|
|
Post by permutojoe on Jul 2, 2017 14:51:55 GMT
"With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear."
Didn't he dance around to "Stuck in the Middle With You" first?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2017 19:09:56 GMT
Semantics, swiftie. You're asking me to prove we don't have things chosen for us. You've asserted that free will is an illusion. The biggest actual evidence we have is what we experience in our heads, in fact everything else is based upon it. It's the starting point, and your grim amateur hour stuff hasn't even given the idea pause. Seriously, you think a bit like a child, albeit a goth one. I'm asking you to explain why what I've proposed as the most parsimonious (Occam's Razor) explanation for our decisions is not adequate to explain our decision making. And I haven't stated that we have things chosen for us; because we do make choices. It's just that the choices we make are the only ones that we can make. And it's amusing that you believe that I think like a child, given that the thousands of words that you have dedicated in defence of free will can be synopsised as " I wan' it. I WAN' IT. I WAAAN' ITTTT!!!!" It's only the baseline in the same way that God is the baseline. The fact that it is something popularly believed in does not make it the default belief. But if your will is formed of thoughts and your thoughts precede your will, then how can your will be free from determinism? I think that you don't know what your position is. When you describe what free will is, it's virtually identical to so-called 'compatibilist free will'. Then you say that isn't what you mean and that you believe in indeterministic free will even though we do not choose our own nature and preferences. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 2, 2017 19:11:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 2, 2017 19:22:23 GMT
tpfkar @miccee said:Because "it's an illusion" is no explanation at all. Illusions fool intelligent agents, they don't explain them. You can't say we make choices but it's all just an illusion. You're just redefining words to suit your morbid passion.  I'll just chuckle at your further ongoing ironic intensity. God was not a baseline; gods are what people made up as explanation. Free will is the existing thing we experience that you're making up an explanation for, a magical illusion. I'm happy to wait for us to break it down as we're able, as much as we're able. But then I don't fervently need a specific outcome.  I just like things to make sense. As you often demonstrate, thoughts can be pure gibberish as well. I think that much like Ada anything convenient to you is what you both believe and freely pose. You're a liar.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 19:32:42 GMT
tpfkar @miccee said:Because "it's an illusion" is no explanation at all. Illusions fool intelligent agents, they don't explain them. The explanation is that we aren't able to observe the processes that lead up to a decision, and the chain of causality becomes increasingly opaque to us the further back into the past we look. When we drop a ceramic mug on to a hard tiled surface, we know that it is going to break into pieces. The fact that we weren't able to predict before hand what the shape and size of the broken pieces would be is not evidence that the breaking of the cup was a random event. And if the broken pieces could be glued back together, they would be able to be made to form the shape of the cup that was dropped; but not a feather boa or a Boeing 747. With decisions, it works the same way. Just because we have incomplete information to be able to predict how someone will decide, it does not mean that the decision was magic, or that it was anything more than the product of all the inputs that went into the decision. Our brain makes choices, but there is only one choice at any specific juncture that it is able to make. That doesn't change the fact that the brain does produce the decision, but it does mean that "free will" is ruled out. "Free will" is what humans have made up as an explanation for our conscious decision making capacity. We aren't "experiencing free will", we are only experiencing the processes whereby our brain makes a decision. Because of ignorance and a desire to feel in control, most people interpret conscious decision making as the exercise of "free will". You're no more experiencing free will than a Christian is experiencing God's love. Both claims have equal evidence, except in the case of free will, the claim is logically disproven. Then how about you cite a philosopher who shares exactly the same view of free will that you have. Post the quote and link here, and then we will both know what your position is and how that aligns with compatibilism or libertarianism. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 6, 2017 20:12:24 GMT
tpfkar @miccee said:Such a massive non sequitur of nothing, meaning nothing. But you keep working with random and magic all you like. Also, be an amigo and maybe share some of those psychotropics. Means nothing of the sort, regardless of your slanted definitions and devotion to incoherencies. Some ponder over implications, while others readily assert inanities for morbid motive, buttressed by ludicrous exaggeration, casual misrepresentation and positively silly black-is-white redefinition. All for their love of religiosity, albeit a direct worship of death for all for the paradise of Nihility rather than Yahweh. We all have the shared experiences of agency and making choices, and making things go differently according to our wants and actions. Your simply frightfully poor comparison of that with "God" just again demonstrates the absurdities that some go for cause. God is in fact something not seen nor directly experienced, much like the "just an illusion assertion", to try to explain what is seen as something else - be it the sun rising/setting, life, death complexities, making choices, etc. "Free will" is what we live and experience every minute of every day of our lives. "It's an illusion" the neutered handwave that could be used on anything, simply "mysterious ways" again. Why would I want to do that? In any case it would have nothing to do with the free lying you engage in and did again engage in, in the paragraph it answered.
And they shouldn't be expected to pay the price of everyone else's joy. Especially if nobody would be deprived of that joy in a universe with no sentient life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 20:57:27 GMT
Ah ok, but what then do you make of prophecy? Is it fallible? The point of prophecy in the OT was often to get the Israelites to change their behavior. It was God's way of saying that bad things will happen if you don't move in a new direction. It wasn't always a unilateral "this will happen no matter what" statement (though it was often phrased as such). As it relates to your OP, Jesus was submitting to the will of the Father. But he certainly had the authority to call on the legions of angels. However, he knew what the plan was, so he went along with it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2017 5:26:55 GMT
tpfkar @miccee said: Such a massive non sequitur of nothing, meaning nothing. But you keep working with random and magic all you like. Also, be an amigo and maybe share some of those psychotropics. I have nothing to share other than real, logical, hard-nosed, no-nonsense secularism. Anathema to your mystical godless version of Christianity. If you piece together a broken teapot, you don't end up with anything more than the pieces you've glued together (plus whatever glue or material you have used to join the pieces together). And when a decision is made, it is nothing more than a product of the constituent parts which went in to the decision; none of which the decision maker chose or had control over. Incoherency is claiming that our decisions have causes, but yet are fundamentally 'free' in some way. Free will is an interpretation of conscious experience. God's love is an interpretation of the sense of wellbeing that one might gain from engaging in ritualistic activity. "Free will" is an interpretation of those experiences, and one that is ostensibly a product of limited perspective, combined with the desire to feel in control of our own destiny. And I've explained that the real explanation is just the same explanation that can be used to account for all the other macroscopic physical phenomena that are seen to occur. It's not "mysterious ways" at all. It's putting human decision making into the same category as other physical phenomena; rather than trying to create a nebulously defined special category for it. The purpose of doing it (for anyone intellectually honest) would be to verify, for your own edification, whether there are credible philosophers who espouses the same definition of free will that you have set out. If there aren't any, and you are going out on a limb, this might alert you to an error in your reasoning and enable you to change course in that case. But it's apparent that you're more eager just to cling on to "free will" at any cost, even if means that you don't really understand what you mean by that. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 6, 2017 5:43:47 GMT
tpfkar Such a massive non sequitur of nothing, meaning nothing. But you keep working with random and magic all you like. Also, be an amigo and maybe share some of those psychotropics. I have nothing to share other than real, logical, hard-nosed, no-nonsense secularism. Anathema to your mystical godless version of Christianity. If you piece together a broken teapot, you don't end up with anything more than the pieces you've glued together (plus whatever glue or material you have used to join the pieces together). And when a decision is made, it is nothing more than a product of the constituent parts which went in to the decision; none of which the decision maker chose or had control over. Deranged death-cult of illogic, you mean. Of the kind where all is pre-writ yet you just must work furiously to change the the unchargeable, and people procreating is an attack on offspring. As for the teapot silliness, of course, if you undo whatever you did perfectly, then you'll end up with whatever you started with. To do that you have to first either understand what goes into it, or trial-and-error it with a lot of brains, I mean teapots. If you don't understand glue, or glassmaking or ceramics, then it's a moot point, because you're just pontificating oversimplifications you are clueless about, for a cause - in your case your comically bumbling lunges at your competitor-faiths. And of course the brain actually makes the decision. The only way it could be with meaningful free will.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 6, 2017 5:56:44 GMT
I have nothing to share other than real, logical, hard-nosed, no-nonsense secularism. Anathema to your mystical godless version of Christianity. If you piece together a broken teapot, you don't end up with anything more than the pieces you've glued together (plus whatever glue or material you have used to join the pieces together). And when a decision is made, it is nothing more than a product of the constituent parts which went in to the decision; none of which the decision maker chose or had control over. Deranged death-cult of illogic, you mean. Of the kind where all is pre-writ yet you just must work furiously to change the the unchargeable, and people procreating is an attack on offspring. As for the teapot silliness, of course, if you undo whatever you did perfectly, then you'll end up with whatever you started with. To do that you have to first either understand what goes into it, or trial-and-error it with a lot of brains, I mean teapots. If you don't understand glue, or glassmaking or ceramics, then it's a moot point, because you're just pontification oversimplifications you are clueless about for a cause - in your case your comically bumbling lunges at your competitor-faiths. And of course the brain actually makes the decision. The only way it could be with meaningful free will.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.What a load of crap.  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 6, 2017 6:00:25 GMT
tpfkar Deranged death-cult of illogic, you mean. Of the kind where all is pre-writ yet you just must work furiously to change the the unchargeable, and people procreating is an attack on offspring. As for the teapot silliness, of course, if you undo whatever you did perfectly, then you'll end up with whatever you started with. To do that you have to first either understand what goes into it, or trial-and-error it with a lot of brains, I mean teapots. If you don't understand glue, or glassmaking or ceramics, then it's a moot point, because you're just pontification oversimplifications you are clueless about for a cause - in your case your comically bumbling lunges at your competitor-faiths. And of course the brain actually makes the decision. The only way it could be with meaningful free will. What a load of crap. The way you're drinking you'll soon need to check your drawers for it.
You're getting desperate when you play the "no logical reason" card. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 8, 2017 14:26:05 GMT
tpfkar to @miccee at Aug 6, 2017 0:26:55 GMT -500"Free" as in the only way most people have ever cared about it. Free to do what we choose as pleases us according to our tastes & traits, as opposed to being forced by some other. The "cause" is us, regardless of how we came to be who we are. "Free will" is notation for what we exercise and experience. Straw-incoherencies for free will are the interpretations of one who seeks to use distortion and misrepresentation in service to arguing against other faiths rivaling his own ritualistic death cult. Your "ostensibly"'s mean absolutely nothing. Put in the mildest possible terms your silly assertions are thoroughly premature even when setting aside the fact that they are driven by your great wish for it to go away in order to facilitate your incapable lunges at other religions. We live it, and the phenomenon isn't more than coarsely defined, much less it's mechanisms explained. Regardless of the hand waves of admitted zealots. As you are about as far distant from "intellectual honesty" as you are from personal happiness, your reference to it is a bit of a black giggle. For every philosopher going one way you can find several going contrary. Nor do I care to entertain diversionary appeals to philosophical terms people use slightly to widely differently and with political heat attached according to disingenuously peddled specific agendas. If you can't articulate without punting to one vs. the other philosopher or arbitrary definitions you abuse, I can't help you.
And they shouldn't be expected to pay the price of everyone else's joy. Especially if nobody would be deprived of that joy in a universe with no sentient life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 20:15:44 GMT
That seems exactly the same as the definition proposed by 'compatibilists', who do believe in hard determinism. But you've stated that you believe that free will is indeterministic; correct? In that case, let us suppose that your definition of "free will" represents the reality that we have in this universe. OK now, let's imagine a parallel universe which is physically identical to ours, with the exception that the inhabits possess only plain ordinary "will" which is fully constrained by determinism. What differences would you expect to observe between the behaviour of the people in the 'free will' universe, and the behaviour of those in the 'ordinary will' universe? Would you expect the inhabitants of 'ordinary will' universe not to act in accordance to their preferences, tastes and traits at times when they are not being coerced by another agent? "Free will" is one interpretation of subjective conscious experience; but the same experience seems to be well explained by determinism as well, and without the need for positing unexplained and ill-defined phenomena. If there are so many diverse philosophical views on the matter, then there should be no difficulty in finding a well known and respected philosopher whose views on the subject align with yours. The only reason I've asked for it is because I don't think that you would honestly be able to find such a source. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 9, 2017 21:02:32 GMT
tpfkar to @miccee at Aug 6, 2017 0:26:55 GMT -500Don't care about what you think sounds like what politically charged definition you attempt to misuse. As here, when you say "hard determinism" in one breath, and then follow up with the more vague "indeterministic". I haven't asserted anything about free will and determinism. Although I have pointed out that it is a trivial truth that everything has causes. I don't know what "plain ordinary" will is, other than you trying to fabricate significance out of nothing with leading / misleading adjectives. "Free will" is notation for what we exercise and experience constantly. We make choices and act according to our traits and tastes. I'm not interested in nor looking for a philosopher of any kind to have views that align with mine.
And they shouldn't be expected to pay the price of everyone else's joy. Especially if nobody would be deprived of that joy in a universe with no sentient life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 20:01:08 GMT
You have free will to do what God wants or burn in hell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 0:35:47 GMT
tpfkar to @miccee at Aug 6, 2017 0:26:55 GMT -500Don't care about what you think sounds like what politically charged definition you attempt to misuse. As here, when you say "hard determinism" in one breath, and then follow up with the more vague "indeterministic". I haven't asserted anything about free will and determinism. Although I have pointed out that it is a trivial truth that everything has causes. I don't know what "plain ordinary" will is, other than you trying to fabricate significance out of nothing with leading / misleading adjectives. "Free will" is notation for what we exercise and experience constantly. We make choices and act according to our traits and tastes. I'm not interested in nor looking for a philosopher of any kind to have views that align with mine.
And they shouldn't be expected to pay the price of everyone else's joy. Especially if nobody would be deprived of that joy in a universe with no sentient life.You most certainly have vehemently asserted that you do not believe that our 'will' is fully determined. Previously you have denounced the ideas of compatibilist philosophers such as Daniel Dennett (saying that those ideas reduce us to 'clocks', 'adding machines', 'glorified dippy birds' etc. But I can't see what the difference is between what you're saying now and what the compatibilists espouse. Could you enlighten me as to the difference? "Plain ordinary will" would just be will that is not free, but which is constrained by causality and/or randomness. I wouldn't consider 'compatibilist free will' to be free except in a very narrow sense. And you're not looking for a philosopher who has views similar to yours, because you don't wish to test whether your beliefs seem sensible or coherent to others. Much like how theists will seek an echo chamber in order to avoid testing their faith. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 30, 2017 0:53:31 GMT
tpfkar Don't care about what you think sounds like what politically charged definition you attempt to misuse. As here, when you say "hard determinism" in one breath, and then follow up with the more vague "indeterministic". I haven't asserted anything about free will and determinism. Although I have pointed out that it is a trivial truth that everything has causes. I don't know what "plain ordinary" will is, other than you trying to fabricate significance out of nothing with leading / misleading adjectives. "Free will" is notation for what we exercise and experience constantly. We make choices and act according to our traits and tastes. I'm not interested in nor looking for a philosopher of any kind to have views that align with mine. You most certainly have vehemently asserted that you do not believe that our 'will' is fully determined. Previously you have denounced the ideas of compatibilist philosophers such as Daniel Dennett (saying that those ideas reduce us to 'clocks', 'adding machines', 'glorified dippy birds' etc. But I can't see what the difference is between what you're saying now and what the compatibilists espouse. Could you enlighten me as to the difference? "Plain ordinary will" would just be will that is not free, but which is constrained by causality and/or randomness. I wouldn't consider 'compatibilist free will' to be free except in a very narrow sense. And you're not looking for a philosopher who has views similar to yours, because you don't wish to test whether your beliefs seem sensible or coherent to others. Much like how theists will seek an echo chamber in order to avoid testing their faith. I said I don't know, depends on what is "determinism" and more, don't know what matters. Of course everything has causes. Of course you're still thoroughly confused in your morbid theistic goals. I've of course never did any of what you've just outright lied-posted about "Dennet" of "compatibilists", or whatever else you're trying to emotionally slant in your anti-humanity humancidal goals. All there is is the free will of us making choices based on what we are. "Plain ordinary will" is more inane morbid goop you try to leverage for morbid political purpose. And I don't care what the lugubrious moaner asserts again, out of his arse, just because he wants to as he squeals for universal death for all sentient life. Making choices based on what we are is what is and is the only free will that makes sense. Sorry that doesn't line up with your particular disease.
And they shouldn't be expected to pay the price of everyone else's joy. Especially if nobody would be deprived of that joy in a universe with no sentient life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 1:17:19 GMT
You most certainly have vehemently asserted that you do not believe that our 'will' is fully determined. Previously you have denounced the ideas of compatibilist philosophers such as Daniel Dennett (saying that those ideas reduce us to 'clocks', 'adding machines', 'glorified dippy birds' etc. But I can't see what the difference is between what you're saying now and what the compatibilists espouse. Could you enlighten me as to the difference? "Plain ordinary will" would just be will that is not free, but which is constrained by causality and/or randomness. I wouldn't consider 'compatibilist free will' to be free except in a very narrow sense. And you're not looking for a philosopher who has views similar to yours, because you don't wish to test whether your beliefs seem sensible or coherent to others. Much like how theists will seek an echo chamber in order to avoid testing their faith. I said I don't know, depends on what is "determinism" and more, don't know what matters. Of course everything has causes. Of course you're still thoroughly confused in your morbid theistic goals. I've of course never did any of what you've just outright lied-posted about "Dennet" of "compatibilists", or whatever else you're trying to emotionally slant in your anti-humanity humancidal goals. All there is is the free will of us making choices based on what we are. "Plain ordinary will" is more inane morbid goop you try to leverage for morbid political purpose. And I don't care what the lugubrious moaner asserts again, out of his arse, just because he wants to as he squeals for universal death for all sentient life. Making choices based on what we are is what is and is the only free will that makes sense. Sorry that doesn't line up with your particular disease.
And they shouldn't be expected to pay the price of everyone else's joy. Especially if nobody would be deprived of that joy in a universe with no sentient life.An ant can make choices according to its desires and its genetic programming (e.g. what it is), but most would not ascribe free will to the ant. The only meaningful free will involves not being beholden to our own desires, biases, conditioning, or even to the caprice of quantum uncertainty. It means being able to choose what our desires are before desiring, and being able to choose which thoughts to think before thinking them. If a thought enters my mind unbidden, then it was not freely willed. And given that my actions will always follow on from my thoughts (the ones that I didn't will into existence), then my actions cannot be freely willed. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 30, 2017 1:21:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 1:25:08 GMT
So you believe in free will in the so-called 'compatibilist' sense, then (as in compatible with determinism)? I'm certain that your opinion must have changed if that is the case; given that I've pressed you countless times on whether you were referring to compatibilist free will and you have denied it. I certainly cannot be that dense not to have picked up on it until now (and same with kiera, who also debated this with you). |
|
