Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by litewave, May 20, 2011.
TROLLING? Really? Project much?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Jane, you ignorant slut. Now you are questioning whether we can even make decisions (free or not)? Your corner is getting smaller by the second. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This entire discussion is based on the assumption that the physical world is predictable in principle. The way you grab onto anything you can in order to find a way to differ me is absolutely OCD. Take your pills.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
thats easily explained
sarkus is aware of my tenuous status in sci and knows that repeating the accusation enough times would create the conditions for an mod to come here, pronounce judgment and penalize
despicable and predatory tactics but hey, that one way to have one's dogma prevail Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
case in point.....
that's just newtonian dogma. classical physics. that is sarkus's oft parroted "underlying nature"
i mean, for fuck sakes, a clockwork universe? in this day and age?
contrast with this.....
According to Heisenberg's mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics, a quantum system, such as an electron, when isolated, does not exist as an actual "thing." It exists as a "field of potentialities." Potentialities for what? For having certain characteristics, such as certain values of position and/or velocity, if measured. Only a process of measurement, however, brings it into actual (as opposed to potential) existence. When measured, it appears in spacetime as an "elementary quantum event." Its actual existence as an "elementary quantum event" is of short duration. Once the measurement is over, it resorts once again to having only potential existence. According to quantum mechanics, these "elementary quantum events" are the "atoms of reality."
....and one can understand why this response to our resident philosopher is entirely apt
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
it is really not much different from yazata's "piety" and "airy waves at the universe" points
still tho, all that will only cause the zombies will indulge in more frantic hand waving, they will propound a strict demarcation b/w the micro and macro worlds with the fanatical zeal and devotion of god fearing theists and ignore what modern science is uncovering
i mean, there is a thread in bio that debunks these medieval notions but you will never see these zombies acknowledge and incorporate into their arguments. they prefer the lobotomized version of reality. all inconvenient facts have been removed
they are zombies
they follow a script
I was one.
The only thing I don't miss about being a zombie was the walking into walls bit. Alive is hard...although oddly enough, getting injured hurts less these days.
Hmm...if I have no free will, I have been worrying entirely too much.
I also have the persistent idea that I am being dreamed by another person, that I am a fiction of someone else's imagination.
I can't disprove that, can you?
They keep not waking up, so I keep having to be in existence and put up with this completely surreal BS. Such an obnoxiously heavy sleeper they are.
Ha. Very good. So you are an idea, but not even your own. Dependent on someone else keeping you in existence by thinking of you. That's right on par with the kind of reasoning I have been facing. Love it. Thanks for that.
This I understand...and yes, it's generally almost always true...as I understand it, the universe is pretty Newtonian...
But not entirely...and it seems to me that Life is, by definition, adding a little more randomness to what are ordinarily straightforward chemical processes.
You then add sentience and mobility to that life... and you've randomized things some more. A plant can't get up and run away, or decide where to bury it's poop to conceal its' activities...or carve a fertility statue.
Does that constitute free will?
Heck...how are we defining free will again?
Ok, here's a nice concise one found at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free will
As much as I seem to do anything and this isn't all an illusion (which I'm willing to entertain), I would say I engage in the first.
The second? hmm...I like to wear men's clothes.
I do not see this being determined by a physical or divine force, but by the fact that the assemblage (yes, I'm not entirely unified, and better yet, my inner sociopath does the driving these days, and he wants an SUV with a giant brush-guard Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) known as "I" "like" clothes that are generally designed for people who have a slightly different set of body attributes than my own. This leads to them being ill-fitting in the bum, but the trousers designed to fit my rump are often lacking in toughness and roominess...and they may have flowers on themPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!uke:
The men's clothing does not seem to be chosen by a physical or divine force. I do, in fact, go pick out my trousers, inasmuch as I "do" anything.
However, if I choose to step off the edge of a 300-foot bridge without a parachute, I subsequently do not have any more choices, I will be becoming very flat shortly. I cannot choose to flap my arms and fly at that point.
So while we have a selection of things we may choose to do, they are limited by physical constraints.
I guess I would argue that we have...the appearance of a limited amount of free will, insomuch as we have anything.
Though...an animal can't be said to do instinctual behaviors by free will.
Because it really is just obeying the dictates of the molecule...the DNA demands survival and replication.
Humans choose not to reproduce.
Humans choose to violate the ultimate demand of the molecule-survival-and commit suicide.
Yeah, that fourth cuppa...
I'll call it as I see it.
Your current status is honestly irrelevant to me.
But if you do have valid points to raise, you are dressing them up in trollish behaviour.
If you don't want to be accused of trolling (and all that may or may not bring with it), I suggest you don't act like one.
If that's how you see it, then it's no wonder you whine so much about it.
I'm guessing that you failed to see that I had the "billiard table/clock" in quotes to point out that this was what R0G used to describe the underlying nature.
My point, which I'm sure you saw but deliberately chose to misinterpret, is that R0G (and perhaps you, for all I know) puts consciousness into a separate system than the rest of the universe.
R0G stated that without consciousness, the rest of the universe would be like a "billiard table/clock" - implying that somehow consciousness interrupts this system, and must therefore be different in operation.
My point is that if consciousness operates according to the same nature then it, too, would be like a "billiard table/clock".
So my point stands, and your ignorance in the matter is noted.
Speak to R0G about that... I was merely using his terms for the nature of the universe in the absence of consciousness.
So when you say "the appearance of"... would you agree that this "appearance of" is a concious perception of activity at a macro level, but that it speaks nothing to the underlying nature of interactions at the micro level?
I meant in the Buddhist sense...I rather heavily borrow from and am a fan of Buddhism, so I wonder if this is all an illusion entirely. I mean, as little as I'm able to understand subatomic physics...if you keep breaking things down, eventually you get to stuff that's really just a kinetic wriggle, right?
So...it all seems at least potentially illusory. But the illusion has the power to really suck, so it behooves one to act as if it's real.
Within the context of this reality, we have the appearance of limited free will as humans, yes.
Will I say that your choice is not influenced by a multitude of factors? of course I would not.
I have what's likely a strong genetic predisposition to be fat and lazy. I still have free will over what I eat, even though I have a strong desire to eat a lot of yummy, greasy junk and vegetate.
I have to fight that tendency consciously. It's my free choice to do it, or not, and feel the consequences...insomuch as this reality has the appearance of authenticity...which in my own mind is open to question.
Twinkie, I renounce thee! get thee behind me!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Such a description also fits codependence, abandonment issues and related.
According to some theories, a person's sense of self tends to develop in relation to what other people say (and do) about that person. But sometimes, things get disordered, and the person's sense of self is disturbed/disturbing:
So normalcy means taking the realness, aliveness, autonomy and identity of himself and others for granted.
Which makes our resident physicalists abnormal ...
If you're going to quote people then it behooves you to understand their position, and how it might apply to those you criticise.
Unfortunately with Laing you are confusing the practical issues he raises with the philosophical position that some hold.
But given that the philosophical position does not impinge on the practical in the way you seem to insist it does, your criticism is unwarranted and invalid.
Furthermore, you seem to imply that being "abnormal" somehow equates to wrong... or an unwelcome position... yet any minority is abnormal by definition, and it is only an appeal to consensus that would fallaciously equate such abnormality with falseness.
So again - as with the others - perhaps you want to actually argue the points raised rather than some spurious strawman... and yes, it is a strawman, because "physicalists" are no more or less prone to not "taking the realness, aliveness, autonomy and identity of himself and others for granted" as everyone else.
They take themselves for granted - they just have a different understanding, in certain respects, of what they are.
In my case, it was probably best described as psychotic symptoms due to prolonged trauma. My brain was put under breaking strain through external events and off it went. You can't unlearn that experience of going insane, losing reality and slipping into a side-spur of not-quite-real.
So I might as well look at it for useful perspectives, no?
Hey, I can do that position...it is awesomeness itself for your neck and lower back...although I usually do it with the balls of my feet on the floor.
I haven't read enough of Laing...I've always suspected he'd annoy me as he seems to be the patron saint of the no-psych-med movement.
I am medicated for your protection...although much more my own. And my happiness.
Nobody's willing to take on suicide as defeat of the DNA molecule and something that might indicate free will at play?
Ok...guess not...nothing to see here, move along...
This is how, you put a gun to my head and say "open the safe". I don't want to open the safe very much. I want to keep my money that I worked so hard for, but I "decide" to open it so you can rob me. I do this to avoid the gun-shot wound. Not a free, unfettered decision. A compelled decision. Now tell me you really didn't already understand that.
I don't really know what a fuck knuckle is, but if it is a guy who thinks you are missing the point on purpose to avoid the heart of the issue, that must be what I am.
Now I'm afraid.
And all that is only a different way of saying the choice was made for you.
If you're compelled there is no decision for you to make. You may object and say you had to choose between losing your money and losing your life, but let's get real, how many people would seriously consider the latter option, which obviously makes choosing to lose the money the only rational decision.
Choosing to lose your life means you choose both options, and lose the money too. But you get to have a last thought: "the bastard won't get my money either", or something.
So, really, there is only one choice to make, and that means there is no choice to make.
I do believe that the philosophical position does very much impinge on the practical. The idea that there is such a connection is the basis of all major religions, humanism and many approaches in psychology.
What is the autonomy of a mirage ...
Looking at it for useful perspectives suggests that one might be operating out of some conviction that the philosophical impinges on the practical, would it not?
I have no doubt that it CAN impinge... not DOES impinge... and while it may impinge on some aspects, the way it impinges on one individual may not be the same as it impinges upon another.
Spot the differences?
You'll need to explain this question further, please, as I am not sure of the context/nature of "autonomy" that you are referring to.
Separate names with a comma.