A4E Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 I am curious if anyone would disagree with any of these 2 statements: -Generally lifeforms with a brain which have basic abilities, (like remember things), make choices. (ie its easy to see that a cat or lion is weighing when it is most advantageous to stalk a prey, and when to strike. And it does not matter to which extent the lifeform is thinking before making a choice imo. the fact that it is clearly making a choice is evidence enough of some thinking that we can not easily analyze the extent of anyway.) -As far as we can understand, the universe seems to have laws of physics that are consistent and can presumably never be manipulated, bent, or otherwise changed, except between the laws themselves working on each other. (if you accept more controversial quantum stuff, then you probably already disagree with this one, which is ok.)
shirgall Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 How about this statement? - you had a choice to post on this topic or not
RichardY Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 5 hours ago, shirgall said: How about this statement? - you had a choice to post on this topic or not Without choice wouldn't that destroy/deconstruct the concept of posting? I would say obviously yes, it would. More than that I would say it eliminates the potential for learning. Instead of posting, wouldn't some kind of "form" have to be postulated? Also, instead of learning; revelation or inductive reasoning.
A4E Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 On 3/22/2018 at 12:52 PM, shirgall said: you had a choice to post on this topic or not I agree. I just want to try to point out that free willers and determinists generally agree on many things, but we think that we disagree. mostly because of definitions though. ie Stefan (quickly) found a definition of free will early in the video that determinists would agree with. If free willers agree/believe that the universe is 100% consistent, then they should also agree that everything is predetermined, but i have not seen people opposite of me make this connection, only a strong rejection of determinism, like it is some evil end-game boss. I have no problem accepting that we have a choice, just that it is not supernatural, and so conditional to the laws of the universe.
barn Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 Hi @A4E 1 hour ago, A4E said: If free willers agree/believe that the universe is 100% consistent, then they should also agree that everything is predetermined, but i have not seen people opposite of me make this connection, only a strong rejection of determinism, like it is some evil end-game boss. I have no problem accepting that we have a choice, just that it is not supernatural, and so conditional to the laws of the universe. I like to think about it this way... The universe and the mental plain are two different realms. In one, one can create square-circles (just like me writing it here) while in the other it isn't possible... to my knowledge. I wouldn't go as far as saying either can be more than is/isn't, however trying to substitute one's properties to describe the other's qualities isn't honest, imho. i.e. science, therefore no such thing as moral/immoral. (the right tools for the right purpose, otherwise makes no sense)
A4E Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 23 hours ago, barn said: I wouldn't go as far as saying either can be more than is/isn't, however trying to substitute one's properties to describe the other's qualities isn't honest, imho. I dont understand. Can you explain it in a different way? 23 hours ago, barn said: i.e. science, therefore no such thing as moral/immoral. (the right tools for the right purpose, otherwise makes no sense) I dont know what you mean with this. Can you elaborate?
barn Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 Hi @A4E I'll try. 7 hours ago, A4E said: On 03/24/2018 at 11:32 AM, barn said: I wouldn't go as far as saying either can be more than is/isn't, however trying to substitute one's properties to describe the other's qualities isn't honest, imho. I dont understand. Can you explain it in a different way? Screwdrivers are great tools for loosening /tightening screws, nothing moral about it. Weakening the supporting hinge to cause any accident, is however, it IS a (silly, I grant you..) moral question. Applying morals when figuring out how matters will/do interact is a separate category entirely from bad/good. (trying to marry the two is a non-sequitir[?, am I using the definition appropriately]) or, Say, we looked at the question of why the sky is 'blue'? (While, actually it's red, more precisely it's white, even more precisely it's just an intensity.) Morality can't even start to enter the first step it takes to start learning more about it. It's just not the right set of concepts, like a saw without teeth... won't cut it. 7 hours ago, A4E said: On 03/24/2018 at 11:32 AM, barn said: i.e. science, therefore no such thing as moral/immoral. (the right tools for the right purpose, otherwise makes no sense) I dont know what you mean with this. Can you elaborate? So far, nobody has been able to measure the soul, using scientific methods. Either our sophistication is lacking, can’t be measured that way,... or if doesn't exist scientifically, so it shouldn't be real? There are many things that only exist in our mind's eye, but we shouldn't look for it in the material-wave-continuum. Better? Also, I forgot to ask regarding...
barn Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 On 03/21/2018 at 10:36 PM, A4E said: Generally lifeforms with a brain which have basic abilities, (like remember things), make choices. I understand you generalised. Would be curious to know how you see the relationship or distinction between 'reaction' and 'conscious decision' if both needs the ability of 'memory' or as you wrote "remembering".
shirgall Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 Arguing with determinists doesn't change anything.
barn Posted March 26, 2018 Posted March 26, 2018 Hi @shirgall 6 hours ago, shirgall said: Arguing with determinists doesn't change anything. As a generalisation, that's true. Maybe. (But I wouldn't establish that for everyone, all the time, while keeping a safe distance. That's ignorance in my opinion, while it is sometimes necessary to act if it's unavoidable.) For those certain individuals. The bringers of boring repetition, suffering, irredeemability, dehumanising aspect... etc. It's a miserable life path, enormous weight to be crushed under or keep sinking indefinitely with no bottom in sight. I have yet to encounter a good argument why healing, taking responsibility was not preferable on an individual basis. (dishonest, secondary gains are not my interest, though I do accept their existence) p.s. (personal anecdote 'n all, caveats as usual... I was once convinced of nihilism, detrminism was to be accepted, even acted upon it so I must have believed it to be true. I'm glad, I don't anymore, thanks to my curiosity coupled with taking responsibility for any and all my actions. No Faith here, with a capital 'F'. )
A4E Posted March 26, 2018 Posted March 26, 2018 23 hours ago, barn said: Better? Little bit. probably just me, but i dont understand the overall picture you are trying to paint. if you want to try again, can you start over, and tell me as if I was 10 years old?
barn Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 Hi @A4E 11 hours ago, A4E said: Little bit. probably just me, but i dont understand the overall picture you are trying to paint. if you want to try again, can you start over, and tell me as if I was 10 years old? Thanks, no thanks.
Recommended Posts