Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Free Will
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Free Will Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Oct 10th, 2003 07:35 PM
kahljorn I agree.

Freewill is based on too many free variables to be any particular thing.

But then, freewill becomes the definition of variables.

It's intristic.
Oct 10th, 2003 12:20 PM
Sethomas I just thought I'd bring this back up because a few days ago I finished reading The Illusion of Conscious Will. What I got out of it is that the notion of free will is so asinine that no self-respecting psychological theory will embrace it. woo.
Sep 18th, 2003 10:10 PM
kahljorn He Jankied my philisophical composition.

"A trickery, a vast dilusional paradox. If everything is then how is nothing not everything? Nothingness consumes similarly to existance: existing for nothing. Conceptually infinite, truly? A single moment becomes the truth even as a fallacy, how can the dilusioned be dilusioned? A dilusion of ilusion real to the eyes of the deluded. So it is, so it will be. So it is nothing. Allow not for not, paradox again. Inspired by something unseen. Divinity from within. Collapsing to rebuild. Strive to be purity, greed is manifest. Deceifer what visions are had. A lie, a truth and a fact: False is just as true. Just as decrepid as another. All are nothing. For when everything is nothing and nothing is everything, truly the truth is spoken. Truth is a lie, false is real when truth is unseen while lies influence reality, always. Similar to the components of self.
From the skies comes only lies and deceit, to structure a part of the sky is to perish a disease within. Concubines unite borne again. Split in two is the unity more whole? When it's billions the clouds become clouds and the rain becomes rain, but the acid is still united. Unity is Insanity. Difference and war; bitter feelings of a deraved. Lies? Then why produce what lies within. Purpose is the sake to be had, words of thought, such irony when words merely destroy what thought we have. A production produced for nothing, producing without purpose. Here then we are. A process of disease perishing within the skies. Color it blank. I feel the skies should think the same, but then paradox. Wondering such is why perile is manifest. If skies were to be my art then only perile would manifest. Decisions of poor report only mean, but I approach the skies in a fury. For as spoken, the fortunate disease corrupts thankfully from within. Sheepish skies uniting, sheepish skies sheparding. The skies are on fire, consumed by my taste. Flavored tasteless."

JANKIED
Sep 18th, 2003 02:28 PM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn
Omniscience is not a state of knowing the future.
It's a state of knowing all possible futures that could arise from ALL possible decisions made by all possible people. It's also knowing every single bit of knowledge out there..
COntrary to popular belief, knowledge includes the truth AND the lies, so it is truly an infinite amount of knowledge.
That reminded me of "this":

Quote:
All is Truth By Walt Whitman (1819–1892)

O ME, man of slack faith so long,
Standing aloof—denying portions so long;
Only aware to-day of compact, all-diffused truth;
Discovering to-day there is no lie, or form of lie, and can be none, but grows as inevitably upon itself as the truth does upon itself,
Or as any law of the earth, or any natural production of the earth does.

(This is curious, and may not be realized immediately—But it must be realized;
I feel in myself that I represent falsehoods equally with the rest,
And that the universe does.)

Where has fail’d a perfect return, indifferent of lies or the truth?
Is it upon the ground, or in water or fire? or in the spirit of man? or in the meat and blood?

Meditating among liars, and retreating sternly into myself, I see that there are really no liars or lies after all,
And nothing fails its perfect return—And that what are called lies are perfect returns,
And that each thing exactly represents itself, and what has preceded it,
And that the truth includes all, and is compact, just as much as space is compact,
And that there is no law or vacuum in the amount of the truth—but that all is truth without exception;
And henceforth I will go celebrate anything I see or am,
And sing and laugh, and deny nothing.
Sep 18th, 2003 01:31 PM
Helm Your post was stupid in so many ways it's not even funny.
Sep 18th, 2003 07:25 AM
Spooky THIS THREAD GAVE ME A HEADACHE

Seriously, though, I think there is a predetermined fate for everyone, but like they said in The Matrix and crap, it only takes you so far, and the rest is up to you, your decisions, and your free will.
Sep 18th, 2003 12:06 AM
kahljorn That's why I always save my lucky cigarettes...
Sep 17th, 2003 09:27 PM
Helm Yeah but god is a fag.
Sep 17th, 2003 09:10 PM
kahljorn You know, I forgot to mention an important factor inourlittle discussion here.

On premise of God's Omniscient nature, and how it could effect our freewill.
You see.
Omniscience is not a state of knowing the future.
It's a state of knowing all possible futures that could arise from ALL possible decisions made by all possible people. It's also knowing every single bit of knowledge out there..
COntrary to popular belief, knowledge includes the truth AND the lies, so it is truly an infinite amount of knowledge.
Sep 14th, 2003 08:43 PM
Skulhedface
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn
First off, Minority Report didn't have anything to do with Genes, minority report was the movie with the crackbabies who could see the future.
I didn't say "a plot EXACTLY like Minority Report, I said a situation that is just as ludicrous. This is a physical way of paraphrasing. The paraphrase comes into effect bascially because whether through genes or psychic albinoes, you're determining guilt before anything has even physically happened.

Quote:
Secondly, believe it or not, not all science is going to remain the same forever.
Agreed, but it'll take quite some time for people to accept it.

Quote:
I read this in an article somewhere, and I'm pretty sure it had to do with certain genes that were likely to make people more physically aggressive.
Having testosterone also predisposes someone to being aggressive. I don't mean having testosterone at all, but large amounts of it. One of the symptoms of steroid abuse (which the key ingredient is...you guessed it, testosterone) is shortened temper. Most passion killings also result from shortened temper. But then again, walking in on your wife having sex with another man would shorten your fuse significantly, I'd think.

Quote:
Not everybody in a "Mommy didn't hug me enough" situation will grow up and be a Serial Killer.
Just as everyone who has the Serial Killer Gene won't necessarily become a serial killer. I'd assume the best way to assuage that is the bring the child up with strong morals.

Quote:
That was the point of it. Detect who has the genes that could make them capable of it, then make sure they get alot of hugs.
Yea, I agree with that part.
Sep 14th, 2003 08:37 PM
kahljorn First off, Minority Report didn't have anything to do with Genes, minority report was the movie with the crackbabies who could see the future.
Secondly, believe it or not, not all science is going to remain the same forever. I read this in an article somewhere, and I'm pretty sure it had to do with certain genes that were likely to make people more physically aggressive.
Not everybody in a "Mommy didn't hug me enough" situation will grow up and be a Serial Killer.
That was the point of it. Detect who has the genes that could make them capable of it, then make sure they get alot of hugs.
Sep 14th, 2003 08:07 PM
Skulhedface Genes alone won't answer the question. If you go with that, you'll have a scenario just as ludicrous as the plot to Minority Report:

"Hey Phil, this guy's got the killer gene! He could grow up to kill someone! THROW HIM IN THE SLAMMER!"

You're leaving out some crucial environmental causals, such as "Mommy Didn't Hug Me Enough".
Sep 14th, 2003 07:20 PM
kahljorn They have research going on that "Detects" who will be a serial killer and shit. I forget if it was just as simple as detection of sociopaths or if it was more complex, but if i remember correctly it may have had something to do with the genes and shit.
Sep 14th, 2003 06:55 PM
Perndog I agree with both of your points. I want to believe in free will, therefore I do, because it is convenient and intuitive. And if criminals are criminal because of their psychology, can they really help doing bad things and do they deserve to be punished?

I think the latter is a big reason why determinism doesn't have any practical applications (yet).
Sep 14th, 2003 06:09 PM
Brandon If the claims of the determinists are correct, we'd enter into a serious philosophical problem: responsibility. If you can't freely choose your actions, you cannot be held fully responsible for them. What then, would we do with our justice system?

On a side note, William James, the pragmatist, suggested we accept free will because it "works better." We feel comfortable with the idea that we have options and that people can be held responsible for what they do.
Sep 14th, 2003 01:07 PM
Perndog
Quote:
If my decision to forego the money was the result of mental analysis and rumination...

...then when does the determinism come into play? The whole idea of free will is that I can reflect upon and choose a course of action.
Rigid determinism states that everything that happens is a result of physical interactions. In your scenario, the mugger pulls the gun, which causes certain chemical reactions in your brain, which trigger more reactions, which eventually lead to your decision. Basically, given a certain stimulus and a certain brain state, determinism says there is only one possible outcome - thus, no free will, because while it may have appeared that you made the decision, it was dictated by the chemicals in your brain.

I'm personally not a fan of determinism, but I'm not a fan of much theoretical science at all, so I don't have a counterpoint.
Sep 14th, 2003 12:33 PM
kahljorn It's hard to take someone seriously who has an Avatar like that, unfortunately you have free will.
Sep 14th, 2003 12:44 AM
Brandon
Quote:
If you do, the determinist will claim that the decision was entirely out of your hands: you were constained by force.

That's not what determinism is all about. Whatever your reasoning, your decision to forego your money was still a product of your mind's analysis of the situation.
I don't know what variety of determinism you subscribe to, Seth. It sounds like you just proved my case for free will.

If my decision to forego the money was the result of mental analysis and rumination...

...then when does the determinism come into play? The whole idea of free will is that I can reflect upon and choose a course of action.
Sep 13th, 2003 11:48 PM
Sethomas If you do, the determinist will claim that the decision was entirely out of your hands: you were constained by force.

That's not what determinism is all about. Whatever your reasoning, your decision to forego your money was still a product of your mind's analysis of the situation.

determinism isn't about influence, it's about absolute cause and effect

Again, your notion is wrong.
Sep 13th, 2003 03:33 PM
Brandon Free Will? Absolutely. No question.

I think too many proponents of determinism have blurred the line between actual determinism and influenced decision-making. An example:

A mugger pulls a gun on you and orders you to give him all your money. If you do, the determinist will claim that the decision was entirely out of your hands: you were constained by force. However, could one not also argue that you chose to give the mugger your money because you chose to protect your own life? The other option, though statistically unlikely, was just as real. You could have, in theory, chosen to endanger your life by refusing to give up the money. Being able to predict what someone will do is not the same as negating their freedom to choose a course of action. To me, it smacks of arrogance and a scientist's will to systematize and "control" his or her world.

This is not to say man isn't influenced by his instincts, passions, or past experiences. To assume that he isn't would be naive. However, determinism isn't about influence, it's about absolute cause and effect--it's fatalistic. Being influenced by one's instincts and being captive to them are two entirely different things.
Sep 13th, 2003 01:05 PM
Perndog Laws of nature are described by scientific theories, and scientific theories get thrown out and replaced every now and then. Bottom line, no one has the absolute, detailed answer to anything scientific. They may come close, but there are always unknowns.

EDIT: Oh, and entropy always increases within a closed system. Humans are not closed systems, because we put things into our bodies (food, water, heat) and things come out. Otherwise, we couldn't progress beyond infancy, because entropy would just drag us down straight from there.
Sep 13th, 2003 11:51 AM
kellychaos What about the immutable law of entropy? No matter how perfect a machine man may be, he/she is still bound by the laws of nature and, as such, will expire no matter the question of his will. There are, to this date, no perpetual machines. I recently read an article that discusses the finite limits on cell replication that eventually lead to our degeneration due to genetic material being lost after each subsequent replication. It seems that our expiration in not only inevitable but part of the initial design.
Sep 13th, 2003 08:44 AM
Helm Bubba: mutation's not an answer because I could theoretically explain my reasoning to another person that before that had no urge to set himself on fire, and after our discussion, we could be convinced that there's merit to my position, thusly setting himself on fire as well. Is he genetically mutated then? If any man has such 'space' for mutation, then that's another manifestation of free will as well.

Besides that as for me being weeded out by evolution, I'm using 'setting oneself on fire' as an extreme example of anti-instinctual stance. But it's not the only example. I could just as well have said that as a method of one's anti-instinctual reasoning, he makes an urge to stop acting on emotional impulses (as is my case). This is not nec. self destructing, but it does stem from a strictly anti-instinctual argument, and again if we are simply part of this grand deterministic machine, I should not have been able to be in this position. So in effect, I could continue to exist but gradually step out of how humans interact and concieve their social structures and the latter would not neccessarily remove me. I deviate from the obvious path but still I exist. There are many other such examples where man simply is able to do that which doesn't seem to serve a deterministic purpose, or even goes again of the 'safer, productive' model. Take arts for example. Why the hell would men cultivate culture? It largely does not serve any deterministic purpose (although the societal structures we create around it are filled with pack mentality, alpha males and sexual persuing). There are other examples. There seems to be *choice* somewhere in there.

Quote:
By setting yourself on fire you have effectively prevented overall destruction. If you mate and your tendency for lighting oneself on fire was to eventually diffuse into our whole race, societies and communities would grow to accept self destruction through fire as natural and instinctual, leading to a lesser safety.
A person carries instinct and genetic memory. The genetic memory appears to be almost a sort of universal empathy. We carry inside us both the basic mandates of instinct, and thousands of years worth of human experience. In this sense it could be as in the above example, a posibility for me to 'teach' setting oneself on fire to the rest of humanity until it was embedded in our genetic memory. Genetic memory CAN become stronger than the basic instinctual directives (as in extreme examples of brainwashing) but that is a result of altered chemistry and the like whereas I am proposing action based on reason. Does it make sense for a man to be equipped in such a way mentally, that he can override his nature simply because he thought of a reason to? Again, choice...


Also yeah this board sometimes makes for very interesting discussion. We've actually had another one on free will where Spinster provided an interesting position that has since been reason for the latering of my own oppinion on the subject. It goes to show that the internet arguments CAN change you :O

Quote:
is what i said really that hard to understand?
No and I've probably been a little unfair in my comments but I just can't help but feel the positivists' anxiety when I read your poetic philosophizing. It just reads so open-ended and interpretative that I just can't help but want to set it on fire and laugh while it runs around screaming.

As to deterministic. It means more than just the past influencing our futures (to which I obviously agree). It means the past predetermines the future completely.

As to the social way in which you interpret deterministic perfection, it is largely irrelevant because the term is used in decidedly more base situations like day to day survival than juvenile aspiration and the wavering of such. In fact it is an argument for free will how man has so completely reinterpreted his way of life so that he can make of it so many different things and how 'success' isn't about staying alive for another day for some.
Sep 13th, 2003 12:57 AM
CaptainBubba It depends on how you quantify knowledge. To some we could very well know all that is worth knowing. Besides, I hate when people assume how little we know. We could very well know a signifigant fraction of gainable knowledge.
Sep 13th, 2003 12:17 AM
ScruU2wice
Quote:
Well I'd like to think that if god exists when I die he won't explain shit, and I'll be allowed to create my own scenarios of existence for all eternity, but what I wish doesn't amount to shit.
i wasn't trying to make my wish list, captain. i was trying to say that the scope of our knowledge is infinetly small compared to the actual amount of information out in the universe. Its kinda like being a molecule in a snow globe trying to find out how it looks from the outside.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:47 PM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.