Philosophy Discussion Forums

This topic is about the February 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, 
Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral

The greatest danger humans face is the power of bad influences.

(Location 125 of Kindle version)


The author's statement reminded me a story. Here I will share the summary of it.


A daughter complained to her father (who was a chef) of her being bullied in her school. The father kept three pans full of water on the stove and put an egg in the first, a potato in the second, and few coffee beans in the third. Then he lit the fire. After some time he showed how the egg has hardened, the potato has softened, and the coffee beans remained unchanged, but has turned the surrounding water to coffee colour.

Then he explained. The water is the society, and the heat (came from the stove) is like various influences from the society. After being exposed to them the individual can either harden or soften him/herself. But a strong one can change the society as per his/her wish.


As per my view, whether good or bad, influences are good to mould ourselves, even after becoming adults. And they will show the true colours of a person. So I disagree with the author's above statement.

What is your opinion about influences in relation to individuals, as well as the society?

Sushan wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 6:07 am This topic is about the February 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, 
Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral

The greatest danger humans face is the power of bad influences.

(Location 125 of Kindle version)


The author's statement reminded me a story. Here I will share the summary of it.


A daughter complained to her father (who was a chef) of her being bullied in her school. The father kept three pans full of water on the stove and put an egg in the first, a potato in the second, and few coffee beans in the third. Then he lit the fire. After some time he showed how the egg has hardened, the potato has softened, and the coffee beans remained unchanged, but has turned the surrounding water to coffee colour.

Then he explained. The water is the society, and the heat (came from the stove) is like various influences from the society. After being exposed to them the individual can either harden or soften him/herself. But a strong one can change the society as per his/her wish.


As per my view, whether good or bad, influences are good to mould ourselves, even after becoming adults. And they will show the true colours of a person. So I disagree with the author's above statement.

What is your opinion about influences in relation to individuals, as well as the society?

Since a newborn is mentally blank, the development of mentality depends on parents, society, culture, education etc on the basis of the cognitive apparatus which may be genetically influenced by parents, too. The better the prerequisites (parents, society, culture, education etc) the better the relative performance of the individual on the basis of the prerequisites the individual has no influence on.

Sushan wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 6:07 am What is your opinion about influences in relation to individuals, as well as the society?

Well, I looked at the blurbs and I didn't see anything that suggested any actual new thought on the topic. So here's the conventional view of the scientific community currently regarding behavioralism.

First, it doesn't matter whether free will exists or not not to behavioralism, it is a 'black-box' stimulus/response model. Stimuli are either environmental in origin, or genetic in origin, or a combination of the two. For example, imprinting, most autonomic nervous system functions, and and some hormonal-induced behaviors are considered 'genetic.'

The problem is that only a limited number of stimuli produce predictably constrained responses sufficient for a predictive model for organisms with more than 300 neurons or so (about that of an earthworm). Hence even if all environmental and genetic factors are controlled, it's still not enough for behavioralism to produce predictable results outside a narrow subset of directly induced autoresponnses from correlated rewards/punishments and activating stimuli.

The significant factor to environmentally induced behavior is time. Positive reinforcements must arrive such that after synaptic delays they are effectively concurrent to the reinforced associations, and negative reinforcements are unpredictable in results after a few seconds. Greater negative reinforcement occurs with extremely high frequency due to hormonal activity, but because it is rightly considered 'torture' experiments on it have been discontinued. Artifical stimulation of physiological functions with drugs is considered 'external stimulus' and therefore does not provide further experimental results. So that's about as much as behavioralism can achieve by itself. The limits of the useful time ranges or reinforced association, even in the absence of other stimuli, imply that there is additional processing occurring that is outside the scope of behavioralism to explain.

Second, as to 'influences,' historically the issue has not been anything to do with free will or behavioralism. The issue has been that members of a society are unaware that they are being influenced in ways that are obvious to other societies, and remain unconvinced, or outright reject the notion, when so informed. As to whether that is the 'most dangerous' factor for individuals, such a thesis presupposes that for example the society is not similar to the Khmer Rouge, where quite obviously, 'influences' are rather petty in respect to other imminent dangers.

stevie wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 6:16 am

Sushan wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 6:07 am This topic is about the February 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, 
Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral

The greatest danger humans face is the power of bad influences.

(Location 125 of Kindle version)


The author's statement reminded me a story. Here I will share the summary of it.


A daughter complained to her father (who was a chef) of her being bullied in her school. The father kept three pans full of water on the stove and put an egg in the first, a potato in the second, and few coffee beans in the third. Then he lit the fire. After some time he showed how the egg has hardened, the potato has softened, and the coffee beans remained unchanged, but has turned the surrounding water to coffee colour.

Then he explained. The water is the society, and the heat (came from the stove) is like various influences from the society. After being exposed to them the individual can either harden or soften him/herself. But a strong one can change the society as per his/her wish.


As per my view, whether good or bad, influences are good to mould ourselves, even after becoming adults. And they will show the true colours of a person. So I disagree with the author's above statement.

What is your opinion about influences in relation to individuals, as well as the society?

Since a newborn is mentally blank, the development of mentality depends on parents, society, culture, education etc on the basis of the cognitive apparatus which may be genetically influenced by parents, too. The better the prerequisites (parents, society, culture, education etc) the better the relative performance of the individual on the basis of the prerequisites the individual has no influence on.

We can agree that most occasions will prove what you mentioned. But it is not rare to see kids who are born to good parents, live in good societies, get good education, become bad adults. And the vice versa is seen too. How can that be explained with this concept of prerequisites?

ernestm wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 8:19 am

Sushan wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 6:07 am What is your opinion about influences in relation to individuals, as well as the society?

Well, I looked at the blurbs and I didn't see anything that suggested any actual new thought on the topic. So here's the conventional view of the scientific community currently regarding behavioralism.

First, it doesn't matter whether free will exists or not not to behavioralism, it is a 'black-box' stimulus/response model. Stimuli are either environmental in origin, or genetic in origin, or a combination of the two. For example, imprinting, most autonomic nervous system functions, and and some hormonal-induced behaviors are considered 'genetic.'

The problem is that only a limited number of stimuli produce predictably constrained responses sufficient for a predictive model for organisms with more than 300 neurons or so (about that of an earthworm). Hence even if all environmental and genetic factors are controlled, it's still not enough for behavioralism to produce predictable results outside a narrow subset of directly induced autoresponnses from correlated rewards/punishments and activating stimuli.

The significant factor to environmentally induced behavior is time. Positive reinforcements must arrive such that after synaptic delays they are effectively concurrent to the reinforced associations, and negative reinforcements are unpredictable in results after a few seconds. Greater negative reinforcement occurs with extremely high frequency due to hormonal activity, but because it is rightly considered 'torture' experiments on it have been discontinued. Artifical stimulation of physiological functions with drugs is considered 'external stimulus' and therefore does not provide further experimental results. So that's about as much as behavioralism can achieve by itself. The limits of the useful time ranges or reinforced association, even in the absence of other stimuli, imply that there is additional processing occurring that is outside the scope of behavioralism to explain.

Second, as to 'influences,' historically the issue has not been anything to do with free will or behavioralism. The issue has been that members of a society are unaware that they are being influenced in ways that are obvious to other societies, and remain unconvinced, or outright reject the notion, when so informed. As to whether that is the 'most dangerous' factor for individuals, such a thesis presupposes that for example the society is not similar to the Khmer Rouge, where quite obviously, 'influences' are rather petty in respect to other imminent dangers.

Thank you for the in detail explanation. So, by being unable to explain human behaviour by the srudy of behaviouralism, does it prove that this author is correct? Could there really be a system to determine the actions of individuals, which are not random, yet cannot be predicted?

And for the influences, I think there are many occasions that people already know that they are under certain influences, yet act either in ignorance, or in mere acceptance. The choice is upto the individual to accept or deny bad influences. But when the influences are concealed, then neither the individuals, nor the society can be helped.

Sushan wrote: ↑February 13th, 2022, 12:53 am

stevie wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 6:16 am

Sushan wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 6:07 am This topic is about the February 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, 
Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral

The greatest danger humans face is the power of bad influences.

(Location 125 of Kindle version)


The author's statement reminded me a story. Here I will share the summary of it.


A daughter complained to her father (who was a chef) of her being bullied in her school. The father kept three pans full of water on the stove and put an egg in the first, a potato in the second, and few coffee beans in the third. Then he lit the fire. After some time he showed how the egg has hardened, the potato has softened, and the coffee beans remained unchanged, but has turned the surrounding water to coffee colour.

Then he explained. The water is the society, and the heat (came from the stove) is like various influences from the society. After being exposed to them the individual can either harden or soften him/herself. But a strong one can change the society as per his/her wish.


As per my view, whether good or bad, influences are good to mould ourselves, even after becoming adults. And they will show the true colours of a person. So I disagree with the author's above statement.

What is your opinion about influences in relation to individuals, as well as the society?

Since a newborn is mentally blank, the development of mentality depends on parents, society, culture, education etc on the basis of the cognitive apparatus which may be genetically influenced by parents, too. The better the prerequisites (parents, society, culture, education etc) the better the relative performance of the individual on the basis of the prerequisites the individual has no influence on.

We can agree that most occasions will prove what you mentioned. But it is not rare to see kids who are born to good parents, live in good societies, get good education, become bad adults. And the vice versa is seen too. How can that be explained with this concept of prerequisites?

True, but you don't know how much worse the bad kid would have been without the good influences.

You will always get the same results when you put potatoes, eggs and coffee beans in boiling water. Potatoes won't go hard and eggs won't get softer.

If a person suffered injustice twenty years ago and still carries that anger. How do you influence a change of heart towards a kinder outlook on life?

Sushan wrote: ↑February 13th, 2022, 12:53 am

stevie wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 6:16 am

Sushan wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 6:07 am This topic is about the February 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, 
Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral

The greatest danger humans face is the power of bad influences.

(Location 125 of Kindle version)


The author's statement reminded me a story. Here I will share the summary of it.


A daughter complained to her father (who was a chef) of her being bullied in her school. The father kept three pans full of water on the stove and put an egg in the first, a potato in the second, and few coffee beans in the third. Then he lit the fire. After some time he showed how the egg has hardened, the potato has softened, and the coffee beans remained unchanged, but has turned the surrounding water to coffee colour.

Then he explained. The water is the society, and the heat (came from the stove) is like various influences from the society. After being exposed to them the individual can either harden or soften him/herself. But a strong one can change the society as per his/her wish.


As per my view, whether good or bad, influences are good to mould ourselves, even after becoming adults. And they will show the true colours of a person. So I disagree with the author's above statement.

What is your opinion about influences in relation to individuals, as well as the society?

Since a newborn is mentally blank, the development of mentality depends on parents, society, culture, education etc on the basis of the cognitive apparatus which may be genetically influenced by parents, too. The better the prerequisites (parents, society, culture, education etc) the better the relative performance of the individual on the basis of the prerequisites the individual has no influence on.

We can agree that most occasions will prove what you mentioned. But it is not rare to see kids who are born to good parents, live in good societies, get good education, become bad adults. And the vice versa is seen too. How can that be explained with this concept of prerequisites?

Each of these prerequistes is multifaceted. It's too simplistic to speak of "good parents, ... good societies, ... good education". E.g. parents are not exlusively "good" in terms of what is known in science about appropriate parenthood. Each of their behaviours may have different influence depending on the developmental age of the child.

LuckyR wrote: ↑February 13th, 2022, 4:52 am

Sushan wrote: ↑February 13th, 2022, 12:53 am

stevie wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 6:16 am

Sushan wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 6:07 am This topic is about the February 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, 
Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral


(Location 125 of Kindle version)


The author's statement reminded me a story. Here I will share the summary of it.


A daughter complained to her father (who was a chef) of her being bullied in her school. The father kept three pans full of water on the stove and put an egg in the first, a potato in the second, and few coffee beans in the third. Then he lit the fire. After some time he showed how the egg has hardened, the potato has softened, and the coffee beans remained unchanged, but has turned the surrounding water to coffee colour.

Then he explained. The water is the society, and the heat (came from the stove) is like various influences from the society. After being exposed to them the individual can either harden or soften him/herself. But a strong one can change the society as per his/her wish.


As per my view, whether good or bad, influences are good to mould ourselves, even after becoming adults. And they will show the true colours of a person. So I disagree with the author's above statement.

What is your opinion about influences in relation to individuals, as well as the society?

Since a newborn is mentally blank, the development of mentality depends on parents, society, culture, education etc on the basis of the cognitive apparatus which may be genetically influenced by parents, too. The better the prerequisites (parents, society, culture, education etc) the better the relative performance of the individual on the basis of the prerequisites the individual has no influence on.

We can agree that most occasions will prove what you mentioned. But it is not rare to see kids who are born to good parents, live in good societies, get good education, become bad adults. And the vice versa is seen too. How can that be explained with this concept of prerequisites?

True, but you don't know how much worse the bad kid would have been without the good influences.

That is true. Maybe he could have been far more worse if he did not have the good influences. But ultimately why he became a bad person if he had abundant good influences?

EricPH wrote: ↑February 13th, 2022, 10:05 am You will always get the same results when you put potatoes, eggs and coffee beans in boiling water. Potatoes won't go hard and eggs won't get softer.

If a person suffered injustice twenty years ago and still carries that anger. How do you influence a change of heart towards a kinder outlook on life?

Well, even in the same pot of boiling water, a rotten potato or a rotten egg may produce a different result.

I may not be able to change such a person into a kind hearted fellow. But there are enough examples of such changes that occurred due to influence from good companions. So it is not possible, although each and everyone may not be able to exert such an influence.

stevie wrote: ↑February 14th, 2022, 3:02 am

Sushan wrote: ↑February 13th, 2022, 12:53 am

stevie wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 6:16 am

Sushan wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 6:07 am This topic is about the February 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, 
Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral


(Location 125 of Kindle version)


The author's statement reminded me a story. Here I will share the summary of it.


A daughter complained to her father (who was a chef) of her being bullied in her school. The father kept three pans full of water on the stove and put an egg in the first, a potato in the second, and few coffee beans in the third. Then he lit the fire. After some time he showed how the egg has hardened, the potato has softened, and the coffee beans remained unchanged, but has turned the surrounding water to coffee colour.

Then he explained. The water is the society, and the heat (came from the stove) is like various influences from the society. After being exposed to them the individual can either harden or soften him/herself. But a strong one can change the society as per his/her wish.


As per my view, whether good or bad, influences are good to mould ourselves, even after becoming adults. And they will show the true colours of a person. So I disagree with the author's above statement.

What is your opinion about influences in relation to individuals, as well as the society?

Since a newborn is mentally blank, the development of mentality depends on parents, society, culture, education etc on the basis of the cognitive apparatus which may be genetically influenced by parents, too. The better the prerequisites (parents, society, culture, education etc) the better the relative performance of the individual on the basis of the prerequisites the individual has no influence on.

We can agree that most occasions will prove what you mentioned. But it is not rare to see kids who are born to good parents, live in good societies, get good education, become bad adults. And the vice versa is seen too. How can that be explained with this concept of prerequisites?

Each of these prerequistes is multifaceted. It's too simplistic to speak of "good parents, ... good societies, ... good education". E.g. parents are not exlusively "good" in terms of what is known in science about appropriate parenthood. Each of their behaviours may have different influence depending on the developmental age of the child.

I have to agree with you here. I personally have met kids who have been addicted to psychoactive drugs, although their parents were well educated, well mannered people. The problem has been the lack of attention of the parents towards the child's day to day activities and behaviours.

Sushan wrote: ↑February 17th, 2022, 2:25 am I have to agree with you here. I personally have met kids who have been addicted to psychoactive drugs,

Oscar Wilde summed up human nature when he said -

I can resist everything ----------------------- Except temptation.

The problem has been the lack of attention of the parents towards the child's day to day activities and behaviours.

It takes two to bring a child into this world, but it takes a community to nurture children. No matter how good and caring the parents are, they have to let their children walk out the door on their own

Sushan wrote: ↑February 17th, 2022, 2:14 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑February 13th, 2022, 4:52 am

Sushan wrote: ↑February 13th, 2022, 12:53 am

stevie wrote: ↑February 7th, 2022, 6:16 am

Since a newborn is mentally blank, the development of mentality depends on parents, society, culture, education etc on the basis of the cognitive apparatus which may be genetically influenced by parents, too. The better the prerequisites (parents, society, culture, education etc) the better the relative performance of the individual on the basis of the prerequisites the individual has no influence on.

We can agree that most occasions will prove what you mentioned. But it is not rare to see kids who are born to good parents, live in good societies, get good education, become bad adults. And the vice versa is seen too. How can that be explained with this concept of prerequisites?

True, but you don't know how much worse the bad kid would have been without the good influences.

That is true. Maybe he could have been far more worse if he did not have the good influences. But ultimately why he became a bad person if he had abundant good influences?

"Good" and "bad" are arbitrary relative descriptors without independent meaning. Physical makeup, both genetic and congenital, lead to a baseline "goodness" quotient that is massively influenced by environmental and experiencial factors.

Sushan wrote: ↑February 13th, 2022, 1:28 am Thank you for the in detail explanation. So, by being unable to explain human behaviour by the srudy of behaviouralism, does it prove that this author is correct? Could there really be a system to determine the actions of individuals, which are not random, yet cannot be predicted?

And for the influences, I think there are many occasions that people already know that they are under certain influences, yet act either in ignorance, or in mere acceptance. The choice is upto the individual to accept or deny bad influences. But when the influences are concealed, then neither the individuals, nor the society can be helped.

Well, my OPINION is that it is similar to particle physics. Gross assemblages of behavior across many individuals is predictable to an extent, but in the real world, unanticipated influencing factors make the endeavor difficult.

EricPH wrote: ↑February 19th, 2022, 10:38 am

Sushan wrote: ↑February 17th, 2022, 2:25 am I have to agree with you here. I personally have met kids who have been addicted to psychoactive drugs,

Oscar Wilde summed up human nature when he said -

I can resist everything ----------------------- Except temptation.

The problem has been the lack of attention of the parents towards the child's day to day activities and behaviours.

It takes two to bring a child into this world, but it takes a community to nurture children. No matter how good and caring the parents are, they have to let their children walk out the door on their own

It is true that parents cannot keep their kids under their protection forever. But it is the responsibility of the parents to make their children emotionally strong enough to deny bad things and accept good things. And also how to think before acting and identify bad from good. Such a kid will not be affected by whatever the community that he will be released into. The initial years of a kid's life is very much important, and nurturing that vital part has to be done extremely well by the parents to expect good results in the later years of the kid's life.