Question for an Answer

Written by IronAngel on 03.05.2023 at 22:01

Well, the question sort of presupposes there is an essential "nature" to humankind or individuals. There is not.

Don't you think humans are born with some innate traits that could be called "nature"? Genetics decide a lot, I don't think we're just blank slates... Not saying this "nature" necessarily is the same across all people but I do believe we are born with a bunch of stuff already written in us.

Written by Netzach on 05.05.2023 at 13:56

Don't you think humans are born with some innate traits that could be called "nature"? Genetics decide a lot, I don't think we're just blank slates... Not saying this "nature" necessarily is the same across all people but I do believe we are born with a bunch of stuff already written in us.

Obviously a big part of us is given, genetically or otherwise. How exactly that develops and manifests in an adult depends on a lot of factors. But is this really what is meant by "the nature of a man" or "human nature"? What's at stake in the question (and in Planescape: Torment) is the question of whether we can ever really change, or if we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes even under different circumstances, driven by some "true self." Pointing to genes doesn't really have much to say about this.

(And, to be honest, it's a pretty trivial question, even if it works to set the tone for a game: a lot of things can change someone, there's probably a lot of good empirical data on that, but it's difficult to say beforehand what would cause a profound and lasting change in any given person.)

I think it's undeniable that people do develop differently under difference circumstances and could easily go down very different paths. It's true that the same person can choose differently in different situations. But it's also true that there's often a tendency to default to similar behavioral patterns, dictated both by temperament (which is relatively stable from birth) and all the accumulated life history that shapes someone.

The "nature-discourse" assumes that this latter tendency is proof of "who you really are", the "nature of a man" showing through all the attemps to act differently. But is that just an unfounded bias? Looking at it from the outside, it seems to me people do all sorts of things, some of them consistent, some of them conflicted, from a complex and ever-changing network of causation by genetic and social, external and internal motives. Arbitrarily picking up some of those strands and declaring them "the nature of a man" doesn't seem justified or useful.

If I had to use the phrase "the nature of a man", I would have to say it's just what that person happens to be at that moment - a result of their genes and a lifetime and all that entails. It doesn't seem possible to isolate some distinct "nature" or who a person "really is" from that person as a whole.

Written by IronAngel on 05.05.2023 at 22:59

Obviously a big part of us is given, genetically or otherwise. How exactly that develops and manifests in an adult depends on a lot of factors. But is this really what is meant by "the nature of a man" or "human nature"? What's at stake in the question (and in Planescape: Torment) is the question of whether we can ever really change, or if we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes even under different circumstances, driven by some "true self." Pointing to genes doesn't really have much to say about this.

(And, to be honest, it's a pretty trivial question, even if it works to set the tone for a game: a lot of things can change someone, there's probably a lot of good empirical data on that, but it's difficult to say beforehand what would cause a profound and lasting change in any given person.)

I think it's undeniable that people do develop differently under difference circumstances and could easily go down very different paths. It's true that the same person can choose differently in different situations. But it's also true that there's often a tendency to default to similar behavioral patterns, dictated both by temperament (which is relatively stable from birth) and all the accumulated life history that shapes someone.

The "nature-discourse" assumes that this latter tendency is proof of "who you really are", the "nature of a man" showing through all the attemps to act differently. But is that just an unfounded bias? Looking at it from the outside, it seems to me people do all sorts of things, some of them consistent, some of them conflicted, from a complex and ever-changing network of causation by genetic and social, external and internal motives. Arbitrarily picking up some of those strands and declaring them "the nature of a man" doesn't seem justified or useful.

If I had to use the phrase "the nature of a man", I would have to say it's just what that person happens to be at that moment - a result of their genes and a lifetime and all that entails. It doesn't seem possible to isolate some distinct "nature" or who a person "really is" from that person as a whole.

That's a very thoughtful answer. Indeed, it can be hard to pinpoint what is meant by "the nature of a man", but if it is always changing, then the question remains, what is it that changes the nature of a man? Is it continuous experience? Regret? Knowledge? Respect? Experience? Love? All of these? You say that the nature of a man is what a person happens to be at the moment, so it follows that it is in constant flux, thus there must be at least one or several answers to the question as to what can change the nature of a man, since it is continuously changing.

I don't think it is a trivial question at all. The answer might be different for different people, but if we do believe in that the nature of a man is in constant flux, then there must be something behind that fosters this continual change. I don't either think we can "isolate" a "nature" from a person "as a whole", I think they both are equivalent. Who somebody is as a whole is their nature, if only for the current given moment. If this is liable to change, then there must be a cause and effect driving all this. The question remains, what is the cause of the effect of changing the nature of a man?

I'm not expecting any "true" answer to this question, and it might very well be so that "everything" can change one's nature, but that would be an answer in itself. The game does not either give a clear solution to this question, but leaves it open for the player to decide towards the very end, with no particular feedback whether it was the right choice or not.

If we can never truly change, then we are indeed doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over. I do not believe this is true, because I know from personal experience that change is very much possible. The question remains, what can change the nature of a man?

Good points covered and I agree with how Netz and Iron justified the causal behavioral factors that may change the "nature" of a man.

However, I feel strongly that the behavioral pattern has a lot developed in getting influenced from conventional psychological effects like cultural and societal, genetics(already covered above), life circumstances, and one being perceived on introspection and growth. It has a direct hit on the determination and motivation of keeping a reality check on the nature of a man.

Well, look at Darwin evolution theory, survival the fittest to change of the environment.

Written by Netzach on 05.05.2023 at 23:13

That's a very thoughtful answer. Indeed, it can be hard to pinpoint what is meant by "the nature of a man", but if it is always changing, then the question remains, what is it that changes the nature of a man? Is it continuous experience? Regret? Knowledge? Respect? Experience? Love? All of these? You say that the nature of a man is what a person happens to be at the moment, so it follows that it is in constant flux, thus there must be at least one or several answers to the question as to what can change the nature of a man, since it is continuously changing.

--

I'm not expecting any "true" answer to this question, and it might very well be so that "everything" can change one's nature, but that would be an answer in itself.

Well, my answer is not very exciting, but I think it's obviously true and so everyday: all of those things can change a person. Some of them more, some less, and not everyone equally. But it's ultimately an empirical question: we can study big cohorts of people and their life stories to see what kind of changes tend to stick and what drives them. We could find such studies in criminology, religious conversion studies, psychology, even health and fitness literature. I'm sure eating and sleeping better can change your life drastically, in many cases.

So even if we can safely say "Yes" to all your above examples, that seems almost trivially true: surely, we can be certain we'll find at least some examples of all of those in the history of humankind, even without looking. A more thorough, informative answer would have to rely on research. Maybe some motives or strategies are likelier to cause lasting changes than others; maybe some traits are easier to change than others; maybe some people are especially strongly influenced by their formative childhood experiences (especially traumatic ones), while others are more flexible. But I don't think I can say much more than that from an armchair.

I don't want to exaggerate the metaphor of flux: we're not changing willy-nilly on a daily basis, on a fundamental level. The many things mentioned above, from genes to temperament which matures into a stable personality, from upbringing and the social scripts we act out, are often pretty stable. I think we can usefully refer to things like someone's temperament, personality, his specific diagnoses or patterns of behaviour, his social roles, life histories etc. and assume that they're influencing his behaviour even when they're not readily apparent - a person isn't just the surface level "flux" of whatever he's doing right now.

But all (or most) of those things, even genes and how they manifest, can and do change. Not all of them, not all at once, but little by little. So there's no way to identify any one of them as the core of a person, so that at some point we could say, "Now he has changed his nature." That's another reason I don't want to talk about the "nature of a man": it sounds too grand for every small change, but too arbitrary to reserve it for specifc drastic changes, when it's all just a blurry continuum.

When i was young and small I dont understand how people are different, in their nature or characteristics, growing up I research about astrology, and numerology, In sum of all both astrology and science, and psychology, truly there is something inside us, with growing with environment surrounding, our inner, and experience with environment, there probably something inside us is gene, but we scientist have not succeeded discovering. I mean if you are born on Monday, and he is born in Tuesday, the temperature different in such two days can even affect our personality, and gene from parents, etc,... you know the earth is one among the star, human little creature acutally not rule the earth, nature still own us and we are still on discovering, i mean if just change in natural can affect us. I mean we are something from universe, God or law of God, or law of universe,.. something we havent reach finding out yet.

Dear Metalstorm country, dear Metalstorm govenrment, dear Metalstorm authority, dear Metalstorm staff, dear Metalstorm citizens, dear Metalstorm members, I'm so sorry that I have trolled Metalstorm for fun without thinking that led me to 200 or 300 days banned, I don remember exactly. I would like to write these for apologizing because I truly love Metalstorm a lot. Metalstorm is very dear to me because I have been with the site since im 15, now coming november I'll be 37, so 22 years with Metalstorm will be no waste. And probable I'll be with the site more years sure. Because Metalstorm is only the human contact I have with since 15 years ago. I truly live the metal music lyrics philosophy that makes me damn strong. Im so sorry and regrets when said I hated metal. No I dont hate metal, just a bit bored with the sound of distirtion guitar, and one thing, metal insitgated me stabbed one person. You know life in nam is hard. Anyway no I have comeback with metal music. Spotify can be greatest music software I dont know other good stuff like that. Now I only listen with spotify good metal songs with lyrics reading while on music. Its awesome, now I only listen with good lyrics bands. Will share with guys more in the future. Anyway, I surf Metalstorm daily, why not someday becoming Metalstaff or working with Metalstorm if good pays ha!.ok have a good days guys. And check my question below. Help me understand it.

Help understand this quote of Stephen Hawking:
"The initial configuration of the universe may have been chosen by God, or it may itself have been determined by the laws of science. In either case, it would seem that everything in the universe would then be determined by evolution according to the laws of science, so it is difficult to see how we can be masters of our fate."

Dear Finnish Scholar Iron Angel, phd Karlabos, Bad English Edgar, and all other Metalstormers, Metalstorm citizens, does that quote means we human are not master of our fate. That means universe determine our life,our fate right ? The law of physics law of evolution, law of science determine our fate, right ?. Thanks guys help me. Help me pls have a good day.

Written by [user id=172292] on 23.04.2024 at 06:27

Help understand this quote of Stephen Hawking:
"The initial configuration of the universe may have been chosen by God, or it may itself have been determined by the laws of science. In either case, it would seem that everything in the universe would then be determined by evolution according to the laws of science, so it is difficult to see how we can be masters of our fate."

Dear Finnish Scholar Iron Angel, phd Karlabos, Bad English Edgar, and all other Metalstormers, Metalstorm citizens, does that quote means we human are not master of our fate. That means universe determine our life,our fate right ? The law of physics law of evolution, law of science determine our fate, right ?. Thanks guys help me. Help me pls have a good day.

Well, this is written by a deleted account, but it still makes me want to chip in as I've had this discussion with several of my friends lately (most of them ending up getting pissed at me for pretending to know the answer - and it's not the answer they want to hear). Okay, long story short, I've personally seen an experiment at the university (while taking a class in quantum communication as part of my Master in theoretical physics, mathematical modelling and computation) which I sadly do not remember the exact name of, however, it is more or less a variant or way to use Bell's inequalities to judge whether the observer's choice of which property of an object to measure can possibly have any connection to the actual result of said measurement.

This experiment is mostly lasers and mirrors (like most quantum physics setups, using photons as qubits) but think of it like this, in a more relatable setting: there's some kind of object in front of you. You can choose to determine either its shape, its colour, or its weight. Whichever two you don't choose, you don't get to know about at all. So, this experiment then investigates whether, for example, should I choose colour to measure - is there then any room for my choice to measure the colour rather than the other properties to have any effect on what colour the object actually is?

Now, this might sound a bit esoteric, and it is, because it is quantum physics and "anyone who claims to understand quantum mechanics haven't understood the first thing about it", as Heisenberg (I think it was) liked to say. But the interesting thing about this is that it gives us an honest, scientific, falsifiable, opportunity to use science to actually answer one of the great long-standing questions in philosophy, that countless people have spent entire lives wondering about, certain in the knowledge that there will never be an entirely clear answer to it. With quantum physics, we no longer deal with what we know but we deal with what we can know and thus can apply science to philosophy, and this is just the beginning.

Well, back to the experiment. Suppose this object can only ever possibly be either the colour red or green. "Okay," you think now, "but that sounds stupid, how could my choice of what to measure change a ball from red to green?" Thing is, before it is observed, nothing can be said about it. This object is neither red nor green, but only describable by a wavefunction that contains the probabilities of it to be any of the possible colours it can be, when observed. Before that, it is said to exist in a superposition of states - neither red nor green, nor both red and green, but a probabilistic combination of it being red or green when observed. There are various interpretations of what this means in reality, but for the sake of staying extremely on the safe side here, I'll just say that it at least means that before observing it, we can have no knowledge about it, only knowledge about the probabilities of what it could be. This makes sense, right?

So, the experiment then clearly shows that your choice of which property to observe cannot in any way have any effect on the probabilities of said object to result in any particular measurement - these probabilities are predetermined and upon observation result, by chance, in one of the many possible realities described by the wavefunction. This is basically what Schrödinger's Cat tries to depict, only now I've done it in a bit more detailed manner. That cat isn't "both dead and alive", as much as it "isn't either dead or alive" - because until we open that box, we simply do not know whether it is dead or alive.

Alright, so this proves that our choices simply do not matter. There is no room for "choice" to have any effect on the outcome of a particular event. Since this is fundamental science, it can be extrapolated to the "familiar world", as an event is an event no matter at what scale. There simply is no reason to assume that we have something that could be called a "choice" or "free will", and if we do, then this "free will" has no effect on the world around us, and is nothing but an illusion of no practical use.

There are now three possible outtakes from this result, one more world-shattering than the next. The by far least shocking conclusion is that the world is entirely deterministic. Everything that happens is simply a chain reaction of past events, and we are nothing but passengers along for the ride, thinking that we have the wheel (and even if we had the wheel, it wouldn't be connected to anything). This is what Hawking means with "it is difficult to see how we can be master of our fate". Fate is real, it is predetermined, and it cannot be changed.

While that might be a tough pill to swallow, the other two explanations for this result are much worse. If this is taken not to imply that the universe is deterministic, then the next explanation is to say that, okay, then the universe must be non-local - meaning that somehow, interactions, cause and effect, and events, can transpire non-locally, meaning, faster than the speed of light. It means that something on the other side of the universe must be able to affect something on Earth instantly and without being in any sort of contact. This goes against everything we know about physics at the moment.

The third explanation is that, if this experiment is taken to show that the universe is neither deterministic nor non-local, the only possible solution for there to still be a free will is if the universe is non-causal, meaning that rather than cause leading to effect, it is equally possible for effect to lead to a cause, meaning events can propagate backwards in time and the future can affect the past. This goes against everything we know about physics at the moment.

So, the simplest, and least world-shattering conclusion is, that the universe is deterministic, and any agency we feel we have is simply an illusion. You might as well drink that second beer now, because it was decided long before your birth. Have a good trip.

@Netzach: I know the quote of Stephen hawking, and I do understand but Im asian, english just general not too much qualified. I mean I asked cuz I need more source of interpretation for better of consulting, I has asked AI too and your answer, Netzach.

Based on AI told me Hawking has research all of our human life, speaking about fate yes it is determnined, but we do have power to change but much or less effect we are not able more than 10% the AI doesnt mention. I mean both from you Netzach and AI from skype, we are fated by universe but not that we are powerless affect our fate. If you want quote me Ill find and post the AI my asking.

Anyway since I discover Hawking research, I dont fucking care if marriage or not, kids or not, rich or not, luxury or poverty. Cuz all arranged by the universe. of course we have our choice but everything is arranged by universe.

One thing I share with you is when wife Leo sign divorce and abandon Scorpio Bill Gates her husband. Same time my mother Leo left me and Im her scorpio son. Probably universe arranges.

Written by No False Steele on 17.01.2025 at 20:18
So he is commenting from Plato's cave in this sense and he takes evolution for granted (which is a theory, not proven).

Only someone who has absolutely no clue how science actually works could make such a claim.
You know, in science, the word "theory" does not simply mean a vague idea or speculation but rather a well-supported explanation of natural phenomena, backed by extensive evidence. And the theory of evolution is one of the most well-confirmed scientific theories, supported by fossil records, genetics, comparative anatomy, and many other lines of evidence. It's just as much a scientific theory as the theory of relativity or the germ theory of disease. The fact that it's "a theory" does not mean it is uncertain or unproven - quite the opposite!
There's a significant difference between the colloquial use of the term "theory" and a scientific theory, which remains an accepted explanatory model until it is disproven. The thing is: all fundamentals of evolution are scientifically proven, and Darwinian evolutionary theory has withstood countless attempts to refute it. Otherwise, it would not be a theory but just a hypothesis. You should google that.

Written by No False Steele on 17.01.2025 at 20:18
How does the big bang make any sense? How do you say that "evolution" is not just what we inherited. But we can change everything, look in to Bruce Lipton

Since Lipton is a self-proclaimed anti-vaxxer who makes a living spreading pseudoscientific half-truths to the gullible, I’m not surprised at all that you're promoting his ideas. However, the fact that you're placing Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest scientists of modern times, below a charlatan and crackpot who hasn't done real science in 30 years is baffling - even by your standards.

Stephen Hawking had been disabled since 21 y.o, and become professor at that time then spending more than 50 years to study physics, and is prominent men of the world. Speaking like Godfather, we metalheads are bunch of assholes, dark side satanist, we are not equaled to him, they whose professors even know almost cases of mental disorders. Dont think you are Europeans then you are equaled to him. He was leader of the world, and helping suggestion take human to mars 2030.

AND HE SAID THERE IS NO GOD. It's true.

Btw, there are many friend of Stephen around helping him and confirms him.

Written by No False Steele on 18.01.2025 at 17:45

QUESTION: I have been reading this book called The Quickening of Consciousness for about the past two years. The author has lots of good stuff to share, but what caught my interest was when he wrote that "our technology has outgrown our humanity". " Without a corresponding increase in our consciousness to enable us to use our technology more wisely, our very existence is in jeopardy."

And this is written in 2009, before smart devices became normal. So I repeat the same question: has our technology outgrown our humanity?

AI is in developing, until they have emotion, I dont think anything can rule human. We are the leading racial.

Written by No False Steele on 18.01.2025 at 18:30

I tend to always look on the bright side of life. I have grown up reading Napoleon Hill, listening to Bad Brains and NY hardcore, I am PMA, I've got that attitude. And if I hear about something like epigenetics I welcome it as good news instead of calling it a conspiracy theory. We can change our genes, it's just a matter of choice. And we should be excited about this. I know me and you have some disagreements but I'm sure we can find a common ground on this because it benefits us both (and others).

Thank you for your calm response. I really appreciate it.

However, my problem is that you have repeatedly shown and stated that you support the views of people like Jair Bolsonaro, Tom Barnett, Andrew Kaufman, Ted Nugent, Dawn Lester, David Parker, Antoine Béchamp, Rudolf Steiner, Conspiracy Music Guru, and Ano Turtiainen, to name but a few. At best, these are charlatans, lunatics, and conspiracy theorists who, without any scientific background, spread their intellectual diarrhea on the level of TV preachers (Barnett, Kaufman, Lester, Parker, Conspiracy Music Guru), or they are scientists (Béchamp) and antisemitic esotericists (Steiner) from the 19th century, whose long-debunked theses you still believe in because they fit your current worldview.

You are free to believe that chemtrails exist, that our groundwater is being poisoned by governments to control our thoughts, that diseases are not spread by bacteria and viruses, that COVID-19 was just a hoax invented by a global elite, that human-caused climate change is a lie, and that eating raw chicken can cure cancer. You're welcome to believe all of that if it makes your life better - so long as you keep your beliefs to yourself instead of propagating them here, in a music forum.

I’m not accusing you of having malicious intent when you talk about a healthy diet, self-healing through positive thinking, and similar ideas. Those are all good things. But so far, you have not once managed to convey your beliefs without simultaneously questioning the current state of science. That becomes a serious issue when you repeatedly deny facts like the effectiveness of vaccines. Spreading such falsehoods is harmful to society, no matter how hard you try to disguise your demonstrably false claims behind harmless banalities like positive mental attitude and good nutrition.

The real problem is that you also support the views of homophobic, racist misogynists (Bolsonaro, Tate, Turtiainen, Nugent) and criminals who have been charged with human trafficking, violence against women and children, fraud, animal cruelty, rape, and sex with minors. Their beliefs are just as harmful to society as all the other delusions of your role models.
At some point, even you must have realized that all these pathetic figures you base your so-called wisdom on are the scum of humanity. The fact that you sympathize with these people and not only uncritically accept but also spread their often completely insane beliefs - while vehemently rejecting scientific facts - is something I simply cannot wrap my head around.