User Controls
Policeman beheaded and son has heart/skin removed while alive
-
2018-01-24 at 3:18 AM UTC
-
2018-01-24 at 3:30 AM UTC
-
2018-01-24 at 3:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Factors you are not aware of and over which you exert no control are agents.
Not at all. We can move on to a discussion on agency if you can either acknowledge that my framework is perfectly valid or find a flaw in it.
And again, remember the distinction between valid and true. -
2018-01-24 at 3:33 AM UTCSure they are.
-
2018-01-24 at 3:54 AM UTCHey obbe just for clarification are you strictly a hard determinist or are you some other variant that I'm too dumb to recognize.
Mind you, I just now actually looked some of this shit up to see if what I've been saying is completely full of shit or what. None of this is anything I've previously looked into before other than briefly determinism and compatibalism which I as of this point decided was probably the closest to aligning with what I formed as an opinion without previous knowledge of the strict terms and definitions . -
2018-01-24 at 4:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Hey obbe just for clarification are you strictly a hard determinist or are you some other variant that I'm too dumb to recognize.
Mind you, I just now actually looked some of this shit up to see if what I've been saying is completely full of shit or what. None of this is anything I've previously looked into before other than briefly determinism and compatibalism which I as of this point decided was probably the closest to aligning with what I formed as an opinion without previous knowledge of the strict terms and definitions .
The technical classification that Obbe would fall under is "retard" -
2018-01-24 at 4:11 AM UTCalso, he is an incompatibilist
-
2018-01-24 at 4:49 AM UTCI like how Falcon is turning into the new Rust.
-
2018-01-24 at 4:54 AM UTC
-
2018-01-24 at 5:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind 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.
mate why do you keep stealing things from Sam Harris's book?
At least credit the nigga, you dumb cuck. -
2018-01-24 at 6:08 AM UTCThis is so fucking boring.
-
2018-01-24 at 6:19 AM UTCso going back to the video of Colombia .. is the guy serious about laying down and just never reproducing again.. just let all the worlds problems fuck us in the ass and to pay it back is not to reproduce?
lets end the population by not reproducing so we can teach those "Dirty jedi Bankers" a thing or two for using us. again.. not jedi people. just greedy people who should all be rounded up and force to be slave workers for the rest of their lives. -
2018-01-24 at 6:24 AM UTC
-
2018-01-24 at 12:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Hey obbe just for clarification are you strictly a hard determinist or are you some other variant that I'm too dumb to recognize.
Mind you, I just now actually looked some of this shit up to see if what I've been saying is completely full of shit or what. None of this is anything I've previously looked into before other than briefly determinism and compatibalism which I as of this point decided was probably the closest to aligning with what I formed as an opinion without previous knowledge of the strict terms and definitions .
I wouldn't call myself a hard determinist. I just think free will is incompatible with a deterministic, probabilistic or random universe - or any combination. Compatibilism changes the meaning of free will, which I think is stupid because it just changes the topic and ignores the classical "problem of freewill" which is the entire point of discussions like this. -
2018-01-24 at 2:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind I wouldn't call myself a hard determinist. I just think free will is incompatible with a deterministic, probabilistic or random universe - or any combination. Compatibilism changes the meaning of free will, which I think is stupid because it just changes the topic and ignores the classical "problem of freewill" which is the entire point of discussions like this.
It doesn't ignore the problem of free will at all. Could you state, in a few clear and descriptive sentences, what you think the problem of free will actually is? -
2018-01-24 at 3:27 PM UTCyou guys are sick, I swarz
-
2018-01-24 at 4:34 PM UTCPeople generally feel like they are the conscious source of all their thoughts and actions. They feel like they could have acted differently than they did in the past. That feeling is called free will. The problem is that you and I both know that a person is not the conscious source of their thoughts and actions. They could not have acted differently than they did in the past.
-
2018-01-24 at 4:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind People generally feel like they are the conscious source of all their thoughts and actions. They feel like they could have acted differently than they did in the past. That feeling is called free will. The problem is that you and I both know that a person is not the conscious source of their thoughts and actions. They could not have acted differently than they did in the past.
People feeling like they are the source of their thoughts or actions is not the same thing as people thinking they are a causeless decision engine and their thoughts spring from nothing but themselves. You are falsely equating the two. People generally would agree that they are a product of some combination of their genetics and their environment/upbringing but still contend that they have agency. So, fuck off and stop dodging you punt. -
2018-01-24 at 6:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon An idea like a soul has no relevance to free will.
I explained why it does - if your consciousness is a product of the mechanistic physical world we live in, your consciousness is as mechanically determined as everything else. Every atom in the universe, every subatomic particle, is where it is as a result of the conditions of our universe. If your thoughts are carried by the physical, all your actions determined by those thoughts, then you aren't actually in control - physics is.
You are a meat computer.
Whatever the universe inputs, your output is always determined by your meat... and the way your meat works is governed by the universe. Without a soul, separate from the meat, ungoverned by the universe... it's pretty irrational to assume you are actually in control. 🤗
PS: I resent that you said "I keep" making shitty arguments. I've posted twice.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-01-24 at 6:56 PM UTCWhat about if physics is determining the map of existence or whatever and part of that is our meat computers ability to have its own physics generator that can act uniquely within the larger set of parameters already layed in place?
