|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 12, 2017 9:03:21 GMT
I know you meant that as a smartass remark, but perhaps you're accidentally right. Almost certainly, man. You're basically Clear Level 5. Just awaiting the mother ship. Who the hell knew Youtube would end up being such a transcendental gateway? Anyway... remember us little people. Is that really the best you could do? Weak. 2/10, tops. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 12, 2017 9:06:55 GMT
No, you're not getting it. And you're saying that whichever one somebody picks, the choice was something beyond that person's control. This is correct, and demonstrably true. None of us was ever in a position to choose one's own personality. This is not correct. You are still accountable for your actions. If there's something wrong with my car, the car is still what needs to be fixed - doesn't matter that the car is blameless. Imagine if I rammed the car in front of me because I was driving too close to his tail, and I wasn't paying attention when he hit the brakes. Imagine I then take the car to the mechanic, and instead of fixing my car he beats me up. "That'll teach you." Well, maybe that will teach me, but it didn't do much good for my car, did it? Similarly, if someone commits a crime, it is because of the conditions in which he had been raised. Conditions beyond his control. Society is ultimately to blame, but it is still the individual what needs fixing. So while the criminal may not be to blame for his personality, he still needs to be held accountable for it. We never decide to want anything. Doesn't work that way. You may try to tell yourself, "I want this!" But it's not going to make you want it. If people could simply decide what to want, then everybody would be in tip top shape because they would simply decide to like healthy food and exercise, and decide to hate unhealthy foods and pastimes. There wouldn't be any infidelity either, because people would simply decide that their significant other was enough in every respect. Absolutely not. I would love to love the sweat and toil, but I simply don't. It isn't subject to decisions at all. Do you like strawberries? Why? Or why not? Can you choose to change your mind? Can you choose the flavour, or how your brain reacts to it? Not in the slightest. If you say you can, you lie. Strawberries I can take or leave, and tastes in food are an even poorer analogy than the ants or Skynet. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 9:20:59 GMT
This is correct, and demonstrably true. None of us was ever in a position to choose one's own personality. This is not correct. You are still accountable for your actions. If there's something wrong with my car, the car is still what needs to be fixed - doesn't matter that the car is blameless. Imagine if I rammed the car in front of me because I was driving too close to his tail, and I wasn't paying attention when he hit the brakes. Imagine I then take the car to the mechanic, and instead of fixing my car he beats me up. "That'll teach you." Well, maybe that will teach me, but it didn't do much good for my car, did it? Similarly, if someone commits a crime, it is because of the conditions in which he had been raised. Conditions beyond his control. Society is ultimately to blame, but it is still the individual what needs fixing. So while the criminal may not be to blame for his personality, he still needs to be held accountable for it. We never decide to want anything. Doesn't work that way. You may try to tell yourself, "I want this!" But it's not going to make you want it. If people could simply decide what to want, then everybody would be in tip top shape because they would simply decide to like healthy food and exercise, and decide to hate unhealthy foods and pastimes. There wouldn't be any infidelity either, because people would simply decide that their significant other was enough in every respect. Absolutely not. I would love to love the sweat and toil, but I simply don't. It isn't subject to decisions at all. Do you like strawberries? Why? Or why not? Can you choose to change your mind? Can you choose the flavour, or how your brain reacts to it? Not in the slightest. If you say you can, you lie. Strawberries I can take or leave, and tastes in food are an even poorer analogy than the ants or Skynet. Not at all - because foods taste good or bad (or someplace inbetween), according to the individual. And while tastes may be acquired, it is not a matter of choice. Everything you choose - absolutely everything - is based on what you already want. And you have yet to answer who is responsible, in either the ant tank or the Skynet scenario. Something tells me you wouldn't blame the ants, nor would you blame Skynet, but you are afraid to admit as much because you realize your cognitive dissonanse would then become apparent. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 12, 2017 9:26:09 GMT
Strawberries I can take or leave, and tastes in food are an even poorer analogy than the ants or Skynet. Not at all - because foods taste good or bad (or someplace inbetween), according to the individual. And while tastes may be acquired, it is not a matter of choice. Everything you choose - absolutely everything - is based on what you already want. And you have yet to answer who is responsible, in either the ant tank or the Skynet scenario. Something tells me you wouldn't blame the ants, nor would you blame Skynet, but you are afraid to admit as much because you realize your cognitive dissonanse would then become apparent. Something tells you? What could that possibly be telling you, as knowledgeable as you are? If something has to tell you, then evidently you don't have it all nailed down yet. You simply convince yourself of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 9:36:18 GMT
Not at all - because foods taste good or bad (or someplace inbetween), according to the individual. And while tastes may be acquired, it is not a matter of choice. Everything you choose - absolutely everything - is based on what you already want. And you have yet to answer who is responsible, in either the ant tank or the Skynet scenario. Something tells me you wouldn't blame the ants, nor would you blame Skynet, but you are afraid to admit as much because you realize your cognitive dissonanse would then become apparent. Something tells you? What could that possibly be telling you, as knowledgeable as you are? If something has to tell you, then evidently you don't have it all nailed down yet. You simply convince yourself of it. Your dodging is what tells me. I do not claim certain knowdlegdge. Just like I don't believe I will be killed in traffic today - but there's always a chance. I cannot say for certain that I won't. So I haven't convinced myself of anything, but your persistent evasion is indeed suspicious. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 12, 2017 9:38:40 GMT
People in this thread are arguing about semantics disguised as some ontological difference in their theories.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 12, 2017 9:40:52 GMT
Something tells you? What could that possibly be telling you, as knowledgeable as you are? If something has to tell you, then evidently you don't have it all nailed down yet. You simply convince yourself of it. Your dodging is what tells me. I do not claim certain knowdlegdge. Just like I don't believe I will be killed in traffic today - but there's always a chance. I cannot say for certain that I won't. So I haven't convinced myself of anything, but your persistent evasion is indeed suspicious. A refusal to accept your bullshit =/= evasion. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 9:45:13 GMT
Your dodging is what tells me. I do not claim certain knowdlegdge. Just like I don't believe I will be killed in traffic today - but there's always a chance. I cannot say for certain that I won't. So I haven't convinced myself of anything, but your persistent evasion is indeed suspicious. A refusal to accept your bullshit =/= evasion. A refusal to answer simple questions = evasion. Misrepresenting what you and I have been doing = strawman. Otherwise known as bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 12, 2017 9:50:00 GMT
A refusal to accept your bullshit =/= evasion. A refusal to answer simple questions = evasion. Misrepresenting what you and I have been doing = strawman. Otherwise known as bullshit. Whatever you have to tell yourself, Karl.  |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 9:57:06 GMT
A refusal to answer simple questions = evasion. Misrepresenting what you and I have been doing = strawman. Otherwise known as bullshit. Whatever you have to tell yourself, Karl. Why are you even posting? Are you trying to convince yourself? Because your rhetoric isn't doing your argument any favours from anyone else's view. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 12, 2017 10:37:02 GMT
Not at all - because foods taste good or bad (or someplace inbetween), according to the individual. And while tastes may be acquired, it is not a matter of choice. Everything you choose - absolutely everything - is based on what you already want. And you have yet to answer who is responsible, in either the ant tank or the Skynet scenario. Nope. You may not be able to choose whether you like strawberries or not; but you can still choose whether to eat them or not. The ability to choose between satisfying a desire and not satisfying it is not taken from you. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 11:00:46 GMT
Not at all - because foods taste good or bad (or someplace inbetween), according to the individual. And while tastes may be acquired, it is not a matter of choice. Everything you choose - absolutely everything - is based on what you already want. And you have yet to answer who is responsible, in either the ant tank or the Skynet scenario. Nope. You may not be able to choose whether you like strawberries or not; but you can still choose whether to eat them or not. The ability to choose between satisfying a desire and not satisfying it is not taken from you. You have the ability to choose, sure - but you are always going to choose the more preferable option according to your personality. Go back in time and change nothing, and you will make the exact same choices, every time, with 100% accuracy. There is a reason we choose the way we do, for every choice we make (even if it isn't always clear what those reasons are, even to ourselves). These reasons are beyond our control. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 12, 2017 11:10:12 GMT
Nope. You may not be able to choose whether you like strawberries or not; but you can still choose whether to eat them or not. The ability to choose between satisfying a desire and not satisfying it is not taken from you. Go back in time and change nothing, and you will make the exact same choices, every time, with 100% accuracy. There is no way to investigate that empirically and no logical argumentation to prove that is the case. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 12, 2017 11:14:11 GMT
tpfkar Nor would that be remarkable. Not that it is even necessarily possible, but in the hypothetical. Everything we do is by definition because we preferred to do it. "Free will" doesn't require incoherencies like expecting an exact being with exactly the same properties, time etc., to arbitrarily make different/random choices. "Free will" founded on deranged behaviour is a useless version of free will indeed. There is a reason for everything that happens, again nothing remarkable about that. Having "reasons", i.e. "existing" does not in any way preclude it being free will. Not having reasons would make it, colloquially, insanity.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong? |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 11:28:30 GMT
tpfkar Nor would that be remarkable. Not that it is even necessarily possible, but in the hypothetical. Everything we do is by definition because we preferred to do it. "Free will" doesn't require incoherencies like expecting an exact being with exactly the same properties, time etc., to arbitrarily make different/random choices. "Free will" founded on deranged behaviour is a useless version of free will indeed. There is a reason for everything that happens, again nothing remarkable about that. Having "reasons", i.e. "existing" does not in any way preclude it being free will. Not having reasons would make it, colloquially, insanity.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Free will, in the philosophical sense, is juxtaposed determinism. The classic argument, to which Erjen subscribes, is that "if not for free will, we would be automatons". And indeed, we are like extremely sophisticated automatons, as it is all basically input-output. And now Erjen will object, "no no no, each man is a free agent". But the freedom he believes we have, which conforms to the classic argument of free will, does not and cannot exist. Even if we allow for quantum physics, which suggests that some things may indeed be completely random, it doesn't help the free will argument. Randomness does not make our wills any more free, we are still slaves to the process rather than masters of it. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 12, 2017 11:43:12 GMT
tpfkar There are multiple conflicting meanings of "free will" in the philosophical sense. I think calling us "extremely sophisticated automatons" is both simply overstatement and not at all known. Shoehorning "free will" to something that is both incoherent and meaningless, as well as employing poor analogies of the form "slaves to the process", doesn't really say anything, and is not going to convince any real theist anywhere of anything. We don't understand consciousness, what "free will" is founded upon, or even really know what it is, so reasoning (and asserting as so) all of these things because we've observed that physical reactions in the macro always go the same way for as identical states/preconditions as we can manage to set up, is quite the overreach.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong? |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 12, 2017 12:42:36 GMT
You have the ability to choose, sure - but you are always going to choose the more preferable option according to your personality. Go back in time and change nothing, and you will make the exact same choices, every time, with 100% accuracy. This would be true, if the Universe was totally deterministic. As far as I know, it isn't. Therefore, unless you can prove your claim, it's nothing more than your personal unscientific opinion. And since time travel backwards is not possible, it will stay that way; unless total determinism is proven. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 14:56:11 GMT
You have the ability to choose, sure - but you are always going to choose the more preferable option according to your personality. Go back in time and change nothing, and you will make the exact same choices, every time, with 100% accuracy. This would be true, if the Universe was totally deterministic. As far as I know, it isn't. Therefore, unless you can prove your claim, it's nothing more than your personal unscientific opinion. And since time travel backwards is not possible, it will stay that way; unless total determinism is proven. Even if you allow for quantum physics, our will is still entirely deterministic. Randomness - which has yet to be demonstrated to exist, Heissenberg or no Heissenberg - only makes our will even more beyond our control. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 15:07:21 GMT
tpfkar There are multiple conflicting meanings of "free will" in the philosophical sense. I think calling us "extremely sophisticated automatons" is both simply overstatement and not at all known. Shoehorning "free will" to something that is both incoherent and meaningless, as well as employing poor analogies of the form "slaves to the process", doesn't really say anything, and is not going to convince any real theist anywhere of anything. "Slaves to the process" is a metaphor, not an analogy. Not sure how you made it out to be an analogy, much less a poor one. I am also not sure how you find that this metaphor doesn't say anything. You say so, but as far as I can see, I was quite clear. Your response leaves me with very little to say, ironically because you haven't said anything. You seem to be having issues with how I have defined "free will", and I think it would be helpful if you offered up what definition you are discussing. Unless you are simply baiting me - you keep disagreeing with me without actually offering any points of disagreement. Yes, I thought you meant "understatement". But consciousness does not contradict automation. It has been postulated that if we were able to create artificial intelligence of sufficient capacity, it might become conscious and self-aware. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 15:45:38 GMT
It shouldn't be about convincing others, but the questions are a way for actually challenging your flawed way of thinking and seeing other perspectives. By saying "oh just ask God" its like another way of saying "I give up in this conversation because I can't think for myself" It's the perfect example of using God as an answer to explain something you don't know… and sadly somehow people buy that answer I dont agree in the context, the question was asked in the reverse, it had the premise that God existed and was responsible for the 'bad things and suffering' that are suffered. Most Christians are forced to conclude that this is somehow part of the master plan and beyond our comprehension, but this is not the same as saying I don't know why the sun rises, God must have done it, it is simply acknowledging that if there is a grand plan, chances are very high that it's intricacies are beyond us. To be fair I do not think that the answer that God must have a good reason is a good one, and at the end of the day I am not sure why there is suffering, it is one of the harder things to reconcile as a Christian. I think its hard to reconcile for anyone.. but I think the idea of suffering is easier for a Christian to reconcile with because of the belief in God. And you even said that Christians put their trust into a being that supposedly has a grand plan for them.. so they accept suffering based on that concept and think that's good enough answer. I think the real question which obviously no one can answer is always "how do you even know God exists?" its makes this whole argument totally worthless. |
|
