@cicerone imposter,
Well it was possible in the course of evolution since pre historic brutal times...all it was needed was a raise in the average IQ...
@Fil Albuquerque,
Yea Fil much of the time that's so. However, intuition comes to some remarkably believable conclusions
Quote:We like to think we matter out of our own right
Of course the faithful will so maintain. However, as probably the most complex object, without which the entire show seems arbitrary, there's that intuitive feeling that somehow we play a critical part
Yes, no, of course Fil, I have no evidence of the usu scientific sort
@Fil Albuquerque,
Haha ok. "It's some bullshit" is quite the reasonable argument against my attempt. Please tell me why I'm wrong, if you read what I posted
@north,
What is this "main thinking" you speak of and who denotes it as such? God? The king of carrots who sealed our fates?
@Fil Albuquerque,
We only matter in the grand scheme of things huh? Well who's to say any of it matters?
@ghurt3,
ghurt3 wrote:
We only matter in the grand scheme of things huh? Well who's to say any of it matters?
No one. That's precisely why we only matter in the great scheme of things not in the great scheme of men.
I am not deciding it I am accepting it.
That which is complete cannot be faulted.
@Fil Albuquerque,
We are a speck so small, most of us will be forgotten that we ever existed. In that vain, I have asked to have my body cremated. I would like to have my ashes spread into the Pacific Ocean.
@cicerone imposter,
I believe if you take out of existence one single particle from the primordial soup at the beginning of the big-bang the whole story of our Universe would be different. When I use the coinage "meaning" I am bringing the word in that context.
To your last remark I think getting back to the sea from where all life sprung from is a nice way to go.
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
That which is complete cannot be faulted.
Still peddlin that Parmenidean philsophy, eh, Fil? Makes thing easy, I guess.
@ghurt3,
If you even think the word free can be matched in a rational sentence with any other word then you have already described your level of understanding. ..and yes I avoid losing my time explaining the obvious when there is urgency in explaining so much more. Soap opera passing as Philosophy is not in my menu.
@layman,
Parmenides will come back with avengence...its actually quite sad how miss understood and under valued he is. I am sure Einstein would appreciate him...
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Parmenides will come back with avengence...its actually quite sad how miss understood and under valued he is. I am sure Einstein would appreciate him...
Yeah, in their conversations, Karl Popper callled Al "Parmenides" for a reason that wasn't entirely facetious.
I haven't been following this thread at all, but there's been many others like it where I have followed and contributed. I will just say this:
The free will/determinism issue is NOT something you decide by "investigating the facts." It is something you decide in advance, a priori, BEFORE you do any real empirical and/or rational "analysis."
If, as a starting point, you adopt a metaphysical (ontological) position based on assumptions of mechanism, materialism, reductionism, etc., they you will have to conclude (because you have, in effect, ALREADY concluded), that there can be no free will.
If you do not adopt those starting premises, then you will conclude (again, you have already concluded) that there is free will.
These are starting premises, axioms, postulates, whatever you want to call them. As such, they cannot possibly be "proven." So, for that reason, I see the whole debate as futile.
It's not a matter of "fact," evidence, or proof. It's a matter of personal preference, that's all.
@layman,
For the record, I personally choose to assert that we all have free will.
Alla yawl robot wannabees, help yourselves if you prefer to choose otherwise. There is one inherent advantage if you do that, of course. To wit:
Quote:“RESPONSIBILITY, n. A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star.” (Ambrose Bierce)
@layman,
So you believe for one you can determin your actions through causal willing and for another that matter has no causal effects upon you ? Everytime you have an headache n take a pill rethink the topic...
@layman,
No they are not starting axioms you decide a priori..first because the very idea of free will both requires and refutes causality. Its an illogical self contradictory stance. Either you are not free cause the world is random and you are not the author of your actions or you are not free because a chain of causality constrains your decisions. There is no third scenario here.
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
No they are not starting axioms you decide a priori..first because the very idea of free will both requires and refutes causality.here is no third scenario here.
I don't understand your first post.
This post just proves how absolutely internalized your own ontological assumptions are. So much so, that you can't even understand that they pre-exist.
I don't think you even read my first post very carefully.
@layman,
Please address my point don't just talk past my arguments. I would appreciate that much if we are to trade ideas on this thanks.
(The argument I do is old I did not invented it and is quite simple to grasp)
Which in turn leads me to conclude that either you are not familiar with it or not really willing to engage in an honest debate...
As lame as it can be sold:
"Free Will" requires that your thoughts can CAUSE an action. It requires cause/effect.
"Free Will" also requires a causal discontinuity between matter and you. So that a chain of cause cannot precede your decision making...
...and yet you do directly interact with matter...
the "Randomness" argument from Libertarians is not valid as it washes away authorship. Tossing random coins invalidates you are the willing cause of an action, hence not free from a Randomness pov.
Same goes for those who endorse cause/effect.
If you are made of matter and the world around you is made of matter then the chain of cause does not start with you. Hence you still not free.
Hope that helps.
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
As lame as it can be sold:
"Free Will" requires that your thoughts can CAUSE an action. It requires cause/effect.
"Free Will" also requires a causal discontinuity between matter and you. So that a chain of cause cannot precede your decision making...
...and yet you do directly interact with matter...
the "Randomness" argument from Libertarians is not valid as it washes away authorship. Tossing random coins invalidates you are the willing cause of an action, hence not free from a Randomness pov.
Same goes for those who endorse cause/effect.
If you are made of matter and the world around you is made of matter
then the chain of cause does not start with you. Hence you still not free.
Hope that helps.
Disagree
While matter is important , matter comes together in the Brain . The Brain supercides matter .
