal experience in order to justify the idea that the phenomena themselves do not exist.

We know that we live in a seemingly deterministic universe. We also know that we experience free will. Any attempt to connect the two logically seems to result in internal contradictions, but the same can be said of many modern scientific theories, which have both known points of failure and mutual contradictions. No one asks whether or not quantum physics or general relativity is the real theory, but we're so used to the idea that we have to pit science against human perception that for some reason the existence of free will seems like a big question for people.

I think ultimately it's more part of our philosophical history than anything else: the Aristotelian idea that human perception is at odds with philosophy, or the Cartesian idea of science as a kind of mystery religion.

Anyway, I'm rambling. See the excellent dissertation on this topic by Mario for more information.

[reetva]

Let's get back on topic. Seems like this discussion is of interest to a lot of people, so maybe a new thread for it is in order.

Question: what happens when a luma turns into a new galaxy? Does it die and sacrifice itself for it's creation? Does that make it a god? Is it still alive within every grass blade and winter chill of that realm? Are we all just a connected meta-consciousness experiencing the world subjectively? (Okay, I'm digressing back to the psyche theories now too- but still: new thread please.)

I get the impression that the luma continues living.  But I think that it loses control of all bodily functions except thought.  It can't speak to the beings on its surfaces, it can't influence the direction of the wind, it can't erupt a dormant volcano.  It is forced to observe beauty, rather than live it.  Whether or not this is satisfactory is difficult to say.

[Jrsquee]

w-w-wasn't this about mario before?

why do red koopa troopas know to stop at the edges of platforms, but green ones don't?

Why is Cheese Bridge called Cheese Bridge I MUST KNOW

[Chris Whitman]

The green ones have developmental disorders that result in both their shell colouring and their ability to accurately judge distances.

Cheese Bridge is so-called because it was built by Mayor McCheese with his own two hands.

[dspencer]

w-w-wasn't this about mario before?

why do red koopa troopas know to stop at the edges of platforms, but green ones don't?

Why is Cheese Bridge called Cheese Bridge I MUST KNOW

But srsly, because it has holes like swiss cheese.

[William Broom]

Edit: actually, there's probably an evolutionary reason for how little we actually use our rational faculties -- it turns out that rational thinking consumes enormous amounts of energy. The decision-making process burns crazy calories as your body ramps up its stress response to get your brain working.

Does this mean I can lose weight just by thinking like a motherfucker?

[Chris Whitman]

It isn't comparable to vigorous exercise or anything, but it's still a surprising amount, so I'm not sure.

I'm pretty sure your stress response also makes you way hungrier, though, so it doesn't look too likely, I guess?

[gunmaggot]

Irrational thinking costs a lot too, and people do that all the time!

[gimymblert]

Luma dies, that's the point of the story Harmonie (Rosalina in english) told to mario (her mother is gone >>> died), to prepare the ending. Lumas makes a sacrifice to save the universe from the uber black holes. They "reborn" as a galaxy but that's a euphemism.

[SirNiko]

why do red koopa troopas know to stop at the edges of platforms, but green ones don't?

I actually seem to remember one of the manuals answered this question. Something about red troopas being more cautious, so they turn back at ledges and patrol in set patterns, while green troopas are willing to takes risks, so they charge forward even at the risk of falling down a pit.

-SirNiko

[Fifth]

Why is Cheese Bridge called Cheese Bridge I MUST KNOW

Well, the primary inhabitants of Dinosaur Land (the setting for Super Mario World) are the Yoshis.  Food-driven as they are, they named the locations after whatever food each reminded them of.

[Jrsquee]

okay then how does Vanilla Dome remind anyone of Vanilla
IS THE CHOCOLATE ISLAND ACTUALLY MADE OF CHOCOLATE BECAUSE IT SURE LOOKS LIKE IT
WHAT ABOUT THE FOREST OF ILLUSION THAT'S NOT NAMED AFTER A FOOD ITEM

also i'm pretty sure all the yoshis lived on the little island at the beginning before being spirited away to the magical star road