|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 16, 2017 20:46:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 16, 2017 21:47:18 GMT
The fact that free will doesn't exist doesn't mean that nothing causes anything. What you're describing has absolutely nothing to do with free will, it has to do with the fact that people are influenced by what happens around them, including other viewpoints to which they are exposed. The drive for reproduction is fundamental to animal nature, but unlike other mammals, humans are exposed to a wider range of inputs and have more complex brains to process these. Therefore, we're more likely to be able to prioritise other considerations over primal biological urges, in a way that doesn't require some kind of disembodied 'soul' floating around our heads. And if my position is irrational and logically inconsistent, then how come no free will proponents are ever able to describe even in the most rudimentary terms how free will functions and how we are able to distinguish freely willed actions from deterministic ones? Free will is the ability, perceived or real, to make choices. You believe in that ability. You just admitted it; otherwise you wouldn't hope that your antinatalist propaganda would influence people to make the choice you want them to make. Therefore, you believe in free will. In other words, you believe that atheists will be exposed to inputs that will make them choose to believe to be unable to make choices. Yeah, that makes sense. You are entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 16, 2017 23:40:21 GMT
tpfka
They don't. The fact that everything happened because of reasons has no consequential impact on free will. Our decision-making and choices are components and instruments in those events. Absolutely meaningful free will. Even you ascribe significance to your choosing to do certain things and not others before you careen back off the cuckoo cliff of working extra hard because nothing tried nor done can possibly make any difference whatsoever to the sacred scrolls. If all of the causes of our decision were things over which we had no conscious control, then that is not free will, that is a case of our will being determined by events. A brain is essentially a very complex organic computer. And Artificial Intelligence does in fact have decision making capacity. You don't deal with what we have; you follow your own preferred interpretation of conscious experience even though you can't explain how it works. We're legally accountable, as there are consequences for our actions. But not morally culpable, as any completed action was an inevitable one. It won't, because whatever I do is the only thing that I could have done. But I can recognise that whatever I inevitably do is going to be part of the inevitable outcome. A new development that ought to help you see the error of your ways is the sheer volume of inputs. There are too many to process them all. Choices have to be made without consulting all the inputs available. Before that though, the absurdity of arguing that things are so predictable when you can't predict them should have occurred to you by now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2017 2:03:37 GMT
The fact that free will doesn't exist doesn't mean that nothing causes anything. What you're describing has absolutely nothing to do with free will, it has to do with the fact that people are influenced by what happens around them, including other viewpoints to which they are exposed. The drive for reproduction is fundamental to animal nature, but unlike other mammals, humans are exposed to a wider range of inputs and have more complex brains to process these. Therefore, we're more likely to be able to prioritise other considerations over primal biological urges, in a way that doesn't require some kind of disembodied 'soul' floating around our heads. And if my position is irrational and logically inconsistent, then how come no free will proponents are ever able to describe even in the most rudimentary terms how free will functions and how we are able to distinguish freely willed actions from deterministic ones? Free will is the ability, perceived or real, to make choices. You believe in that ability. You just admitted it; otherwise you wouldn't hope that your antinatalist propaganda would influence people to make the choice you want them to make. Therefore, you believe in free will. 'Libertarian' free will is the alleged ability to make choices with no cause, and not necessarily in accordance with our nature. By that definition, free will would require that our will precedes the brain activity which creates thoughts. There is nothing in any of my posts which implies that I believe in such. I believe that we perceive the possibility of making any choice, but in fact only one choice at any given juncture is inevitable. I would like antinatalism to become one of the determining factors in how people choose. No, because a deterministic choice (even if the chooser perceived themselves to be able to make any choice in that moment) is not the same as a freely willed choice. A 'free will' choice is one where the will precedes the activity in the brain which effects that will. Which is logically as well as physically impossible.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 17, 2017 2:34:12 GMT
tpfkar Ifs, buts, candies, nuts. Allelu. I don't assert what is not known for morbid religious cause. And AI is a set of automated rules / algorithms and data. We know this because that's exactly what we put in there. It's coarse emulation of effect. That is an absurd position, as legality approximates morality. In any case, however we were forged, it is us making the moves. 'Recognizing" it and simultaneously thinking you can "try harder" is deranged. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 17, 2017 7:40:53 GMT
'Libertarian' free will is the alleged ability to make choices with no cause, and not necessarily in accordance with our nature. By that definition, free will would require that our will precedes the brain activity which creates thoughts. So we use different definitions of "free will". I don't believe in "libertarian" free will, in the sense you put it here. And I don't think we make choices against our nature. However, I believe that a fundamental part of our nature is the will to survive, and to propagate life. Therefore, antinatalism is not in accordance with our nature. Since, as mentioned above, antinatalism goes against our nature, humanity will only adopt an antinatalist position if humans have libertarian free will. In other words, You pretend to not believe in libertarian free will, yet you would like humanity to adopt a position that needs libertarian free will. In my opinion that's an irrational position.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 18, 2017 14:21:06 GMT
tpfkar You don't have to be a "robot" to not have the qualities like savage rapaciousness. God can obviously make people both with free will and without those nasty inclinations, as there've been countless that supposedly made into heaven. If that mean's we'll be together i don't mind
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 18:44:21 GMT
'Libertarian' free will is the alleged ability to make choices with no cause, and not necessarily in accordance with our nature. By that definition, free will would require that our will precedes the brain activity which creates thoughts. So we use different definitions of "free will". I don't believe in "libertarian" free will, in the sense you put it here. And I don't think we make choices against our nature. However, I believe that a fundamental part of our nature is the will to survive, and to propagate life. Therefore, antinatalism is not in accordance with our nature. Since, as mentioned above, antinatalism goes against our nature, humanity will only adopt an antinatalist position if humans have libertarian free will. In other words, You pretend to not believe in libertarian free will, yet you would like humanity to adopt a position that needs libertarian free will. In my opinion that's an irrational position. Antinatalism is contrary to our basic instincts; but we can overcome our basic instincts without magic. I'm an antinatalist, and I don't have any super powers to enable me to think and act contrary to my nature. So given that you also do not believe in libertarian free will, I've just thrown out your notion that being an antinatalist requires libertarian free will. Obviously, I don't have great hopes in converting everyone to a position that is contrary to their baser instincts, but what I do want to do is give the philosophy exposure, so that it can be at least something that people think about (even if they go on to reject it).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 20, 2017 19:34:52 GMT
|
|