User Controls
Policeman beheaded and son has heart/skin removed while alive
-
2018-01-23 at 6:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader that is assuming that the causes of your absence of desire is within your control.
do you control the factors that lead you to desire, or desire not of things and actions ???
Well we certainly can't have some constant cognitive awareness over every possible thing in existence at any given time that we would prefer not to do, but there would would seem to be a blanketed willingness to not actively do all possible things outside of what we are consciously doing or considering doing. So a deterministic view would then naturally apply to those "unwants" as it relates to our "wants."
I dont have to remind myself to willingly not want to slip and fall in the shower and break my neck, so if it were to happen, it isn't a reflection of limiting my free will to wish it wouldn't have happened because that always was and still is the case. I just can't willingly choose to be aware of any and all things that might determine why something happened, the same way I can't willingly choose to be aware of every possible thing that might determine what I choose to do throughout the day.
All those determining factors are taking place beyond my knowledge but yet my free will to not want to fall remains.
Or something -
2018-01-23 at 7:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ but yet my free will to not want to fall remains.
Or something
so would it be wrong if i see your unwillingness to trip and fall as a lack of freewill ???
obviously your free to trip and fall but since your senses of self preservation have prevented you from ever wanting to achieve that .... will it be wrong if i say i see your sense of self preservation had taken away your freedom to freewill from you ???
or your sanity, or rational perhaps .... or even sense of decency had taken away all your free will .... since your now, becos of these feelings/senses, are now unable to will freely. -
2018-01-23 at 7:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Why do you think people weigh out different possible decisions?
I'm not asking why does it literally take time to do something.. cmon now, I'm wondering why opt to take that more time to decide where they want to go on vacation, but don't take the time to think about if turning their doorknob is gonna is still going to be the way they open their door when they leave?
Who knows why people think this or that or do this or that? Why did I just drink a glass of water instead of a glass of beer?
I mean, I like beer. I like water too. I guess at the moment I decided to drink a glass of water my desire to drink water was stronger than my desire to drink beer. Why? I don't know. Who knows? All I know is that whatever caused my desire to drink water to be stronger than my desire to drink beer, I wasn't the conscious source or exerted any control over it. I just felt like drinking water, because something caused that desire to rise to the surface of my consciousness. -
2018-01-23 at 7:35 PM UTC
What would it mean for them to change direction on their own?
For a person to have free will or be the conscious source of their own thoughts and actions they would need to be like a ball rolling itself up a hill, unaffected by any other influences. -
2018-01-23 at 8:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Who knows why people think this or that or do this or that? Why did I just drink a glass of water instead of a glass of beer?
I mean, I like beer. I like water too. I guess at the moment I decided to drink a glass of water my desire to drink water was stronger than my desire to drink beer. Why? I don't know. Who knows? All I know is that whatever caused my desire to drink water to be stronger than my desire to drink beer, I wasn't the conscious source or exerted any control over it. I just felt like drinking water, because something caused that desire to rise to the surface of my consciousness.
Right. You have no idea what those determining factors are which is why you yourself needed to decide one way or the other and follow through with that choice. The determining factors behind your choices NEED YOU to experience your own will of choice in order to fulfill itself. If you already knew everything that's been determined, there'd be no reason to have any ability to make choices and consider things in the first place.
You may as well be a robot that is pre-programmed to do an exact set of instructions if that's the case. And you could in fact say that that is exactly what we are since our outcomes all follow a pattern unbeknownst to us and we can't change. BUT, since our programmed instructions aren't known to us until we complete them and we are programmed in such a way as to be able to feel we're making decisions rather than knowing what they're already programmed to be, whatever set it all in motion wanted us to in the very least have the illusion of free will. Just like with the question of the the objective existence of rainbows, our interpretation of the criteria will differ but we all still have seen and know what we mean when we say rainbow, and with free will it is the same, our interpretation of how it's defined clearly differs, but nonetheless we know of it as a concept and can have this discussion about it.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if we agree on an objective definition of free will, we're still all on the same boat with our unique brains, going througout or lives without the knowledge of what is going to happen, effectively living as though we do have free will even if some of us don't think it should be called that. -
2018-01-23 at 8:41 PM UTCI clicked on the latest replies only to be greeted with whining about free will again. Do you have ruin even gore? Just shut up and enjoy it, Obbe.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-01-23 at 9:02 PM UTCSorry for ruining your potential experience from this thread Daggo. I got caught up in the discussion myself and have just been running with it. Truth be told obbe Falco and I all like seem to agree that we ultimately were determined to overtake the thread but only obbe feels he did it because he had no choice whereas me and Falco made our decisions based on our own free will to so.
Sick, sick world.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-01-23 at 9:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind For a person to have free will or be the conscious source of their own thoughts and actions they would need to be like a ball rolling itself up a hill, unaffected by any other influences.
1. You didn't answer the question, because your viewpoint is flawed. I'm asking you what "on their own" would mean. Would a random number generator be counted as a free agent? How about a robot that's decision making is entirely powered by a QRNG, which is defined as the core or source of its personality? If the ball was able to use whatever energies are necessary to roll itself up the hill, you would ascribe responsibility for something other than the ball. What can the ball claim responsibility for? Assuming it has agency, of course.
2. Then you are retarded. You are defining a one-end-open black box system that spits out decisions that isn't caused by anything. I propose to you that a system that precisely fits this definition is a QRNG, but deny that as being random. Which is it, Obbe? -
2018-01-23 at 11:10 PM UTC
-
2018-01-23 at 11:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Right. You have no idea what those determining factors are which is why you yourself needed to decide one way or the other and follow through with that choice. The determining factors behind your choices NEED YOU to experience your own will of choice in order to fulfill itself. If you already knew everything that's been determined, there'd be no reason to have any ability to make choices and consider things in the first place.
You may as well be a robot that is pre-programmed to do an exact set of instructions if that's the case. And you could in fact say that that is exactly what we are since our outcomes all follow a pattern unbeknownst to us and we can't change. BUT, since our programmed instructions aren't known to us until we complete them and we are programmed in such a way as to be able to feel we're making decisions rather than knowing what they're already programmed to be, whatever set it all in motion wanted us to in the very least have the illusion of free will. Just like with the question of the the objective existence of rainbows, our interpretation of the criteria will differ but we all still have seen and know what we mean when we say rainbow, and with free will it is the same, our interpretation of how it's defined clearly differs, but nonetheless we know of it as a concept and can have this discussion about it.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if we agree on an objective definition of free will, we're still all on the same boat with our unique brains, going througout or lives without the knowledge of what is going to happen, effectively living as though we do have free will even if some of us don't think it should be called that.
Freewill is incoherent mmQ. If you agree that all your thoughts, intentions and actions are determined by factors you are unaware of and exert no control over, how can you claim to have free will? How would it make sense to call that free will? -
2018-01-23 at 11:20 PM UTC1. watch a sam harris video
2. click on the recommended videos to watch another sam harris video
3. flimsily argue for determinism while trying really hard to paraphrase
4. ???
-
2018-01-23 at 11:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon 1. You didn't answer the question, because your viewpoint is flawed. I'm asking you what "on their own" would mean. Would a random number generator be counted as a free agent? How about a robot that's decision making is entirely powered by a QRNG, which is defined as the core or source of its personality? If the ball was able to use whatever energies are necessary to roll itself up the hill, you would ascribe responsibility for something other than the ball. What can the ball claim responsibility for? Assuming it has agency, of course.
2. Then you are retarded. You are defining a one-end-open black box system that spits out decisions that isn't caused by anything. I propose to you that a system that precisely fits this definition is a QRNG, but deny that as being random. Which is it, Obbe?
People don't feel like their thoughts and actions are caused by things they are unaware of or have no control over. People generally feel like they are the conscious source of all their thoughts and actions. That feeling is called free will. It is an illusion, because you and I both know that a person is not the conscious source of their thoughts and actions.
But you don't agree that's what free will is. You seem to believe free will is like a ball rolling down a hill. It's incapable of doing anything other that what it must do due to various factors causing it's motion like gravity and little bumps in the hill. But you still think that's free will. What would it take for you to say someone has no free will at all? How would you define a lack of free will? -
2018-01-24 at 12:20 AM UTCMy Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, "If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately". Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- "Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through". I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because your posts gave me cancer anyway.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-01-24 at 1:13 AM UTCHe should have kept on smoking. He would have lived.
-
2018-01-24 at 1:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Freewill is incoherent mmQ. If you agree that all your thoughts, intentions and actions are determined by factors you are unaware of and exert no control over, how can you claim to have free will? How would it make sense to call that free will?
What if I tell you that it is coherent? What if I say that free will means nothing more than having reason to be held morally responsible for your choices? What if I tell you that despite a deterministic belief, the fact that our ability to consider at any point the moral implications or consequences of our potential actions then stands to reason that we are responsible for them; that determinism accounts for that and therefore it doesn't matter that our actions are ultimately determined by things beyond our control? -
2018-01-24 at 2:13 AM UTCFake news by the fake Vizier.
-
2018-01-24 at 2:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind People don't feel like their thoughts and actions are caused by things they are unaware of or have no control over. People generally feel like they are the conscious source of all their thoughts and actions. That feeling is called free will. It is an illusion, because you and I both know that a person is not the conscious source of their thoughts and actions.
But you don't agree that's what free will is. You seem to believe free will is like a ball rolling down a hill. It's incapable of doing anything other that what it must do due to various factors causing it's motion like gravity and little bumps in the hill. But you still think that's free will. What would it take for you to say someone has no free will at all? How would you define a lack of free will?
I don't give a fuck what people feel like. I already told you that my definition of free will is not like a ball rolling down a hill. I've already offered my terms: in order to have no free will, an agent of will must be constrained or compelled by an outside agent in their ability to make a choice. If my predisposition (will) is as a hypothetical-ball-with-agency-rolling-down-hill is to roll down the hill but another agent stops me from doing so, it is thus no longer a result of my predisposition as a ball-with-agency and therefore it is not a free choice.
I can and have laid out my terms syllogistically and as clearly as they possibly can be. This isn't you turning my questions around on me: I've already offered my definitions up.
If you are capable of either grasping or finding invalidity in this basic, logically valid structure then you have no argument. -
2018-01-24 at 3:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ What if I tell you that it is coherent? What if I say that free will means nothing more than having reason to be held morally responsible for your choices? What if I tell you that despite a deterministic belief, the fact that our ability to consider at any point the moral implications or consequences of our potential actions then stands to reason that we are responsible for them; that determinism accounts for that and therefore it doesn't matter that our actions are ultimately determined by things beyond our control?
What does it mean to take moral responsibility for an action? Consider the following:
1. A 4 year old kills a woman after playing with his father's gun, which had been left loaded and unsecure.
2. A 25 year old man raised by wonderful parents and never abused intentionally shot and killed a woman "for the fun of it."
3. A 25 year old man raised by wonderful parents and never abused intentionally shot and killed a woman "for the fun of it." A brain scan reveals a tumor the size of a golf ball in a region of his brain responsible for the control of emotion and behavioral impulses.
In each case a young woman died. Each death, the result of events arising in the mind of another human. But the degree of moral outrage you feel probably depends on the situation described in each case.
We consider the brain of killer 1 is not fully matured or ready for the responsibilities of personhood. Killer number 2 appears to be a psychopath. Killer number 3 involves the same psychopathic motive and behavior, but somehow the brain tumor seems to clear the killer of all responsibility for his crime. We cannot help but see him as a victim of his own biology.
Despite our attachment to the notion of freewill most of us know that disorders of the brain trump the best intentions of the mind. And the men and women on death row have some combination of bad genes, bad parents, bad environments and bad luck. Which of these were they responsible for? No person is responsible for his genes or upbringing, yet we have every reason to believe these factors determine his character. In fact, it seems immoral not to recognize how much luck is involved in morality itself.
Imagine if we discover a cure for evil. Imagine every relevant change in any individuals brain could be made cheaply, painlessly and safely. Imagine if the cure could be put into the food supply, like a vitamin... evil would become nothing more than a nutritional deficiency.
To say that someone freely chose to squander their life savings at a poker table is to say he had every opportunity to do otherwise and that nothing about what he did was inadvertent. He did not play poker by accident or while in the grip of a delusion. He played because he wanted to, intended to and decided to, over and over. Most of the time it makes sense to just ignore the deeper causes of desires and intentions, like genes, synatipic potentials etc. We do this because it's easier to organize our thoughts and actions. Why did I drink water instead of beer? Because I desired water. Why did I desire water? I don't know, but generally I don't bother asking. Knowing that I want water is all I ever need to know to function in this world. Whatever the reason I prefered one option over the other. Is there freedom in this? None whatsoever. Would I magically reclaim my freedom if I suddenly decided to spite my desire and drink beer instead of water? No, because the roots of such an intention would be as obscure as the desire itself. -
2018-01-24 at 3:06 AM UTC
-
2018-01-24 at 3:08 AM UTC
