User Controls
Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
-
2017-08-16 at 8:49 PM UTCYou don't pick your desires. You have no choice or control over what you desire, or what drives your behavior. Saying "but it's still your desire" is meaningless. It is not something you can change or control or choose. Where is the free will in that?
What do you mean what would it look like? A sense of free will is what people naturally experience when they decide what to pick from the menu at a restaurant or what colour to paint their walls - an illusory experience of being in control of their desires and decisions. But you and I know that they are not in control. You already agreed with that when you stated that you believe your decisions are predetermined. -
2017-08-16 at 9:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind You don't pick your desires. You have no choice or control over what you desire, or what drives your behavior. Saying "but it's still your desire" is meaningless. It is not something you can change or control or choose. Where is the free will in that?
I'm not repeating myself a seventh time for you.What do you mean what would it look like? A sense of free will is what people naturally experience when they decide what to pick from the menu at a restaurant or what colour to paint their walls - an illusory experience of being in control of their desires and decisions.
Stop saying that. You sound like a fucking retard. It is an utterly meaningless statement that you keep parroting to avoid actually answering the question. I'm asking you what, specifically, it would entail. In the real world all our choices are made as the result of prior physical causes. What would the mechanics behind the creation of a "free" choice be instead, and how would it different from what currently exists? This is not a complicated question, but you're answering it like you cannot grasp basic English.But you and I know that they are not in control. You already agreed with that when you stated that you believe your decisions are predetermined.
Of course your decisions are predetermined. But this predetermined entity spits out decisions based on inputs, and it is "you". Therefore it is a free and unconstrained action on your part. Your idea of free will, which you keep refusing to properly define, seems to require that "you" must be some sort of black box outside of time and space that magically (but not randomly) produces uncaused outputs. I.e. you have set up a paradoxical definition of self, to act like free will is impossible. -
2017-08-16 at 9:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Of course your decisions are predetermined. But this predetermined entity spits out decisions based on inputs, and it is "you". Therefore it is a free and unconstrained action on your part. Your idea of free will, which you keep refusing to properly define, seems to require that "you" must be some sort of black box outside of time and space that magically (but not randomly) produces uncaused outputs. I.e. you have set up a paradoxical definition of self, to act like free will is impossible.
A rock that is hit with a hammer spits out an "output" relative the "input" it is given ... according to your logic, this is what you consider to be free will. -
2017-08-16 at 9:29 PM UTCI'll read the lot of this after work, I just wanted to say that I believe a random number generator is an example of free will. It doesn't fucking mean anything that it is, because it doesn't have the will to do anything except randomly generate numbers, but nonetheless, it is free upon every choice to generate any numeric value, without restriction. Of sorts.
-
2017-08-16 at 10:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Because you are not in control of it. It's beyond your control. If I smash a rock with a hammer and it cracks in two, you are basically saying that is the freewill of the rock. If it doesn't crack in two, you are arguing that is the free will of the rock. But in reality whether or not the rock cracks has nothing to do with free will. The rock is not deciding how it will react. And neither do people.
PEOPLE ARE ROCKS!!! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!! -
2017-08-16 at 11:25 PM UTCPeople are like really complex organizations of stuff that, lacking that organization, is like a pile of crud. The laws of physics don't magically give way to free will when the stuff the universe is made of becomes organized into complex structures we call people.
-
2017-08-17 at 12:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind People are like really complex organizations of stuff that, lacking that organization, is like a pile of crud. The laws of physics don't magically give way to free will when the stuff the universe is made of becomes organized into complex structures we call people.
Well what would you call a people? -
2017-08-17 at 3:44 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind A rock that is hit with a hammer spits out an "output" relative the "input" it is given … according to your logic, this is what you consider to be free will.
No because you, as an agent of free will, are making it do something. Its predisposition, by the fundàmental laws of the universe, is to stay at rest. In the same way, me hitting you in the head with a sledgehammer does not make the spattering of your brains into a free action.
So this argument now is about you not understanding compatibilism and using my simplified version for you (because you're getting dinner and dumber in the discussion) to give a weird broken idea of it and build an argument off it.
In compatibilist theory, we account for qualia of thought, second (and higher) order reasoning and agency. But I'm not going to get into this discussion with you because at this point, it's just your job to educate yourself on basic terms rather than vomit out words without understanding the core concepts involved. -
2017-08-17 at 3:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind People are like really complex organizations of stuff that, lacking that organization, is like a pile of crud. The laws of physics don't magically give way to free will when the stuff the universe is made of becomes organized into complex structures we call people.
Chinese room -
2017-08-17 at 3:55 AM UTCOne thing is for sure, we will always have more free will than we can or will ever use.
-
2017-08-17 at 4:14 AM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 4:24 AM UTCI think you mean 12 AM. Adult Swim isn't on at noon. Timen00b.
-
2017-08-17 at 4:24 AM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 6 AM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 6:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader tl;dw
also i have an iq of 75 so pls summarize it down to a paragraph not more than 40words capable of being digested by people my iq range.
Quantum mechanical phenomena are truly random, and this can be mathematically proven because we have extremely high quality experimental observations, and it would be mathematically impossible for them to exist if the observed phenomena were deterministic/pseudorandom rather than truly random. -
2017-08-17 at 6:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Quantum mechanical phenomena are truly random, and this can be mathematically proven because we have extremely high quality experimental observations, and it would be mathematically impossible for them to exist if the observed phenomena were deterministic/pseudorandom rather than truly random.
randomness is impossible, everything has a pattern -
2017-08-17 at 6:19 AM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 6:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Quantum mechanical phenomena are truly random, and this can be mathematically proven because we have extremely high quality experimental observations, and it would be mathematically impossible for them to exist if the observed phenomena were deterministic/pseudorandom rather than truly random.
so you mean mathematical proof is just as good as the real proof itself ???
that hypothetical equations are good as facts /??? -
2017-08-17 at 6:33 AM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 6:35 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader so you mean mathematical proof is just as good as the real proof itself ???
that hypothetical equations are good as facts /???
Mathematics are hard logic. You don't get more factual than maths.
In this case, we have a deductive proof i.e. it is 100% true fact.
The proof essentially establishes with basic mathematics that for the relevant scientific observations to be nonrandom, you would basically have to violate the fundamental laws of logic. Essentially, you would need to say that 1+2 or 1+3 or 2+3 can be bigger that 1+2+3.
There's nothing hypothetical about that. That's not what "hypothetical" means.
