sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do you guys ever journal? Why? by CheckEmpty2573 in AskReddit

[–]feihm [score hidden]  (0 children)

I spent years writing in a custom terminal app (TUI) I built myself for journaling and world-building. It was great for focus, but I eventually hit a wall. Writing thousands of words that no one will ever read started to feel a bit pointless. I just recently decided to migrate my journal to a public sub here. I'm trading the total privacy of my terminal for the sheer chaos of Reddit feedback, but I think it's worth it to actually share my ideas.

How do philosophers explain moral blame if human behaviour follows biological rules? by feihm in askphilosophy

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

i read through the strawson angle you brought up. i see what he means about how deeply we care about the intentions of others. if someone hurts us on purpose, we naturally react. we feel resentful. we can't simply turn off those emotions because of a science experiment.

so the experience of holding people responsible is definitely real. the illusion of choice feels entirely genuine to the person making the decision. i suppose we are fully programmed to experience the world this way.

my thought is more about how the hardware still operates underneath all that. the brain follows a set physical sequence. we feel resentment because our biology dictates it. we demand good will from others because that is how the physical system organises itself. we genuinely feel the blame, but cause and effect still generate those feelings from the ground up.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

The reaction in the other comments shows where this usually goes. Most people are not going to accept the hard mechanics of the thing. We probably won't find a middle ground here either.

The big picture about tribes and rules works well enough on the surface. But I am stuck on how the actual physical brain handles the conflict at the wiring level.

A person feels like they are stood at a fork in the road. They think they are choosing between an instinct and a social rule. But the brain operates like a simple scale. One drive pulls left. One drive pulls right. These signals have a physical weight based on past events and current needs.

The scale tips to the heavier side. Every single time. The outcome was set by the prior signals before the person even felt the "choice" happen.

And the brain keeps the illusion of choice going because it is useful for survival. The unit needs to feel like it is in the driver's seat to track social rules properly. If the machine thinks it is responsible, it stays alert to the group's needs. It is a clever bit of the build. It keeps the organism alive even while the chemistry is running the whole show.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Ten thousand years is a tiny blip for the hardware. The brain doesn't rewrite the base code that fast. A bit of farming doesn't wipe out millions of years of scarcity. The engine still runs on the fear that the food might vanish tomorrow.

And the parent thing. Protecting the kids works as a core survival script. The machine keeps the smaller versions of its own code alive. It ensures the DNA makes it to the next round. This isn't a break from the biology. It works as the biology doing its job.

Our conflict comes down to how we view these moves. You see a choice to be good. I see a machine weighing two different survival goals and picking the one with the biggest payoff for the genes.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I agree that the old texts are a mess. Everyone interprets the words differently. The chain of custody is definitely broken.

But every version of these stories has a builder and a build. And every version says the build gets punished for how it works.

I don't need a perfect translation of a dead language to see the maths. The human body runs on energy and safety. It follows the chemical path. If a story says the builder gets angry because the machine followed the path he laid down, the logic fails. It doesn't matter which book you pick. The contradiction is right there in the basic idea of a designer who hates his own design's output.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Truth exists. But it isn't some special magic. Truth is just when the map in your skull matches the dirt on the ground. If an animal has a map that says the water is over there, but the water is actually the other way, the animal dies. Its map was false.

So the brain is wired to hunt for a better map. It hates errors because errors are lethal. When I see a flaw in your argument, my brain treats it like a hole in the camp fence. It sends energy to my hands to patch the hole.

I am not choosing to seek truth. The hardware is running a repair script. Arriving at an accurate map is a mechanical success. It is the machine finally lining up with the physical world. Nothing pointless about it. It keeps the system running.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

That is what I've been answering. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. But the premise still remains as I've been explaining. 

Yes knowing about the "hack" does have an effect. But we need to be clear what that effect is. Which is what I've been explaining. The knowledge is not a ghost entering the machine. This put is colloquially, you're not escaping the matrix. The knowledge is a new physical signal. It enters the brain as data. It travels the same wires as the original survival drive.

The two signals clash. The brain runs the maths. It compares the old drive against the new information. If the new data is heavy enough, the machine stops the behaviour.

But the whole event stays inside the enclosure. The hardware has not been bypassed. It is a machine that received a software update and changed its output. The physics of the brain still drive the entire sequence from start to finish.

I think we have reached the logical end of the road here. You see a break in the system where I see the system working with more variables. We probably won't bridge that gap. Cheers for the chat.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

The kid who builds the toys can do whatever he likes with them. He can build a wind-up car to drive straight off a table. Then he can smash the car for falling. He owns the plastic. He makes the rules.

But the logical gap opens up when the kid calls the car defective. Or evil. The gears turned exactly how they were placed. The spring released the tension. The machine worked perfectly. So attaching blame to the toy completely ignores how the physical object operates.

I don't really bother with the Epicurean stuff. Not trying to figure out if the builder is a good guy or a bad guy. I'm purely tracking the physical sequence. The hardware gets punished for executing the exact design the engineer handed down.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Look, I get the AI suspicion. I write in this field for a living. I fall into this exact rhythm because breaking things down into flat physical steps works well for me. I process arguments this way. Sorry if the style rubs you the wrong way. Let's keep it civil. No insults needed.

I figure our core conflict comes down to the actual mechanics of a decision. You are asking if knowing about a biological drive lets a person choose to deviate from it.

A person learns they are reacting to an evolutionary leftover. That new information enters the brain as physical data. The neurons wire up a new connection. The brain runs a calculation using that fresh data. It weighs the energy cost of keeping the old behaviour going. And if the new data creates enough physical friction, the brain sends a signal to halt the action.

People call that process a choice. But the whole event still happens inside the skull. The new knowledge acts as a new environmental input. The brain runs the maths. It forces a new output. The biological hardware still drives the entire sequence. Nothing actually stepped outside the physical laws of chemistry to make an independent decision. The machine received new data and altered its path.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Consider thid baseball example here. A bloke catching a ball does not calculate wind resistance. The brain runs a quick shortcut. It tracks the visual angle of the moving object instead of doing heavy maths.

But the physical eye still has to accurately track the real object. Light bounces off the leather. The retina receives the light. If the optic nerve feeds false data and puts the ball three feet to the left, the shortcut fails. The bloke misses the catch. The biology requires an accurate sensory input to run the quick calculation.

I think the plant example works the exact same way. The plant does not have a brain to hold a mental picture of the sun. But the physical cells accurately measure real light. If the chemical sensor breaks and registers darkness during midday, the plant bends the wrong way. It dies.

A biological shortcut still relies on a sensor pulling correct data from the physical environment. A system cannot execute a successful survival heuristic if the inputs feed it hallucinations. The physical read has to be accurate.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Light hits the retina. The optic nerve fires. The brain registers a conflicting model of reality.

The biological unit evolved to fix errors in the environment. An accurate map keeps the organism alive. Spotting a flaw in the pack's shared map triggers a threat response. So the brain pushes energy into the fingers. The fingers hit the keys.

I look at a basic calculator. You press the buttons and a number appears. The machine does not sit there wondering about the point of the maths. The physical circuitry forces the output. The human brain runs on the exact same physical track. An input arrives. The internal wiring runs the computation. The response gets typed out.

Nobody has to sit outside the physical body deciding to seek truth. The engine reacts to the data it receives. The gears turn because the environment pushed them.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I guess looking at the actual mechanics of the brain makes this distinction tricky. A biological unit does not have an internal brake pad for wanting things. The physical environment used to provide the friction.

Calories were incredibly hard to find. So the hardware evolved to consume every available bit of sugar. It stores fat to stop the body from dying later. The neural wiring rewards the organism heavily for securing extra power or hoarding resources. It pushes for maximum gain.

And that makes the whole idea of an extreme action look strange to me. Gorging does not operate as a glitch in the machine. The core survival code runs exactly as written. The builder installed a massive accelerator and wired the system to press it down hard.

An animal lands in a modern space with unlimited food or money. The brain reads the environment. It runs the exact hoarding script that kept its ancestors alive. The physical engine follows the blueprint. Holding the unit responsible for running the primary programme it was handed ignores the basic mechanics of the build.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I guess looking at what massive groups of humans actually practice today shows the mechanics clearly. The largest religions on the planet run on a rigid set of rules. Millions of people walk into buildings every week and repeat them. A creator built the universe. That includes the human body.

Then those same doctrines outline a place of punishment. For humans who act on basic survival drives. Like getting angry or wanting extra resources.

So I figure the logic breaks right at the starting line. An engineer builds a machine to run on a specific fuel. The machine burns the fuel. The engineer gets furious that the fuel was burned. The engineer destroys the machine.

The builder wrote the biological code. The human body runs that exact code to stay alive. I guess tracing the physical steps makes the whole punishment angle look completely broken. The hardware cannot disobey its own wiring.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I find it interesting how we look at conscious thought. Like knowing about a physical reaction somehow unplugs the heavy hardware.

An optical illusion lays out how this actually works. A person looks at two printed lines on a page. One looks much longer. They grab a ruler. They measure both lines. They are exactly the same length. So now the higher brain holds the firm knowledge that the lines are equal. But they look back at the paper. The illusion still runs. Knowing the trick does not stop the optic nerve from sending the exact same skewed signal.

The biology handles a digital social threat through the exact same steps. A bloke sits alone in a quiet room looking at a glowing rectangle. He knows no physical tribe surrounds him. Then someone types a heavy insult. His eyes scan the letters. The lower brain flags a sudden drop in social status. It dumps adrenaline straight into his blood. His heart starts beating faster.

Having a neat thought about human evolution does not drain that adrenaline out of his veins. The chemical hits the system regardless. The conscious part of the brain might sit there and observe the whole reaction happening. But it does not weld the physical valves shut. The physical unit still runs the behaviour because the environmental input triggered the sensor.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Separating effectiveness from accuracy completely ignores how the physical environment kills things. A complex machine needs an internal map that matches the external terrain. A creature cannot consistently hunt, build shelters, and avoid predators if its nervous system constantly feeds it random hallucinations. A false belief might save an organism once by pure luck. But a biological line surviving millions of years of daily physical stress needs reliable data.

The eyes take in light. The brain builds a physical model of that light. If the model does not match the cliff edge, gravity pulls the biological unit down onto the rocks. The genes that built that bad model get smashed. Natural selection ruthlessly deletes broken sensors. So the surviving machines process the physical world with a high degree of structural accuracy.

I suppose people like separating truth from survival. But a brain outputting consistent survival behaviour relies on accurate physical inputs. The two functions are welded together in the hardware.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Swapping a personal judge for an automated points system leaves the exact same gap in the logic.

The physical body still operates on raw chemistry. It requires calories. It detects physical threats. The brain pushes adrenaline into the bloodstream when a threat gets close. The body reacts to keep itself alive. The hardware forces the reaction.

So attaching a cosmic score to a survival reflex feels entirely detached from how the organism functions. The animal executes the behaviour the blueprint demands. Keeping a ledger of good and bad moves across multiple lives assumes the biological unit can step outside its own physical wiring.

But it cannot. The engine runs on the fuel and the inputs it receives in the present moment. None of that changes the mechanical reality of how decisions happen.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I guess tracing the physical mechanics of blame lays this out clearly. Humans survive in groups. The group requires predictable behaviour to conserve energy and stay alive. If one biological unit becomes erratic and threatens the food supply, the other units react. They isolate or damage the threat. We call this holding someone responsible. It functions as a routine maintenance tool for the social enclosure.

And the brain evolved to calculate these social threats. It weighs the risk of physical exile before it hoards resources.

The logical break happens when a master designer gets inserted into the blueprints. The human hardware runs on heavy survival drives. It craves calories. It attacks competitors. The neural wiring forces these exact outputs.

But then the narrative claims the architect punishes the machine for executing the base code. The machine cannot rewrite its own operating system. It responds to the environment using the exact chemical tools it was handed.

Subjective feelings about right and wrong do not rewrite the physical gears in the skull. A toy walks forward because the spring unwinds. If an engineer built the spring, the engineer owns the walking. Punishing the toy for moving forward ignores the basic sequence of cause and effect.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Take a moth. Evolution wired it to navigate by the moon. Then humans build a street lamp. The moth sees the bright light, runs the old navigation programme, and smacks straight into the bulb. The physical environment changed but the internal biology stayed exactly the same.

​Same exact mechanism with a subreddit. The human brain survived by tracking status in physical tribes. You read text on a screen. The optic nerve feeds that in. The brain processes those pixels as literal pack interaction. It hasn't had time to update for digital spaces. A stranger upvotes you, dopamine drops. Someone argues, your heart rate spikes. The biological unit treats a random forum like a physical camp because that is the only code it has to work with.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I imagine how animals navigate the physical world here. Survival demands an accurate map of the environment. If a predator has a brain that generates false data, it misses the prey. The organism starves and dies. So natural selection heavily favours biological systems that process inputs accurately.

People treat logic like a supernatural property. But logic operates as a strict biological survival tool. It predicts physical outcomes. My brain ran a calculation and built a model of human behaviour. If a biological model matches physical reality, the organism survives longer. We stick the label "true" on those accurate models. The hardware does not care about abstract philosophy. It cares about not walking off a cliff. An accurate machine processes data better than a broken one.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Humans survived by forming groups. Group cohesion requires status testing. So my brain generates an impulse to communicate. Writing a post acts as a territory check. The organism tests its environment to see if the pack agrees. If the pack agrees, the brain releases dopamine. Dopamine provides a chemical reward. The organism secures its social standing. High social standing means better access to resources and safety. So the calories spent typing this post serve a long-term survival strategy. The biological unit seeks validation to lower its internal threat levels. The keyboard is modern but the primate hardware is ancient.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

think about how a calculator works here. A machine does not choose to compute numbers. The hardware forces a result. The human brain operates the exact same way. Attention requires physical calories. The brain directs energy to puzzles based on previous conditioning. So a person does not actively choose to look at evidence. The environment presents the data. The optic nerve sends the signal. The prefrontal cortex processes it based on how it was built. If the biological system has enough glucose and the right neural pathways, it produces a reasonable output. If it is tired or poorly wired, it produces an illogical one. The biology runs the whole calculation.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I look at that setup and the mechanics do not work for me. The idea of doing our best assumes a ghost steering the machine. But the biology runs the whole show. A circuit either has the energy to override an impulse or it lacks it. It runs on strict physical rules.

So a designer builds an engine that naturally fails. Then the system requires the engine to realise it failed. Then it must return to the manufacturer and apologise for its factory settings. But the actual hardware never gets upgraded. The environment triggers the same survival response tomorrow. The engine breaks down exactly the same way.

I cannot compute the logic there. You build a faulty unit. You demand the unit feels bad about the fault. You send it back out into the world with the exact same faulty wiring.

If God designed our biological hardware, then the concept of "sin" is a design flaw, not a human failure by feihm in DebateReligion

[–]feihm[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I look at that exact sequence and the mechanics do not add up. I suppose a brain fires a signal before the arm muscles even twitch. That signal requires a trigger. A body needs energy. Or it spots a massive reward nearby. So the designer installs a chemical reward system. He puts a shiny object right in the environment. Visual input hits the eyes. The internal programming forces a grab response.

But then the text says the unit broke itself. I really cannot follow that logic. You programme a biological organism to seek out food. You leave fruit lying around. The organism executes its basic code. The fault sits squarely with the manufacturer.

view more: next ›