User Controls
Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
-
2017-08-17 at 8:57 PM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 9:44 PM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I mean if you give it a retarded, internally consistent and self-contradictory meaning then of course. I'm asking you for any definition of free will that isn't selfcontradictory. You're saying it is not possible and everything is "not it". But you're not saying what "it" is.
Yes I am, the classical idea is that a person with free will is absolutely in control of their actions, decisions, thoughts, etc. It is a vague concept, but basically it is the idea that people are the absolute cause of their own behavior, that they are not driven by anything else. I don't need to explain this to you at all, you already know exactly what I am talking about when I say libertarian or classical free will, you have studied it, you're just being an asshole.
I don't need to create any scenario where this concept of freewill could exist, that isn't my argument. My argument is that this concept of freewill is impossible. You agree with this.
I understand you like compatibilism, you prefer defining freewill in that way, and I agree that it is well defined and should be the definition used in a court of law.
My only problem with it is that it completely ignores the interesting part about having a philosophical discussion about freewill - the part where people feel like they are not just machines processing inputs and output, but rather that they do have absolute control over all their decisions and thoughts and actions, and how that is literally impossible considering the way reality actually works. The classical "problem of free will".
What's your end goal here captain? What point are you trying to convey? Are you really just trying to be as disrespectful as possible? Do you think we should all just become compatibilists and ignore the classical problem of free will? Why don't you just say it? -
2017-08-17 at 11:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Yes I am, the classical idea is that a person with free will is absolutely in control of their actions, decisions, thoughts, etc.
Duh. This is my definition too, not just the classical idea. But the difference is that I'm defining the "person in control" to be that person, even if they are a deterministic system. Whereas you require "the person" to be some pie in the sky black box outside of reality that somehow can't be predicted by their setup conditions, but is also not random.
Yeah, there is no red blue octopus. Why the fuck would you even entertain such a notion? The idea isn't even coherent.It is a vague concept, but basically it is the idea that people are the absolute cause of their own behavior, that they are not driven by anything else.
An absolutely free being is given the choice between a bologna sandwich and an ice cream sandwich. How does it make a decision, and how does its decision making process differ from either randomness, or what we have now?I don't need to explain this to you at all, you already know exactly what I am talking about when I say libertarian or classical free will, you have studied it, you're just being an asshole.
I'm asking this because it is a nonsense idea that you're insisting on. You're telling me that definition of a "blue monkey" is "a red birb, but it has to be a blue monkey". I'm telling you that the red birb is called a blue monkey. You're telling me it cannot be, because the red birb must be a blue monkey. What are you expecting?I don't need to create any scenario where this concept of freewill could exist, that isn't my argument. My argument is that this concept of freewill is impossible. You agree with this.
You're not clearly defining free will, you're not defining what element of the concept makes it impossible, or what element we can grant as a black box to make it work, you're just telling me the whole thing is a black box.I understand you like compatibilism, you prefer defining freewill in that way, and I agree that it is well defined and should be the definition used in a court of law.
My only problem with it is that it completely ignores the interesting part about having a philosophical discussion about freewill - the part where people feel like they are not just machines processing inputs and output, but rather that they do have absolute control over all their decisions and thoughts and actions, and how that is literally impossible considering the way reality actually works. The classical "problem of free will".
What's your end goal here captain? What point are you trying to convey? Are you really just trying to be as disrespectful as possible? Do you think we should all just become compatibilists and ignore the classical problem of free will? Why don't you just say it?
Why would I "like" compatibilism? I'm telling you why what you're saying is logically incoherent, and why what I'm saying, is. Compatibilism does in fact deal with the "problem of free will". The contention is simply that the question, as stated, isn't coherent. Which it is in fact not. -
2017-08-17 at 11:54 PM UTCeverything ave been set in celluloid.
we're just the images on the screen playing it out. we're not even the images in the film, but the images of the images of the images of the images .... -
2017-08-18 at 2:38 AM UTCSCREEAAWWWW!
-
2017-08-18 at 4:14 AM UTCBy Zarblox, do you mean a self destroying mechanism that hindered the plant or animal from advancing on a micro or macro scale?
Poison? -
2017-08-18 at 4:18 AM UTC
-
2017-08-18 at 10:37 AM UTC
-
2017-08-18 at 11:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Duh. This is my definition too, not just the classical idea. But the difference is that I'm defining the "person in control" to be that person, even if they are a deterministic system. Whereas you require "the person" to be some pie in the sky black box outside of reality that somehow can't be predicted by their setup conditions, but is also not random.
Yeah, there is no red blue octopus. Why the fuck would you even entertain such a notion? The idea isn't even coherent.
An absolutely free being is given the choice between a bologna sandwich and an ice cream sandwich. How does it make a decision, and how does its decision making process differ from either randomness, or what we have now?
I'm asking this because it is a nonsense idea that you're insisting on. You're telling me that definition of a "blue monkey" is "a red birb, but it has to be a blue monkey". I'm telling you that the red birb is called a blue monkey. You're telling me it cannot be, because the red birb must be a blue monkey. What are you expecting?
You're not clearly defining free will, you're not defining what element of the concept makes it impossible, or what element we can grant as a black box to make it work, you're just telling me the whole thing is a black box.
Why would I "like" compatibilism? I'm telling you why what you're saying is logically incoherent, and why what I'm saying, is. Compatibilism does in fact deal with the "problem of free will". The contention is simply that the question, as stated, isn't coherent. Which it is in fact not.
The classical idea of free will does not require a person to be "pie in the sky", only to be in absolute control of their own desires, thoughts and actions.
Explain how you think the person in compatabilist free will is in control of anything at all? If they are part of a deterministic universe, are they not just another cog in a series of cogs? A cog has no control, it only turns when it is being turned. -
2017-08-18 at 12:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind The classical idea of free will does not require a person to be "pie in the sky", only to be in absolute control of their own desires, thoughts and actions.
What the fuck does that mean? You are saying words in an order that is grammatically valid, but I've already asked you a billion times to to explain the semantic content of those words, and you refuse to do so. What would this absolute control look like? If your free choice is not based on your predisposition, what is it based on? And how is it distinct from just randomness?
I've asked you the question on a functional level, I've asked it on a principle level, but you are refusing to answer it.Explain how you think the person in compatabilist free will is in control of anything at all? If they are part of a deterministic universe, are they not just another cog in a series of cogs? A cog has no control, it only turns when it is being turned.
First of all, let's get this out of the way; the universe is not deterministic. The reason why I'm continuing to work in the framework of determinism is because it doesn't matter whatsoever to the subject of free will. Determinism or indeterminism are irrelevant to whether or not you have or don't have free will.
I bring this up, because your foundational argument is just factually wrong.
But moving on, you seem to think that being in control of anything within any framework is just impossible. But you're not justifying this belief.
Imagine I make a machine that stamps out cookies in the shape of a star. You ask me what controls the shape of the cookies, and I tell you that it is determined by the shape of the stamps.
Your contention is BUT YOU PUT THE STAMPS THERE AND DECIDED WHAT THE SHAOE SHOULD BE. Well yeah no shit homie, but the way the cookie is shaped is still ultimately down to the way the stamp is shaped.
The shape of the stamp determines the shape of the cookie. You can argue till the cows come home that the shape of the stamp is further decided by other factors, but it is factually true that the shape of the cookie is still determined by the shape of the stamp.
In the same way, you can do what you will, but you cannot will what you will. -
2017-08-18 at 3:15 PM UTC
-
2017-08-18 at 3:23 PM UTC
-
2017-08-18 at 3:35 PM UTC
-
2017-08-18 at 3:59 PM UTC
-
2017-08-18 at 4:30 PM UTC
-
2017-08-18 at 4:31 PM UTC
-
2017-08-18 at 4:51 PM UTC
-
2017-08-18 at 5:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Its not free in the libertarian, classical sense. How is it free? You cannot will what you will. Seems pretty clear that is not free.
What would be free in the libertarian, classical sense?
Would it be free if you could will what you will, but could not will what you will what you will? Serious question. -
2017-08-18 at 5:12 PM UTC
