User Controls
Policeman beheaded and son has heart/skin removed while alive
-
2018-01-22 at 8:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind If "freewill" is "your genetics responding to your environment" than developing a genetic heart disorder is an example of that so-called freewill.
The problem is the vast majority of people don't feel that getting a heart disorder is something they are doing or freely choosing, they feel like it is something that is happening to them and would correct it if they could.
I don't think anyone is claiming that compatibalism defines free will to mean we can and do have complete freedom over the things that genetically take place outside of our control. As I understand it, free will as it relates to determinism is defined as freedom over actions and thoughts, limited to what one's genetics can and would ever be able to allow. It's a "limited" free will, or as self described, a determined free will in terms of its boundaries.
Obviously that's where opposing views come down to semantics and how one personally chooses to believe in the true definition of free will. I think it's fair to say that nobody thinks we have absolute free will, in that we can't make ourselves invisible if we willed it, or turn the moon into a big butt.
Free will no matter how you define it, has a boundary. The boundary is is determined by our unique and individual genetics and brain chemistry. A limited free will as I like to call it, and like I addressed, any practical definition of free will, regardless of whether you're a determinist or indeterminist, already has a fixed boundary that applies to every single person. The "outer boundary" so to speak.
Inner boundaries are the limit to which our own brains could ever allow us to achieve or act upon. One could actively try to take measures to prevent themselves from getting a heart disease, but those actions, one way or another, make up the involuntary process that ultimately determines the results. -
2018-01-22 at 8:42 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-01-22 at 9:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ I don't think anyone is claiming that compatibalism defines free will to mean we can and do have complete freedom over the things that genetically take place outside of our control. As I understand it, free will as it relates to determinism is defined as freedom over actions and thoughts, limited to what one's genetics can and would ever be able to allow. It's a "limited" free will, or as self described, a determined free will in terms of its boundaries.
Obviously that's where opposing views come down to semantics and how one personally chooses to believe in the true definition of free will. I think it's fair to say that nobody thinks we have absolute free will, in that we can't make ourselves invisible if we willed it, or turn the moon into a big butt.
Free will no matter how you define it, has a boundary. The boundary is is determined by our unique and individual genetics and brain chemistry. A limited free will as I like to call it, and like I addressed, any practical definition of free will, regardless of whether you're a determinist or indeterminist, already has a fixed boundary that applies to every single person. The "outer boundary" so to speak.
Inner boundaries are the limit to which our own brains could ever allow us to achieve or act upon. One could actively try to take measures to prevent themselves from getting a heart disease, but those actions, one way or another, make up the involuntary process that ultimately determines the results.
Don't engage Obbe, he has been told why the concept of agency shits on this argument, it is just easier for him to act like he doesn't understand it. -
2018-01-22 at 9:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Don't engage Obbe, he has been told why the concept of agency shits on this argument, it is just easier for him to act like he doesn't understand it.
Well it looks like I'm too late. Either way it's good mental practice for me to remind myself how and why I believe what I do, and writing it out helps me see that with more clairvoyance.
Such is life... -
2018-01-22 at 11:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ I don't think anyone is claiming that compatibalism defines free will to mean we can and do have complete freedom over the things that genetically take place outside of our control. As I understand it, free will as it relates to determinism is defined as freedom over actions and thoughts, limited to what one's genetics can and would ever be able to allow. It's a "limited" free will, or as self described, a determined free will in terms of its boundaries.
Obviously that's where opposing views come down to semantics and how one personally chooses to believe in the true definition of free will. I think it's fair to say that nobody thinks we have absolute free will, in that we can't make ourselves invisible if we willed it, or turn the moon into a big butt.
Free will no matter how you define it, has a boundary. The boundary is is determined by our unique and individual genetics and brain chemistry. A limited free will as I like to call it, and like I addressed, any practical definition of free will, regardless of whether you're a determinist or indeterminist, already has a fixed boundary that applies to every single person. The "outer boundary" so to speak.
Inner boundaries are the limit to which our own brains could ever allow us to achieve or act upon. One could actively try to take measures to prevent themselves from getting a heart disease, but those actions, one way or another, make up the involuntary process that ultimately determines the results.
That's all fine except that you don't have freedom over your thoughts or actions. At all. You might feel like you have more control over your next thought than you have over your blood pressure but you literally don't. Whatever your next thought is going to be is not something you chose, not something you picked out... thoughts simply arise in consciousness. Where is the freedom in that?
Some people might claim "Well it's still your thought," and sure it is but you didnt author it, you didnt choose it, your freewill was not involved in that thought any more than it is involved in any of the other various conscious or subconscious or unconscious processes your body performs. -
2018-01-22 at 11:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind That's all fine except that you don't have freedom over your thoughts or actions. At all. You might feel like you have more control over your next thought than you have over your blood pressure but you literally don't. Whatever your next thought is going to be is not something you chose, not something you picked out… thoughts simply arise in consciousness. Where is the freedom in that?
Some people might claim "Well it's still your thought," and sure it is but you didnt author it, you didnt choose it, your freewill was not involved in that thought any more than it is involved in any of the other various conscious or subconscious or unconscious processes your body performs.
well i think you're a complete twat.
but don't go on at me about it. i didn't create that thought.
. -
2018-01-22 at 11:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist well i think you're a complete twat.
but don't go on at me about it. i didn't create that thought.
.
Of course your created it, you just didn't have the freedom to think anything but that. Just like you create the shit that comes out your ass but you don't decide what it's going to look like. -
2018-01-22 at 11:16 PM UTCthis is fucked up and sick. I'm not watching it. the first page of tard has painted a picture enough.
skipping page 2 all the way to 11 because it was such baitclick it seems. Do you guys hate cops that much? it's someone and his son and why does this shit keep happening down there?
San Francisco is becoming selective lawlessness -
2018-01-23 at 12:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind That's all fine except that you don't have freedom over your thoughts or actions. At all. You might feel like you have more control over your next thought than you have over your blood pressure but you literally don't. Whatever your next thought is going to be is not something you chose, not something you picked out… thoughts simply arise in consciousness. Where is the freedom in that?
Some people might claim "Well it's still your thought," and sure it is but you didnt author it, you didnt choose it, your freewill was not involved in that thought any more than it is involved in any of the other various conscious or subconscious or unconscious processes your body performs.
What would qualify as having freedom ovewr your thoughts or actions? -
2018-01-23 at 12:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind That's all fine except that you don't have freedom over your thoughts or actions. At all. You might feel like you have more control over your next thought than you have over your blood pressure but you literally don't. Whatever your next thought is going to be is not something you chose, not something you picked out… thoughts simply arise in consciousness. Where is the freedom in that?
Some people might claim "Well it's still your thought," and sure it is but you didnt author it, you didnt choose it, your freewill was not involved in that thought any more than it is involved in any of the other various conscious or subconscious or unconscious processes your body performs.
So you're basically saying determinism and predetermining are the same thing? -
2018-01-23 at 12:15 AM UTC
-
2018-01-23 at 12:17 AM UTC
-
2018-01-23 at 12:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ So you're basically saying determinism and predetermining are the same thing?
I'm saying in a deterministic, probabilistic or random universe, free will is not possible unless you change the definition to mean something that most people don't actually mean when they feel they are doing something out of their own free will. -
2018-01-23 at 12:18 AM UTC
-
2018-01-23 at 12:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind I'm saying in a deterministic, probabilistic or random universe, free will is not possible unless you change the definition to mean something that most people don't actually mean when they feel they are doing something out of their own free will.
What is the definition that people actually mean? -
2018-01-23 at 12:21 AM UTC
-
2018-01-23 at 12:25 AM UTCNo such thing as free will, everything that has ever happened has been as a direct result of the starting conditions of the universe. Nobody is free. There is no escape. I am only making this post because I was going to make this post.
-
2018-01-23 at 12:42 AM UTCThe popular conception of free will rests on a few assumptions. One assumption is that each of us could have behaved differently than we did in the past. Another is that we are the conscious source of most of our thoughts and actions. Both these assumptions are false.
Our wills are not our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes which we are unaware of and over which we exert no control. Free will cannot be made conceptually coherent. Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them. -
2018-01-23 at 1:01 AM UTCDoes every thread on this site turn into some half-baked philosophical discussion?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-01-23 at 1:11 AM UTC
