Is free will just an illusion?

From the moment we wake up in the morning, we make hundreds of decisions; do we press the snooze button, what do we have for breakfast, what will we wear, are we going to exercise, how will we treat others.

We assume these choices are made on the basis of our own free will. It is an assumption that may well be incorrect.

more….

Suggest an experiment that can determine the answer to this question.

The human mind could just be a highly sophisticated decision branching program that gives the illusion of free will. Our decision are governed by predence, society rules, our nature and our nuture. You could find the least desirable personality such as serial killer has free will

As I’ve argued before, humans demonstrate “will”. Adding “free” to that adds nothing meaningful. The exercise of human will can be subconscious or can involve conscious decisions based on detailed judgment of relevant criteria. Or both at the same time.

The fact that the exercise of will is not always fully conscious doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

Those physically enslaved know they are not free, but they can have thoughts of freedom.

break it down, there’s little question minds (inividuals, and groups) _will _things

free, well, that’s like some absolute sort of notion, an absurdity, free of what I ask. A tiny bit free, hardly free, a lot free, the territory of comparion, that relative. Often absolute nonsense is buried in that relative.

i’m not sure what just means in the title, merely I suppose, nothing more, only, but whatever it’s superfluous. Perhaps it’s intended to be dismissive, provocative even.

putting free with will is a bit like the sales method of selling something and then saying, but hang on, you get a second one free.

I am happy with modest will, that I will things, provide an impetus, a force. It’s not an earth shaking force, i’m not blazing a trail, no.

are choices real, and really choices. Yes.

but it’s the happy accidents that are most interesting, and that happened upon.

You could quite easily argue that our society doesn’t want or encourage free will, pretty damn easy to indoctrinate people into losing the ability to think for themselves, religion and tradition are good examples.

PermeateFree said:

Those physically enslaved know they are not free, but they can have thoughts of freedom.

“Free” in that context means “unimpeded by other people”. It’s not what’s normally meant by “free will”, but when you ask those who deeply believe in the “free” part what they do mean by it, they don’t usually offer coherent answers.

PermeateFree said:

Those physically enslaved know they are not free, but they can have thoughts of freedom.

Hopefully
For all our complaining we are extremely lucky to live in Australia, some real horrible places people are born in

>It’s not what’s normally meant by “free will”

…in a philosophical sense. Obviously in everyday speech, people do use phrases like “of my own free will” meaning “not influenced or coerced by others.”

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Those physically enslaved know they are not free, but they can have thoughts of freedom.

“Free” in that context means “unimpeded by other people”. It’s not what’s normally meant by “free will”, but when you ask those who deeply believe in the “free” part what they do mean by it, they don’t usually offer coherent answers.

I always thought of it as the ability to think anything we want, we can’t do anything we want obviously. But can we actually think anything we want due to limitations we accumulate since birth for various sources

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Those physically enslaved know they are not free, but they can have thoughts of freedom.

“Free” in that context means “unimpeded by other people”. It’s not what’s normally meant by “free will”, but when you ask those who deeply believe in the “free” part what they do mean by it, they don’t usually offer coherent answers.

Their thoughts are not impeded by other people and their determination (will power) can rise above the situation.

i’d guess (free) will probably largely exists in defiance of a rigid construction (prescriptive), a shared social construction, as does of that related privacy. It overlaps too with consciousness. These things involve attributes of differentiated individuals. That territory where 1+1 does not equal 2.

Cymek said:

You could quite easily argue that our society doesn’t want or encourage free will, pretty damn easy to indoctrinate people into losing the ability to think for themselves, religion and tradition are good examples.

A functioning human society needs people to control their behaviour within certain boundaries. Even from such simple things as not farting in a crowded room.

Cymek said:

I always thought of it as the ability to think anything we want, we can’t do anything we want obviously. But can we actually think anything we want due to limitations we accumulate since birth for various sources

As long as you remember that “what we want” is determined by our basic nature, which is mostly not determined by our will, working in tandem with the circumstances in which we find ourselves, which are only partly determined by our will.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

You could quite easily argue that our society doesn’t want or encourage free will, pretty damn easy to indoctrinate people into losing the ability to think for themselves, religion and tradition are good examples.

A functioning human society needs people to control their behaviour within certain boundaries. Even from such simple things as not farting in a crowded room.

If you have been on the cabbage, they can even throw you out.

party_pants said:

Even from such simple things as not farting in a crowded room.

pfft.

you’re not the boss of me…

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

You could quite easily argue that our society doesn’t want or encourage free will, pretty damn easy to indoctrinate people into losing the ability to think for themselves, religion and tradition are good examples.

A functioning human society needs people to control their behaviour within certain boundaries. Even from such simple things as not farting in a crowded room.

Behaviours yes but doesn’t religion often encourage you to let others do the moral thinking for you.

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

I always thought of it as the ability to think anything we want, we can’t do anything we want obviously. But can we actually think anything we want due to limitations we accumulate since birth for various sources

As long as you remember that “what we want” is determined by our basic nature, which is mostly not determined by our will, working in tandem with the circumstances in which we find ourselves, which are only partly determined by our will.

I agree

Bubblecar said:

As long as you remember that “what we want” is determined by our basic nature, which is mostly not determined by our will, working in tandem with the circumstances in which we find ourselves, which are only partly determined by our will.

That sentence works better as:

As long as you remember that “what we want” is determined by our basic nature (which is mostly not determined by our will), working in tandem with the circumstances in which we find ourselves (which are only partly determined by our will).

You do wonder how quickly we’d devolve and everything we’ve learnt over thousands of years forgotten and it’s all about basic survival and mating

Bubblecar said:

As long as you remember that “what we want” is determined by our basic nature (which is mostly not determined by our will), working in tandem with the circumstances in which we find ourselves (which are only partly determined by our will).

…bearing in mind that our “basic nature” is very versatile, creative and adaptable compared with other species.

Systemically I assume free will is presence of the motivation to seek the greater outcome whether that is apparent or unknown. It is easy to know what MUST be avoided but to ‘better circumstances’ are fundamentally less easily defined.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

As long as you remember that “what we want” is determined by our basic nature (which is mostly not determined by our will), working in tandem with the circumstances in which we find ourselves (which are only partly determined by our will).

…bearing in mind that our “basic nature” is very versatile, creative and adaptable compared with other species.

seems expensive

Bubblecar said:

As I’ve argued before, humans demonstrate “will”. Adding “free” to that adds nothing meaningful. The exercise of human will can be subconscious or can involve conscious decisions based on detailed judgment of relevant criteria. Or both at the same time.

The fact that the exercise of will is not always fully conscious doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

Much as it pains me to say so*, I think Bubblecar’s statement is both a clear and reasonable statement of the situation. I don’t know why this clear and reasonable position is not apparent to so many people who are paid to think about these things.

The fact that decisions are not always made consciously, whilst obviously true, does not mean that these decisions are not made of our own will.

• That was a little joke by the way.

What Rev said minus the joke.

Postpocelipse said:

What Rev said minus the joke.

And plus a better joke.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

What Rev said minus the joke.

And plus a better joke.

LTJTB…

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

What Rev said minus the joke.

And plus a better joke.

My jokes tonight might be less than obvious but, yes, I do owe you one………

stumpy_seahorse said:

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

What Rev said minus the joke.

And plus a better joke.

LTJTB…

huh?

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

dv said:

And plus a better joke.

LTJTB…

huh?

exactly..

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

LTJTB…

huh?

exactly..

:P

SCIENCE said:

seems expensive

That’s a sensible way of looking at it. What some people call “free will” is actually very expensive will, because it requires large, complex, energy-hungry brains. Which give us a much greater range of behavioural options than other animals.

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE said:

seems expensive

That’s a sensible way of looking at it. What some people call “free will” is actually very expensive will, because it requires large, complex, energy-hungry brains. Which give us a much greater range of behavioural options than other animals.

Doesn’t my car burn more energy than my brain?

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE said:

seems expensive

That’s a sensible way of looking at it. What some people call “free will” is actually very expensive will, because it requires large, complex, energy-hungry brains. Which give us a much greater range of behavioural options than other animals.

Doesn’t my car burn more energy than my brain?

Hang on. Confused meself. Does a human brain consume more energy than a leopard exerts to catch a meal?

Free will is a confusion. So many options only one choice…..

Postpocelipse said:

Hang on. Confused meself. Does a human brain consume more energy than a leopard exerts to catch a meal?

Carnivores usually have larger relative brain size than herbivores, because catching animal prey is usually more cognitively demanding than eating grass etc.

Humans have the largest brain-to-body-weight ratio (plus largest cerebral cortex relative to brain size) and this means more of our energy is expended on brain function than other animals.

Bubblecar said:

Postpocelipse said:

Hang on. Confused meself. Does a human brain consume more energy than a leopard exerts to catch a meal?

Carnivores usually have larger relative brain size than herbivores, because catching animal prey is usually more cognitively demanding than eating grass etc.

Humans have the largest brain-to-body-weight ratio (plus largest cerebral cortex relative to brain size) and this means more of our energy is expended on brain function than other animals.

Sure but there is substantial trade off in energy exerted elsewhere. In your example herbivores exert greater energy absorbing nutrient and subsequently become limited. Having an energy hungry brain isn’t a negative.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Is free will just an illusion?

From the moment we wake up in the morning, we make hundreds of decisions; do we press the snooze button, what do we have for breakfast, what will we wear, are we going to exercise, how will we treat others.

We assume these choices are made on the basis of our own free will. It is an assumption that may well be incorrect.

more….

From my perspective … A lifetime is a time line with a collection of possible outcomes at any given time along that time line. Free will is deciding upon one of those possibilities and outcomes…the decision for something else is always available within a lifetime even in how to think about an experience.

Postpocelipse said:

Sure but there is substantial trade off in energy exerted elsewhere. In your example herbivores exert greater energy absorbing nutrient and subsequently become limited. Having an energy hungry brain isn’t a negative.

I didn’t suggest that it was a negative, I said it gives us a much wider range of behavioural options than other animals. But at a price, as you would expect.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

That’s a sensible way of looking at it. What some people call “free will” is actually very expensive will, because it requires large, complex, energy-hungry brains. Which give us a much greater range of behavioural options than other animals.

Doesn’t my car burn more energy than my brain?

Hang on. Confused meself. Does a human brain consume more energy than a leopard exerts to catch a meal?

Leopards don’t drive cards

monkey skipper said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Is free will just an illusion?

From the moment we wake up in the morning, we make hundreds of decisions; do we press the snooze button, what do we have for breakfast, what will we wear, are we going to exercise, how will we treat others.

We assume these choices are made on the basis of our own free will. It is an assumption that may well be incorrect.

more….

From my perspective … A lifetime is a time line with a collection of possible outcomes at any given time along that time line. Free will is deciding upon one of those possibilities and outcomes…the decision for something else is always available within a lifetime even in how to think about an experience.

Two people have the same experience and yet they derive differing outcomes or similar outcomes. Two brothers are taught the same value system through nurture and similar environmental and familial exposure and either grow to have the same adult values or mould them to something else.

Bubblecar said:

Postpocelipse said:

Sure but there is substantial trade off in energy exerted elsewhere. In your example herbivores exert greater energy absorbing nutrient and subsequently become limited. Having an energy hungry brain isn’t a negative.

I didn’t suggest that it was a negative, I said it gives us a much wider range of behavioural options than other animals. But at a price, as you would expect.

Bubblecar said:

Postpocelipse said:

Hang on. Confused meself. Does a human brain consume more energy than a leopard exerts to catch a meal?

Carnivores usually have larger relative brain size than herbivores, because catching animal prey is usually more cognitively demanding than eating grass etc.

Humans have the largest brain-to-body-weight ratio (plus largest cerebral cortex relative to brain size) and this means more of our energy is expended on brain function than other animals.

>>Humans have the largest brain-to-body-weight ratio

ref?

if there was no choice which requires a determination and thought process we would be robots in every way.

monkey skipper said:

monkey skipper said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Is free will just an illusion?

From the moment we wake up in the morning, we make hundreds of decisions; do we press the snooze button, what do we have for breakfast, what will we wear, are we going to exercise, how will we treat others.

We assume these choices are made on the basis of our own free will. It is an assumption that may well be incorrect.

more….

From my perspective … A lifetime is a time line with a collection of possible outcomes at any given time along that time line. Free will is deciding upon one of those possibilities and outcomes…the decision for something else is always available within a lifetime even in how to think about an experience.

Two people have the same experience and yet they derive differing outcomes or similar outcomes. Two brothers are taught the same value system through nurture and similar environmental and familial exposure and either grow to have the same adult values or mould them to something else.

Two tadpoles are spawned at the same time from the same parents and one dies and the other one lives to maturity, due to systemic sensitive dependence of initial conditions, not free will, or even will.

monkey skipper said:

if there was no choice which requires a determination and thought process we would be robots in every way.

The legal system is entirely founded on freedom of will. Doesn’t make much sense we’d have an entirely meaningless institution.

dv said:

monkey skipper said:

monkey skipper said:

From my perspective … A lifetime is a time line with a collection of possible outcomes at any given time along that time line. Free will is deciding upon one of those possibilities and outcomes…the decision for something else is always available within a lifetime even in how to think about an experience.

Two people have the same experience and yet they derive differing outcomes or similar outcomes. Two brothers are taught the same value system through nurture and similar environmental and familial exposure and either grow to have the same adult values or mould them to something else.

Two tadpoles are spawned at the same time from the same parents and one dies and the other one lives to maturity, due to systemic sensitive dependence of initial conditions, not free will, or even will.

I did say during lifetime time line. The time line differs but the potential for an alternate result is still possible.

Postpocelipse said:

monkey skipper said:

if there was no choice which requires a determination and thought process we would be robots in every way.

The legal system is entirely founded on freedom of will. Doesn’t make much sense we’d have an entirely meaningless institution.

That’s the worst argument in favour of free will, ever.

monkey skipper said:

dv said:

monkey skipper said:

Two people have the same experience and yet they derive differing outcomes or similar outcomes. Two brothers are taught the same value system through nurture and similar environmental and familial exposure and either grow to have the same adult values or mould them to something else.

Two tadpoles are spawned at the same time from the same parents and one dies and the other one lives to maturity, due to systemic sensitive dependence of initial conditions, not free will, or even will.

I did say during lifetime time line. The time line differs but the potential for an alternate result is still possible.

Yes.

Due to sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

stumpy_seahorse said:

>>Humans have the largest brain-to-body-weight ratio

ref?

US National Science Foundation:

>For example, human beings have a ratio of about 1-to-50. Most other mammals have a ratio of 1-to-180. For birds, the ratio is 1-to-220. So the brain takes up more weight in human beings than it does in other animals.

http://tdlc.ucsd.edu/educators/educators_myths_biggest_brain.html

Postpocelipse said:

monkey skipper said:

if there was no choice which requires a determination and thought process we would be robots in every way.

The legal system is entirely founded on freedom of will. Doesn’t make much sense we’d have an entirely meaningless institution.

bullshit it’s founded to favour those with power and money not to mention “mates”

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

monkey skipper said:

if there was no choice which requires a determination and thought process we would be robots in every way.

The legal system is entirely founded on freedom of will. Doesn’t make much sense we’d have an entirely meaningless institution.

That’s the worst argument in favour of free will, ever.

It is required the statement is qualified referentially for the motion to be examined……

Bubblecar said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

>>Humans have the largest brain-to-body-weight ratio

ref?

US National Science Foundation:

>For example, human beings have a ratio of about 1-to-50. Most other mammals have a ratio of 1-to-180. For birds, the ratio is 1-to-220. So the brain takes up more weight in human beings than it does in other animals.

http://tdlc.ucsd.edu/educators/educators_myths_biggest_brain.html

obviously didn’t take into account..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio

Species Brain:body
mass ratio (E:S)
small ants 1:7
tree shrew 1:10
small birds 1:14
mouse 1:40
human 1:50

wookiemeister said:

Postpocelipse said:

monkey skipper said:

if there was no choice which requires a determination and thought process we would be robots in every way.

The legal system is entirely founded on freedom of will. Doesn’t make much sense we’d have an entirely meaningless institution.

bullshit it’s founded to favour those with power and money not to mention “mates”

Can you rephrase that in a manner that removed your own impartiality?

let’s keep in mind that the legal ‘system’ is not one entity, but several interdependent agencies

stumpy_seahorse said:

Bubblecar said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

>>Humans have the largest brain-to-body-weight ratio

ref?

US National Science Foundation:

>For example, human beings have a ratio of about 1-to-50. Most other mammals have a ratio of 1-to-180. For birds, the ratio is 1-to-220. So the brain takes up more weight in human beings than it does in other animals.

http://tdlc.ucsd.edu/educators/educators_myths_biggest_brain.html

obviously didn’t take into account..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio

Species Brain:body
mass ratio (E:S)
small ants 1:7
tree shrew 1:10
small birds 1:14
mouse 1:40
human 1:50

Fair enough, but you’ll notice that those are all much smaller animals than humans. Perhaps they should have stressed that humans have the largest brain-to-body weight ratio of any animals of similar and larger size.

Arts said:

let’s keep in mind that the legal ‘system’ is not one entity, but several interdependent agencies

so a facilitation of choice?

Arts said:

let’s keep in mind that the legal ‘system’ is not one entity, but several interdependent agencies

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.

Cha Ching

AwesomeO said:

Arts said:

let’s keep in mind that the legal ‘system’ is not one entity, but several interdependent agencies

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.

Cha Ching

*Giggle

AwesomeO said:

Arts said:

let’s keep in mind that the legal ‘system’ is not one entity, but several interdependent agencies

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.

Cha Ching

what is that ba boom.. sound?

they leave out courts, prisons, judges, victim support groups, offender support groups etc

Arts said:

AwesomeO said:

Arts said:

let’s keep in mind that the legal ‘system’ is not one entity, but several interdependent agencies

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.

Cha Ching

what is that ba boom.. sound?

Dick Wolfs cash register.

AwesomeO said:

Arts said:

AwesomeO said:

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.

Cha Ching

what is that ba boom.. sound?

Dick Wolfs cash register.

Jail Gate Closing Hard

CrazyNeutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

Arts said:

what is that ba boom.. sound?

Dick Wolfs cash register.

Jail Gate Closing Hard

Judges hammer thingie?

AwesomeO said:

Arts said:

AwesomeO said:

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.

Cha Ching

what is that ba boom.. sound?

Dick Wolfs cash register.

Who Made That Sound?
By Hilary Greenbaum March 28, 2011 8:05 am March 28, 2011 8:05 am

For the past week, I actually haven’t set foot on the sixth floor, as I’ve been serving my civic duty as a juror in the State of New York. Between each case that’s called, though, I can’t help hearing that sound. If you’ve ever watched an episode of “Law and Order,” you know exactly what I mean. It has been called, among other variations, the “doink doink,” the “dun dun” and the “chung chung.”

No, the courts of New York do not actually blast those two, distinctive notes through the speaker system (although that would be amazing), but I can’t get them out of my head. According to IMDb, “The distinctive thunk-thunk sound effect used in between scenes was created by combining close to a dozen sounds, including that of a group of monks stamping on a floor. The sound is intended to be reminiscent of both a jurist’s gavel and a jail-cell door slamming.” When the original “Law and Order” was canceled last year, Brandon Kim of I.F.C. referred it as the “sound that’s got to be the current title holder for Most Recognizable Sound on TV.”

That audible brand was created by Mike Post, who also wrote the theme to the show. He’s a Grammy and Emmy award-winning composer who has scored the themes of television shows like “The A-Team,” “Doogie Howser, M.D.,” “MacGyver,” “Magnum, P.I.,” “N.Y.P.D. Blue” and “The Greatest American Hero.” Multiple albums are available of Post’s work, including “Inventions from the Blue Line” and “The Essential Mike Post TV Theme Collection.”

What if the universe has a predetermined outcome?

stumpy_seahorse said:

AwesomeO said:

Arts said:

what is that ba boom.. sound?

Dick Wolfs cash register.

Who Made That Sound?
By Hilary Greenbaum March 28, 2011 8:05 am March 28, 2011 8:05 am

For the past week, I actually haven’t set foot on the sixth floor, as I’ve been serving my civic duty as a juror in the State of New York. Between each case that’s called, though, I can’t help hearing that sound. If you’ve ever watched an episode of “Law and Order,” you know exactly what I mean. It has been called, among other variations, the “doink doink,” the “dun dun” and the “chung chung.”

No, the courts of New York do not actually blast those two, distinctive notes through the speaker system (although that would be amazing), but I can’t get them out of my head. According to IMDb, “The distinctive thunk-thunk sound effect used in between scenes was created by combining close to a dozen sounds, including that of a group of monks stamping on a floor. The sound is intended to be reminiscent of both a jurist’s gavel and a jail-cell door slamming.” When the original “Law and Order” was canceled last year, Brandon Kim of I.F.C. referred it as the “sound that’s got to be the current title holder for Most Recognizable Sound on TV.”

That audible brand was created by Mike Post, who also wrote the theme to the show. He’s a Grammy and Emmy award-winning composer who has scored the themes of television shows like “The A-Team,” “Doogie Howser, M.D.,” “MacGyver,” “Magnum, P.I.,” “N.Y.P.D. Blue” and “The Greatest American Hero.” Multiple albums are available of Post’s work, including “Inventions from the Blue Line” and “The Essential Mike Post TV Theme Collection.”

being a foley artist would be a very cool job

CrazyNeutrino said:

What if the universe has a predetermined outcome?

Yeah who cares……

CrazyNeutrino said:

What if the universe has a predetermined outcome?

I’ll take it to court and prove otherwise….

CrazyNeutrino said:

What if the universe has a predetermined outcome?

The question doesn’t come within the bounds of individual choice your honor.

Judges should update their hammer sound to this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP3MuUTmXNk

then just after the verdict has been read, this sound

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61L6hB7c1bg

Arts said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

AwesomeO said:

Dick Wolfs cash register.

Who Made That Sound?
By Hilary Greenbaum March 28, 2011 8:05 am March 28, 2011 8:05 am

For the past week, I actually haven’t set foot on the sixth floor, as I’ve been serving my civic duty as a juror in the State of New York. Between each case that’s called, though, I can’t help hearing that sound. If you’ve ever watched an episode of “Law and Order,” you know exactly what I mean. It has been called, among other variations, the “doink doink,” the “dun dun” and the “chung chung.”

No, the courts of New York do not actually blast those two, distinctive notes through the speaker system (although that would be amazing), but I can’t get them out of my head. According to IMDb, “The distinctive thunk-thunk sound effect used in between scenes was created by combining close to a dozen sounds, including that of a group of monks stamping on a floor. The sound is intended to be reminiscent of both a jurist’s gavel and a jail-cell door slamming.” When the original “Law and Order” was canceled last year, Brandon Kim of I.F.C. referred it as the “sound that’s got to be the current title holder for Most Recognizable Sound on TV.”

That audible brand was created by Mike Post, who also wrote the theme to the show. He’s a Grammy and Emmy award-winning composer who has scored the themes of television shows like “The A-Team,” “Doogie Howser, M.D.,” “MacGyver,” “Magnum, P.I.,” “N.Y.P.D. Blue” and “The Greatest American Hero.” Multiple albums are available of Post’s work, including “Inventions from the Blue Line” and “The Essential Mike Post TV Theme Collection.”

being a foley artist would be a very cool job

With a mash-bash here and scrape-click there, here a tap, there a pop, everywhere a clip-clop…..

At Kapooka failed recruits were marched out with another one bites the dust over the loudspeakers.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Judges should update their hammer sound to this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP3MuUTmXNk

then just after the verdict has been read, this sound

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61L6hB7c1bg

So the next time I witness a judge bang a gavel I can say “I have an app that can save you that elbow grease, as it so happens Guv!”?

Arts said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

AwesomeO said:

Dick Wolfs cash register.

Who Made That Sound?
By Hilary Greenbaum March 28, 2011 8:05 am March 28, 2011 8:05 am

For the past week, I actually haven’t set foot on the sixth floor, as I’ve been serving my civic duty as a juror in the State of New York. Between each case that’s called, though, I can’t help hearing that sound. If you’ve ever watched an episode of “Law and Order,” you know exactly what I mean. It has been called, among other variations, the “doink doink,” the “dun dun” and the “chung chung.”

No, the courts of New York do not actually blast those two, distinctive notes through the speaker system (although that would be amazing), but I can’t get them out of my head. According to IMDb, “The distinctive thunk-thunk sound effect used in between scenes was created by combining close to a dozen sounds, including that of a group of monks stamping on a floor. The sound is intended to be reminiscent of both a jurist’s gavel and a jail-cell door slamming.” When the original “Law and Order” was canceled last year, Brandon Kim of I.F.C. referred it as the “sound that’s got to be the current title holder for Most Recognizable Sound on TV.”

That audible brand was created by Mike Post, who also wrote the theme to the show. He’s a Grammy and Emmy award-winning composer who has scored the themes of television shows like “The A-Team,” “Doogie Howser, M.D.,” “MacGyver,” “Magnum, P.I.,” “N.Y.P.D. Blue” and “The Greatest American Hero.” Multiple albums are available of Post’s work, including “Inventions from the Blue Line” and “The Essential Mike Post TV Theme Collection.”

being a foley artist would be a very cool job

there’s a great documentary on creating the sounds for “cloudy with a chance of meatballs”..

very cool

AwesomeO said:

At Kapooka failed recruits were marched out with another one bites the dust over the loudspeakers.

Bloody washouts are getting top-shelf rock and still sulking about it!

stumpy_seahorse said:

Arts said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Who Made That Sound?
By Hilary Greenbaum March 28, 2011 8:05 am March 28, 2011 8:05 am

For the past week, I actually haven’t set foot on the sixth floor, as I’ve been serving my civic duty as a juror in the State of New York. Between each case that’s called, though, I can’t help hearing that sound. If you’ve ever watched an episode of “Law and Order,” you know exactly what I mean. It has been called, among other variations, the “doink doink,” the “dun dun” and the “chung chung.”

No, the courts of New York do not actually blast those two, distinctive notes through the speaker system (although that would be amazing), but I can’t get them out of my head. According to IMDb, “The distinctive thunk-thunk sound effect used in between scenes was created by combining close to a dozen sounds, including that of a group of monks stamping on a floor. The sound is intended to be reminiscent of both a jurist’s gavel and a jail-cell door slamming.” When the original “Law and Order” was canceled last year, Brandon Kim of I.F.C. referred it as the “sound that’s got to be the current title holder for Most Recognizable Sound on TV.”

That audible brand was created by Mike Post, who also wrote the theme to the show. He’s a Grammy and Emmy award-winning composer who has scored the themes of television shows like “The A-Team,” “Doogie Howser, M.D.,” “MacGyver,” “Magnum, P.I.,” “N.Y.P.D. Blue” and “The Greatest American Hero.” Multiple albums are available of Post’s work, including “Inventions from the Blue Line” and “The Essential Mike Post TV Theme Collection.”

being a foley artist would be a very cool job

there’s a great documentary on creating the sounds for “cloudy with a chance of meatballs”..

very cool

I have seen that..

Postpocelipse said:

AwesomeO said:

At Kapooka failed recruits were marched out with another one bites the dust over the loudspeakers.

Bloody washouts are getting top-shelf rock and still sulking about it!

parliament should have this sound when changing leaders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jN8Tx9iH5Y

dv said:

Two tadpoles are spawned at the same time from the same parents and one dies and the other one lives to maturity, due to systemic sensitive dependence of initial conditions, not free will, or even will.

Why choose tadpoles? The same could be said of mice, dogs, elephants, whales or humans.

That doesn’t mean that those creatures don’t have will, it just means that some things happen over which we have no control.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Two tadpoles are spawned at the same time from the same parents and one dies and the other one lives to maturity, due to systemic sensitive dependence of initial conditions, not free will, or even will.

Why choose tadpoles? The same could be said of mice, dogs, elephants, whales or humans.

That doesn’t mean that those creatures don’t have will, it just means that some things happen over which we have no control.

Rev:

I am not making an argument that these, or any creatures, have or have not free will.

I am responding to an argument made by another person here which is, in essence, as follows:

• Two human brothers raised in the same environment make different choices.
• Therefore, humans have free will.

I am, by analogy, demostrating the weakness of this argument.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Two tadpoles are spawned at the same time from the same parents and one dies and the other one lives to maturity, due to systemic sensitive dependence of initial conditions, not free will, or even will.

Why choose tadpoles? The same could be said of mice, dogs, elephants, whales or humans.

That doesn’t mean that those creatures don’t have will, it just means that some things happen over which we have no control.

We live on a chemical planet and we have chemical bodies

so that must effect free will, or will

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Two tadpoles are spawned at the same time from the same parents and one dies and the other one lives to maturity, due to systemic sensitive dependence of initial conditions, not free will, or even will.

Why choose tadpoles? The same could be said of mice, dogs, elephants, whales or humans.

That doesn’t mean that those creatures don’t have will, it just means that some things happen over which we have no control.

We live on a chemical planet and we have chemical bodies

so that must effect free will, or will

stumpy_seahorse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why choose tadpoles? The same could be said of mice, dogs, elephants, whales or humans.

That doesn’t mean that those creatures don’t have will, it just means that some things happen over which we have no control.

We live on a chemical planet and we have chemical bodies

so that must effect free will, or will

!http://images-cdn.moviepilot.com/images/c_fill,h_1024,w_1280/t_mp_quality/kh2cflunsse0oosvzdc4/whatever-happened-to-jesse-from-free-willy-337069.jpg

Yes. Adults collectively have less free will than 12 year olds……

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

We live on a chemical planet and we have chemical bodies

so that must effect free will, or will

!http://images-cdn.moviepilot.com/images/c_fill,h_1024,w_1280/t_mp_quality/kh2cflunsse0oosvzdc4/whatever-happened-to-jesse-from-free-willy-337069.jpg

Yes. Adults collectively have less free will than 12 year olds……

and possibly even than a single 12 year old……….

Bubblecar said:

Fair enough, but you’ll notice that those are all much smaller animals than humans. Perhaps they should have stressed that humans have the largest brain-to-body weight ratio of any animals of similar and larger size.

I think the brain-body weight ratio is of limited significance anyway. All mammals have a similar number of bits, they are just bigger in big animals, so why should they need a bigger brain to control them?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Fair enough, but you’ll notice that those are all much smaller animals than humans. Perhaps they should have stressed that humans have the largest brain-to-body weight ratio of any animals of similar and larger size.

I think the brain-body weight ratio is of limited significance anyway. All mammals have a similar number of bits, they are just bigger in big animals, so why should they need a bigger brain to control them?

It’s of significance in that human’s larger brain-to-body ratio means we need more energy to fuel our brains than other animals of similar or larger size. But obviously we benefit hugely from having those brains.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Fair enough, but you’ll notice that those are all much smaller animals than humans. Perhaps they should have stressed that humans have the largest brain-to-body weight ratio of any animals of similar and larger size.

I think the brain-body weight ratio is of limited significance anyway. All mammals have a similar number of bits, they are just bigger in big animals, so why should they need a bigger brain to control them?

It’s of significance in that human’s larger brain-to-body ratio means we need more energy to fuel our brains than other animals of similar or larger size. But obviously we benefit hugely from having those brains.

Yeah we can afford to teach children Panda like dumplings.

My purpose here
Is mine to choose
To live by worth
Or shallow ruse
To live is right
Not servitude
To sit astride
A mountain moved
Takes diligence
And fortitude
All wrapped in faith
In ‘If I could’

blink

tauto said:

blink

:)

The truth is guarded by those who value it and demonstrated by the innocent. It is a paradox of life.

Will is mechanism, the ideas about will further mechanisms. The fleshy machines are a bunch of mechanisms. The fleshy things try and understand themselves, but at best they are mostly what they don’t know.

Now I have to write something guitar heavy called ‘Fleshy Machines’!

Is there not one new thing that consciousness has brought to this universe of cause and effect?

transition said:

Is there not one new thing that consciousness has brought to this universe of cause and effect?

Nothing is new that is not renewed. What is present was present and will remain present. It is only the observer who changes.

>Nothing is new that is not renewed. What is present was present and will remain present. It is only the observer who changes

prove to me that you are conscious.

transition said:

>Nothing is new that is not renewed. What is present was present and will remain present. It is only the observer who changes

prove to me that you are conscious.

prove to me that you are sound.

Postpocelipse said:

transition said:

>Nothing is new that is not renewed. What is present was present and will remain present. It is only the observer who changes

prove to me that you are conscious.

prove to me that you are sound.

what might you be doing if not here talking shit with me

transition said:

Postpocelipse said:

transition said:

>Nothing is new that is not renewed. What is present was present and will remain present. It is only the observer who changes

prove to me that you are conscious.

prove to me that you are sound.

what might you be doing if not here talking shit with me

eating shit with wookie

Postpocelipse said:

transition said:

Postpocelipse said:

prove to me that you are sound.

what might you be doing if not here talking shit with me

eating shit with wookie

does what you’re not doing at this moment influence through cause and effect what you are doing at this moment

transition said:

Postpocelipse said:

transition said:

what might you be doing if not here talking shit with me

eating shit with wookie

does what you’re not doing at this moment influence through cause and effect what you are doing at this moment

what I am not doing can only be done by another. what I am doing at this moment is typing.

Everyone is unique therefore no one is unique

>What I am not doing can only be done by another. what I am doing at this moment is typing.

Can the typing you exist without the non-typing you. Does a non-responding you exist in the responding you.

transition said:

>What I am not doing can only be done by another. what I am doing at this moment is typing.

Can the typing you exist without the non-typing you. Does a non-responding you exist in the responding you.

Negative. Positive.

Postpocelipse said:

transition said:

>What I am not doing can only be done by another. what I am doing at this moment is typing.

Can the typing you exist without the non-typing you. Does a non-responding you exist in the responding you.

Negative. Positive.

my opinion is that some of the free will (nonsense) is in fact about consciousness (self-awareness).

Cymek said:

Everyone is unique therefore no one is unique

Inequity is the counterpart to distinction

transition said:

Postpocelipse said:

transition said:

>What I am not doing can only be done by another. what I am doing at this moment is typing.

Can the typing you exist without the non-typing you. Does a non-responding you exist in the responding you.

Negative. Positive.

my opinion is that some of the free will (nonsense) is in fact about consciousness (self-awareness).

and some about the other’s free will and awareness. how does one admit ‘without knowing myself how can I understand you?’

Cymek said:

Everyone is unique therefore no one is unique

I’m not.

(So I am)

Thanks for putting this up for discussion CN. The verse it inspired was particularly cathartic at the moment it flowed from my conscience.

hehehe it was you who posted this CN…… who else would have brought the subject up at that particular time………..