|
On July 12 2013 08:02 Livelovedie wrote:
So at this point I think of have decided that I don't believe that free will exists... My question is do you think society could still function if everyone had this belief and if it could what do you believe would change?
Except changing the connotation of a few words, I don't think anything would be different. Does not believing in free-will affect your decision making at all ? ^^
|
On July 12 2013 08:07 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 08:02 Livelovedie wrote:
So at this point I think of have decided that I don't believe that free will exists... My question is do you think society could still function if everyone had this belief and if it could what do you believe would change? Except changing the connotation of a few words, I don't think anything would be different. Does not believing in free-will affect your decision making at all ? ^^
It has changed my view on certain things for sure. I wouldn't say I was that far away from the belief before hand but it seems like most of society, such as the dominant economic system ,(capitalism) has to be guided by this belief. I know there could be other things and I have been trying to think of them.
|
On July 12 2013 07:59 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 07:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 12 2013 06:38 YumYumGranola wrote:On July 12 2013 05:41 xM(Z wrote:On July 12 2013 05:35 DoubleReed wrote:
LOL
Pull out dictionary, then accuse other people of arguing semantics.
Come on. This must be intentional at this point... i know what i meant when i used those words but you apparently didn't. i tried to use your dictionaries to make you understand what i meant. it was the only thing i could do. how could i know that you'd reject the explanation provided by them?. Everybody knew exactly what you meant when you said things like "just a theory". They weren't contesting the colloquial definition of the word, just it's lack of applicability when discussing science. if you worship an idea you find it hard to question it. if you trivialize said idea and get an overreaction, it's usually a good sign because one way or the other, it'll be an eye opener. Maybe we should trivialize your precious dictionary that you seems to be worshiping, maybe they actually don't even exist ? did you ever though of that ? ! mannn, i'm so deep ! Anyway, could we like ... go back on topic ? xM(Z, tell me in 1 clear sentence what you think is the most likely (not necessarily what you believe) answer to the OP question.
it is of no relevance what i believe in or if i believe in something but if you need to have an answer - i believe in questioning everything: question chemistry, question electricity, question the mind, question you.
On July 12 2013 07:59 YumYumGranola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 07:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 12 2013 06:38 YumYumGranola wrote:On July 12 2013 05:41 xM(Z wrote:On July 12 2013 05:35 DoubleReed wrote:
LOL
Pull out dictionary, then accuse other people of arguing semantics.
Come on. This must be intentional at this point... i know what i meant when i used those words but you apparently didn't. i tried to use your dictionaries to make you understand what i meant. it was the only thing i could do. how could i know that you'd reject the explanation provided by them?. Everybody knew exactly what you meant when you said things like "just a theory". They weren't contesting the colloquial definition of the word, just it's lack of applicability when discussing science. if you worship an idea you find it hard to question it. if you trivialize said idea and get an overreaction, it's usually a good sign because one way or the other, it'll be an eye opener. So you are just trolling?
nope, trolling is inconsequential.
i am showing you how 'the mind' works.
|
On July 12 2013 05:29 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 03:37 tokinho wrote:On July 12 2013 03:11 xM(Z wrote:On July 12 2013 02:49 DertoQq wrote:On July 12 2013 02:31 xM(Z wrote:@ DoubleReed i think i should use bolds to make it more obvious A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth. http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htmThe big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding. i'll just google stuff for you, i'm that nice: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang#.Ud98JJbvnRkTime may not have a beginning—and it might not exist at all. dude, you really need to stop quoting stuff "you just googled" when you have no idea what it is about, every time you quote something it is not even helping your case. Also, if you have a clear theory to the main question (about the brain remember ? ), please tell us. Because nitpicking about everyone's post just for the sake of arguing and sounding "smart" doesn't really help anything, it is just derailing the thread into something off-topic every time. it's not derailing anything. if there is no beggining and no end then time doesn't exist. think of the concept of 'mind' without any time limits. an infinite, timeless mind. (quotes were only meant to show an alternative to big bang and yea i know what quotes were about) So you believe that time doesn't exist. Time being the measure of an action relative to another action. Like the ns of conduction time in neurons goes away? i will just point you to some links to read because if i were to use my words again those goons would just take them out of context, give them a new meaning, their meaning, then bury me in semantics. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time#.Ud-qnJbvnRkhttp://www.grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=425i see it as something like: if time doesn't exist you'll still have the form (matter-energy continuum.)
*Uses the word theory in a scientific discussion. Complains when people take the word in the context of SCIENTIC THEORY. *
Also, you use the word wrong since the big bang theory isn't a theory (colloquial), it's a scientific theory. What you meant when you said "just a theory" is either A. You meant scientific theory and you are dumb, why has been covered by us "goons". B. You mean theory in the colloquial sense, which is incorrect, because the big bang isn't just a theory in the colloquial sense, it's a scientific theory.
|
i consider the sequence of words: "scientific theory", a misnomer; or, it only has value for science.
|
On July 12 2013 18:05 xM(Z wrote:
i consider the sequence of words: "scientific theory", a misnomer; or, it only has value for science.
That's because you actually don't have so say "scientific theory". It's just theory. The colloquial use of the word is the "incorrect" one since it comes from the scientific sense, but with an incorrect understanding leading to a different meaning. Theory (scientific) might only have value for science, but theory (colloquial) has no value at all. If you want to call something a guess or an assumption, call it a guess or an assumption, don't call it theory.
|
i don't know what you know about the beginnings of the concept but as far as i know, the theory started as a philosophical/conceptual thing (temporal finitism) and not as a scientific thing.
millenia later, people transformed it in to a scientific theory to give it more credibility.
its today colloquial use means nothing to anyone outside science and since i wasn't talking only to people who believe in science, i used its incorrect sense, correctly.
|
On July 12 2013 17:23 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 07:59 DertoQq wrote:On July 12 2013 07:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 12 2013 06:38 YumYumGranola wrote:On July 12 2013 05:41 xM(Z wrote:On July 12 2013 05:35 DoubleReed wrote:
LOL
Pull out dictionary, then accuse other people of arguing semantics.
Come on. This must be intentional at this point... i know what i meant when i used those words but you apparently didn't. i tried to use your dictionaries to make you understand what i meant. it was the only thing i could do. how could i know that you'd reject the explanation provided by them?. Everybody knew exactly what you meant when you said things like "just a theory". They weren't contesting the colloquial definition of the word, just it's lack of applicability when discussing science. if you worship an idea you find it hard to question it. if you trivialize said idea and get an overreaction, it's usually a good sign because one way or the other, it'll be an eye opener. Maybe we should trivialize your precious dictionary that you seems to be worshiping, maybe they actually don't even exist ? did you ever though of that ? ! mannn, i'm so deep ! Anyway, could we like ... go back on topic ? xM(Z, tell me in 1 clear sentence what you think is the most likely (not necessarily what you believe) answer to the OP question. it is of no relevance what i believe in or if i believe in something but if you need to have an answer - i believe in questioning everything: question chemistry, question electricity, question the mind, question you.
You might find it hard to believe, but that's what every scientists do, but in addition to what you do, they also try to understand what they are questioning, otherwise it wouldn't be very useful wouldn't it ? =)
You still didn't answer my question (and I made it clear I wasn't asking for what you believe, knowing you would avoid it by saying some random non-sense).
|
On July 12 2013 19:09 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 17:23 xM(Z wrote:On July 12 2013 07:59 DertoQq wrote:On July 12 2013 07:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 12 2013 06:38 YumYumGranola wrote:On July 12 2013 05:41 xM(Z wrote:On July 12 2013 05:35 DoubleReed wrote:
LOL
Pull out dictionary, then accuse other people of arguing semantics.
Come on. This must be intentional at this point... i know what i meant when i used those words but you apparently didn't. i tried to use your dictionaries to make you understand what i meant. it was the only thing i could do. how could i know that you'd reject the explanation provided by them?. Everybody knew exactly what you meant when you said things like "just a theory". They weren't contesting the colloquial definition of the word, just it's lack of applicability when discussing science. if you worship an idea you find it hard to question it. if you trivialize said idea and get an overreaction, it's usually a good sign because one way or the other, it'll be an eye opener. Maybe we should trivialize your precious dictionary that you seems to be worshiping, maybe they actually don't even exist ? did you ever though of that ? ! mannn, i'm so deep ! Anyway, could we like ... go back on topic ? xM(Z, tell me in 1 clear sentence what you think is the most likely (not necessarily what you believe) answer to the OP question. it is of no relevance what i believe in or if i believe in something but if you need to have an answer - i believe in questioning everything: question chemistry, question electricity, question the mind, question you. You might find it hard to believe, but that's what every scientists do, but in addition to what you do, they also try to understand what they are questioning, otherwise it wouldn't be very useful wouldn't it ? =) You still didn't answer my question (and I made it clear I wasn't asking for what you believe, knowing you would avoid it by saying some random non-sense).
the mind is not all chemistry and electricity but if you rephrase it to say: the mind is all matter and energy then i'll be inclined to say yes.
|
|
|
No, it's mainly Unicorn farts and Angel piss.... What else would it be?
|
On July 12 2013 07:17 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:38 YumYumGranola wrote:On July 12 2013 05:41 xM(Z wrote:On July 12 2013 05:35 DoubleReed wrote:
LOL
Pull out dictionary, then accuse other people of arguing semantics.
Come on. This must be intentional at this point... i know what i meant when i used those words but you apparently didn't. i tried to use your dictionaries to make you understand what i meant. it was the only thing i could do. how could i know that you'd reject the explanation provided by them?. Everybody knew exactly what you meant when you said things like "just a theory". They weren't contesting the colloquial definition of the word, just it's lack of applicability when discussing science. if you worship an idea you find it hard to question it. if you trivialize said idea and get an overreaction, it's usually a good sign because one way or the other, it'll be an eye opener.
And you are not set into your beliefs? I've yet to see you concede any valid point that's been brought up against you. You questions others beliefs and notions but you don't seem to be doing the same to yourself. Maybe that's why you seem to have such a hard time to grasp what science really is.
|
Freewill doesn't exist. You don't get to pick if you're atheists or theists. The circumstances that have led you here. Where you're born, the time, the culture, your parents, siblings or lack of, access to education, experiences; you don't have a choice in picking any of them. However, they go on to influence the way you perceive the world. And through your perception and experiences, your decisions fall. Within the limits of those parameters.
If you went back in time you would make the same decisions again and again. The limited freewill we have doesn't interfere with predetermined outcome. Your time of death and location is also set in stone.
In theology they call this destiny or karma.
|
On July 12 2013 20:29 KingAce wrote:
Freewill doesn't exist. You don't get to pick if you're atheists or theists. The circumstances that have led you here. Where you're born, the time, the culture, your parents, siblings or lack of, access to education, experiences; you don't have a choice in picking any of them. However, they go on to influence the way you perceive the world. And through your perception and experiences, your decisions fall. Within the limits of those parameters.
If you went back in time you would make the same decisions again and again. The limited freewill we have doesn't interfere with predetermined outcome. Your time of death and location is also set in stone.
In theology they call this destiny or karma.
In reality it's called crap.
Sure, you can always say everything that ever happened and will happen is predetermined.
I have a tough time proving you wrong without creating another universe.
Still I really doubt that you should just go ahead and say: "Well Hitler didn't do anything wrong, it was the time he was born and circumstances that made him do those things."
It is true that we are all influenced by a variety of things, either we try and be like certain rolemodels or we take the opposite way. HOWEVER we also have acces to a ton of information that we can process without any outside judgement wether or not something was "right". Those sources give us a ground on which we judge experiences and take away from that what we want.
In other words, it is true that we are partially a product of genetics and circumstances but saying "free will doesn't exist" is just a way to make yourself feel good even when you fucked up. Take responsibility and act better next time.
|
On July 12 2013 18:05 xM(Z wrote:
i consider the sequence of words: "scientific theory", a misnomer; or, it only has value for science.
Our GPS sattelites only work because of our understanding of the theories of special and general relativity. Not entirely sure why you seem to be implying that science exists by itself in some self-affirming, isolated tower. A lot of stuff wouldn't work if theory only meant what you want to imply that it means.
Man I'm also all for questioning things, but if you're going to question something as concrete as a scientific theory, you need to have a pretty strong basis in facts to do so. Since you seem to have no respect for what the term "scientific theory" means, I find it extremely doubtful that you would ask any questions of any particular value.
|
On July 12 2013 20:39 rEalGuapo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 20:29 KingAce wrote:
Freewill doesn't exist. You don't get to pick if you're atheists or theists. The circumstances that have led you here. Where you're born, the time, the culture, your parents, siblings or lack of, access to education, experiences; you don't have a choice in picking any of them. However, they go on to influence the way you perceive the world. And through your perception and experiences, your decisions fall. Within the limits of those parameters.
If you went back in time you would make the same decisions again and again. The limited freewill we have doesn't interfere with predetermined outcome. Your time of death and location is also set in stone.
In theology they call this destiny or karma.
In reality it's called crap. Sure, you can always say everything that ever happened and will happen is predetermined. I have a tough time proving you wrong without creating another universe. Still I really doubt that you should just go ahead and say: "Well Hitler didn't do anything wrong, it was the time he was born and circumstances that made him do those things." It is true that we are all influenced by a variety of things, either we try and be like certain rolemodels or we take the opposite way. HOWEVER we also have acces to a ton of information that we can process without any outside judgement wether or not something was "right". Those sources give us a ground on which we judge experiences and take away from that what we want. In other words, it is true that we are partially a product of genetics and circumstances but saying "free will doesn't exist" is just a way to make yourself feel good even when you fucked up. Take responsibility and act better next time.
I don't think you get the concept of "no free-will". You are saying "without outside judgement", what does this mean ? what is outside ? The point of no free-will is that the "inside" (you, your brain) is also predetermined to do something.
To put it simply (and I'm strictly talking about pure free-will), you can :
(a) believe the brain work the same way as a computer : a process that will always give the same result based on the same inputs. In which case I don't see where there is a place for free-will. You wouldn't say your computer has free-will even though he is the one "choosing" if he wants to print TL.net on your screen or not, right ?
(b) believe there is something more to the brain (religion, soul etc..). In which case I guess you can believe that some action are not "chosen" by the "physical part of your brain" and then you would justify free-will, but to me it doesn't make much sense.
I don't think ANYONE would justify their action by "Sorry, not my fault, I have not free-will", because if you believe in what I am saying (proposal (a)), then yes, it is still your fault. If my computer stop working and can't display TL.net anymore, I would through it away and buy a new one.
All in all, this doesn't even matter, and again, no-one is using it as a justification for anything, it wouldn't make any sense at all.
|
On July 12 2013 21:13 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 20:39 rEalGuapo wrote:On July 12 2013 20:29 KingAce wrote:
Freewill doesn't exist. You don't get to pick if you're atheists or theists. The circumstances that have led you here. Where you're born, the time, the culture, your parents, siblings or lack of, access to education, experiences; you don't have a choice in picking any of them. However, they go on to influence the way you perceive the world. And through your perception and experiences, your decisions fall. Within the limits of those parameters.
If you went back in time you would make the same decisions again and again. The limited freewill we have doesn't interfere with predetermined outcome. Your time of death and location is also set in stone.
In theology they call this destiny or karma.
In reality it's called crap. Sure, you can always say everything that ever happened and will happen is predetermined. I have a tough time proving you wrong without creating another universe. Still I really doubt that you should just go ahead and say: "Well Hitler didn't do anything wrong, it was the time he was born and circumstances that made him do those things." It is true that we are all influenced by a variety of things, either we try and be like certain rolemodels or we take the opposite way. HOWEVER we also have acces to a ton of information that we can process without any outside judgement wether or not something was "right". Those sources give us a ground on which we judge experiences and take away from that what we want. In other words, it is true that we are partially a product of genetics and circumstances but saying "free will doesn't exist" is just a way to make yourself feel good even when you fucked up. Take responsibility and act better next time. I don't think you get the concept of "no free-will". You are saying "without outside judgement", what does this mean ? what is outside ? The point of no free-will is that the "inside" (you, your brain) is also predetermined to do something. To put it simply (and I'm strictly talking about pure free-will), you can : (a) believe the brain work the same way as a computer : a process that will always give the same result based on the same inputs. In which case I don't see where there is a place for free-will. You wouldn't say your computer has free-will even though he is the one "choosing" if he wants to print TL.net on your screen or not, right ? (b) believe there is something more to the brain (religion, soul etc..). In which case I guess you can believe that some action are not " chosen" by the " physical part of your brain" and then you would justify free-will, but to me it doesn't make much sense. I don't think ANYONE would justify their action by "Sorry, not my fault, I have not free-will", because if you believe in what I am saying (proposal (a)), then yes, it is still your fault. If my computer stop working and can't display TL.net anymore, I would through it away and buy a new one. All in all, this doesn't even matter, and again, no-one is using it as a justification for anything, it wouldn't make any sense at all.
First off all: You give me two examples how a mind might work and say both are wrong. OK thanks, that cleared your standpoint!
Secondly, saying we have a free will but that is predetermined makes me wanna puke.
Also You are saying "without outside judgement", what does this mean ? what is outside ? this leads me to believe you have no clue what I am saying and you just watched Butterfly Effect and now feel all sophisticated.
|
On July 12 2013 21:13 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 20:39 rEalGuapo wrote:On July 12 2013 20:29 KingAce wrote:
Freewill doesn't exist. You don't get to pick if you're atheists or theists. The circumstances that have led you here. Where you're born, the time, the culture, your parents, siblings or lack of, access to education, experiences; you don't have a choice in picking any of them. However, they go on to influence the way you perceive the world. And through your perception and experiences, your decisions fall. Within the limits of those parameters.
If you went back in time you would make the same decisions again and again. The limited freewill we have doesn't interfere with predetermined outcome. Your time of death and location is also set in stone.
In theology they call this destiny or karma.
In reality it's called crap. Sure, you can always say everything that ever happened and will happen is predetermined. I have a tough time proving you wrong without creating another universe. Still I really doubt that you should just go ahead and say: "Well Hitler didn't do anything wrong, it was the time he was born and circumstances that made him do those things." It is true that we are all influenced by a variety of things, either we try and be like certain rolemodels or we take the opposite way. HOWEVER we also have acces to a ton of information that we can process without any outside judgement wether or not something was "right". Those sources give us a ground on which we judge experiences and take away from that what we want. In other words, it is true that we are partially a product of genetics and circumstances but saying "free will doesn't exist" is just a way to make yourself feel good even when you fucked up. Take responsibility and act better next time. I don't think you get the concept of "no free-will". You are saying "without outside judgement", what does this mean ? what is outside ? The point of no free-will is that the "inside" (you, your brain) is also predetermined to do something. To put it simply (and I'm strictly talking about pure free-will), you can : (a) believe the brain work the same way as a computer : a process that will always give the same result based on the same inputs. In which case I don't see where there is a place for free-will. You wouldn't say your computer has free-will even though he is the one "choosing" if he wants to print TL.net on your screen or not, right ? (b) believe there is something more to the brain (religion, soul etc..). In which case I guess you can believe that some action are not " chosen" by the " physical part of your brain" and then you would justify free-will, but to me it doesn't make much sense. I don't think ANYONE would justify their action by "Sorry, not my fault, I have not free-will", because if you believe in what I am saying (proposal (a)), then yes, it is still your fault. If my computer stop working and can't display TL.net anymore, I would through it away and buy a new one. All in all, this doesn't even matter, and again, no-one is using it as a justification for anything, it wouldn't make any sense at all.
There are also compatiblists like myself who reject the conflict between free will and determinism. Basically, you can define varieties of free will (let's face it free will is poorly defined) that do not conflict with determinism and are perfectly in line with physicalism.
|
On July 12 2013 21:26 rEalGuapo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 21:13 DertoQq wrote:On July 12 2013 20:39 rEalGuapo wrote:On July 12 2013 20:29 KingAce wrote:
Freewill doesn't exist. You don't get to pick if you're atheists or theists. The circumstances that have led you here. Where you're born, the time, the culture, your parents, siblings or lack of, access to education, experiences; you don't have a choice in picking any of them. However, they go on to influence the way you perceive the world. And through your perception and experiences, your decisions fall. Within the limits of those parameters.
If you went back in time you would make the same decisions again and again. The limited freewill we have doesn't interfere with predetermined outcome. Your time of death and location is also set in stone.
In theology they call this destiny or karma.
In reality it's called crap. Sure, you can always say everything that ever happened and will happen is predetermined. I have a tough time proving you wrong without creating another universe. Still I really doubt that you should just go ahead and say: "Well Hitler didn't do anything wrong, it was the time he was born and circumstances that made him do those things." It is true that we are all influenced by a variety of things, either we try and be like certain rolemodels or we take the opposite way. HOWEVER we also have acces to a ton of information that we can process without any outside judgement wether or not something was "right". Those sources give us a ground on which we judge experiences and take away from that what we want. In other words, it is true that we are partially a product of genetics and circumstances but saying "free will doesn't exist" is just a way to make yourself feel good even when you fucked up. Take responsibility and act better next time. I don't think you get the concept of "no free-will". You are saying "without outside judgement", what does this mean ? what is outside ? The point of no free-will is that the "inside" (you, your brain) is also predetermined to do something. To put it simply (and I'm strictly talking about pure free-will), you can : (a) believe the brain work the same way as a computer : a process that will always give the same result based on the same inputs. In which case I don't see where there is a place for free-will. You wouldn't say your computer has free-will even though he is the one "choosing" if he wants to print TL.net on your screen or not, right ? (b) believe there is something more to the brain (religion, soul etc..). In which case I guess you can believe that some action are not " chosen" by the " physical part of your brain" and then you would justify free-will, but to me it doesn't make much sense. I don't think ANYONE would justify their action by "Sorry, not my fault, I have not free-will", because if you believe in what I am saying (proposal (a)), then yes, it is still your fault. If my computer stop working and can't display TL.net anymore, I would through it away and buy a new one. All in all, this doesn't even matter, and again, no-one is using it as a justification for anything, it wouldn't make any sense at all. First off all: You give me two examples how a mind might work and say both are wrong. OK thanks, that cleared your standpoint!
I believe the first one to be true, feel free to tell me why it is wrong instead of trying to insult me = )
|
Surely, that philosophers’ invention, so bold and so fateful, which was then first devised for Europe, the invention of “free will,” of the absolute spontaneity of man in good and in evil, was devised above all to furnish a right to the idea that the interest of the gods in man, in human virtue, could never be exhausted .
The course of a completely deterministic world would have been predictable for the gods and they would have quickly grown weary of it–reason enough for those friends of the gods, the philosophers, not to inflict such a deterministic world on their gods!
(On the Genealogy of Morals, “Second Essay,” section 7).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
