While, I don't agree with the fatalists that God is behind everything. It's still much more believable than free-will.
good point. if there is no free will; you must concede to the existance of God. otherwise we'd all be the same. every buffalo is different (an example) yet their actions are all the same. they look the same and act the same.
good point. if there is no free will; you must concede to the existance of God. otherwise we'd all be the same. every buffalo is different (an example) yet their actions are all the same. they look the same and act the same.
Not with the Causal Loop theory.
Because even if we assume that God caused the universe, what caused God? It's a conundrum to look back through the causal nature of the universe without arriving at some point in the future.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I've read both sides of the argument. Free-will doesn't compare to determinism as far as logic and proof goes.
Hehe...how do you know that you "read both sides of the argument", or that both sides of the argument were equally presented to you? Wouldn't that require a conscious effort to suppress the very bias you say controls all our behavior?
Hehe...how do you know that you "read both sides of the argument", or that both sides of the argument were equally presented to you? Wouldn't that require a conscious effort to suppress the very bias you say controls all our behavior?
I have a bias towards truth.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
According to your theories, there is no way for humanity to even access truth. You cite logic without even realizing that logic is impossible in a deterministic world.
According to your theories, there is no way for humanity to even access truth. You cite logic without even realizing that logic is impossible in a deterministic world.
Exactly! To access truth, one would need to understand the higher principles operating in the world, and to actually understand the latter one needs .... Free will.
According to your theories, there is no way for humanity to even access truth. You cite logic without even realizing that logic is impossible in a deterministic world.
Umm, no. That's not what it means.
We are deterministic beings within a deterministic world. That's all that matters.
It really doesn't matter what happens at the quantum level, or if God caused the big bang. We operate at the macro physical level and we exist within the deterministic reality that was or wasn't created by God. That's all that matters to the topic of free-will.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
We are deterministic beings within a deterministic world. That's all that matters.
Hehe....want to tell me some more about the "social benefits" that will come of it then? If the above is "all that matters", tell me again what the dividing line between the cat slaughterer and the slaughtered cat is again?
Hehe....want to tell me some more about the "social benefits" that will come of it then? If the above is "all that matters", tell me again what the dividing line between the cat slaughterer and the slaughtered cat is again?
That should be blatantly obvious by now. The kid may never have slaughtered that cat to begin with if he was more widely accepted and understood.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It is. What is also blatantly obvious is the contradiction between your theories and your reasonings.
You say that "we are deterministic beings within a deterministic world. That's all that matters." Yet at the same time, you profess a desire to make this world a "better" place. But "better" has no meaning absent a standard. And the only standard you have to offer is determination. What you don't understand is that the moral standards you hold require the choices you make.
The kid may never have slaughtered that cat to begin with if he was more widely accepted and understood.
Of course! Now why don't you address what I've been asking you the whole time:
In a deterministic world, so what if kids slaughter cats?
consider it therapy. ive suspected this for a long time and maybe il deal with you differently from now on. but ive noticed this block about you. you cant comprehend the experience of others, only your own, which you inevitably feel is normal. no thought anyone has is valid or reasonable unless it jives with what you consider valid and reasonable. your only insight into the behavior of others comes from textbooks, not an empathetic understanding of their motives and desires. you explain your psychoses by textbook explnations of abuse, so you assume that anyone else who acts out has to have had similar abuse. you dont seem to understand simple jokes. there are a multitude of different signs of this that ive noticed.
perhaps you have changed your behaviors and i am glad to hear that. it does provide hope for reform. but im wondering if the underlying issue changes or if you simply learn to adapt to more acceptable behaviors. i get the sense it's more the latter and if that be the case, maybe ill try harder not to provoke you.
Allow me to point to Ahnimus' personality type, which he posted in the personality type thread. It's a type with many amazing traits. At the same time, like the rest of us, he's got some glaring faults:
"The over dominance of Extraverted Thinking leads to an intensely intellectual way of seeing the world, where values such as right and wrong, good and bad, useful and useless are judged only by their applicability to an almost mathematically exact - and to the ENTJ - always rational, attitude to life. Without the balance provided by other ways of seeing or judging, the ENTJ is unable to account for actions based upon the inner views or feeling behavior of others, hence such things are always judged negatively, either as irrelevant - or at best - as being of small consequence. Additionally, with their thinking attitude always turned outward and totally subject to the world beyond their senses, without the balance of some internally felt objectivity the ENTJ will often follow their ideas and ambitions without consideration for their own physical and emotional needs. Indeed, the ENTJ often feels that if only his project, his work, his outer reality would just fall into line with his own rational views then all would be well within his world and all his needs would be met. Unfortunately such an attitude can never be satisfied, for the world is not only rational, but also full of situations and human behavior which must be appreciated and understood by quite different, and again - to the ENTJ – often seemingly absurd criteria" http://www.personalitypage.com/ENTJ_per.html
"Unlike other types, ENTJs naturally have little patience with people who do not see things the same way as the ENTJ. The ENTJ needs to consciously work on recognizing the value of other people's opinions, as well as the value of being sensitive towards people's feelings. In the absence of this awareness, the ENTJ will be a forceful, intimidating and overbearing individual. This may be a real problem for the ENTJ, who may be deprived of important information and collaboration from others." http://www.personalitypage.com/ENTJ.html
Ahnimus fits these textbook ENTJ traits. This isn't about pathology or autism. This is about the downside to a person's personality. Like we all have.
This world is made up of all kinds of people, and the strengths to this personality type are amazing, as well.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It is. What is also blatantly obvious is the contradiction between your theories and your reasonings.
You say that "we are deterministic beings within a deterministic world. That's all that matters." Yet at the same time, you profess a desire to make this world a "better" place. But "better" has no meaning absent a standard. And the only standard you have to offer is determination. What you don't understand is that the moral standards you hold require the choices you make.
Of course! Now why don't you address what I've been asking you the whole time:
In a deterministic world, so what if kids slaughter cats?
You seem to think that accepting the world as determinisitic negates any moral value. That's what theists say about atheists and they couldn't be more wrong.
Our moral determinism is part of our deterministic system. Everything is part of the deterministic system. Good and Bad are measures of our individual deterministic mechanisms. And thus why Good and Bad are subjective and variable. To say moral judgement lies in free-will, and to say that free-will is independent of determinism. Is to not make any sense. By that logic, why aren't we all free-will robots? Why does "Free-will" differ from one person to the next? The only explanations are deterministic, therefor Free-will as being free from determinism, is a myth.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Allow me to point to Ahnimus' personality type, which he posted in the personality type thread. It's a type with many amazing traits. At the same time, like the rest of us, he's got some glaring faults:
"The over dominance of Extraverted Thinking leads to an intensely intellectual way of seeing the world, where values such as right and wrong, good and bad, useful and useless are judged only by their applicability to an almost mathematically exact - and to the ENTJ - always rational, attitude to life. Without the balance provided by other ways of seeing or judging, the ENTJ is unable to account for actions based upon the inner views or feeling behavior of others, hence such things are always judged negatively, either as irrelevant - or at best - as being of small consequence. Additionally, with their thinking attitude always turned outward and totally subject to the world beyond their senses, without the balance of some internally felt objectivity the ENTJ will often follow their ideas and ambitions without consideration for their own physical and emotional needs. Indeed, the ENTJ often feels that if only his project, his work, his outer reality would just fall into line with his own rational views then all would be well within his world and all his needs would be met. Unfortunately such an attitude can never be satisfied, for the world is not only rational, but also full of situations and human behavior which must be appreciated and understood by quite different, and again - to the ENTJ – often seemingly absurd criteria" http://www.personalitypage.com/ENTJ_per.html
"Unlike other types, ENTJs naturally have little patience with people who do not see things the same way as the ENTJ. The ENTJ needs to consciously work on recognizing the value of other people's opinions, as well as the value of being sensitive towards people's feelings. In the absence of this awareness, the ENTJ will be a forceful, intimidating and overbearing individual. This may be a real problem for the ENTJ, who may be deprived of important information and collaboration from others." http://www.personalitypage.com/ENTJ.html
Ahnimus fits these textbook ENTJ traits. This isn't about pathology or autism. This is about the downside to a person's personality. Like we all have.
This world is made up of all kinds of people, and the strengths to this personality type are amazing, as well.
Sorry, how does stamping our feet, crying and complaining about our emotions put the world into perspective?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Sorry, how does stamping our feet, crying and complaining about our emotions put the world into perspective?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm pointing out that you are you. And that you are not autistic, in case that point was lost on anyone.
And if you notice, what the first link says is that part of the solution for the ENTJ is: INTEGRATING THE PERSONALITY'S INTUITION.
The difficulty for this type is that the intuition is inner. This means that your intuition is into the inner subjective world. For your personality type, you don't want to look subjectively because you are outer focussed and objective. But the key to your balance is building the intuition so that it makes a healthy "navigator" for the driver of your type: thinking.
"Introverted Intuition is the ENTJ’s access to their inner world, to the information that could tell them how the world is affecting them. Because it is introverted, its images arise from the subjective depths of the mind, and contain all that the ENTJ has not considered within their strictly rational and object oriented view of the world. Introverted Intuition provides the personally biased information the ENTJ needs to balance this world view and protect the ENTJ from being totally swallowed up by their selfless and yet single minded attachment to facts, figures and a rationale they accept only from the world outside themselves. Because this inner information is often opposed to the ENTJ’s strongly held ideas it is often rejected, or if accepted, turned outward to make negative judgments about external situations or the behavior of others, rather than seen as a corrective balance to the ENTJ’s own attitudes and behavior."
For the record, though, I also have inner intuition. Many people I know have outer intuition. But the reason you and I both get the issues of this thread (which I have yet to address--I see the way you see, besides the pure determinism approach) and the reason we are both drawn to the inner workings of the psyche is due to this inner intuition. It is the mutual language that we speak. But, if you are holding back from balancing your subjective intuition, it makes sense that you resent that I gladly happily have flourished by developing my own.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
For the record, though, I also have inner intuition. Many people I know have outer intuition. But the reason you and I both get the issues of this thread (which I have yet to address--I see the way you see, besides the pure determinism approach) and the reason we are both drawn to the inner workings of the psyche is due to this inner intuition. It is the mutual language that we speak. But, if you are holding back from balancing your subjective intuition, it makes sense that you resent that I gladly happily have flourished by developing my own.
Somehow I think the analysis of a 20 question quiz is flawed. It's close, but not entirely. I certainly don't think of things one way. I'm putting myself into the mind of that kid chopping up a cat and I'm attempting to experience what he experiences. That's not solely inner intuition, and that's not solely objective. I think the confusion comes here. Others will look at the child as an object, with no inner self subject to conditioning. Instead they see a free-willed human being that "should know better", as they do. They are seeing it from their perspective, not the perspective of the boys. That's where we differ.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Somehow I think the analysis of a 20 question quiz is flawed. It's close, but not entirely. I certainly don't think of things one way. I'm putting myself into the mind of that kid chopping up a cat and I'm attempting to experience what he experiences. That's not solely inner intuition, and that's not solely objective. I think the confusion comes here. Others will look at the child as an object, with no inner self subject to conditioning. Instead they see a free-willed human being that "should know better", as they do. They are seeing it from their perspective, not the perspective of the boys. That's where we differ.
Ahnimus, you're clearly textbook. You obviously have developed the inner-world/empathic awareness about the pathology in others to a degree, and as I say, that is where you and I see basically eye to eye--and that's a BIG area, for example throughout this thread (barring pure determinism.) At the same time you overly focus on the objective with your dominant thinking function, and undercut the subjective part limiting your gift of intuition.
Where you seem unaware is where rather than develop your own subjective understanding of yourself, when you have problems, you perceive it as being the other guy's problem without noticing how you are projecting that. A few people have called you on that in this past week alone. You'll be likely inclined to tune this out and justify your behaviour, and hey, it's your perogative. People deny what causes discomfort all the time. I'm just saying.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ahnimus, you're clearly textbook. You obviously have developed the inner-world/empathic awareness about the pathology in others to a degree, and as I say, that is where you and I see basically eye to eye--and that's a BIG area, for example throughout this thread (barring pure determinism.) At the same time you overly focus on the objective with your dominant thinking function, and undercut the subjective part limiting your gift of intuition.
Where you seem unaware is where rather than develop your own subjective understanding of yourself, when you have problems, you perceive it as being the other guy's problem without noticing how you are projecting that. A few people have called you on that in this past week alone. You'll be likely inclined to tune this out and justify your behaviour, and hey, it's your perogative. People deny what causes discomfort all the time. I'm just saying.
I appreciate everyone's analysis of my psyche, but I fail to see where they are at all correct. The only instability in my life is financial. I don't have emotional or rational instability. If any of you knew me outside of the board, that would be apparent.
It's quite simple and I've explained this thoroughly. People make different choices and we attribute this to "Free" will, so we recognize that free-will is not constant, this means that something, whether divine or natural determines what "free" will we have and is therefor not "Free". Because "'free'-will" by definition is independent of any deterministic mechanisms and should therefor be constant, but it's not, it's different for everyone and not "free". It's determined by some "thing" else. Or in my opinion everything else.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You seem to think that accepting the world as determinisitic negates any moral value. That's what theists say about atheists and they couldn't be more wrong.
Morality cannot exist without choice. Morality can certainly exist without God.
Our moral determinism is part of our deterministic system. Everything is part of the deterministic system. Good and Bad are measures of our individual deterministic mechanisms.
Hehe...this is priceless. "Good and Bad are measures of our individual deterministic mechanisms"? Measures against what??????
And thus why Good and Bad are subjective and variable.
Thus? The only thus appropriate to the above is "thus why good and bad do not exist".
To say moral judgement lies in free-will, and to say that free-will is independent of determinism. Is to not make any sense.
The first part makes perfect sense. Moral judgement requires moral standards, because judgements cannot be made independent of standards. Moral standards require moral identity, because one cannot measure one thing against another without assigning identities to those two things. Moral identities require moral agents, because something amoral cannot exist as a moral entity. A moral agent must be a self-aware identity, and a self-aware identity must have the logical faculty to recognize choices.
By that logic, why aren't we all free-will robots?
"Free-will robots" is a contradiction in terms.
Why does "Free-will" differ from one person to the next?
Again, because "free-will" requires identity. Identity requires a measure of distinctness. Each person is unique and has the faculty to recognize themselves as such.
The only explanations are deterministic, therefor Free-will as being free from determinism, is a myth.
You refuse to see the other explanations, and that is your choice. But I promise you that you will not find absolution in destroying that which makes your choices possible.
Sorry, how does stamping our feet, crying and complaining about our emotions put the world into perspective?
Oh, much of what goes on around you is human behaviour that does not fit into mathematical formulas. If do not learn to understand or even tolerate the subjective nature of humans without belittling them based on your judgement of irrelevency (with commentary like "stamping feet, crying and complaining" or worse "psychotic" which alienates people), you will miss out on adapting to human systems which surround you at all times. They are alogical.
Another thing you and I have in common is we are "judgers", which means we make snap judgements all the time. While we can be potent and decisive, we can also be intolerant and alienate others by tuning out further possible amendments to our judgments. You and I are extraverted judgers, who are fortunate in ways because it is such people who are "go getters" and make things happen for them in life. However, such people often alienate even their own children by their teenage years with overbearing intolerant attitudes. It's something to think about.
Studying personality type is an objective way to get one's balance on track. Sticking to one's own subjective "conditioned" ideas about one's self is a good way to fool one's self.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Sorry, how does stamping our feet, crying and complaining about our emotions put the world into perspective?
wow. that's amazing! she posts a descriptor of your personality type, and you give a response that completely proves everything she wrote correct. you read a textbook description of your faults, and not only do you prove that correct, in doing so you exhibit every flaw described therein. i've never seen a personality description fit somebody so well.
The first part makes perfect sense. Moral judgement requires moral standards, because judgements cannot be made independent of standards. Moral standards require moral identity, because one cannot measure one thing against another without assigning identities to those two things. Moral identities require moral agents, because something amoral cannot exist as a moral entity. A moral agent must be a self-aware identity, and a self-aware identity must have the logical faculty to recognize choices.
How can you make statements that agree with me, yet not agree with me?
You are saying quite clearly that free-will is dependent on several things in a causal chain. The simple fact that choice depends on anything, eliminates any freedom it has. I am not arguing choice, I am arguing free-will.
will /wɪl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wil] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, willed, will·ing.
–noun
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
4. wish or desire: to submit against one's will.
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness: to have the will to succeed.
6. the wish or purpose as carried out, or to be carried out: to work one's will.
7. disposition, whether good or ill, toward another. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/will
free will
–noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=free%20will
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I appreciate everyone's analysis of my psyche, but I fail to see where they are at all correct. The only instability in my life is financial. I don't have emotional or rational instability. If any of you knew me outside of the board, that would be apparent.
It's quite simple and I've explained this thoroughly. People make different choices and we attribute this to "Free" will, so we recognize that free-will is not constant, this means that something, whether divine or natural determines what "free" will we have and is therefor not "Free". Because "'free'-will" by definition is independent of any deterministic mechanisms and should therefor be constant, but it's not, it's different for everyone and not "free". It's determined by some "thing" else. Or in my opinion everything else.
this is a perfect example. you are not emotionally stable. you blew your lid last night like i've never seen anyone do before. you've got emotions boiling under the surface you refuse to even acknowledge (probly becos you're afraid you'll go back to torturing pets if you dont control it). so when the talk turns to our internal psyche, you cannot discuss it. you quickly direct conversation back to your external focus on how the real problem is not you, it's everyone else in the entire world becos they have this illogical believe that they are free. even when you say "i picture myself as the boy" you're not being empathetic boy, you're making a feeble attempt to get in touch with your own emotions, becos you've already admitted you WERE that boy. and even then, you are not trying to understand what might have caused that boy to behave such a way, you are simply projecting the reasons you behaved that way onto this boy and assuming he would be the same.
Oh, much of what goes on around you is human behaviour that does not fit into mathematical formulas. If do not learn to understand or even tolerate the subjective nature of humans without belittling them based on your judgement of irrelevency (with commentary like "stamping feet, crying and complaining" or worse "psychotic" which alienates people), you will miss out on adapting to human systems which surround you at all times. They are alogical.
Another thing you and I have in common is we are "judgers", which means we make snap judgements all the time. While we can be potent and decisive, we can also be intolerant and alienate others by tuning out further possible amendments to our judgments. You and I are extraverted judgers, who are fortunate in ways because it is such people who are "go getters" and make things happen for them in life. However, such people often alienate even their own children by their teenage years with overbearing intolerant attitudes. It's something to think about.
Studying personality type is an objective way to get one's balance on track. Sticking to one's own subjective "conditioned" ideas about one's self is a good way to fool one's self.
It's difficult to understand the mind mathematically. It's also difficult to understand the atmosphere mathematically, or quantum physics. So what they do is gather as much information they can, follow trends, formulate a hypothesis and include a probability variable. The probability variable, is the probability that they are right, not the probability that the event will actually occur. Given a specific set of contingencies the event will or will not occur. The fault is in our scope of understanding, not in the underlying mechanisms driving the result.
This also applies to the human mind. The system is so complex that we can only make predictions based on trends and probabilities. That doesn't mean that the system is not deterministic though.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
wow. that's amazing! she posts a descriptor of your personality type, and you give a response that completely proves everything she wrote correct. you read a textbook description of your faults, and not only do you prove that correct, in doing so you exhibit every flaw described therein. i've never seen a personality description fit somebody so well.
I had no problem with the analysis, my question is what good does emotion do us given the circumstances. Do we need to fight off a mastadon right now? Nope. Do we need to life a truck off of our child? Nope. Any reason we might need to get emotional over this conversation? Nope.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I had no problem with the analysis, my question is what good does emotion do us given the circumstances. Do we need to fight off a mastadon right now? Nope. Do we need to life a truck off of our child? Nope. Any reason we might need to get emotional over this conversation? Nope.
yet you did get emotional about this conversation just last night. i remember you getting wound up and saying "fuck you" to me several times. why? becos i was being an asshole and belittling you. when it happens to you, you cry and throw a tantrum like the rest of us. however, when you browbeat people and tell them how stupid they are for their beliefs, you do not even recognize it. you think you're just "spreading truth" to the poor stupid folks who aren't as smart as you. you cannot even see it. becos you are incapable of empathy or recognizing feelings in others. perhaps you attempt to shut yours down for a reason, but notice how incapable of it you are. and when someone challenges the wisdom of such an idea, you get defensive. becos you're afraid of having to admit and feel them.
the point was, the description points out that you dismiss anything emotional as worthless. and you immediately respond by belittling anything with a hint of emotion. you could not be more blind.
this is a perfect example. you are not emotionally stable. you blew your lid last night like i've never seen anyone do before. you've got emotions boiling under the surface you refuse to even acknowledge (probly becos you're afraid you'll go back to torturing pets if you dont control it). so when the talk turns to our internal psyche, you cannot discuss it. you quickly direct conversation back to your external focus on how the real problem is not you, it's everyone else in the entire world becos they have this illogical believe that they are free. even when you say "i picture myself as the boy" you're not being empathetic boy, you're making a feeble attempt to get in touch with your own emotions, becos you've already admitted you WERE that boy. and even then, you are not trying to understand what might have caused that boy to behave such a way, you are simply projecting the reasons you behaved that way onto this boy and assuming he would be the same.
That is completely wrong. I have emotions that I express, either when I feel they are appropriate, or when the chemicals within my brain are too difficult to resist with logic. I have no such disorder as you describe. I am not assuming anyone is the same as me. I am assuming that although this and this are fundamentally the same, they are ultimately different. They appear at different coordinates on the screen and contain different subjective tones to the reader. You are assuming that everyone is the same in exercising "Free" will to always make the right choice based on a mythical universal measure of right and wrong. You do that to boost your ego, thinking that you, given the same tools are ultimately better than others who make improper choices.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
yet you did get emotional about this conversation just last night. i remember you getting wound up and saying "fuck you" to me several times.
the point was, the description points out that you dismiss anything emotional as worthless. and you immediately respond by belittling anything with a hint of emotion. you could not be more blind.
Yea, emotions are worthless in the given context. My statements the day prior were also worthless, was it not?
I should not have reacted that way, nor should you have instigated that reaction. But never-the-less it happened and is now part of our history.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
How can you make statements that agree with me, yet not agree with me?
You are saying quite clearly that free-will is dependent on several things in a causal chain. The simple fact that choice depends on anything, eliminates any freedom it has. I am not arguing choice, I am arguing free-will.
I'll tell you this again, for the hundredth time:
Free-will is not magic.
The fact that choice is dependent on your mind does not eliminate it's existence. You are arguing against choice because, in a deterministic world, choice is impossible.
You're setting up a straw-man for free-will wherein it knows no bounds and then tearing it down because magic doesn't it exist. The problem with that is no one here is telling you that free-will is magic.
The fact that choice is dependent on your mind does not eliminate it's existence. You are arguing against choice because, in a deterministic world, choice is impossible.
You're setting up a straw-man for free-will wherein it knows no bounds and then tearing it down because magic doesn't it exist. The problem with that is no one here is telling you that free-will is magic.
Free-will by definition is magic.
I agree that we have "will" dependent on our genetics and experiences. But nothing else. There is no "free will" that exists independent of deterministic laws.
I am not arguing against choice in it's raw defintion. I'm arguing against choice as a product of "Free will". Choice as a product of determined will certainly exists, though it's not free.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
good point. if there is no free will; you must concede to the existance of God. otherwise we'd all be the same. every buffalo is different (an example) yet their actions are all the same. they look the same and act the same.
Not with the Causal Loop theory.
Because even if we assume that God caused the universe, what caused God? It's a conundrum to look back through the causal nature of the universe without arriving at some point in the future.
Hehe...how do you know that you "read both sides of the argument", or that both sides of the argument were equally presented to you? Wouldn't that require a conscious effort to suppress the very bias you say controls all our behavior?
I have a bias towards truth.
According to your theories, there is no way for humanity to even access truth. You cite logic without even realizing that logic is impossible in a deterministic world.
Exactly! To access truth, one would need to understand the higher principles operating in the world, and to actually understand the latter one needs .... Free will.
Umm, no. That's not what it means.
We are deterministic beings within a deterministic world. That's all that matters.
It really doesn't matter what happens at the quantum level, or if God caused the big bang. We operate at the macro physical level and we exist within the deterministic reality that was or wasn't created by God. That's all that matters to the topic of free-will.
Hehe....want to tell me some more about the "social benefits" that will come of it then? If the above is "all that matters", tell me again what the dividing line between the cat slaughterer and the slaughtered cat is again?
That should be blatantly obvious by now. The kid may never have slaughtered that cat to begin with if he was more widely accepted and understood.
It is. What is also blatantly obvious is the contradiction between your theories and your reasonings.
You say that "we are deterministic beings within a deterministic world. That's all that matters." Yet at the same time, you profess a desire to make this world a "better" place. But "better" has no meaning absent a standard. And the only standard you have to offer is determination. What you don't understand is that the moral standards you hold require the choices you make.
Of course! Now why don't you address what I've been asking you the whole time:
In a deterministic world, so what if kids slaughter cats?
"The over dominance of Extraverted Thinking leads to an intensely intellectual way of seeing the world, where values such as right and wrong, good and bad, useful and useless are judged only by their applicability to an almost mathematically exact - and to the ENTJ - always rational, attitude to life. Without the balance provided by other ways of seeing or judging, the ENTJ is unable to account for actions based upon the inner views or feeling behavior of others, hence such things are always judged negatively, either as irrelevant - or at best - as being of small consequence. Additionally, with their thinking attitude always turned outward and totally subject to the world beyond their senses, without the balance of some internally felt objectivity the ENTJ will often follow their ideas and ambitions without consideration for their own physical and emotional needs. Indeed, the ENTJ often feels that if only his project, his work, his outer reality would just fall into line with his own rational views then all would be well within his world and all his needs would be met. Unfortunately such an attitude can never be satisfied, for the world is not only rational, but also full of situations and human behavior which must be appreciated and understood by quite different, and again - to the ENTJ – often seemingly absurd criteria"
http://www.personalitypage.com/ENTJ_per.html
"Unlike other types, ENTJs naturally have little patience with people who do not see things the same way as the ENTJ. The ENTJ needs to consciously work on recognizing the value of other people's opinions, as well as the value of being sensitive towards people's feelings. In the absence of this awareness, the ENTJ will be a forceful, intimidating and overbearing individual. This may be a real problem for the ENTJ, who may be deprived of important information and collaboration from others."
http://www.personalitypage.com/ENTJ.html
Ahnimus fits these textbook ENTJ traits. This isn't about pathology or autism. This is about the downside to a person's personality. Like we all have.
This world is made up of all kinds of people, and the strengths to this personality type are amazing, as well.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You seem to think that accepting the world as determinisitic negates any moral value. That's what theists say about atheists and they couldn't be more wrong.
Our moral determinism is part of our deterministic system. Everything is part of the deterministic system. Good and Bad are measures of our individual deterministic mechanisms. And thus why Good and Bad are subjective and variable. To say moral judgement lies in free-will, and to say that free-will is independent of determinism. Is to not make any sense. By that logic, why aren't we all free-will robots? Why does "Free-will" differ from one person to the next? The only explanations are deterministic, therefor Free-will as being free from determinism, is a myth.
Sorry, how does stamping our feet, crying and complaining about our emotions put the world into perspective?
And if you notice, what the first link says is that part of the solution for the ENTJ is: INTEGRATING THE PERSONALITY'S INTUITION.
The difficulty for this type is that the intuition is inner. This means that your intuition is into the inner subjective world. For your personality type, you don't want to look subjectively because you are outer focussed and objective. But the key to your balance is building the intuition so that it makes a healthy "navigator" for the driver of your type: thinking.
"Introverted Intuition is the ENTJ’s access to their inner world, to the information that could tell them how the world is affecting them. Because it is introverted, its images arise from the subjective depths of the mind, and contain all that the ENTJ has not considered within their strictly rational and object oriented view of the world. Introverted Intuition provides the personally biased information the ENTJ needs to balance this world view and protect the ENTJ from being totally swallowed up by their selfless and yet single minded attachment to facts, figures and a rationale they accept only from the world outside themselves. Because this inner information is often opposed to the ENTJ’s strongly held ideas it is often rejected, or if accepted, turned outward to make negative judgments about external situations or the behavior of others, rather than seen as a corrective balance to the ENTJ’s own attitudes and behavior."
For the record, though, I also have inner intuition. Many people I know have outer intuition. But the reason you and I both get the issues of this thread (which I have yet to address--I see the way you see, besides the pure determinism approach) and the reason we are both drawn to the inner workings of the psyche is due to this inner intuition. It is the mutual language that we speak. But, if you are holding back from balancing your subjective intuition, it makes sense that you resent that I gladly happily have flourished by developing my own.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Somehow I think the analysis of a 20 question quiz is flawed. It's close, but not entirely. I certainly don't think of things one way. I'm putting myself into the mind of that kid chopping up a cat and I'm attempting to experience what he experiences. That's not solely inner intuition, and that's not solely objective. I think the confusion comes here. Others will look at the child as an object, with no inner self subject to conditioning. Instead they see a free-willed human being that "should know better", as they do. They are seeing it from their perspective, not the perspective of the boys. That's where we differ.
Where you seem unaware is where rather than develop your own subjective understanding of yourself, when you have problems, you perceive it as being the other guy's problem without noticing how you are projecting that. A few people have called you on that in this past week alone. You'll be likely inclined to tune this out and justify your behaviour, and hey, it's your perogative. People deny what causes discomfort all the time. I'm just saying.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I appreciate everyone's analysis of my psyche, but I fail to see where they are at all correct. The only instability in my life is financial. I don't have emotional or rational instability. If any of you knew me outside of the board, that would be apparent.
It's quite simple and I've explained this thoroughly. People make different choices and we attribute this to "Free" will, so we recognize that free-will is not constant, this means that something, whether divine or natural determines what "free" will we have and is therefor not "Free". Because "'free'-will" by definition is independent of any deterministic mechanisms and should therefor be constant, but it's not, it's different for everyone and not "free". It's determined by some "thing" else. Or in my opinion everything else.
Morality cannot exist without choice. Morality can certainly exist without God.
Hehe...this is priceless. "Good and Bad are measures of our individual deterministic mechanisms"? Measures against what??????
Thus? The only thus appropriate to the above is "thus why good and bad do not exist".
The first part makes perfect sense. Moral judgement requires moral standards, because judgements cannot be made independent of standards. Moral standards require moral identity, because one cannot measure one thing against another without assigning identities to those two things. Moral identities require moral agents, because something amoral cannot exist as a moral entity. A moral agent must be a self-aware identity, and a self-aware identity must have the logical faculty to recognize choices.
"Free-will robots" is a contradiction in terms.
Again, because "free-will" requires identity. Identity requires a measure of distinctness. Each person is unique and has the faculty to recognize themselves as such.
You refuse to see the other explanations, and that is your choice. But I promise you that you will not find absolution in destroying that which makes your choices possible.
Another thing you and I have in common is we are "judgers", which means we make snap judgements all the time. While we can be potent and decisive, we can also be intolerant and alienate others by tuning out further possible amendments to our judgments. You and I are extraverted judgers, who are fortunate in ways because it is such people who are "go getters" and make things happen for them in life. However, such people often alienate even their own children by their teenage years with overbearing intolerant attitudes. It's something to think about.
Studying personality type is an objective way to get one's balance on track. Sticking to one's own subjective "conditioned" ideas about one's self is a good way to fool one's self.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
which two?
wow. that's amazing! she posts a descriptor of your personality type, and you give a response that completely proves everything she wrote correct. you read a textbook description of your faults, and not only do you prove that correct, in doing so you exhibit every flaw described therein. i've never seen a personality description fit somebody so well.
How can you make statements that agree with me, yet not agree with me?
You are saying quite clearly that free-will is dependent on several things in a causal chain. The simple fact that choice depends on anything, eliminates any freedom it has. I am not arguing choice, I am arguing free-will.
will /wɪl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wil] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, willed, will·ing.
–noun
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
4. wish or desire: to submit against one's will.
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness: to have the will to succeed.
6. the wish or purpose as carried out, or to be carried out: to work one's will.
7. disposition, whether good or ill, toward another.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/will
free will
–noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=free%20will
this is a perfect example. you are not emotionally stable. you blew your lid last night like i've never seen anyone do before. you've got emotions boiling under the surface you refuse to even acknowledge (probly becos you're afraid you'll go back to torturing pets if you dont control it). so when the talk turns to our internal psyche, you cannot discuss it. you quickly direct conversation back to your external focus on how the real problem is not you, it's everyone else in the entire world becos they have this illogical believe that they are free. even when you say "i picture myself as the boy" you're not being empathetic boy, you're making a feeble attempt to get in touch with your own emotions, becos you've already admitted you WERE that boy. and even then, you are not trying to understand what might have caused that boy to behave such a way, you are simply projecting the reasons you behaved that way onto this boy and assuming he would be the same.
It's difficult to understand the mind mathematically. It's also difficult to understand the atmosphere mathematically, or quantum physics. So what they do is gather as much information they can, follow trends, formulate a hypothesis and include a probability variable. The probability variable, is the probability that they are right, not the probability that the event will actually occur. Given a specific set of contingencies the event will or will not occur. The fault is in our scope of understanding, not in the underlying mechanisms driving the result.
This also applies to the human mind. The system is so complex that we can only make predictions based on trends and probabilities. That doesn't mean that the system is not deterministic though.
I had no problem with the analysis, my question is what good does emotion do us given the circumstances. Do we need to fight off a mastadon right now? Nope. Do we need to life a truck off of our child? Nope. Any reason we might need to get emotional over this conversation? Nope.
yet you did get emotional about this conversation just last night. i remember you getting wound up and saying "fuck you" to me several times. why? becos i was being an asshole and belittling you. when it happens to you, you cry and throw a tantrum like the rest of us. however, when you browbeat people and tell them how stupid they are for their beliefs, you do not even recognize it. you think you're just "spreading truth" to the poor stupid folks who aren't as smart as you. you cannot even see it. becos you are incapable of empathy or recognizing feelings in others. perhaps you attempt to shut yours down for a reason, but notice how incapable of it you are. and when someone challenges the wisdom of such an idea, you get defensive. becos you're afraid of having to admit and feel them.
the point was, the description points out that you dismiss anything emotional as worthless. and you immediately respond by belittling anything with a hint of emotion. you could not be more blind.
That is completely wrong. I have emotions that I express, either when I feel they are appropriate, or when the chemicals within my brain are too difficult to resist with logic. I have no such disorder as you describe. I am not assuming anyone is the same as me. I am assuming that although this and this are fundamentally the same, they are ultimately different. They appear at different coordinates on the screen and contain different subjective tones to the reader. You are assuming that everyone is the same in exercising "Free" will to always make the right choice based on a mythical universal measure of right and wrong. You do that to boost your ego, thinking that you, given the same tools are ultimately better than others who make improper choices.
Yea, emotions are worthless in the given context. My statements the day prior were also worthless, was it not?
I should not have reacted that way, nor should you have instigated that reaction. But never-the-less it happened and is now part of our history.
I'll tell you this again, for the hundredth time:
Free-will is not magic.
The fact that choice is dependent on your mind does not eliminate it's existence. You are arguing against choice because, in a deterministic world, choice is impossible.
You're setting up a straw-man for free-will wherein it knows no bounds and then tearing it down because magic doesn't it exist. The problem with that is no one here is telling you that free-will is magic.
Free-will by definition is magic.
I agree that we have "will" dependent on our genetics and experiences. But nothing else. There is no "free will" that exists independent of deterministic laws.
I am not arguing against choice in it's raw defintion. I'm arguing against choice as a product of "Free will". Choice as a product of determined will certainly exists, though it's not free.