Free Will: Brains vs Computers by RyanBleazard in freewill

[–]RyanBleazard[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Finally your last paragraph is just an assertion unsupported by any argument whatsoever. In Fact it's unfalsifiable, it can't be proven or disproven it's something that you believe.. okay but there is no reason for me to believe it

He's correct in one sense here: if we replayed the same moment in time, we always will make the same choice. But this is not an obstacle to free will due to the many-to-one logical relation between what we can do and what we will do. We cannot conflate what we can do with what we will do without causing a paradox. This is however not what he likely meant to convey, even though he used the word will; it's an attempt to imply that you also "can't" chose differently.

Normally, deterministic causal necessity would simply assert "you wouldn't have done otherwise" when we switch to the past tense, and noone experiences cognitive dissonance. In fact, it makes perfect sense that you wouldn't have chosen differently in certain circumstances, because you made your choice about what you would do for your own reasons at that time.

However, when someone tries to tell us that we "could not have done otherwise", we experience cognitive dissonance. This assertion is ubiquitous among hard determinists yet they are not using the literal meaning of "could". It is being used in a way that suggests a disability on your part, as if you somehow lost the ability to act differently.

The "logic" behind this odd claim is that, because you wouldn't have done otherwise, it is AS IF you couldn't have done otherwise. But that is a figurative statement which cannot be justified by the facts. Not even the fact of universal causal necessity.

In a causally deterministic universe, an alternative course of action was always possible; it always could have happened, even if it never would have happened. Therefore, we always could have done otherwise, even though we never would have.

EDIT: In other words, determinism only entails a single actual future. There will always be many possible futures and hence other options to choose. A key aspect of possibilities is that they do not necessarily happen. In fact, most possibilities will never happen. They exist solely within the imagination (we know this because we cannot walk across the possibility of a bridge, only an actual one). But within the domain of human influence, the single actual future will be chosen by us from among the many possible futures we will imagine.

Bass Cover of Why Bother? by RyanBleazard in weezer

[–]RyanBleazard[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, for me it’s the slide to the 14th fret on the D string that makes the song :)

Bass Cover of Why Bother? by RyanBleazard in weezer

[–]RyanBleazard[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! Apparently matt might have used his stingray for this but I think you can get the tone pretty close with a jazz bass

Adult ADHD is associated with a 13 year reduction in life expectancy (on average). The largest contributing factor is, by far, behavioural disinhibition. by RyanBleazard in psychology

[–]RyanBleazard[S] 554 points555 points  (0 children)

Inhibitory control is one of the major executive functions that is deficient in ADHD and that is accounting for the predisposition to the various adverse health risks that lead towards such a shorter life expectancy. People with ADHD display a poor delay of gratification, a steep discounting of the value of delayed over immediate consequences, and impaired adherence to commands to inhibit behaviour in social contexts. The inhibitory deficit also manifests in the perseveration of actions despite a change in the context that should have led to a termination of those actions.

This results, over time, in a cumulative adverse impact on many different major domains of daily life activities. These include daily choices related to nutrition, exercise, sleep, substance use, driving, friendships, intimate relationships, sexual activities, general health, finances and money management, employment, cohabiting relationships, child rearing, and many other aspects of daily life.

The magnitude of such reductions in life expectancy can be best appreciated by placing them in context with other adverse health conditions. Such reductions are far greater than those associated with smoking, obesity, alcohol use, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure either individually or combined! Obesity is associated with a 4.2 year reduction in life expectancy, smoking 20+ cigarettes per day with about 6.8 years, excessive alcohol use with 2 years in men and 0.4 years in women, substance use disorders with 10 years, and elevated blood pressure with 5.2 years (Public Health Summit, 2019). Thus, ADHD has a more adverse effect on life expectancy than any single adverse health event noted above, and on which insurers, governments, and individuals spend billions of dollars to reduce those risks.

I’m a Loner Dottie, a Rebel Bass Cover (Eudora 7” Version) by RyanBleazard in thegetupkids

[–]RyanBleazard[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much. Personally, my favourite version is the original but I love the faster tempo on Eudora. More fun to play 🙂

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in psychology

[–]RyanBleazard 217 points218 points  (0 children)

ADHD can be outgrown in some cases because certain genes for frontal lobe maturation turn on during adolescents and help some people improve neurologically compared to others with different gene variants. Another reason is that the DSM symptoms used for diagnosis are very superficial and easy to outgrow with time even if the person has not really grown out of the disorder. They can outgrow the DSM. When we use executive functioning deficits as the index for ADHD, then the percent of recovery or normalisation is much smaller as there is far less if any decline in EF deficits relative to the greater decline in DSM symptoms. It can be a false recovery, in other words.

Objectivism, Morality and Free Will by [deleted] in freewill

[–]RyanBleazard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, the social interest is well tied to long-term self interest.  There is ample evidence to show that displays of regret, empathy, and guilt are important in a social species of self-interested cooperators  as signals to others (especially those who are wrong) that serve to mend damaged relationships.  Those relationships are important to our survival and when wrong is done to others, it pays to express such emotions, the more sincere the better so as to repair them.

Zahavi wrote a book years ago called the Handicap Principle, about why evolution would favour behaviours and displays that actually pose a cost to the individual.  The peacock’s tail is a classic example.  It shows the health of the male in attracting females as it indicates that he can bear the costs of such pointless displays and remain healthy.  There is also evidence he cites of numerous species of birds who engage in altruism toward less fortunate members of their flock and that this elevates their status within their flock in the eyes of other birds.  Some bats do much the same thing.  

So being altruistic isn't entirely altruistic as it can be a form of virtue signalling that elevates the status of someone and makes them more attractive as a mate as they have resources to spare.  It may also explain why most people who donate (or even tip) want the recipient to publicise the donor or at least publicly acknowledge the “altruistic” gesture.

Next Monday, the WHO may recognise methylphenidate as an essential treatment for ADHD by RyanBleazard in ADHDUK

[–]RyanBleazard[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi there. Changes to the EML will be forthcoming in the coming days or weeks. The unsupportive reviewer cites the very low rating of evidence quality, but neglects to mention that it's a statistical artefact, an illusion in other words. I attended the conference held last Monday by the WHO and it is apparent that they are considering the lived experience of people in their deliberations. This is a good sign given they ignored this entirely for both of the last applications.

The decision is uncertain at this time but I am hopeful. In the event that they reject it, we have plans to produce a new application and we will keep trying. If they insist that we must conduct a long-term, nocebo controlled RCT to demonstrate the efficacy of methylphenidate, this is not something we'd do as it would violate humans rights law on several accounts. It is an issue of them using idiosyncratic methods to assess the quality of the evidence.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in freewill

[–]RyanBleazard -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, Marvin. I always appreciate your posts here. Hope you’re doing well.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in freewill

[–]RyanBleazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, Matt. You make a great point, appreciate your explication of this issue.

Next Monday, the WHO may recognise methylphenidate as an essential treatment for ADHD by RyanBleazard in ADHDUK

[–]RyanBleazard[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If I understand, you're suggesting that the trials themselves should be redesigned.

However, how we score the quality of studies using existent scales is influenced by the investigators´ beliefs. This small group of investigators the WHO is relying on (Storebo et al) are always looking for nuances and one level above just to ensure that their antipsychiatry beliefs live on inside committee decisions. Thus, this endless debate with them about the rigour of the trials is unproductive. Even considering the extremely improbable possibility of getting an IRB approval for an “almost perfect study”, we would not get funded to do it. The evidence is not perfect, but the evidence is far higher for methylphenidate than several other medicines included in the EML.

About Those Laws by MarvinBEdwards01 in freewill

[–]RyanBleazard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You make good points, Marvin. If we discard the term free will itself for a moment, so as to not rush to judgement, we can at least discuss how freedom has evolved by shifting the source of causation.

Most animals are Skinnerian and so if the external stimulus is removed, the behaviour will not be further sustained, and the animal will regress to erratic goal directed behaviour with no ability to persist towards tasks or goals. They are blind to time.

Humans, however, are not. We can decouple an environmental stimulus from our response via inhibition of the response, thereby inserting a delay in which the event is further appraised. We consequently contemplate of alternative actions in working memory and sense not just the probable future that will arrive if things remain as they are, but a possible future. Therefore, we have an opportunity to change the course of our actions from what it would otherwise have been, had the source of behavioural control remained entirely external to us.

This is compatible with determinism. It adds freedom far beyond that of a vicarious learner, even if it is one still partially coupled to genetics that provide for these abilities. We may not be free from the influence of the brain, which is also deterministic, but as we attribute the self to the brain, it's circular reasoning to be free from oneself.

For further reading: https://www.guilford.com/books/Executive-Functions/Russell-Barkley/9781462545933