Not true. We'd only be deterministic if the underlying structure was deterministic. The universe at the most fundamental scale is not deterministic in any way. The brain doesn't need anything beyond what's there because it's not the same as input -> output. The brain is wired to itself. So it's input -> output plus a feedback mechanism, which gives it state. I explained why we think we think things (chaos.) We can't perceive quadrillions of inputs as anything other than a stream, so we can't perceive our output as anything other than one.
Numbers. Trillions of cells connected in trillions of ways is not analyzable even by a computer. We've only now even mapped the parts of the brain. We can absolutely do it with simpler brains though. Scientists have programmed neurons of simpler brains into computers and watched them behave exactly as their living counterparts would (worms, fish...)
That's a complete cop out! You said that all cognition is biology, nothing more. So were the Romans biologically different or not?
No, we've all been saying that cognition is an emergent property of biology. You either taking a colloquial and not scientific definition of emergent, or reading too quickly. It's also worth noting that almost all technology on earth was envision by less than 1% of us. Our of all of the technologies you've mentioned, how many did you personally invent? What have you invented? I have a number of patents myself, nothing I've created though could have been done without building on previous technology. Culture and technology are iterative, it is not a cop-out. Time is required for iterative processes.
So what; you're arguing irreducible complexity now? To say that we don't understand it is to say that, well, we don't understand it. And that really doesn't provide much substance to the idea that the brain is a deterministic system, does it? It means that maybe one day we'll prove your right, but until then we have a system that is seemingly more than the product of it's parts.
You can't be both a bio-truther and argue that we stand on the shoulders of giants. To say that we stand on the shoulders of giants is to admit that factors other than biology effect our cognition, which is my position. How can you be so flippant about an 'emergent property of biology' when it's not observed in anything else's biology?
Again, chaos theory literally states that the emergent properties of trillions of small parts are more than the sum of them. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. It's simply calculable complexity at the time. In 200 years, we'll easily be able to build a human brain from the neuron level up in a computer. Again, please read things before responding. It makes you look like you just want to argue. I in no way said that the brain is deterministic because QED is not deterministic and QED dominates what the brain is doing.
You believe we will. I do not. You said that everything including all emotions are just brain chemistry. How is that not arguing the brain is deterministic?
It's observed in every example that I've given. Please respond to everyone's comments on canines, felines, apes... Why would standing on the shoulders of giants violate the biology question? You had to learn that previous information. That means transferring it from the other person into your neural pathways. That's a biological function. Chemistry itself is not deterministic. You should have learned that in high school. Chemistry is the behavior of electrons in the shells of atoms. That is controlled by the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field is described by QED. QED is entirely not deterministic.
Yes, but it's not magic, it's simply a property that these types of cells have when wired together in huge numbers in the right way. Hell, the bacteria in your gut affects your mood too.
It's not telepathy dude. You aren't born with the knowledge of past generations. You learn it. And your capacity for learning is impacted in part by your biology, in part by your psychology and in part by the situation you grew up in. And that is critical to the biological question. Because if factors other than biology are effecting both what you think and how you think then your biology isn't all that in the end, is it? Oh so we're talking quantum fluctuations in our brains are what give us free will now? For real?
I never said it was magic. I just said that we are more than brain chemistry. It was you who said that love is just brain chemistry and nothing else.
Wait, there! I think I can get you to see what I mean based on that. Yes, everything in your psychology is based not just on your current chemistry, but by your experiences. But you do you have experiences? Through your senses. How do those senses work? Chemistry. It's easier to understand what I mean if instead of thinking of a brain as a 3D object, think of it as a 4D one instead. That should make it easier for you to understand my point. Now instead of a 3D brain in a state, you have a brain that's both connected to itself, but also it's own past. So it's the sum of the sum of it's parts integrated over time. But everything going into the brain at some point, was a photon or a soundwave. No? No, you mentioned determinism, I addressed it, please don't put words in my mouth. If I didn't state something explicitly, I did not mean it.
They were not, however, the stimulus their parents produced were different. Secondly, we are discussing sentience, not intelligence. Intelligence is just the ability to learn and retain information, and then make deductions from it. This builds a library of stimulus that can be passed down through the generations. However, we are getting off topic. That was an example to show that just technology is not an immediate thing.
Let's get back on topic, please. Feel free to start a new thread if you want to discuss... I'm not even 100% sure where the proverbial train car crashed, but somewhere between the towns of Determinism and Sentience...? If you want to start a separate thread, I can move the offtopic posts there.
My main characters wound up moving in together over the course of a weekend. Of course, they had known each other for several months and had mildly expressed some mutual attraction a time or two. But when the path was cleared, they went from friends to lovers in a matter of an evening, and the next day her toothbrush was in the holder on the sink counter. I wanted it that way and they did too and it seemed pretty natural to me. Some folks might think that is a little quick, but it's happened to me before, so is totally possible in my opinion and experience.
I know you're kidding, but read the stat again. It just says women in the US find money to be very important in a relationship...not "women in the US find a man's money to be very important in a relationship." Written that way refers to her own income (ETA: and where it goes) as well. ETA:As to the OP, no, that's not too fast. I find the concept of longtime friends realizing they love each other romantically to be much more unrealistic. For me someone is either in the friend deck of cards, or I'm attracted, and those stacks never get shuffled together. (eidted for clarity)
Forgive me if this answer steps outside the bounds of a writing answer, but I feel like this speaks to a broader problem society has. We conflate "closeness" or "intimacy" with how long people have known each other, when it should tie to the nature of the time we spend together, not the amount of time. I have people I've known for ten years who I don't feel a remote amount of closeness with. But there are some people I've only known a few months and feel like I've known them for ages. I don't think literature should always reflect the realism of our world; we should be allowed to have fun and indulge in our stories.
I don't like books where the people sleep together within a month or two of knowing each other. It strikes me as unrealistic and they no longer line up with my ideals in a relationship. I used to be able to relate to relationships like that, but now I consider them childish and they make me roll my eyes. Two weeks is likely to get a snort and a half-hearted "well wishes". However, my friend's parents were married after two weeks of knowing one another and they were together until the father died. My great-great uncle is still married to his wife (40+ years his younger) and they knew one another less than a month. I think they're going on roughly 10 years of marriage now. It really all depends on the reading and their individual tastes. Sometimes people like fast relationships and other times they don't. A reader's moral standings shouldn't have bearing on your writing. (Someone mentioned Romeo and Juliet and I hate that play passionately; I also hated it when I first read it as a teen...I've always been a cynic regarding romance.)
I've slept with girls with several hours of meeting them ... lots of guys have, (and vice versa). Waiting two months is probably more unrealistic tbh
Then that's likely not a romance and more lust. I equate the two very differently and since I don't experience lust jumping into bed with someone within a few hours of knowing someone is strange and unrealistic. For my personal life experience, waiting two months is more realistic than hopping from bed to bed. I also know very few people who sleep with people pretty quickly.
You've obviously led a sheltered life - also not experiencing lust is pretty uncommon too. (If you don't experience lust why sleep with someone at all except to procreate the species) Also in my experience what starts out as, for want of a better word 'lust' , can become romance - One girl I was with for 3 years, I had sex with within 2 hours of meeting her in a bar.
I'm aware it's uncommon, but asexuality is a thing. People sleep with people for a variety of reasons and many don't involve procreation or even pleasure (at least not personal pleasure). Not everything involving sex is black-and-white. Which makes our realities two very different things. All I can speak of is my reality and what I view as more realistic/unrealistic. My statement wasn't aimed at anyone's reality or experiences, but my own (which was relevant to the original post in which the poster asked about personal views/tastes).
