Would it be possible ....

rebornFixer

Ahnimus wrote:

This is the MT people.

Politics, current events - reasoned debate and discussion - we can all learn something new.

This isn't the AET.

Agreed, and I enjoy philosophical discussions ... To a point. I am perhaps a little too right-brained to get that much out of it, though. If its not a question that can be answered by empirical observation or Kant's transcendental method, I am inclined to think that the question is pointless to ask. The existence of free will is probably one of these questions.

Ahnimus

reborncareerist wrote:

Agreed, and I enjoy philosophical discussions ... To a point. I am perhaps a little too right-brained to get that much out of it, though. If its not a question that can be answered by empirical observation or Kant's transcendental method, I am inclined to think that the question is pointless to ask. The existence of free will is probably one of these questions.

It's not one of those questions. It's a proven fact. I'm not kidding either. You can prove to me that the ratio of neurons and synaptic connections following the decline subsequent to the infant brain growth spurt is 60% after I said it's 90% and I will admit that I'm wrong. I've done it. I admitted that last night, I admitted I was wrong about aspartame's safety. I constantly admit that I am wrong after further investigation. I am not wrong about this and no one has offered anything suggesting that I am wrong.

rebornFixer

Ahnimus wrote:

It's not one of those questions. It's a proven fact. I'm not kidding either. You can prove to me that the ratio of neurons and synaptic connections following the decline subsequent to the infant brain growth spurt is 60% after I said it's 90% and I will admit that I'm wrong. I've done it. I admitted that last night, I admitted I was wrong about aspartame's safety. I constantly admit that I am wrong after further investigation. I am not wrong about this and no one has offered anything suggesting that I am wrong.

By proven fact, do you mean the claim that the existence of free will cannot be proven?

Ahnimus

reborncareerist wrote:

By proven fact, do you mean the claim that the existence of free will cannot be proven?

No it's a proven fact that free-will does not exist.

Ahnimus

Well, now I'm getting incoherent. Sorry peeps. I can't talk about this anymore tonight. The absolute absurdity and lack of reasoning is mind-numbling stupid. I'm only gonna get upset if I try to rationalize what I'm reading on here.

hippiemom

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, now I'm getting incoherent. Sorry peeps. I can't talk about this anymore tonight. The absolute absurdity and lack of reasoning is mind-numbling stupid. I'm only gonna get upset if I try to rationalize what I'm reading on here.

You are APOLOGIZING for not being able to talk anymore about free will in a thread asking you to stop talking about free will in every single thread?!!?!

No apology needed, really!

Ahnimus

hippiemom wrote:

You are APOLOGIZING for not being able to talk anymore about free will in a thread asking you to stop talking about free will in every single thread?!!?!

No apology needed, really!

Did you only click on 3 threads today? The discussion is not in "EVERY SINGLE THREAD" open your eyes, grab a brain, do something, stop making false statements intended to exagerate the situation. You are putting me under the microscope for something that did not happen. Go to the Chavez thread, there is no discussion of free-will in there. The only threads that have the discussion are ones that it pertains to and rightfully so.

If the topic bothers you, ignore it, talk about something else, go to a different thread. Give me a fucking break.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

How about this?

Instead of trying to disprove my theory of determinism. Prove free-will.

You mean, instead of you actually answering statements or responding to counterarguments you unfortunately can't find in the article you read yesterday, you want me to do your job for you? Let me think about that....

On the one hand, I know you're pretty married to your position for the reason so many have surmised here, the one you've so vehemently denied. And if I fail at my task, you'll pounce on that failure and somehow use it as proof that free-will doesn't exist, as if my ability to prove it to you would be responsible for its existence. If I succeed at my task, your emotions will likely just reject my explanation since your existing opinions appear to be very strong defense mechanisms against your past. Furthermore, you have the gall to refer to yourself as a Skeptic but readily embrace the infant science known as neuroscience as if it were unquestionable, so I have no idea how reasonable you even are sometimes. So there's not much to gain here, is there?

On the other hand, you didn't insult me here as you've done every other time you've been backed into a corner. No underhanded insults, no pathetic responses like "I'm sorry, that's wrong". No ironic mention of "obvious questions" from the person who always attempts to answer some of the most obvious questions about his theories everywhere else on this board. These things deserve reward.

So what's my choice? My choice is to oblige you, to share with you the explanation of free-will that I accept, that I believe:

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron—without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.

But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival—so that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be' is the question 'to think or not to think.'

A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. 'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which one gains and keeps it. 'Value' presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? 'Value' presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and-self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it does; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.

An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic code of action, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.

Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man's desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.

A living entity that regarded its means of survival as evil, would not survive. A plant that struggled to mangle its roots, a bird that fought to break its wings would not remain for long in the existence they affronted. But the history of man has been a struggle to deny and to destroy his mind.

Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice: he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice." -Ayn Rand

Now, I'll even explain this for you.

Do you understand what freedom truly is, Ahnimus? Freedom, to you, seems to be an existence without an existence. You will call man's mind un-free because it is based on a biological structure and environmental determinants that limit its abilities. This is a total bastardization of freedom. Would you call your arm un-free because it is not a wing on which you can take flight? Would you call your legs un-free because they have no wheels on which you can drive? Would you call your entire body un-free because it must die? I certainly hope not, because without those things, among others, freedom is simply not possible. You, however, seem to believe there is no freedom because freedom cannot be free to be enslaved. Freedom to you can only exist in a contradiction, a vacuum that is "free" to not be a vacuum. A one that is free to be a zero.

In reality, freedom is a measure of obstacles that stand between you and your values. A mind cannot be "un-free", since the mind is a) the only thing that makes a value possible and b) as a human being, the mind is your only tool with which you can achieve those values. Is the mind itself determined? Of course -- it is determined by the biological and other physical entities that describe it and give rise to it. Are the contents of your mind determined? Of course -- they are determined by the experiences in your life. Is your ability to think, or not to think, determined? Of course -- it is determined by the definition of your consciousness. However, do you have the free-will to exercise that ability? Yes, in that your consciousness gives you a mechanism within which you can observe your own nature. Through that observation and as its effect, you may opt to use your mind or your may opt to ignore it, as determined by yourself.

When nature took away the instincts of your biological ancestors, it took away your automatic search for value and your automatic success or failure at that search. Evolution granted you the ability to adapt in a way never known before. It granted you the ability to act based on your own examinations of self, your own view of a thing never known before by any being: the concept of "I".

Somewhere on this board, earlier today, you said something that amounts to this:

"I look at things objectively by standing outside myself"

This gets to the heart of the contradiction you've embraced. You cannot stand outside your self and your attempts completely explain this trip you're on. You want a mind without a body. You want a consciousness without a mind. You want free-will without consciousness. You want many things without that which make those things possible. You want "I" without self. You want short-cuts. There are no short-cuts.

For the umpteenth time, Ahnimus, there is no magic. Free-will can't exist in your desert and in your field at the same time. That doesn't make it un-free. It simply is what will keep you in the field and out of that desert, so long as you use it instead of denying its existence. But if you continue on this path, don't be surprised when you get exactly what you ask for.

Ahnimus

Dude...

"If I succeed at my task, your emotions will likely just reject my explanation since your existing opinions appear to be very strong defense mechanisms against your past."

Tell me that isn't an attack on my intentions? This is the shit I keep hearing. Not actual debate over the issue.

I never said I stand outside myself. I said I detach myself from an emotional attachment with the situation and look at it objectively.

Thinking does not require the choice to think, that is absolutely absurd. Tell me, at what age did you decide to start thinking? did you have to think about it?

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

Dude...

"If I succeed at my task, your emotions will likely just reject my explanation since your existing opinions appear to be very strong defense mechanisms against your past."

Tell me that isn't an attack on my intentions? This is the shit I keep hearing. Not actual debate over the issue.

Of course it's an attack on your intentions. Are your intentions unquestionable? Look, if you came to this board and simply posited determinism from a completely scientific standpoint and were open to actual discussion, people probably wouldn't question your intentions. But you've brought all sorts of additional, contradictory attachments with it like "better world" and "understanding responsibility" and a lot of bitterness and emotion and attachement along with other issues that stand directly opposed to hard determinism. A contradiction indicates faulty premises, and smart people are going to start looking for that faulty premise. I'll be very up front with you -- I think your obsession with determinism is a response to guilt or to failure, not science. I've seen you screw up basic science here, and you honestly have no philosophical abilities. Both of those things are a requirement for an good understanding of determinism and indeterminism.

As I said earlier, I could be wrong on your intentions. But I'd put money on the above.

And please don't tell me about "actual debate over the issue" when dozens of people here have given you plenty of debate on the actual issue, and when you have been responsible for some of the lamest replies and straight-out insults in those threads. It's double-standard, hypocritical crap like this that is seriously going to make a lot of us simply not bother entering into debates with you in the future. This is it for me.

I never said I stand outside myself. I said I detach myself from an emotional attachment with the situation and look at it objectively.

Ok...I could be wrong there. I couldn't find the particular post and if I completely misquoted you, I'm sorry. I doubt you mentioned "emotional attachment", however, since the above wouldn't have been something I'd react strongly over. I got the distinct impression that you were trying to look at things outside your self and, given this issue, that's like trying to use the existence of the objective to disprove the existence of the subjective or like using the existence or logic to disprove the necessity of emotion. It's not an argument, it's simply ignoring half the picture.

Thinking does not require the choice to think, that is absolutely absurd.

It's not absolutely absurd, but you're misunderstanding it anyway. Thinking as in the base functions of the brain, doesn't require the choice to think. That's a circular logic more akin to your arguments. Rather, the achievement of value requires the choice to think. Try looking at it this way:

Reading requires words, it requires eyes (or some other sense), it requires functions of the brain. Ok? However, is also requires the choice of focus. You can stare with your eyes at a piece of writing forever and your brain will process the existence of all of it, but you cannot actually read and understand until you choose to focus.

Tell me, at what age did you decide to start thinking? did you have to think about it?

At what age where you determined to start thinking, Ahnimus? What determined it? What thought are you having right now and what determined that?

Seriously, you'll hold up some tiny piece of neurological science and declare determinism "proven". Yet you wouldn't be able to trace the actual determinant cause of a single thought, would you?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Been on the board for 10 minutes and why is everyone so pissy on a Friday.

What gives? life is not that serious.