Forumite
You're going to have to specify exactly on what field we are discussing. It looks like SuicideDo is arguing on a metaphysical playing field. I'm guessing that we should probably be discussing on naturalistic grounds? Theistic and metaphysical properties are hardly arguable to begin with, and there's too much difference in belief to know that we're even talking about the same thing when we introduce metaphysics.
And it's fine for me to bring up examples that I brought up in the other thread, yes? ~Ele: yes
And it's fine for me to bring up examples that I brought up in the other thread, yes? ~Ele: yes
Last edited by Ele; Oct 29, 2015 at 06:12 PM.
Originally Posted by Lazors
Yes, that's what I meant. Only that the decision that "was already made for me" is the only decision there's ever going to be. You don't make decisions that go against what you think is wise just because you have a free will.
It's hard to explain what I mean, but if determinism is making a rational decision based on facts and judgement, what is the opposite?
The thing is, it's not just based on facts and judgements. It's also based on your genes, your neurochemical makeup and lots of other factors that we don't normally think has to do with our decision-making.
A example that determinists use is Charles Whitman. He's the guy that killed his mother and girlfriend before climbing to the top of a bell tower in Austin and shooting another 16 people. Clearly an evil guy, right? Well, perhaps not. After an autopsy was performed, it turned out that he had a large tumor in his brain pressing against his hypothalamus. Whitman, before his death, wrote about how he recognised that he wasn't really in control of his actions. It was determined by a commission that the tumor plausibly could have been the reason that Whitman did what he did. It's easy to see how other things, like our neurochemistry, may be affecting our decision-making in ways that we're unaware of.
Our decisions to do things aren't just based on our conscious thoughts. That's where the phrase, 'the illusion of free will' comes from. We certainly think that we're in charge of what we do, but that might not necessarily be the case.
Well, like Lazors said, it comes down to definition, and your definitions differ. That is why it is so hard to break down your opinions into fundamental logical justifications and just end up paraphrasing and re-defining the same statement; it isn't a matter of logic, it is subjective. More or less Lazors says free will is about the fact we make decisions, and Ele says it is about how (and whether) we make the decisions in the first place.
However, the world in non-deterministic. One of my favourite quotes is of Einstein arguing against this at Solvay Conference:
Einstein: "God does not play dice".
Bohr:"Einstein, stop telling God what to do".
Anyway, some quantum mechanisms are random, so the same thing won't always happen just because you start with the same inputs.
Not sure why that affects our ability to make our own decisions but w/e.
However, the world in non-deterministic. One of my favourite quotes is of Einstein arguing against this at Solvay Conference:
Einstein: "God does not play dice".
Bohr:"Einstein, stop telling God what to do".
Anyway, some quantum mechanisms are random, so the same thing won't always happen just because you start with the same inputs.
Not sure why that affects our ability to make our own decisions but w/e.
Last edited by Zelda; Oct 29, 2015 at 07:02 PM.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by pouffywall
You're going to have to specify exactly on what field we are discussing. It looks like SuicideDo is arguing on a metaphysical playing field. I'm guessing that we should probably be discussing on naturalistic grounds? Theistic and metaphysical properties are hardly arguable to begin with, and there's too much difference in belief to know that we're even talking about the same thing when we introduce metaphysics.
And it's fine for me to bring up examples that I brought up in the other thread, yes? ~Ele: yes
Is it not funny that we are all choosing to participate in this topic of discussion, but we hardly stop to analyze our own choices, while engaging in a discussion about free will?? ?? ??
Or am i the only one laughing so hard right now?
Like zelda just said, it's about definitions - of which we each hold an individual and unique perspective of, no matter how similar.
I feel to be the only one who takes consideration for the "all-perspective" at the moment...
Dont just go with conventional definitions, choose to apply all of the definitions and witness, mentally, the illogic of contrasting deffinitions; because nearly all words have more than one or two meanings.
Apply the wrong meanings deliberately. for psychological science.
Or dont, out of fear of being incorrect? (most people would say 'wrong' but words have power and hold meaning, they can be used to inflict harm. no human is ever "wrong" when they get the answer incorrect. but that is a whole topic itself... in fucking off topic)
And furthermore, to finalize my thoughts, you have assumed by appearances that i hold a strictly theological or metaphysical stance on the subject, which is simply not true.
I am Wholistic. (unlike holisitc) i being in an all encompassing omnitude. no one part is separate from the other, no matter how far fetched or seemingly unrelated, it is simply impossible for a whole to be anything but a whole in contrast to the entirety of everything.
SO! In regards to free will, my stance is all parts. metaphysical, neurological, psychological, physiological, chemical, and what the fuck, why not gravitational?
My point being, all parts. no matter how retarded, far fetched, or seemingly unrelated.
It is illogical to ignore any part.
That is my choice, to consider and observe all parts as possibly i can - even if only mentally. The more i learn, the more my mental observations improve in accuracy and usefulness. the more i think about things mentally, the more open i am to learning.
i choose to be this way. by way of my free will. BECAUSE i am posting this information by act of free will, i create evidence of my free will by virtue of association.
SuicideDo, the Brewtal Drunken Immortal.
Originally Posted by Ele
The thing is, it's not just based on facts and judgements. It's also based on your genes, your neurochemical makeup and lots of other factors that we don't normally think has to do with our decision-making.
A example that determinists use is Charles Whitman. He's the guy that killed his mother and girlfriend before climbing to the top of a bell tower in Austin and shooting another 16 people. Clearly an evil guy, right? Well, perhaps not. After an autopsy was performed, it turned out that he had a large tumor in his brain pressing against his hypothalamus. Whitman, before his death, wrote about how he recognised that he wasn't really in control of his actions. It was determined by a commission that the tumor plausibly could have been the reason that Whitman did what he did. It's easy to see how other things, like our neurochemistry, may be affecting our decision-making in ways that we're unaware of.
Our decisions to do things aren't just based on our conscious thoughts. That's where the phrase, 'the illusion of free will' comes from. We certainly think that we're in charge of what we do, but that might not necessarily be the case.
So the alternative would be that everyone is born the same and thus could make proper decisions without interference from our genes?
Ok, but what makes that "free will" our free will? Is it really free if everyone would make the same choice in identical situations?
Let's say Whitman did what he did because he had a tumor. Take away the tumor and Whitman isn't Whitman anymore. His choice aren't more or less free because he removed the tumor, he's a different individual that would make a different choice in that situation.
If we break it down, decisions are based on:
Genetics (which represents you, your individuality)
Facts (the situation or problem that forces a decision)
Rationality (judgement of the situation)
Now I'm arguing that the genome of a person is what makes a decision your own. Without that, two people in the same situation would make the same choice.
Now what you are saying is that genetics is in the way of free will, which means that you don't think two people in the same situation would act in the same way. Or do you think the rationality itself is the free will.
Or do you think there's a supernatural force that makes us act the way we do?
Brendan (he who passeth judgement on the frequent changing of signatures): I don't do hentai anymore
