|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 12, 2017 16:34:17 GMT
tpfkar It is in fact both, regardless of how irrelevant debating this particular jaunt is. It is poor because "slave" usually conveys an implication of coercion against one's conscious choice as opposed to a constituent of that decision-making. As in it takes something known and uncontroversial, that is we act according to our makeups and preferences, and attempts to leave the impression that we are controlled in the manner of the slave, or with your other analophor that we're really quite like our pocket calculators or a thermostat. Well, I think it's pretty clear about what we're disagreeing on, as in what's in any meaningful version of "free will" and whether certain things used by some as axioms have actually really been established. On what's in "free will", certainly not the demanded incoherency of choosing what one wants to choose to want to choose to want to choose..., ad infinitum. "The ability to choose and act according to our preferences and who we are."  I don't know what to tell you, other than I of course think this statement is utterly false, and perhaps maybe go grab some comfort food. If we knew what consciousness really was, that might be tenable as an assertion given it turned out to fit the facts. As it is the "automaton" dictum is actually pure speculation based on coarse comparisons to the actual human chattel and elaborate clockworks that we do know about in this life. And yes, further postulations and mights.  There are (at least) two conflated, although related tracks that have sprung in this thread. The nature of "free will" as exists or makes sense, and the nature and culpability of any being that would intentionally install a situation like the one we exist in. For me, the meaningful "free will" that we have in no way exonerates a being that created all, as he in fact had to have ultimately controlled or had the ability to control every aspect going into it, including what traits and preferences everybody and anybody gets, or just not be capable. But additionally, the fact that we like everything else are the result of "reasons" in no way diminishes that we are free to act according to who/what we are, what preferences we have, all steered by our consciousnesses, of which we don't really have a sound idea of how work or even what they really are. Conjecture is great, and ponderings on individual culpability and (over?)statement of implications and extrapolations of cause and effect can certainly be engaged in. Maybe one day we'll be able to map it all out, and maybe it will then show that we really are just glorified dippy birds. As of today, it still doesn't seem so.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 12, 2017 18:30:22 GMT
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. Well as I said the question comes from the premise that God exists. Of course no-one knows if God exists or not, at the end of the day it is a belief. I choose to interpret the universe as having a God, and I interpret that God mainly though the judeo-christian thought stream (which is what makes me a Christian  ). At the end of the day arguing whether God exists or not is a pointless exercise, there are very few people who will change their opinions, and there is no proof either way. The real fun is finding out how a belief in God, or lack thereof affects peoples lives. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 12, 2017 19:10:09 GMT
Even if you allow for quantum physics, our will is still entirely deterministic. Can you prove this? Randomness - which has yet to be demonstrated to exist, Heissenberg or no Heissenberg - only makes our will even more beyond our control. You don't need randomness. Have you heard of the Law of Attraction? I don't know if it's true; but if it were, then there may be influences between yourself and the outside world; possibly influencing non-deterministic processes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 20:13:37 GMT
We're free to act according to who/what we are and what preferences we have...but we're not free not to act in accordance to who or what we are and what preferences we have. And we're not free to possess different properties to guide our choices than those which it has already been determined that we will have. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 12, 2017 20:21:48 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 20:24:01 GMT
So if free will exists, how does that work then? You choose which thoughts to think before thinking them? Do you ingest water before drinking it? Do you put on clothes before getting dressed? The thoughts play a part in making a choice. Free will is the (perceived) ability to make choices. I have it, which I demonstrated here by choosing to reply to your post before having read the entire thread. The compatibilist definition is only the perceived ability to make choices, but the compatibilist also believes that there is only one possible choice for each scenario. Given that the full chain of causality leading up to that choice (and which will determine our decision in that moment) is opaque to us, we have the illusion that there are many different paths that we can take, and that the final decision springs forth from our will. But if we can't direct our thought processes before having the thoughts, then we are effectively only witnessing the decisions that our brain is predetermined to make (or makes randomly through some kind of quantum physics incoherency). We aren't directing our will at all, because in order to do so we would need to have an even more fundamental will with which to direct our will. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 12, 2017 20:25:00 GMT
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Jun 12, 2017 20:27:05 GMT
I never saw Erjen mention that to gagreel. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 12, 2017 20:28:33 GMT
tpfkar I'm happy for you kitten.
A black guy getting chicken?  |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 12, 2017 20:33:17 GMT
Do you ingest water before drinking it? Do you put on clothes before getting dressed? The thoughts play a part in making a choice. Free will is the (perceived) ability to make choices. I have it, which I demonstrated here by choosing to reply to your post before having read the entire thread. The compatibilist definition is only the perceived ability to make choices, but the compatibilist also believes that there is only one possible choice for each scenario. Given that the full chain of causality leading up to that choice (and which will determine our decision in that moment) is opaque to us, we have the illusion that there are many different paths that we can take, and that the final decision springs forth from our will. But if we can't direct our thought processes before having the thoughts, then we are effectively only witnessing the decisions that our brain is predetermined to make (or makes randomly through some kind of quantum physics incoherency). We aren't directing our will at all, because in order to do so we would need to have an even more fundamental will with which to direct our will. There is no empirical evidence that if you wind back the clock ten minute everything will turn out the same so how can you say such a thing? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 12, 2017 22:58:41 GMT
Erjen, gagreel is not a Christian because he follows the word of man. Remember the religioustolerance.org website? Yes, I remember, but he calls himself a Christian. Does that mean I can call myself an atheist?  Wow, taking advice from blade, talk about the blind leading the blind. Bear in mind that Blade was incapable of backing his stance during that conversation and merely attempted to poison the well. You can call yourself an atheist if you wish, but you would need to post in a manner that supported that, I call myself a Christian and the things I say support that, unless you can provide some evidence that things I say are categorically not Christian. Meantime, please by all means continue your circle jerk with the lying shit stain that is Blade. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 12, 2017 22:59:26 GMT
Actually Erjen is lying he has never called me out on linking to religious tolerance. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 12, 2017 23:20:47 GMT
|
|
squeaky
Freshman
@squeaky
Posts: 86
Likes: 14
|
Post by squeaky on Jun 13, 2017 0:20:15 GMT
Erjen talked to the Pope? You're even dumber than you are fat. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 13, 2017 0:35:32 GMT
tpfkar And yet you're going at the avatar of a celebrity. 
 : They know that yet they keep bringing it up...implying I had an interest in the children. It was an insult against the parent. The guy lived with his parents and I wondered how they all fit in the house at night when they slept. I wondered if some had to sleep in the garage or elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 13, 2017 0:36:35 GMT
Erjen talked to the Pope? You're even dumber than you are fat. Blade finally decided to use his real photo. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 1:27:08 GMT
The compatibilist definition is only the perceived ability to make choices, but the compatibilist also believes that there is only one possible choice for each scenario. Given that the full chain of causality leading up to that choice (and which will determine our decision in that moment) is opaque to us, we have the illusion that there are many different paths that we can take, and that the final decision springs forth from our will. But if we can't direct our thought processes before having the thoughts, then we are effectively only witnessing the decisions that our brain is predetermined to make (or makes randomly through some kind of quantum physics incoherency). We aren't directing our will at all, because in order to do so we would need to have an even more fundamental will with which to direct our will. There is no empirical evidence that if you wind back the clock ten minute everything will turn out the same so how can you say such a thing? Time travel to the past is impossible, so we could never have experimental proof. But to even imagine that the conscious actor would be have differently is impossible. For a start, you would at least need to introduce dualism - there would need to be some kind of ethereal force directing the brain to behave differently than it otherwise would have done, most probably one that would need to transcend time. Secondly, you would then need to explain the why the ethereal 'soul' was caused to choose differently the second time, but the whole point of the free will argument is that behaviour isn't constrained by causality, so once you'd found what caused the soul (or whatever you would call it) to choose the way it did you would have defeated the argument in favour of free will. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 13, 2017 2:10:34 GMT
tpfkar Everything is constrained by causality in one way or another. What sources the causes and reasons is another matter. And you yourself seem a bit the dualist as much as you are religious.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 13, 2017 2:16:43 GMT
tpfkar And we are part of that and intimately contributory to the process. Unadulterated conjecture + handwaving. Massive non sequitur. The thoughts are the direction. And it makes no sense that a "self" should need another "self" directing it ahead of time, except perhaps to the dualists, and even then no, as the self-self would need a self-self-self, and so on.
previously on free willy |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 4:08:32 GMT
We don't contribute to the process; our brain processes inputs and produces the only output it can from those strands of input. Or if the output is random due to quantum mechanics, then that also isn't attributable to 'free will'.
But we can't direct ourselves to think any thoughts other than the ones that we are predetermined to think. And of course dualism doesn't solve anything, because it leads to an infinite regress. That is why 'free will' in anything other than the compatibilist sense is logically impossible.
|
|
). At the end of the day arguing whether God exists or not is a pointless exercise, there are very few people who will change their opinions, and there is no proof either way.
