Support NeoGAF

[Grep]

Well most of the people don't like (or are afraid of) the determinism. The idea of going through life as through a string of pre-determined actions is not an easy thing to swallow.In addition, if there is any higher supra-entity which monitors all these actions, that's even more problematic.

Personally, I am support deterministic stance, once I discovered stoicism in philosophy.

 

[Transhuman]

If I am not the one making my choices, then there is no me. There is only a biological robot. A machine. Then there are no people.

"If that were true that would be horrible" isn't a counter-argument.

 

[OceanBlue]

To me, the perception of free will is when people rationalize the decisions that other parts of their brains have already made. You make an action, you react to it, and that reaction informs future "decisions". So yes, I believe in determinism.

I'm no neurologist though.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

If determinism is all quntum physicy, then what about probability? Nothing is definite, only certain levels of probability. How can ones life have a definite set path?

 

[Truant]

Does it matter?

 

[Ushojax]

If determinism is all quntum physicy, then what about probability? Nothing is definite, only certain levels of probability. How can ones life have a definite set path?

I don't view determinism as fate. It is simply the brain making decisions based on information available to it. There is no one set path because new information relayed to the brain can affect the outcome of future decisions, plus there is randomness to account for. The same principle applies to the universe at large.

Basically this:

There is only ever one path but that path is changing all the time.

 

[liliththepale]

You're making an implication. You're assuming we don't have free will and then drawing the conclusion that we would be essentially "robots". You're then saying that we aren't robots so therefore the assumption that we don't have free will is false. The problem is that you are saying that the conclusion that we are robots is a contradiction when that isn't really a contradiction. Maybe we are just robots. Not the kind of robots we manufacture today, but still automatons all the same.

How are we robots? Do you have feelings? Do you have thoughts? Do you have self awareness? That makes you more than a robot. I know it's cliche, but Rene Descartes put it best with "cogito, ergo sum" ("I think; therefore, I am.")

We are greater than the sum of our parts. We're life and consciousness arisen from non-living and non-conscious material. We are.

"If that were true that would be horrible" isn't a counter-argument.

Agreed. It's not a counter argument. It's a comment meant to encourage rethinking some of the other arguments I made that were readily dismissed.

 

[Transhuman]

Does it matter?

All the nihilists would answer you, but it wouldn't matter anyway.

 

[Marlenus]

I don't view determinism as fate. It is simply the brain making decisions based on information available to it. There is no one set path because new information relayed to the brain can affect the outcome of future decisions, plus there is randomness to account for.

Basically this:

There is only ever one path but that path is changing all the time.

A way I look at it is to compare it to a football game. We know there will be a result and we can assign probabilities to each result but until the game is played we don't know the outcome.

Besides the fun is in the journey not the destination, we all know our destination and that is death.

 

[GrizzNKev]

I think you have a flawed perception of free will. I'm very curious to know how you would describe it. I do what I do because I am who I am. That's what free will means to me. I make my own decisions based off of who I am. The fact that I had no influence over who I would be to begin with is irrelevant and obvious–how could I have any choice without being anything?

Free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. To me, not having free will would be hypnotism and other mind-control agents, where I am not the one controlling myself.

I think we're actually saying exactly the same thing, but attaching different words to those descriptions. Free will and determinism aren't mutually exclusive. They can't be, because they're actually the same thing being explained from two very different perspectives.

The way I like to present it is through a perspective dichotomy, because it makes the most sense to me that way, and it will probably resolve our disagreement. The first is the human perspective. You and I exist within time. Time happns to us and everything our senses tell us. Because of time, there is change. The concept of change fundamentally establishes that we have free will, because our actions have reactions. We define and are ourselves, and within that human self, we buy into our ability to enact change from the internal system of our thought to the outside physical world.

The second perspective is the philosophical, "If we were higher dimensional beings that could see time as a line," perspective. When you look at time on that line and you see the potentially infinite past and future, you come to the immediate conclusion that everything on that line is a sequence of actions and reactions that all depend on each other to continue forward. Pick any point on that line, and everything to the right was caused by the state of everything at that point. And everything at that point was caused by everything to the left of it. I don't really see how anyone could deny this, even if each supposed point were a starting point for an infinite number of new lines. Concept still applies just the same.

So you, within yourself, experience the real feeling of free will. It's a natural part of our existence within time. But on the outside, beyond ourselves, we're just a part of that line. They're parts of a whole as long as the component of the self is a part of the consideration.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

I don't view determinism as fate. It is simply the brain making decisions based on information available to it. There is no one set path because new information relayed to the brain can affect the outcome of future decisions, plus there is randomness to account for. The same principle applies to the universe at large.

Basically this:

There is only ever one path but that path is changing all the time.

Yeah, I'm having trouble differentiating the two at this point. That changing path that you choose directions on is what I call free will. We are all on the same path that is birth to death.

I think we're actually saying exactly the same thing, but attaching different words to those descriptions. Free will and determinism aren't mutually exclusive. They can't be, because they're actually the same thing being explained from two very different perspectives.

The way I like to present it is through a perspective dichotomy, because it makes the most sense to me that way, and it will probably resolve our disagreement. The first is the human perspective. You and I exist within time. Time happns to us and everything our senses tell us. Because of time, there is change. The concept of change fundamentally establishes that we have free will, because our actions have reactions. We define and are ourselves, and within that human self, we buy into our ability to enact change from the internal system of our thought to the outside physical world.

The second perspective is the philosophical, "If we were higher dimensional beings that could see time as a line," perspective. When you look at time on that line and you see the potentially infinite past and future, you come to the immediate conclusion that everything on that line is a sequence of actions and reactions that all depend on each other to continue forward. Pick any point on that line, and everything to the right was caused by the state of everything at that point. And everything at that point was caused by everything to the left of it. I don't really see how anyone could deny this, even if each supposed point were a starting point for an infinite number of new lines. Concept still applies just the same.

So you, within yourself, experience the real feeling of free will. It's a natural part of our existence within time. But on the outside, beyond ourselves, we're just a part of that line. They're parts of a whole as long as the component of the self is a part of the consideration.

This was a great explaination, thanks.

 

[typist]

 

[Auto-Reply]

I've never read any of Karl Poppers stuff.... but I'm fascinated by it, should do that when I have some time on my hands.

 

[liliththepale]

I think we're actually saying exactly the same thing, but attaching different words to those descriptions. Free will and determinism aren't mutually exclusive. They can't be, because they're actually the same thing being explained from two very different perspectives.

The way I like to present it is through a perspective dichotomy, because it makes the most sense to me that way, and it will probably resolve our disagreement. The first is the human perspective. You and I exist within time. Time happns to us and everything our senses tell us. Because of time, there is change. The concept of change fundamentally establishes that we have free will, because our actions have reactions. We define and are ourselves, and within that human self, we buy into our ability to enact change from the internal system of our thought to the outside physical world.

The second perspective is the philosophical, "If we were higher dimensional beings that could see time as a line," perspective. When you look at time on that line and you see the potentially infinite past and future, you come to the immediate conclusion that everything on that line is a sequence of actions and reactions that all depend on each other to continue forward. Pick any point on that line, and everything to the right was caused by the state of everything at that point. And everything at that point was caused by everything to the left of it. I don't really see how anyone could deny this, even if each supposed point were a starting point for an infinite number of new lines. Concept still applies just the same.

So you, within yourself, experience the real feeling of free will. It's a natural part of our existence within time. But on the outside, beyond ourselves, we're just a part of that line. They're parts of a whole as long as the component of the self is a part of the consideration.

Okay. Thank you for this explanation! Sorry I don't have an appropriately long response, but I really appreciate everything you've written out here.

 

[Langdon Alger]

"Free will" should just be called something like volition, so that it doesn't have that extra supernatural baggage attached to it."Free will" is just the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action.

"Free will" would give the animals who have it a huge selective advantage and would be something that would probably evolve along with an sort of intelligence. The illusion of free will, however, wouldn't give an animal a selective advantage and probably wouldn't evolve. (Although of course every trait we have wasn't necessarily selected for and some are just accidents.)

People are their brains and bodies and nothing more. So the fact that some MRI scan shows some area of a person's brain "lighting up" before they're consciously aware of making a decision doesn't prove that that person doesn't have free will, because John's brain making a decision = John making a decision. John's subconscious making a descision is also John making a decision.

I can't see how the laws of physics or the movement of atoms would force someone to, say, choose to buy a PlayStation 4 over an Xbox One. That person likes the Uncharted series and Bloodborne more than Gears and Halo, so he gets a PS4. The decision making process that a person makes in choosing a PS4 isn't reducible to the laws of physics.

 

[Slavik81]

The main roadblock to determining whether human beings have free will is coming up with a definition of free will. Once you actually decide exactly what you mean by 'free will', it's generally not all that hard to say yes or no.

 

[ameleco]

It seems to me that it makes sense that we are subject to the same laws as everything else in this universe. For example, we can model quite a few things already to whatever accuracy we want. Why are we different? Is there a reason to think we are? With this mindset, I feel like if another universe existed and we had the exact same things happening everywhere in that entire universe as in this one, the other me in that universe would make the exact same choices I have made in this one.

Edit: Or its just late and I'm tired. One of the two

 

[GrizzNKev]

Okay. Thank you for this explanation! Sorry I don't have an appropriately long response, but I really appreciate everything you've written out here.

No problem. Hopefully that makes my previous statements seem more sensible. The idea that knowing and being don't interfere or detract from each other, because no matter what you know about the reality of time, you are still subject to life within it, and will continue experiencing what is commonly called free will. That's where the whole "illusion" thing comes into play, which is just a pessimistic sounding extension of my explanation.

 

[Dryk]

I like the new agey quantum bullshit.where the mind takes advantage of quantum effects (by observing parallel universes) to function. It's a fun idea but I ultimately don't really believe in that stuff. I really lean towards materialism. The human brain is just a computer powered by chemical reactions and completely deterministic.

Quantum effects mean that on some scale the brain isn't completely deterministic. But I don't subscribe to the notion that those random elements grant us free will as it is commonly thought of.

 

[Foffy]

Free will exists if, and only if, a true self of the mind does. One that is really a separate self from the rest of what goes on.

So no, it doesn't exist.

If I am not the one making my choices, then there is no me. There is only a biological robot. A machine. Then there are no people.

When do you decide to decide? Where do your thoughts and emotions come from? Do you see in addition to sight? Do you hear in addition to hearing? This me, often referred to as self or ego, is merely and only an idea. It creates a lot of nonsense in the mind, that "I have to improve myself" as if there's a division between I and myself, that what I am is the conscious jazz I condition myself to identify as, but the unconscious stuff "happens" to me. Grade A bollocks.

There very likely is no you, for you may define yourself as a thinker to thoughts, feeler of feelings, and doer of deeds. This is merely a cognitive illusion, exacerbated by a society that infers extreme elements of dualism, to infer absolute division and isolation between things.

 

[goomba]

The main roadblock to determining whether human beings have free will is coming up with a definition of free will. Once you actually decide exactly what you mean by 'free will', it's generally not all that hard to say yes or no.

I like the definition "we could have done otherwise".

As we don't choose our thought processes (they just happen), we could not have done otherwise.

 

[Ushojax]

I can't see how the laws of physics or the movement of atoms would force someone to, say, choose to buy a PlayStation 4 over an Xbox One. That person likes the Uncharted series and Bloodborne more than Gears and Halo, so he gets a PS4. The decision making process that a person makes in choosing a PS4 isn't reducible to the laws of physics.

It is though. Whatever synapses in the brain are firing when that decision to buy a PS4 is made, are made of atoms, subatomic particles etc and their arrangement, structure, firing pattern etc are subject to the laws of physics. Those neurones will be arranged in a way that reflects the brains interpretation of information, perhaps the person saw a TV ad for Bloodborne which results in a 'buy a PS4' pathway being arranged within the brain that will be activated at the appropriate time.

 

[Duji]

There is "will" (i.e. as a meta-entity "you" make decisions), but it is not "free" in the philosophical sense, it is computed based on the physical structure of your brain, the information it acts on and physical laws. Perhaps you could calculate someone's future decisions perfectly, or perhaps quantum effects make it impossible to calculate in advance because of indeterminacy, however in either case there is no decision making faculty that is divorced from the world and its influences. No fully rational and independent person that is separate from the world, which then passes commands through some mystical channel to the body to give it marching orders.

Bingo

 

[Two Words]

How are we robots? Do you have feelings? Do you have thoughts? Do you have self awareness? That makes you more than a robot. I know it's cliche, but Rene Descartes put it best with "cogito, ergo sum" ("I think; therefore, I am.")

We are greater than the sum of our parts. We're life and consciousness arisen from non-living and non-conscious material. We are.




Agreed. It's not a counter argument. It's a comment meant to encourage rethinking some of the other arguments I made that were readily dismissed.

Saying robots that we manufacture today don't think in feel doesn't mean robots do t think and feel or something that thinks and feels cannot be a robot.

 

[ShemhazaiX]

Was thinking about this the other day. I'm of the opinion that life is deterministic, how could it not be? And by that I mean that life plays out procedurally. Sort of like a procedurally generated game with the same seed value each time. There isn't room for true randomness because everything is influenced by set variables, even our decisions. That doesn't mean people are blameless, just because there was only one outcome doesn't mean they didn't freely choose that outcome. Honestly, I don't consider free will and determinism to be exclusive since people are still guiding their own actions, even if it plays out the same each time.


It also brings up an interesting point about predicting the future. Technically, if you could track the near infinite variables happening, it could technically be possible to predict anything. Obviously it's never going to be feasible, but theoretically I believe the concept would be sound.

 

[99hertz]

I don't believe in free will because I don't believe there's anything like souls, ghosts and other crap like that. The only things that make think otherwise are qualia and mind uploading. I think qualia will be explained once we understand enough about consciousness and that time matters for identity.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

It is though. Whatever synapses in the brain are firing when that decision to buy a PS4 is made, are made of atoms, subatomic particles etc and their arrangement, structure, firing pattern etc are subject to the laws of physics. Those neurones will be arranged in a way that reflects the brains interpretation of information, perhaps the person saw a TV ad for Bloodborne which results in a 'buy a PS4' pathway being arranged within the brain that will be activated at the appropriate time.

But then the randomness comes in and at a whim, without any prior interest, you decide to get an Xbox one instead.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

both positions seems rather untenable and vulgar.

there is no transcendental subject or I who makes decisions out of nowhere, neither are we just simple matter in motion.

The brain - which is a multitude of evolutionary developed independent mechanisms and subsystems - reacts on multiple inputs, processes them in parallel and comes up with a "choice" to be performed by a virtual self, which in itself is coded by evolutionary developed cultural memes.

In other words, the choices we make - which are still choices - are both dependent on your personal genetic disposition and the cultural memes you have been infected with.

yes I have been reading a bit of CogSci lately lol

 

[Two Words]

But then the randomness comes in and at a whim, without any prior interest, you decide to get an Xbox one instead.

What is "the randomness"? Quantum mechanics? I don't think the scale of quantum mechanics can suddenly change the way your neurons map. And even if some random force makes a change, that force is external. It is still you being acted on by something out of your control.

 

[Ushojax]

But then the randomness comes in and at a whim, without any prior interest, you decide to get an Xbox one instead.

Sure, randomness can change any outcome. But there will still be a physics-based explanation for that outcome.

 

[Duji]

both positions seems rather untenable and vulgar.

there is no transcendental subject or I who makes decisions out of nowhere, neither are we just simple matter in motion.

The brain - which is a multitude of evolutionary developed independent mechanisms and subsystems - reacts on multiple inputs, processes them in parallel and comes up with a "choice" to be performed by a virtual self, which in itself is coded by evolutionary developed cultural memes.

In other words, the choices we make - which are still choices - are both dependent on your personal genetic disposition and the cultural memes you have been infected with.

yes I have been reading a bit of CogSci lately lol

How about not-so-simple matter in motion then?

 

[zoukka]

Free will. Because determinism enables horrific acts and ideals.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

How about not-so-simple matter in motion then?

fine by me, as long as the complex matter is agreed upon to not be predetermined

 

[Duji]

Free will. Because determinism enables horrific acts and ideals.

Does it?

 

[Two Words]

Free will. Because determinism enables horrific acts and ideals.

Do you typically choose what is true or false based on preferred outcome?

 

[Foffy]

Free will. Because determinism enables horrific acts and ideals.

Shouldn't it be the opposite? Free will infers people are separate agents in a world of division, failing to acknowledge a core fact that all that goes on is interconnected and interdependent. It's quite an affront to reality.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

What is "the randomness"? Quantum mechanics? I don't think the scale of quantum mechanics can suddenly change the way your neurons map. And even if some random force makes a change, that force is external. It is still you being acted on by something out of your control.

Not that it changes the way your neurons are mapped but that you are not a slave to a conditioned thought process. Are you arguing that we are not in control of our decisions?

Sure, randomness can change any outcome. But there will still be a physics-based explanation for that outcome.

Yes of course. I realize you were just explaining decision making from a quantum level.

 

[Tertullian]

Of course I believe in free will. Neuroscience has done nothing to challenge it, and every claim that it has rests on tenuous, often unconscious and undefended, philosophical assumptions that are read into the data from neuroscience rather than read out of it.

Whenever someone tells me that they don't believe in free will, I always want to just punch them in the face. Just shatter their nose completely. After all, it would be utterly irrational for them to get mad at me for it. Either I was predestined to take that action from all eternity, or at best it was a result of truly random quantum events. It's not like I chose to punch them. Determinism is the complete destruction of all morality. If there is no free will, there is no grounds whatsoever for condemning child molesters, genocidal dictators, or anyone else.

 

[Langdon Alger]

I like the definition "we could have done otherwise".

As we don't choose our thought processes (they just happen), we could not have done otherwise.

But our thought processes don't just happen. They're the result of the massive amount of computation and info processing and etc. that the brain is doing all the time. You're reducing the mind boggling amount of amazing shit our brains and sense organs are doing to something that "just happens"?

It is though. Whatever synapses in the brain are firing when that decision to buy a PS4 is made, are made of atoms, subatomic particles etc and their arrangement, structure, firing pattern etc are subject to the laws of physics. Those neurones will be arranged in a way that reflects the brains interpretation of information, perhaps the person saw a TV ad for Bloodborne which results in a 'buy a PS4' pathway being arranged within the brain that will be activated at the appropriate time.

The atoms and subatomic particles that make up our brains, and the structure, firing patterns and etc. of our brains are set up in such a way that making decisions becomes possible. Our brains are decision making machines, thats what they're "designed" to do. The laws of physics don't prohibit the building of a decision making machine, they make the building of a decision making machine possible.

 

[Two Words]

Not that it changes the way your neurons are mapped but that you are not a slave to a conditioned thought process. Are you arguing that we are not in control of our decisions?


Yes of course. I realize you were just explaining decision making from a quantum level.

But that's just saying we are spaces to both Newtonian and quantum physics.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

But that's just saying we are spaces to both Newtonian and quantum physics.

I don't follow.

 

[Two Words]

Of course I believe in free will. Neuroscience has done nothing to challenge it, and every claim that it has rests on tenuous, often unconscious and undefended, philosophical assumptions that are read into the data from neuroscience rather than read out of it.

Whenever someone tells me that they don't believe in free will, I always want to just punch them in the face. Just shatter their nose completely. After all, it would be utterly irrational for them to get mad at me for it. Either I was predestined to take that action from all eternity, or at best it was a result of truly random quantum events. It's not like I chose to punch them. Determinism is the complete destruction of all morality. If there is no free will, there is no grounds whatsoever for condemning child molesters, genocidal dictators, or anyone else.

His reaction to your battery would not be his choice. It would just be the already determined response. Just like how our reaction to murderers, rapists and thieves is simply a pre-determined response. Being aware of determinism doesn't break determinism. And you not liking the alleged results of it doesn't make it false.

 

[Timedog]

What is there to take a stand on? Nobody knows.

Neuroscience really isn't the field to give a definitive answer, its physics.

 

[Two Words]

I don't follow.

If you assume there is a random element to human thought that is caused by things like quantum mechanics, that is not us having free will. That is us being controlled by a random phenomena. There is nothing about the brain that is random.

 

[Two Words]

But our thought processes don't just happen. They're the result of the massive amount of computation and info processing and etc. that the brain is doing all the time. You're reducing the mind boggling amount of amazing shit our brains and sense organs are doing to something that "just happens"?




The atoms and subatomic particles that make up our brains, and the structure, firing patterns and etc. of our brains are set up in such a way that making decisions becomes possible. Our brains are decision making machines, thats what they're "designed" to do. The laws of physics don't prohibit the building of a decision making machine, they make the building of a decision making machine possible.

The most advanced pieces of AI also make decisions. They take in all sorts of data and do far more computations than we do. And yet, their choices are entirely deterministic. What do you point to in the brain that the computer lacks? Emotion? That is simply brain chemistry that is meant to stimulate you one way or another.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

If you assume there is a random element to human thought that is caused by things like quantum mechanics, that is not us having free will. That is us being controlled by a random phenomena. There is nothing about the brain that is random.

How is nothing in the brain random if everything in the universe is the result of random events?

 

[Foffy]

Of course I believe in free will. Neuroscience has done nothing to challenge it, and every claim that it has rests on tenuous, often unconscious and undefended, philosophical assumptions that are read into the data from neuroscience rather than read out of it.

Whenever someone tells me that they don't believe in free will, I always want to just punch them in the face. Just shatter their nose completely. After all, it would be utterly irrational for them to get mad at me for it. Either I was predestined to take that action from all eternity, or at best it was a result of truly random quantum events. It's not like I chose to punch them. Determinism is the complete destruction of all morality. If there is no free will, there is no grounds whatsoever for condemning child molesters, genocidal dictators, or anyone else.

This is such an elementary position to have, it's funny.

What a world of no free will means one very simple fact: there's no element of an outsider of any of the goings on. No creator myths and no separate self in your mind. What this does mean is that what happens in nature happens of itself, for it's linked to whatever else is going on, too. We can speak of the processes and influences therein, but there is no "one" absent of those events being the catalyst to actions.

A point about morality should also be this: it's bullshit. Morality is social conditioning and evocation onto the world, and just like free will and the separate self, it will only create problems by buying into its illusions than facing them plainly. All we can do is act and think from humanity, not morality: to understand what is, not to rank it as a plus or a minus. In doing so, all that can be done is to call out the acts that are affronts to reality, such as an ego image that infers everyone must dress like X and act like Y. To cite the example you brought up, the fact we handle pedophiles the way we do today is, quite literally, a problem of assuming isolated individuality and that one is a free agent. We're already handling this variation of human action in a botched way.

It appears to be very hard to get that nobody is ultimately responsible because nobody is ultimately isolated on the levels we incorrectly assert one is. This is a result of centuries of propaganda by religion and society that you are a separate agent, and there's just something about you that is beyond the influence of the happenings. Prove the separate agent in a non dualistic cosmos, otherwise all claims talking about it are Bronze Age fairy tales at this point.

 

[Two Words]

How is nothing in the brain random if everything in the universe is the result of random events?

Everything in the universe is not the result of random events. The universe is highly deterministic. Humans have spent the past few thousands of years of developing methods to demonstrate the deterministic nature of the universe. The current natural phenomena that appears random and has yet to be proven deterministic is quantum mechanics.

 

[Tertullian]

His reaction to your battery would not be his choice. It would just be the already determined response. Just like how our reaction to murderers, rapists and thieves is simply a pre-determined response. Being aware of determinism doesn't break determinism. And you not liking the alleged results of it doesn't make it false.

I did not say his reaction would be his choice. I said it would be irrational.

The problem with determinism is that it is directly contradicted by introspection, and there are no genuinely good arguments in its favor. Usually it is taken to be the necessary result of a bunch of materialist assumptions which are themselves rife with serious problems. Sometimes those materialist assumptions are read into neuroscience research, in such a way as to imply that neuroscience has proven determinism. But is has done no such thing, and it is the philosophic assumption that are doing the actual work in such arguments.

 

[Foffy]

I did not say his reaction would be his choice. I said it would be irrational.

The problem with determinism is that it is directly contradicted by introspection, and there are no genuinely good arguments in its favor. Usually it is taken to be the necessary result of a bunch of materialist assumptions which are themselves rife with serious problems. Sometimes those materialist assumptions are read into neuroscience research, in such a way as to imply that neuroscience has proven determinism. But is has done no such thing, and it is the philosophic assumption that are doing the actual work in such arguments.

How is it irrational when an organism will respond with action, experience, and influence? That has nothing to do with free will.

Free will assumes one has a choice, that one is absent of their influence. All you'd be doing in your example would be like hitting water and assuming it'd be irrational for it to ripple, to have a reaction.