Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 Thank you for a proper rebuttal. Now, as I said before, the senses are choice making instruments (especially in a human's case) The proof is that we can decide what to do based on the input coming in. There is no reasoning that can provide that we don't. You can see in your experience that you do. There are choices of all magnitudes, from what shirt you choose to what breakfast cereal you buy, to who you date, etc... What evidence do you have that the senses you posess do not provide you with multiplicities of possible decisions, but rather one determinant one. The onus would be on the person who says the senses do not create a choice. I've argued already that they do. Further more without the senses you could not make a choice. This is different than random stimulas ability, because people can deside things that they wouldn't have decided, purely to go against the normal, expected decision. But first you have to say why we have senses, and I don't think the lion example holds up, especially in a debate about humans. A human doesn't necessarily follow protocol in situations like that, and we exhibit many more possible actions in situations than most lower intelligence species do. Try it in a human scenario, and that will get us closer to where the answers are applicable in the debate.
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 The main problem, and I see and understand why this is always the hard topic, is that only the observer can be proven to exist. Beyond that, things like senses get all hypothetical, I guess, if you take it all the way to the extreme. But I know I make choices as much as I know I exist. It's axiomatic like that. I do however think that it's useful to point out our physical traits, since wheter or not it's all "in my head" doesn't "seem" to make a difference when working with the reality I experience. For example, I know that if I hear somebody knocking at my door, I can choose to answer or not.
Victor Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 There is no free will in the sense of free from material, objective, constrained, physical reality. Whatever mind executing choice does so engulfed and delimitated by physical/material reality, because mind is an emerging property of complex organisms; organisms which are themselves composed of only physical/material stuff. But there is free will in the sense that a sufficiently intelligent and healthy mind existing within an organism is independent enough and capable to pursue preferred states (to identify properties of itself and its environment, and hopefully other beings as well, and to select a course of action out of a plethora of possible candidates based on the expected outcome and its virtue and value).
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 As far as defining a word like choice, I see no way in pacifying a person who wants that defined. I mean, there are dictionaries, and the way it's applied here covers all of the concepts I've found that define the words in all of the various ways, except for when talking about the grade meat. Some words need to be defined. I trust that in any of the various ways you're interpreting it, it's going to work in this conversation. Also, thank you for pointing out that the pointing to my senses seemed to be condenscending. The repetition was purposeful, yes, but the argument needs to really be dealt with. In light of the fact I came off like "maybe a dick" in the video, I'll try and remember that next time I do one. On the other hand, yes, I have an edge, but that's just me. No harm meant. I'm not unhappy with the way I communicate. If I'm too abrassive for you, I expect you won't watch other videos.
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 That's interesting. Can you elaborate?
Recommended Posts