|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 8, 2018 19:52:23 GMT
tpfkar Sure, I understand you choose to work really hard to get people to choose to change, while simultaneously holding no real choice actually exists. Or as you allude, you know that's kind of way out there, but your hands are doing what they were destined to do since (before?) (the beginning of?) time, regardless of what your brain might be asking of them. As far as "hijacking", you make an assertion, I can disagree with it. Probably will for any I find to be particularly funny.  Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Alright, well I don't understand what you consider to be different about the way decisions get made compared to how I think about decisions come to be made. Merely that your way contains 'free will', which seemingly cannot be isolated from the deterministic process that I've outlined. I don't think that you understand either. I know you don't understand "much", not even you own mind.  It comes down to you fielding "deterministic" to impute some magic upon the non-remarkable cause & effect, of which we're all a constituent part of. "Free will", for anyone without tendentious purpose just means that we do what we choose according to our desires and our characteristics. You just think you can field "deterministic yields no free will", for your purposeful, incoherent definition of free will, as you say as a weapon against religion, even though you behave completely irrationally for someone who actually believes no real choice exists. We're the product of our inputs and our doings, as is easily known by the minimally competent and noncontroversial for all not trying to work something out of it. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|