DGB

Would be cool if they had this feature. I'm not a fan of the idea that someone else can read a post and then decide to collapse it on my screen. What does what I see on the forums have to do with anyone else? Why would it concern anyone else that I might see a post they don't approve of? I feel I am able to make such decisions on whose posts I see and don't see myself.Not losing sleep over it however. Just don't understand the feature personally. I find it hard to understand the context of a thread with posts collapsed, so end up having to expand them anyway. Surely if someone is just trolling as opposed to making an unpopular argument/statement they can be banned.

This is what the guy said:"But if kicking a ball into someone's face is just a reaction to my surroundings, memories, feelings and senses, then I have as much will as the ball, just doing what I'm doing because of outside forces - no more no less."He uses the concept "I'm", he refers to himself. He calls memories, feelings, and senses "outside forces", I assume he's saying, outside of "I'm", outside of himself.I asked him to explain where emotions come from if not within our brains and he responded with a question that was irrelevant. I didn't understand his position so I questioned him on it.I understand that our emotions desires, etc can be influenced by outside sources, he pointed that out and I explained I did not see the contradiction. The sun burns my skin, but my skin is still a part of my body. The suns influence on my skin doesn't make my skin an outside influence?I don't think it is constructive to talk about a concept of "I", then to talk about things which make up an individual as outside of "I", why talk about the self then externalize memories, desires, emotions, etc?

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what the problem is here.I don't feel I've misunderstood what anybody has said here.

I don't find it at all confusing to say that emotions desires etc happen in our brains which is part of our biological structure, if I see something that "makes me angry" the thing doesn't make me angry, my brain makes me angry. My brain reacts, the reaction is in my brain. I'm not confused in the slightest by this.If we do it this way then humans don't have free will because you've created an arbitrary boundary called "human", I can say the universe has free will or atoms have free will.

This has given me a lot to think about, thanks for those. The video was fascinating and I found his arguments pretty solid. The article was a bit harder for me to process but I'm going to look into it some more. I bought a book by Daniel Dennet today, his position is that consciousness is an illusion which Searl points out doesn't work - but I also believes he talks more about the biology of these things rather than strictly physics, so I'll see what I get from that.

This got pretty muddled, my fault, I see why you thought I was making said claim, sorry about that. I'm going to try and make my posts more to the point. My main issue is that I don't understand free will. You say:"We are not arguing that science has demonstrated it. We're agnostic but we have philosophical arguments that argue that free-will is necessary and that without it you fall into contradiction. As some assumption is required in order to proceed then we must choose the logically consistent one."My problem is I don't see this idea of free will as logically consistent, because I don't know what it is. You even say you don't know what it is.I think our brains are governed by the laws of physics, if they're not, how do they work?I understand the point you're making about moral responsibility but I'm not sure given what you have provided me how your concept of free will justifies moral responsibility.If our actions/thoughts are the result of cause and effect, then you say they aren't really our choices (we have no choice) so there is no moral responsibility.So we need free will, but we don't know what free will is or how it works.I see a few possibilities for what free will is:a) Actions that happen for no reason (random / outside causation)b) Actions that happen because of a mechanism we don't know anything aboutc) OtherA, and B cannot be justifiably held morally responsible, surely you need to understand your behavior to be held responsible?So what am I missing?If the NAP cannot be valid without free will, I think it's important we know what it is.. I can't even figure out what it NEEDS to be, in order to make the NAP valid (given your criticisms of determinism that is).Our ability to compare our opinions and beliefs to ideal and universal standards is awesome but I don't know what it has to do with free will.

I'm not sure what this contradiction is, is it the thing about arguing the determinist position meaning you don't believe in determinism or something?I agree with pretty much everything you said there, I agree with stef for the most part when he talks about how he thinks choices are made, what I don't understand is where the argument with determinists is.Am I misunderstanding the determinist position?

I'm in a discussion where I've asked multiple times for a definition of free will and have not been answered. I have been answered in other discussions, in person and such, but the answers always seem, to me anyway, to be exactly what I think determinism is (cause and effect). Some dispute what I think determinism is, and say that cause and effect doesn't mean there can't be free will, so I ask explicitly, what is "will", and what is it "free" from/to?My position is simply that humans do not escape causation in any way, I can't see how this is possible, but I'm no neuroscientist.

Nobody defined emotions as such. I don't really understand what you have issue with here.All I'm saying is that our emotions, desires, wants, needs, etc.. They are part of us. They are "properties" of the individual. The other guy thinks they are something external to us, I don't understand this argument. If those things are external from an individual, I have no idea what an individual is then.If you're saying we shouldn't talk about "properties" because emotions don't exist they're chemical reactions or whatever, then I'd reply that we use abstract concepts to describe these things for the sake of communication.

I don't know, why don't you explain your point instead of asking me to do it?I'd compare emotions, wants, desires, to an objects (humans) mass, charge, etc. Not to for instance, gravity, or another person holding my shirt.

I don't see how this contradicts the position that our wants and desires and emotions etc etc are part of us. We're conditioned for those things, certainly, but when someone does or says something to me, the reaction occurs within our heads.Where do you think our wants, desires, emotions come from?

I asked earlier what is free will, specifically what is "will" and what are you saying it is "free" from? If "free will" happens within causation, why do we call it "free will" and not simply "will"? Is free will falsifiable? How would we go about disproving free will? "I agree that aggression in the context of the NAP is the initiation of force. But the NAP itself is also just matter and energy, subject to exactly the same deterministic forces as everything else. Nothing escapes. In reality an act of aggression is one that is initiated by someone. They did it and to some extent and in some sense could have done otherwise. Under determinism there is no logical possibility that anyone could have done otherwise." I don't see where the possibility to do otherwise enters into this. In your free will paradigm if someone is mentally ill and rapes someone did the womens rights not get violated because he couldn't have done otherwise? I don't understand the argument you're making here. "Being forced against your will (assuming we label preferences and desires "will") cannot be the only problem with initiating force. That's incomplete because weather or falling rocks or anything without a will of it's own (in the sense you're using will - I'm assuming you don't think rocks have desires or preferences) can force you against your will. But that could not conceivably be called an act of aggression by the rocks or the thunder-storm. None of those things can initiate anything." I never said that's all that was wrong with it. I don't know what your definition of will is. But I have the feeling your definition of free will is basically going to be what I consider determinism to be. "A person who rapes you, for example cannot logically be the aggressor. They are determined by their preferences and desires. Your resistance would also have to be aggression as you would be forcing them against their will by refusing to comply. It is one rock bouncing into another rock. There is no rock that initiates the force. The concept of aggression / initiating force detonates under determinism." I have never argued that the NAP is about allowing people to pursue their will. I have simply argue that because we possess will, for example I like bananas, I desire them and want them. I want to eat bananas (will). Somebody else can stop be from eating bananas, against my will. All I said is that - that example, is an example of force. You believe it is not force, because they couldn't have done otherwise. I don't understand how this makes it any less an act of force. A rock falling on my head is not an act of aggression. Cause a rock doesn't act. I can't reason with a rock. Rocks don't feel emotions, or empathy. We are clearly a different pile of matter, than a rock. You chucked a word "outside forces" in there, I don't think that is correct. Our desires, wants, preferences, memories, feelings, sense perceptions, etc, are all a part of us, quite literally.

I can't think of one. You'd need to demonstrate someone acting outside causality, I think, don't know if that works or not. No idea how you would attempt to demonstrate that either.

You've made some pretty extraordinary claims here. Aggression in the context of the NAP is simply the initiation of force. While determinist may not believe an individuals will is "free", we still possess will. We still want and desire things. We still have preferences, etc. We can still be forced "against our will", which is the problem with initiating force.

Check out Peter Grey's book, "Free to Learn", not unschooling specific but it convinced me that's the path I'd like to take.I read Dayna's book too and feel a similar way about it. I enjoyed it, but if I was not already sympathetic towards unschooling as a concept I'd probably be 'meh' about it.