Gerhard Adam

In previous articles we examine how the brain behaved detrimistically and also how training and indoctrination would affect the information stored. In considering choices an important distinction needs to be made to avoid confusing "choices" with "decisions".  In particular, the point regarding choices is that they are made well before a decision arises.

In the first article, we explored the determinism of the brain and considered that within the constraints of brain physiology it is clear that random or indeterminate processes cannot be responsible for behavior.  Every action can be traced back to a cause, so it would seem that complete determinism is a fundamental aspect of our normal brain's operation.

There is no question that we live in a deterministic universe.  Despite some of the uncertainties and probabilities that are exhibited in the quantum world, the world we actually deal with is functionally deterministic.  While we may encounter unpredictable events, they are not random in the sense that they are without cause, or indeterminate.In fact, part of the problem in considering free will, is the idea that knowledge isn't possible without determinism, since the presumption is that past knowledge or experience can be applied to future events with consistency.  The entire scientific method is based on predictability which necessitates determinism1.

Well, it seems that someone has finally decided that with all this talk of "end-times" and the "rapture" it was important that we have a more scientific approach to determining how close we actually are to such events.Hence we have the Rapture Index, which is billed as "The prophetic speedometer of end-time activity".  By going to this site, you can quickly see what the Rapture Index value is and determine whether to sit down with a cup of coffee and await the end, or whether you still need to go to work.

An article in LiveScience entitled "Evolution Can't Go Backward" has highlighted an experiment done to determine whether a protein could be "unmutated" (i.e. returned to its original state) and regain its ancestral functions.The results indicated that this reversibility wasn't possible because of other mutational factors that occurred during the entire time interval rendering a return to a primordial form impossible1.This does raise an interesting question and suggests some possible misunderstandings about what this actually means.

An article entitled "Can Robots Make Ethical Decisions" was recently published wherein the authors claim that they have successfully modeled difficult moral problems in computer logic, further asserting that morality is no longer solely within the realm of philosphers.But is this true?In the first place the "moral problems" selected are uncharacteristically binary in their approach and while they may represent a kind of moral dilemma, aren't particularly difficult to assess.  More importantly, the central question of ethics is precisely that it isn't subject to a simple algorithm to determine the appropriateness of any particular action.

In a recent LiveScience article the following statement was made:"And while metacognition can involve self-awareness, the "I" part of the equation isn't a necessary ingredient, Smith said. Scientists are not sure if other animals possess self-awareness."

There is little doubt that, in modern times, scientific knowledge is at a peak from any other period in human history.  However, there are also other factors that need to be considered.  50.3% of Americans believe in angels while 49.7 % believe in aliens.    In another review, 55% claim angelic protection, 16% claim they've received a miraculous healing, 8% say they pray in tongues, and one-fifth claim God speaks with them.

It is obvious that life is filled with choices and we often go to great lengths to explore different possible outcomes or scenarios when attempting to make decisions.  However what is choice and how does it relate to free will?It would seem that choices may be divided up into several categories, but in particular we have those that are:1.  Direct choices, or command decisions where we intentionally make a determination about a particular outcome, perhaps after weighing options.

I've been trying to figure out why "transhumanists" and their predictions irritate me so much.  Perhaps it's seeing humanity reduced to a simplistic engineering problem to be solved.  Or maybe it's the love affair that appears to be happening between them and technology.  Or maybe it's the fact that they all sound like psychics, except that their subject is the human race instead of an individual. Back in July, Massimo Pigliucci addressed some of the problems with transhumanism, however it seems that this is a rather persistent idea.

Finally an article that blasts the preposterous mythology suggesting that human longevity is a relatively recent phenomenon and primarily due to advances in medical technology.http://www.livescience.com/health/090821-human-lifespans.htmlIn reviewing some of the comments made to the article it is clear that there is still a great deal of confusion surrounding the difference between "expectancy" and "lifespan".  The basic point in the article is that human life span is fundamentally unchanged over 2,000 years and quite possibly for a much longer period before that.

Not only is Hamilton's Rule not a rule, it isn't even a strong suggestion.  The relationship c rb (1), doesn't begin to qualify as a meaningful description of anything.
The first problem one encounters is that all the variables are highly subjective.  It is also problematic in describing what a cost and benefit actually is in a quantifiable way.  In a book describing the research of white-fronted bee-eaters, this helpful piece of information was provided: