Yes, I believe Jesus was a great man for his time. Similar to other miracle-mongers with fancy doctrines and stories like Odysseus or Apollonius. It doesn't really matter though.
i see. thanks for answering the question.
I died. I died and you just stood there. I died and you watched. I died and you walked by and said no. I'm dead.
You don't believe cause and effect? You don't believe the brain matters and that tumors can affect brain processes? You don't belive synaptogensis, or the findings of Ben Libet and the subsequent peer experiments? What do you believe as evidence? That which you fantasize about?
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 don't believe cause and effect? You don't believe the brain matters and that tumors can affect brain processes? You don't belive synaptogensis, or the findings of Ben Libet and the subsequent peer experiments? What do you believe as evidence? That which you fantasize about?
perhaps the belief is that one has thoughts, and one can use those thoughts, and one can then use those useful thoughts to believe in free-will.
but of course you believe some mysterious force has already determined the nature of all thoughts, so youre basically a mindless brick wall.
??
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
perhaps the belief is that one has thoughts, and one can use those thoughts, and one can then use those useful thoughts to believe in free-will.
but of course you believe some mysterious force has already determined the nature of all thoughts, so youre basically a mindless brick wall.
??
Ok, so let's start with "one has thoughts" what causes those thoughts? If you answer that in any way, whether it's Hameroff's cohernece of microtubules and the collapse of quantum wave functions or some computational theory. You are still looking at a cause, and now you see how our own thoughts are not ours to choose, we have them, but our thoughts do not cause our thoughts. Certainly you can choose to believe in free-will, it's the natural thing to do, there is a significant purpose for the natural illusion of free-will. It's purpose is survivability and rational deliberation. However, that doesn't change reality.
The mysterious force is not what determines our thoughts. The mystery is in an idea of free-will, indeterminant will. Because it doesn't matter how you slice it, whether our thoughts are the result of some random process or cosmic intelligence, they are still determinants, there is no escaping determinism. The only way to hold free-will as a possibility is to ignore everything we know. Ignore the fact that tennis balls do not behave on their own, they require motivation. You must ignore all cause and effect, all randomness and believe in some other mysterious thing which cannot be described, the moment it is described it becomes a determinant.
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
perhaps the belief is that one has thoughts, and one can use those thoughts, and one can then use those useful thoughts to believe in free-will.
but of course you believe some mysterious force has already determined the nature of all thoughts, so youre basically a mindless brick wall.
??
thank you. i got busy and couldn't get to the computer for a while. you answered that beautifully but i'd also like to add that i do believe in cause and effect; etc; but knowing how something works doesn't explain WHY it works. dismissing the parts of science that doesn't fit into the mold of his ideas doesn't help his cause either. i know how it works; what you can't answer is why. that's why i don't accept it.
thank you. i got busy and couldn't get to the computer for a while. you answered that beautifully but i'd also like to add that i do believe in cause and effect; etc; but knowing how something works doesn't explain WHY it works. dismissing the parts of science that doesn't fit into the mold of his ideas doesn't help his cause either. i know how it works; what you can't answer is why. that's why i don't accept it.
Why does it work? It has to or we wouldn't be asking these questions. And here I'm the one critisized for reductionism. Why does heat cause water to boil? We know how it works, but why? You are looking for purpose as your background in theology would incline you to do, but consider a universe without purpose and the question "Why does it work?" is pointless. Assuming you mean "What is the purpose?" rather than "What causes it to work?" What causes it to work is the nature of the universe. At some point we must say to ourselves there is knowledge we cannot attain, such as the turtle problem and making assumptions about that knowledge doesn't get us any closer to it, it's all just speculation, which is fine if you find comfort in it. The problem arises when you set policy based on it. In all of our attainable knowledge, there is no evidence of Free-will and plenty evidence against it.
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
thank you. i got busy and couldn't get to the computer for a while. you answered that beautifully but i'd also like to add that i do believe in cause and effect; etc; but knowing how something works doesn't explain WHY it works. dismissing the parts of science that doesn't fit into the mold of his ideas doesn't help his cause either. i know how it works; what you can't answer is why. that's why i don't accept it.
sure thing. i know Ahnimus is just itching to reinstigate a conversation on free-will, so i figured id say something.
im kind of a fence-sitter on the issue, but thats mostly because i dont feel any deep-seated need to believe in a God for guidance or inspiration. Beauty is everything, and everywhere too; ive developed the ability to enact happiness simply from the questions surrounding such concepts as determinism or nihilism or idealism or whatever other romances philosophiles [and philosophillies, for all the ladies out there,.. ] can conjure. i suppose one may say i'm a wonderer.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
sure thing. i know Ahnimus is just itching to reinstigate a conversation on free-will, so i figured id say something.
im kind of a fence-sitter on the issue, but thats mostly because i dont feel any deep-seated need to believe in a God for guidance or inspiration. Beauty is everything, and everywhere too; ive developed the ability to enact happiness simply from the questions surrounding such concepts as determinism or nihilism or idealism or whatever other romances philosophiles [and philosophillies, for all the ladies out there,.. ] can conjure. i suppose one may say i'm a wonderer.
How about you guys respond to me if you take this at all seriously instead of jerking off each others egos. I just hit you with undeniable reality. You must choose ignorance to believe in free-will, you cannot describe free-will or it's cause. You have to ignore me and the world around you to have any validity in a belief in 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
Ahnimus, you want us to believe in determinism rather than free-will. This suggests that one has a choice in the matter. It suggests that we can make a choice as to whether determinism or free will is a better doctrine. Doesn't that assumes that we are free? In other words ,arguing for determinism assumes that we are not determined to believe in free will or determinism, but that it is a matter of our making certain choices about what we believe. Bit of a paradox to me..........
Also, do you classify yourself as a fatalist? Do you believe in will at all?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
sure thing. i know Ahnimus is just itching to reinstigate a conversation on free-will, so i figured id say something.
im kind of a fence-sitter on the issue, but thats mostly because i dont feel any deep-seated need to believe in a God for guidance or inspiration. Beauty is everything, and everywhere too; ive developed the ability to enact happiness simply from the questions surrounding such concepts as determinism or nihilism or idealism or whatever other romances philosophiles [and philosophillies, for all the ladies out there,.. ] can conjure. i suppose one may say i'm a wonderer.
maybe he can't control his thoughts. i can read a book and concentrate on only what i'm reading. i can choose to steal or not steal. seems to me he has no mind control.
i think you and i are a lot alike but i'd use different words to explain it.
Ok, so let's start with "one has thoughts" what causes those thoughts? If you answer that in any way, whether it's Hameroff's cohernece of microtubules and the collapse of quantum wave functions or some computational theory. You are still looking at a cause, and now you see how our own thoughts are not ours to choose, we have them, but our thoughts do not cause our thoughts. Certainly you can choose to believe in free-will, it's the natural thing to do, there is a significant purpose for the natural illusion of free-will. It's purpose is survivability and rational deliberation. However, that doesn't change reality.
The mysterious force is not what determines our thoughts. The mystery is in an idea of free-will, indeterminant will. Because it doesn't matter how you slice it, whether our thoughts are the result of some random process or cosmic intelligence, they are still determinants, there is no escaping determinism. The only way to hold free-will as a possibility is to ignore everything we know. Ignore the fact that tennis balls do not behave on their own, they require motivation. You must ignore all cause and effect, all randomness and believe in some other mysterious thing which cannot be described, the moment it is described it becomes a determinant.
i disagree.
tennis balls only require "motivation" [which im interpretting as "motion"] within the confines of gravity; in space objects move freely without predetermined outcomes unless one believes in a hyper-cosmic intelligence God-thingy.
the only way to ignore everything we know is to know you are ignoring stuff, so that cant possibly be "the only way" since that is not even a coherent function.
and yes, of course there are determinants in life, an indeniable fact of Nature, but that does not imply a wholly deterministic universe or existence. i fail to see from your comments why one cannot simply believe in randomness as a valid solution to the implausibility of existence, hence opening the doors to belief in the reality of free-willing life,...?
sure, there is a purpose for the natural-illusion of determinism, such as "meaning", but that is not proof either heir furor.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Ahnimus, you want us to believe in determinism rather than free-will. This suggests that one has a choice in the matter. It suggests that we can make a choice as to whether determinism or free will is a better doctrine. Doesn't that assumes that we are free? In other words ,arguing for determinism assumes that we are not determined to believe in free will or determinism, but that it is a matter of our making certain choices about what we believe. Bit of a paradox to me..........
Also, do you classify yourself as a fatalist? Do you believe in will at all?
I don't like classifications, but sure, materialist, fatalist, whichever.
I'll make this distinction again, will/volition is not free-will. Will by it's self describes the ability to rationally deliberate or make choices. I get A information plus B information and I am faced with C decision. My brain computes or whatever and I make a decision. But when you add the term "Free" you are describing a volition that is independant of A, B or C and that's just not possible. Will that is not "Free" is entirely dependant on A, B and C to make a decision. I cannot make a choice without first being subjected to a choice possibility, for example, I cannot choose to eat mars over snickers if I live somewhere that has neither. Now that I have the choice, I can think "Well I like nuts, I'm gettin' a snickers", so the knowledge that "I like nuts" determines my choice to get snickers, maybe I've had snickers the last few times and this acts as a determining fact for me to get mars for variety. There is biochemical explanations for my affinity for nuts and the desire for variety as well, but I won't go that far. All of this causal chain goes infinitely backwards and I can take you back to Big Bang theory, it requires an expulsion of most intuitive thoughts though. For example one cannot understand this by first believing they have free-will, they must suspend that belief for the sake of discovery.
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
Ahnimus, you want us to believe in determinism rather than free-will. This suggests that one has a choice in the matter. It suggests that we can make a choice as to whether determinism or free will is a better doctrine. Doesn't that assumes that we are free? In other words ,arguing for determinism assumes that we are not determined to believe in free will or determinism, but that it is a matter of our making certain choices about what we believe. Bit of a paradox to me..........
Also, do you classify yourself as a fatalist? Do you believe in will at all?
you guys are getting ahead of me. my point exactly; if he decides to believe in determinism; he obviously chose to believe in it via his own free will. either that or a superior being predetermined his choice. he wants it both ways but it doesn't work that way.
tennis balls only require "motivation" [which im interpretting as "motion"] within the confines of gravity; in space objects move freely without predetermined outcomes unless one believes in a hyper-cosmic intelligence God-thingy.
the only way to ignore everything we know is to know you are ignoring stuff, so that cant possibly be "the only way" since that is not even a coherent function.
and yes, of course there are determinants in life, an indeniable fact of Nature, but that does not imply a wholly deterministic universe or existence. i fail to see from your comments why one cannot simply believe in randomness as a valid solution to the implausibility of existence, hence opening the doors to belief in the reality of free-willing life,...?
sure, there is a purpose for the natural-illusion of determinism, such as "meaning", but that is not proof either heir furor.
Even if you truly believe a coin-toss is random, does not mean that the coin chooses which side it lands on.
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 about you guys respond to me if you take this at all seriously instead of jerking off each others egos. I just hit you with undeniable reality. You must choose ignorance to believe in free-will, you cannot describe free-will or it's cause. You have to ignore me and the world around you to have any validity in a belief in free-will.
what's the matter? do you need some attention. well here you have it. when others are answering with basically the same thoughts that i was about to answer with; i see no need to repeat what they said; so i'm confirming with them that i agree. you don't have to be the centre of attention here.
you guys are getting ahead of me. my point exactly; if he decides to believe in determinism; he obviously chose to believe in it via his own free will. either that or a superior being predetermined his choice. he wants it both ways but it doesn't work that way.
Again, you are describing will, there is a distinct difference between will and free-will. Will is determined and free-will is not, but both describe the ability to choose, one is deterministic and the other is neither indeterminant nor determinant, it is without explanation.
vo·li·tion /voʊˈlɪʃən, və-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[voh-lish-uhn, vuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the act of willing, choosing, or resolving; exercise of willing: She left of her own volition.
2. a choice or decision made by the will.
3. the power of willing; 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.
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
what's the matter? do you need some attention. well here you have it. when others are answering with basically the same thoughts that i was about to answer with; i see no need to repeat what they said; so i'm confirming with them that i agree. you don't have to be the centre of attention here.
I don't intend to be, but you are ignoring half of the debate. You cannot describe free-will, what allows us to have it, what causes it or anything about it. All you can do is ignore other evidence or say "I don't believe the evidence" You must choose ignorance to maintain a belief in free-will, your knowledge of free-will is ignorance and that is where you find comfort, but that does not describe reality.
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 don't like classifications, but sure, materialist, fatalist, whichever.
I'll make this distinction again, will/volition is not free-will. Will by it's self describes the ability to rationally deliberate or make choices. I get A information plus B information and I am faced with C decision. My brain computes or whatever and I make a decision. But when you add the term "Free" you are describing a volition that is independant of A, B or C and that's just not possible. Will that is not "Free" is entirely dependant on A, B and C to make a decision. I cannot make a choice without first being subjected to a choice possibility, for example, I cannot choose to eat mars over snickers if I live somewhere that has neither. Now that I have the choice, I can think "Well I like nuts, I'm gettin' a snickers", so the knowledge that "I like nuts" determines my choice to get snickers, maybe I've had snickers the last few times and this acts as a determining fact for me to get mars for variety. There is biochemical explanations for my affinity for nuts and the desire for variety as well, but I won't go that far. All of this causal chain goes infinitely backwards and I can take you back to Big Bang theory, it requires an expulsion of most intuitive thoughts though. For example one cannot understand this by first believing they have free-will, they must suspend that belief for the sake of discovery.
youre wrong. free-will is not bound by circumstantial choices, which you are conceding, but your example fails to comply. if there are no snickers or mars, sure, your choices become limited, but not by Nature, by other circumstantial facts of Nature, be they time, distance, money, or plainly the power of one's will. if i want a fucking snickers so bad ill get a fucking snickers. so far as i can tell, the only way you could have any ground to stand on with this point is if i die trying to get a snickers, in which case i would have allowed that maybe the universe is deterministic and i wasnt supposed to have a snickers.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
This is a very important issue though. Especially in-terms of God and morality. If free-will does not exist, good and evil cannot exist and the classical concept of God must be false.
I know it's the least ideal, shittiest possible version of reality and I wish it weren't so in many ways. But I'm not the type to deny reality. Gay people are gay because they are determined to be gay by physical laws, by physical determination.
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
youre wrong. free-will is not bound by circumstantial choices, which you are conceding, but your example fails to comply. if there are no snickers or mars, sure, your choices become limited, but not by Nature, by other circumstantial facts of Nature, be they time, distance, money, or plainly the power of one's will. if i want a fucking snickers so bad ill get a fucking snickers. so far as i can tell, the only way you could have any ground to stand on with this point is if i die trying to get a snickers, in which case i would have allowed that maybe the universe is deterministic and i wasnt supposed to have a snickers.
I'm not making any sense out of that RoM. Again you seem to be describing will as your desire to eat a snickers, which may plainly be the result of your exposure to snickers and the biochemical bonding that occured with the consumption of chocolate, caramel and nuts in that specific variety. Had you never tasted a snickers bar, you would have no will to obtain one. Thus this will is not free and determined first and foremost by your exposure to the candy to begin with.
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 don't intend to be, but you are ignoring half of the debate. You cannot describe free-will, what allows us to have it, what causes it or anything about it. All you can do is ignore other evidence or say "I don't believe the evidence" You must choose ignorance to maintain a belief in free-will, your knowledge of free-will is ignorance and that is where you find comfort, but that does not describe reality.
you answer me with things like "it works because it has to" and "the other is neither indeterminant nor determinant, it is without explanation."
so if it's without explaination; why are you wasting my time? get in touch with me when you have some answers. try comparing animals and humans. an animal will steal the bread as a response to hunger; the human can CHOOSE to steal the bread or remain hungry. choosing to remain hungry is the proper thing to do. it goes against all instincts; but it is the proper thing to do. thus; it is free will to remain hungry because it goes against instinct.
I don't intend to be, but you are ignoring half of the debate. You cannot describe free-will, what allows us to have it, what causes it or anything about it. All you can do is ignore other evidence or say "I don't believe the evidence" You must choose ignorance to maintain a belief in free-will, your knowledge of free-will is ignorance and that is where you find comfort, but that does not describe reality.
how can you say this without simultaneously laughing at yourself and everyone else involved in this discussion? one liter-cola coming up.
you cannot describe determinism, what allows us to have life, what causes [has caused] it or anything about it.
furthermore, reality is beyond description, which i grant supports divinity more than randomness, but none-the-less is irrelevant as you have spoken of it.
where is your ultimate proof that the universe is governed by a force or multiple forces of whole-determination?
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
I'm not making any sense out of that RoM. Again you seem to be describing will as your desire to eat a snickers, which may plainly be the result of your exposure to snickers and the biochemical bonding that occured with the consumption of chocolate, caramel and nuts in that specific variety. Had you never tasted a snickers bar, you would have no will to obtain one. Thus this will is not free and determined first and foremost by your exposure to the candy to begin with.
no, you tried to prove a point, namely that one is determined to get a snickers or not or choose to get a milky way or whatever your silly example was saying to try and bind me into some corner of potentially predetermined outcomes, whereas i was disproving that with an allusion to the fact that i can freely will to get a candy bar, or pluck a stick from a tree or slit my wrists, if i should so desire. you cannot prove that there is an ultimate force behind which all of Nature revolves and is the "first cause" of every random act via the evolution of time and effect(s), hence i hold more authority towards free-will than anything otherwise.
but nice try.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
you answer me with things like "it works because it has to" and "the other is neither indeterminant nor determinant, it is without explanation."
so if it's without explaination; why are you wasting my time? get in touch with me when you have some answers. try comparing animals and humans. an animal will steal the bread as a response to hunger; the human can CHOOSE to steal the bread or remain hungry. choosing to remain hungry is the proper thing to do. it goes against all instincts; but it is the proper thing to do. thus; it is free will to remain hungry because it goes against instinct.
I have described it to you, for 9,000 years determinism has been described. Choosing to go hungry is a function of the human condition as a result of social interplay. We go hungry so we do not steal and suffer a life in prison. We imprison people so they will not steal from us. There is causality for everything. The tennis ball is one of the simplest examples. Everything around you has cause, you are where you are now because of prior causes, that's undeniable. Everything we experience is caused by activity in the brain, that's a proven fact, just remove your brain or damage it and that will be apparent. You cannot describe one thing that knowingly has no cause, everything we know the origin of has a cause. Then there is the unknown to which we haven't discovered the causes for, but it would be ridiculous to suppose that means we have free-will, simply because we don't know the cause of the universe. I've described determinism as a cause and effect relationship, all of science is deterministic and it is the basis for most of our understanding of reality, reality is deterministic. A coin toss is a perfect example of what appears to be random but is in-fact not, and the coin in no way, shape or form has free-will. Part of debating is you being able to describe your position, you must quantify free-will and explain it for this to be a debate, or else you are simply choosing ignorance, you are simply choosing to ignore the definitions, descriptions and causes I've explained.
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
no, you tried to prove a point, namely that one is determined to get a snickers or not or choose to get a milky way or whatever your silly example was saying to try and bind me into some corner of potentially predetermined outcomes, whereas i was disproving that with an allusion to the fact that i can freely will to get a candy bar, or pluck a stick from a tree or slit my wrists, if i should so desire. you cannot prove that there is an ultimate force behind which all of Nature revolves and is the "first cause" of every random act via the evolution of time and effect(s), hence i hold more authority towards free-will than anything otherwise.
but nice try.
I do not need to prove the origins of the universe. That is way beyond our scope as human beings existing in the macro-level of the universe. A person does not exist without first being conceived by their parents, our entire existance as individuals is dependant on physical determinants, everything is unless you choose to ignore the causes.
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
i see. thanks for answering the question.
but i don't believe your evidence.
You don't believe cause and effect? You don't believe the brain matters and that tumors can affect brain processes? You don't belive synaptogensis, or the findings of Ben Libet and the subsequent peer experiments? What do you believe as evidence? That which you fantasize about?
perhaps the belief is that one has thoughts, and one can use those thoughts, and one can then use those useful thoughts to believe in free-will.
but of course you believe some mysterious force has already determined the nature of all thoughts, so youre basically a mindless brick wall.
??
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Ok, so let's start with "one has thoughts" what causes those thoughts? If you answer that in any way, whether it's Hameroff's cohernece of microtubules and the collapse of quantum wave functions or some computational theory. You are still looking at a cause, and now you see how our own thoughts are not ours to choose, we have them, but our thoughts do not cause our thoughts. Certainly you can choose to believe in free-will, it's the natural thing to do, there is a significant purpose for the natural illusion of free-will. It's purpose is survivability and rational deliberation. However, that doesn't change reality.
The mysterious force is not what determines our thoughts. The mystery is in an idea of free-will, indeterminant will. Because it doesn't matter how you slice it, whether our thoughts are the result of some random process or cosmic intelligence, they are still determinants, there is no escaping determinism. The only way to hold free-will as a possibility is to ignore everything we know. Ignore the fact that tennis balls do not behave on their own, they require motivation. You must ignore all cause and effect, all randomness and believe in some other mysterious thing which cannot be described, the moment it is described it becomes a determinant.
thank you. i got busy and couldn't get to the computer for a while. you answered that beautifully but i'd also like to add that i do believe in cause and effect; etc; but knowing how something works doesn't explain WHY it works. dismissing the parts of science that doesn't fit into the mold of his ideas doesn't help his cause either. i know how it works; what you can't answer is why. that's why i don't accept it.
Why does it work? It has to or we wouldn't be asking these questions. And here I'm the one critisized for reductionism. Why does heat cause water to boil? We know how it works, but why? You are looking for purpose as your background in theology would incline you to do, but consider a universe without purpose and the question "Why does it work?" is pointless. Assuming you mean "What is the purpose?" rather than "What causes it to work?" What causes it to work is the nature of the universe. At some point we must say to ourselves there is knowledge we cannot attain, such as the turtle problem and making assumptions about that knowledge doesn't get us any closer to it, it's all just speculation, which is fine if you find comfort in it. The problem arises when you set policy based on it. In all of our attainable knowledge, there is no evidence of Free-will and plenty evidence against it.
sure thing. i know Ahnimus is just itching to reinstigate a conversation on free-will, so i figured id say something.
im kind of a fence-sitter on the issue, but thats mostly because i dont feel any deep-seated need to believe in a God for guidance or inspiration. Beauty is everything, and everywhere too; ive developed the ability to enact happiness simply from the questions surrounding such concepts as determinism or nihilism or idealism or whatever other romances philosophiles [and philosophillies, for all the ladies out there,..
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
How about you guys respond to me if you take this at all seriously instead of jerking off each others egos. I just hit you with undeniable reality. You must choose ignorance to believe in free-will, you cannot describe free-will or it's cause. You have to ignore me and the world around you to have any validity in a belief in free-will.
Also, do you classify yourself as a fatalist? Do you believe in will at all?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
maybe he can't control his thoughts. i can read a book and concentrate on only what i'm reading. i can choose to steal or not steal. seems to me he has no mind control.
i think you and i are a lot alike but i'd use different words to explain it.
i disagree.
tennis balls only require "motivation" [which im interpretting as "motion"] within the confines of gravity; in space objects move freely without predetermined outcomes unless one believes in a hyper-cosmic intelligence God-thingy.
the only way to ignore everything we know is to know you are ignoring stuff, so that cant possibly be "the only way" since that is not even a coherent function.
and yes, of course there are determinants in life, an indeniable fact of Nature, but that does not imply a wholly deterministic universe or existence. i fail to see from your comments why one cannot simply believe in randomness as a valid solution to the implausibility of existence, hence opening the doors to belief in the reality of free-willing life,...?
sure, there is a purpose for the natural-illusion of determinism, such as "meaning", but that is not proof either heir furor.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
I don't like classifications, but sure, materialist, fatalist, whichever.
I'll make this distinction again, will/volition is not free-will. Will by it's self describes the ability to rationally deliberate or make choices. I get A information plus B information and I am faced with C decision. My brain computes or whatever and I make a decision. But when you add the term "Free" you are describing a volition that is independant of A, B or C and that's just not possible. Will that is not "Free" is entirely dependant on A, B and C to make a decision. I cannot make a choice without first being subjected to a choice possibility, for example, I cannot choose to eat mars over snickers if I live somewhere that has neither. Now that I have the choice, I can think "Well I like nuts, I'm gettin' a snickers", so the knowledge that "I like nuts" determines my choice to get snickers, maybe I've had snickers the last few times and this acts as a determining fact for me to get mars for variety. There is biochemical explanations for my affinity for nuts and the desire for variety as well, but I won't go that far. All of this causal chain goes infinitely backwards and I can take you back to Big Bang theory, it requires an expulsion of most intuitive thoughts though. For example one cannot understand this by first believing they have free-will, they must suspend that belief for the sake of discovery.
you guys are getting ahead of me. my point exactly; if he decides to believe in determinism; he obviously chose to believe in it via his own free will. either that or a superior being predetermined his choice. he wants it both ways but it doesn't work that way.
Even if you truly believe a coin-toss is random, does not mean that the coin chooses which side it lands on.
what's the matter? do you need some attention. well here you have it. when others are answering with basically the same thoughts that i was about to answer with; i see no need to repeat what they said; so i'm confirming with them that i agree. you don't have to be the centre of attention here.
shenanigans.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Again, you are describing will, there is a distinct difference between will and free-will. Will is determined and free-will is not, but both describe the ability to choose, one is deterministic and the other is neither indeterminant nor determinant, it is without explanation.
vo·li·tion /voʊˈlɪʃən, və-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[voh-lish-uhn, vuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the act of willing, choosing, or resolving; exercise of willing: She left of her own volition.
2. a choice or decision made by the will.
3. the power of willing; 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.
I don't intend to be, but you are ignoring half of the debate. You cannot describe free-will, what allows us to have it, what causes it or anything about it. All you can do is ignore other evidence or say "I don't believe the evidence" You must choose ignorance to maintain a belief in free-will, your knowledge of free-will is ignorance and that is where you find comfort, but that does not describe reality.
This is coz I had a dig at ya being married and repressed isn't it??
I told you! G rated!!!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
youre wrong. free-will is not bound by circumstantial choices, which you are conceding, but your example fails to comply. if there are no snickers or mars, sure, your choices become limited, but not by Nature, by other circumstantial facts of Nature, be they time, distance, money, or plainly the power of one's will. if i want a fucking snickers so bad ill get a fucking snickers. so far as i can tell, the only way you could have any ground to stand on with this point is if i die trying to get a snickers, in which case i would have allowed that maybe the universe is deterministic and i wasnt supposed to have a snickers.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
This is a very important issue though. Especially in-terms of God and morality. If free-will does not exist, good and evil cannot exist and the classical concept of God must be false.
I know it's the least ideal, shittiest possible version of reality and I wish it weren't so in many ways. But I'm not the type to deny reality. Gay people are gay because they are determined to be gay by physical laws, by physical determination.
I'm not making any sense out of that RoM. Again you seem to be describing will as your desire to eat a snickers, which may plainly be the result of your exposure to snickers and the biochemical bonding that occured with the consumption of chocolate, caramel and nuts in that specific variety. Had you never tasted a snickers bar, you would have no will to obtain one. Thus this will is not free and determined first and foremost by your exposure to the candy to begin with.
you answer me with things like "it works because it has to" and "the other is neither indeterminant nor determinant, it is without explanation."
so if it's without explaination; why are you wasting my time? get in touch with me when you have some answers. try comparing animals and humans. an animal will steal the bread as a response to hunger; the human can CHOOSE to steal the bread or remain hungry. choosing to remain hungry is the proper thing to do. it goes against all instincts; but it is the proper thing to do. thus; it is free will to remain hungry because it goes against instinct.
how can you say this without simultaneously laughing at yourself and everyone else involved in this discussion? one liter-cola coming up.
you cannot describe determinism, what allows us to have life, what causes [has caused] it or anything about it.
furthermore, reality is beyond description, which i grant supports divinity more than randomness, but none-the-less is irrelevant as you have spoken of it.
where is your ultimate proof that the universe is governed by a force or multiple forces of whole-determination?
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
but nice try.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
I have described it to you, for 9,000 years determinism has been described. Choosing to go hungry is a function of the human condition as a result of social interplay. We go hungry so we do not steal and suffer a life in prison. We imprison people so they will not steal from us. There is causality for everything. The tennis ball is one of the simplest examples. Everything around you has cause, you are where you are now because of prior causes, that's undeniable. Everything we experience is caused by activity in the brain, that's a proven fact, just remove your brain or damage it and that will be apparent. You cannot describe one thing that knowingly has no cause, everything we know the origin of has a cause. Then there is the unknown to which we haven't discovered the causes for, but it would be ridiculous to suppose that means we have free-will, simply because we don't know the cause of the universe. I've described determinism as a cause and effect relationship, all of science is deterministic and it is the basis for most of our understanding of reality, reality is deterministic. A coin toss is a perfect example of what appears to be random but is in-fact not, and the coin in no way, shape or form has free-will. Part of debating is you being able to describe your position, you must quantify free-will and explain it for this to be a debate, or else you are simply choosing ignorance, you are simply choosing to ignore the definitions, descriptions and causes I've explained.
This thread bit the dust right from the first post.
I do not need to prove the origins of the universe. That is way beyond our scope as human beings existing in the macro-level of the universe. A person does not exist without first being conceived by their parents, our entire existance as individuals is dependant on physical determinants, everything is unless you choose to ignore the causes.