|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 30, 2017 1:32:58 GMT
tpfkar @miccee As you know I've related to your moaning-morbid-supervillain self half-a-billion times, the only meaningful free will is the one we've got where we make choices based on our desires and traits. And I haven't made any claim on my beliefs vs. any philosophical statement made by any other, and furthermore I've repeated that very fact to you a multitude of times, in fact each time you attempt to use such positions to mean something out of nothing in your push for universal death as part of your religion to supplant all others. Just further typical outright lying from you. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 1:51:40 GMT
tpfkar @miccee As you know I've related to your moaning-morbid-supervillain self half-a-billion times, the only meaningful free will is the one we've got where we make choices based on our desires and traits. And I haven't made any claim on my beliefs vs. any philosophical statement made by any other, and furthermore I've repeated that very fact to you a multitude of times, in fact each time you attempt to use such positions to mean something out of nothing in your push for universal death as part of your religion to supplant all others. Just further typical outright lying from you. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Alright, but by that definition of 'free will', a computer program also has free will. Which you've denied previously. So you can surely see why I'd be confused.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 30, 2017 1:56:10 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 2:00:38 GMT
Does a computer program not make 'choices' in accordance to how it was designed and what its lines of code dictate? If the computer is programmed such that when 2 is added to 2, it gives an answer of 4, then it is exercising "free will" in the sense that you have described, in order to obtain that answer. It's reaching an outcome based on its programming, much as humans are.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 30, 2017 2:03:26 GMT
tpfkar @miccee I'm good with your cargo-cult "understanding" of how people are programmed just like silicon. It sums up the cognitive quality of your thought processes nicely.  Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 2:27:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 30, 2017 2:47:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 2:54:38 GMT
See, if you weren't clinging on to some kind of supernatural definition of free will, then you would not have any objection to the conclusion that the authors of these studies had reached, because it would be obvious to you. The only definition of 'free will' that does not dovetail with the conclusions reached by that article (or Libet, or Soon et al) would be one that does not adhere to naturalistic processes.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 30, 2017 3:02:35 GMT
tpfkar See, if you weren't clinging on to some kind of supernatural definition of free will, then you would not have any objection to the conclusion that the authors of these studies had reached, because it would be obvious to you. The only definition of 'free will' that does not dovetail with the conclusions reached by that article (or Libet, or Soon et al) would be one that does not adhere to naturalistic processes. If you weren't clinging to your own faith-based wish for sentient life to end, you wouldn't be distorting and crazily overstating things, pretending that the implications aren't heavily debated, that is when you're not outright lying. The only free will that exists is the one we have where we make choices based on our desires and traits, and it is nothing but naturalistic processes, as that is all there is, regardless of the absurdities you continuously furiously proffer while simultaneously believing your can make no change from your holy pre-writ. 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 johnblutarsky on Aug 30, 2017 19:07:11 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 18:55:41 GMT
tpfkar See, if you weren't clinging on to some kind of supernatural definition of free will, then you would not have any objection to the conclusion that the authors of these studies had reached, because it would be obvious to you. The only definition of 'free will' that does not dovetail with the conclusions reached by that article (or Libet, or Soon et al) would be one that does not adhere to naturalistic processes. If you weren't clinging to your own faith-based wish for sentient life to end, you wouldn't be distorting and crazily overstating things, pretending that the implications aren't heavily debated, that is when you're not outright lying. The only free will that exists is the one we have where we make choices based on our desires and traits, and it is nothing but naturalistic processes, as that is all there is, regardless of the absurdities you continuously furiously proffer while simultaneously believing your can make no change from your holy pre-writ. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.You seem to be holding out some forlorn hope that humans are more than mere organic robots, which naturalistic processes would (somewhat ironically) entail. You don't seem to know what you believe about free will (much like a Christian struggling with his faith yet refusing to throw in the towel) and are afraid to find out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 11:20:49 GMT
You have the free will to worship God or go to hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 5, 2017 0:28:41 GMT
tpfkar If you weren't clinging to your own faith-based wish for sentient life to end, you wouldn't be distorting and crazily overstating things, pretending that the implications aren't heavily debated, that is when you're not outright lying. The only free will that exists is the one we have where we make choices based on our desires and traits, and it is nothing but naturalistic processes, as that is all there is, regardless of the absurdities you continuously furiously proffer while simultaneously believing your can make no change from your holy pre-writ. You seem to be holding out some forlorn hope that humans are more than mere organic robots, which naturalistic processes would (somewhat ironically) entail. You don't seem to know what you believe about free will (much like a Christian struggling with his faith yet refusing to throw in the towel) and are afraid to find out. Directly from your posts, you seem to be a morose mental case, willing to post the most absurd of things pulled directly out of your ass to support your rabidly morbid faith.  I only know what we see and the science is able to establish and describe at any given time. And I further recognize attempted sleights via lugubriously emotional non-sequitur, frantic distortion, comedic overstatement, apparent obliviousness to patent senselessness of position, and free representation of controversial and contradicted speculation as fact -whether in support of eternal life or death religions- as the stuff of cultists of one kind or another.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 14:55:14 GMT
You seem to be holding out some forlorn hope that humans are more than mere organic robots, which naturalistic processes would (somewhat ironically) entail. You don't seem to know what you believe about free will (much like a Christian struggling with his faith yet refusing to throw in the towel) and are afraid to find out. Directly from your posts, you seem to be a morose mental case, willing to post the most absurd of things pulled directly out of your ass to support your rabidly morbid faith.  I only know what we see and the science is able to establish and describe at any given time. And I further recognize attempted sleights via lugubriously emotional non-sequitur, frantic distortion, comedic overstatement, apparent obliviousness to patent senselessness of position, and free representation of controversial and contradicted speculation as fact -whether in support of eternal life or death religions- as the stuff of cultists of one kind or another. The 'organic robot' paradigm of human decision making is now scientific orthodoxy, and there are no credible challenges to this (the best you've ever been able to come up with is 'Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong'. So clearly you have difficulty accepting what is established by science if it goes against what you wish to be true. And telling that you would link my antinatalism with this. It seems as if you want to believe in meaningful 'free will' because the bleak and meaningless universe that I describe in my posts is the only alternative to free will universe. You haven't been able to explain how individuals acting with free will could be distinguished from those acting without free will. In a universe without free will, would individuals not also act in accordance with their preferences and traits?
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 6, 2017 0:53:39 GMT
tpfkar Directly from your posts, you seem to be a morose mental case, willing to post the most absurd of things pulled directly out of your ass to support your rabidly morbid faith.  I only know what we see and the science is able to establish and describe at any given time. And I further recognize attempted sleights via lugubriously emotional non-sequitur, frantic distortion, comedic overstatement, apparent obliviousness to patent senselessness of position, and free representation of controversial and contradicted speculation as fact -whether in support of eternal life or death religions- as the stuff of cultists of one kind or another. The 'organic robot' paradigm of human decision making is now scientific orthodoxy, and there are no credible challenges to this (the best you've ever been able to come up with is 'Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong'. So clearly you have difficulty accepting what is established by science if it goes against what you wish to be true. And telling that you would link my antinatalism with this. It seems as if you want to believe in meaningful 'free will' because the bleak and meaningless universe that I describe in my posts is the only alternative to free will universe. You haven't been able to explain how individuals acting with free will could be distinguished from those acting without free will. In a universe without free will, would individuals not also act in accordance with their preferences and traits? Sure, in your cockeyed cargo cult worship. In reality, it's something to think about and a starting point into further research. And from the rest of your post, and additionally nearly all of yours on the board, your ability for rational conclusion is crippled, or you just don't mind appearing mentally bankrupt in support of your moral bankruptcy. It's positively laughable that you either keep overtly ignoring what goes on in our own heads, or try to pray it away with the mysterious ways of "it's just an illusion". And that you (pretend you?) can't see how one can easily conclude the evident from what they directly experience and given the positively embryonic (relatively) state of the science on the matter. Regardless of the wild-eyed ramblings of the goal-driven zealots. Sensible and straightforward, so of course you're comfortable with absurd statements, including projections of your own religious mania into it. Not to mention the childlike inferences of the form "That aibo does some things that looks like what we do, CHECKMATE fellow 'organic robots'. And the related shattered thinking of "We all have no actual control over anything as the molecules were set in motion from the beginning. Now I must double down to get you to change! Ha ha ha HA ha, ha ha ha HA ha, ha ha ha HA ha, hehehehehehehe!"Not everybody needs the religiosity you do, and can go with what is presented and what is seen and lived until such time as something more persuasive is actually demonstrated. Not everybody has desperate needs for eternal life, or death for all so much that they grasp onto and butcher whatever they can get their disturbed hands on. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 19:08:42 GMT
tpfkar The 'organic robot' paradigm of human decision making is now scientific orthodoxy, and there are no credible challenges to this (the best you've ever been able to come up with is 'Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong'. So clearly you have difficulty accepting what is established by science if it goes against what you wish to be true. And telling that you would link my antinatalism with this. It seems as if you want to believe in meaningful 'free will' because the bleak and meaningless universe that I describe in my posts is the only alternative to free will universe. You haven't been able to explain how individuals acting with free will could be distinguished from those acting without free will. In a universe without free will, would individuals not also act in accordance with their preferences and traits? Sure, in your cockeyed cargo cult worship. In reality, it's something to think about and a starting point into further research. And from the rest of your post, and additionally nearly all of yours on the board, your ability for rational conclusion is crippled, or you just don't mind appearing mentally bankrupt in support of your moral bankruptcy. It's positively laughable that you either keep overtly ignoring what goes on in our own heads, or try to pray it away with the mysterious ways of "it's just an illusion". And that you (pretend you?) can't see how one can easily conclude the evident from what they directly experience and given the positively embryonic (relatively) state of the science on the matter. Regardless of the wild-eyed ramblings of the goal-driven zealots. Sensible and straightforward, so of course you're comfortable with absurd statements, including projections of your own religious mania into it. Not to mention the childlike inferences of the form "That aibo does some things that looks like what we do, CHECKMATE fellow 'organic robots'. And the related shattered thinking of "We all have no actual control over anything as the molecules were set in motion from the beginning. Now I must double down to get you to change! Ha ha ha HA ha, ha ha ha HA ha, ha ha ha HA ha, hehehehehehehe!"Not everybody needs the religiosity you do, and can go with what is presented and what is seen and lived until such time as something more persuasive is actually demonstrated. Not everybody has desperate needs for eternal life, or death for all so much that they grasp onto and butcher whatever they can get their disturbed hands on. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Free will has never been reliably observed in a laboratory setting. There is absolutely zero evidence for the existence of free will (in any meaningful sense). You're absolutely convinced that it exists, but cannot even explain how it would be possible to distinguish an actor with free will from one without free will. Nor why you think that determinism would fail to fully explain the experiences commonly attributed to 'free will'. Whether choice is an 'illusion' is a matter for debate, because our brains do go through the process of making decisions, but nobody experiences the phenomenon of choosing what they will think before they think it. Free will is perhaps then more a matter of perspective than an illusion. And one cannot choose not to choose, so therefore I have no option but to act in the way that I am compelled to act. Clearly, your vehement but fact-free defense of free will is evidence that you do have some kind of desperate need to retain that as an emotional or spiritual crutch.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 6, 2017 19:20:36 GMT
tpfkar If you weren't clinging to your own faith-based wish for sentient life to end, you wouldn't be distorting and crazily overstating things, pretending that the implications aren't heavily debated, that is when you're not outright lying. The only free will that exists is the one we have where we make choices based on our desires and traits, and it is nothing but naturalistic processes, as that is all there is, regardless of the absurdities you continuously furiously proffer while simultaneously believing your can make no change from your holy pre-writ. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.You seem to be holding out some forlorn hope that humans are more than mere organic robots, which naturalistic processes would (somewhat ironically) entail. You don't seem to know what you believe about free will (much like a Christian struggling with his faith yet refusing to throw in the towel) and are afraid to find out. Hey, mic, just a question - the part I bolded - I have been reading this board for a while and I have never gotten the impression that this is what you are wishing for. Is this just an inaccurate statement on the part of the other poster?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 19:24:58 GMT
You seem to be holding out some forlorn hope that humans are more than mere organic robots, which naturalistic processes would (somewhat ironically) entail. You don't seem to know what you believe about free will (much like a Christian struggling with his faith yet refusing to throw in the towel) and are afraid to find out. Hey, mic, just a question - the part I bolded - I have been reading this board for a while and I have never gotten the impression that this is what you are wishing for. Is this just an inaccurate statement on the part of the other poster? I'm an antinatalist, so I do wish for sentient life to come to an end.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 6, 2017 19:47:09 GMT
Hey, mic, just a question - the part I bolded - I have been reading this board for a while and I have never gotten the impression that this is what you are wishing for. Is this just an inaccurate statement on the part of the other poster? I'm an antinatalist, so I do wish for sentient life to come to an end. I had to go to Wikipedia for the definition: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AntinatalismI was unfamiliar with it - interesting read. I did not procreate - I have often "joked" that that was my gift to the universe, not reproducing - because I didn't want to pass on the dysfunctional aspects of my family. My husband's family was even more dysfunctional - actually brutal - than mine. So I see your point.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 6, 2017 19:51:37 GMT
The 'organic robot' paradigm of human decision making is now scientific orthodoxy. No.
|
|