Impulsive, instinctual, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. The ability for a self-contained individual to invoke ANY KIND OF ACTION represents the fulfillment of that individuals' self-interest by virtue of the sequential constraint imposed by the natural world, and if we cannot submit to this empirically verifiable process, well then I am at a lost for words and patience.

You ought to read the pediatric scientific literature on the subject, then. I have. Very eye-opening. Unambiguous correlations between exposure to video game violence and violent behavior.

What kind of video games were they playing during the Spanish Inquisition?....

How does it deal with the question as to whether there might be correlation without causation?

It seems quite likely to me that those children prone to violence in the first place would be drawn to violent video games. I don't want to discuss this, but if the studies specifically addressed causation rather than just correlation, it would be important info.

But it's a bit of a fallacy for you to demand "causal" data when we're talking about one variable in a multivariate problem. And there are many variables that influence violent behavior. To demand causality as established by prospective research is like asking to prove whether high blood pressure causes heart attacks. We know it's a major risk factor for heart attacks from an overwhelming body of correlative data; but of course diabetes, smoking, high cholesterol, and other risk factors are independent risk factors, and there's no controlled human "experiment" to see what happens when you raise people's blood pressures over years. Almost nothing we know about public health comes from research that establishes causality like we'd expect from a lab. But that doesn't mean public health should disappear, whether for violence prevention or for heart disease prevention.

I am not asking for a sole causal relationship, I simply am looking for data that violence in video games is indeed a significant variable. I am only looking for some information that points to some tendency in video games to increase the risk of violent behavior. It seems it would be possible to isolate a sample of violent video game users from non-players, and then document their violent behaviors.

First off, I am a rather non-violent person who does enjoy any number of games that include strong violent content. I have never noticed any increase in violent tendencies, so I am rather inclined to disagree that any increase would be significant.

Also, from a standpoint of reason, I would argue that, while it may increase the chance of naturally violent people to act out, it may also just as well serve as an outlet for such tendencies.

As for these Army games, it seems more likely that these games can both hone rapid decision making and hand-eye coordination, as well as generating excitement for what is likely not the most exciting career.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. My whole point was that there are many actions that we undertake that are NOT a function of our will, and our body is the mediator of that. It's not a matter of will that our cells phosphorylate glucose, and certain complex behaviors that are innate are not a matter of will either.

Reflexes are a part of us that affect our decisions, so they are will.

They've been specifically instituted to help trainees overcome inhibitions about shooting other humans. That part is not speculative, it's well-publicized policy that is a response to soldiers and policemen who die without ever drawing or firing their weapon. During WWII only 15-20% of US infantry in combat (excluding machine gunners) ever fired their weapon at all (Marshall, S (1978) Men against fire. Norman OK: Oklahoma University Press., Grossman, D (1996) On Killing. Boston: Little, Brown.). For Vietnam they replaced "bullseye" targets with shadow-silhouette targets, and there was a concomitant increase in firing rates. I can't tell you if the video game approach works or not, but I can tell you that it's a specific training measure for this specific problem.

Whether they help eye-hand coordination and rapid decisions is a different story, but I'd imagine they have better drills for that kind of training.

With admirable effort, you've put forth quite a long diatribe in response to careless assumptions you make about my point of view. Were you purposely misreading me, or were you just looking for an excuse to go off on a tirade?

You define will simply as something part of us that affects our decisions? Anaerobic metabolism is also part of us that affects our decisions, but that doesn't make it will -- the will is what we have conscious control over, and it so happens that there are many things that we don't have conscious control over that influence what we decide.

The idea is that in the same way we have not chosed our reflexes or metabolism, we have not chosen our mind.

A reflex you didnt want to have is comparable to a past decision you regret.

Also, the subconscient can be controlled by the conscient. For example I set myself to wake up at a certain time ever week day and it works like a clock.

I think you need to go back and read RL's first post again. He specifically refers to the firing of synapses as being the "the leading edge of self-interest". He is approaching this from a physiological point of view and has lumped the unconscious with the conscious.

How can you juxtapose the involuntary(unconscious) process(firing of synapses) of an individuals' beating heart to the process (also,firing of synapses) of voluntary decided decisions (conscious), such as lifting an arm on command, which is an empirically verifiable option of actionable SELF-INTEREST indulgement.

I use the firing of synapses as the leading edge process for conscious(voluntary) decision making and the subsequent empirically measurable evidence of optional, as well as actionable interface with the natural world, while the process of unconscious(involuntary) firing of synapses leaves NO empirically founded evidence of optionally directive actions in their wake.

Nor did we choose it to be rainy today, and we did not choose the earth to have gas volcanos. Point is that our will controls certain things and not others.

No, it's not at all comparable. The fact that I have an unpleasant vomiting reflex or sneezing reflex under certain conditions is not something I regret. The fact that I said mean things to my parents when I was a teenager IS something I regret. I don't have control over the former, but I did have control over the latter.

But you can't tell your mitochondria to use sulfur instead of oxygen as their terminal electron receptor, and you can't tell your patellar reflex not to fire when a doctor hits it with a hammer.

How can you juxtapose the involuntary(unconscious) process(firing of synapses) of an individuals' beating heart to the process (also,firing of synapses) of voluntary decided decisions (conscious), such as lifting an arm on command, which is an empirically verifiable option of actionable SELF-INTEREST indulgement.

The idea of "We have not chosen our mind" is that there is no true will, our mind is just like reflexes, but a lot more complex.

And you can neutralize a reflex by preparing before-hand.

Warning*Warning*Warning*Warning*Warning*Warning*Warning*Warning

The following realization may cause mild to moderate discomfort in some individuals.


Altruism is an idealistic concept contrived from careless insightfulness. The idea that Human Beings subjected to the constraints of our Natural World can somehow magically engage in the process of invoking some form of physical or cognitive interference to benefit some other independent Human Being, Without FIRST satisfying their own SELF-INTEREST is carelessly FALSE and needs to be examined with the courage of truth.

EXAMPLE: Two soldiers engaged in combat are firing at the enemy from their foxhole, when suddenly a hand grenade lands inside the foxhole and one of the soldiers (A) throws his body on top of the grenade partly shielding the other soldier (B) from the blast and shrapnel, thereby saving the soldier (B), but the act also cost the life of the soldier (A) who threw himself upon the grenade.

By closely examining the actual process of the above scenario reveals a completely self-interested act with no sign of some kind of idealistic act composed of an anonymous magical altruistic event. As soon as soldier (A) synapses begin firing within his brain (absolute leading edge of self-interest) that allows him to move his body towards the grenade and consequently finish the physical act of throwing his body onto the grenade clearly reveals the actual sequence that transpires revealing the inherent constraint of satisfying SELF-INTEREST FIRST, before some ancillary (secondary) event or act can be completed.

I personally believe the above realization offers substantial explanatory reasons for perplexing Human behavior. Clearly, the model of the Human Being and the Natural World reveals a creature and a process (self-interest) that are explicitly linked and NO AMOUNT of idealistic interpretation will ever uncouple the process and empirical truth of self-interest

P.S. I once believed that self-interest needed the prerequisite of FREE-WILL, but realized you always have the default option NOT to do something, thereby still having access to self-interest, which indicates how self-contained Human Beings are for accessing self-interest.