User Controls
Policeman beheaded and son has heart/skin removed while alive
-
2018-01-24 at 7:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon 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.
Even if a person considers themself to "have agency", they still are not the conscious source of their thoughts and actions. They could not have had acted differently than they did in the past. Therefore they do not have the free will that they feel they do. -
2018-01-24 at 7:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS 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. π€
PS: I resent that you said "I keep" making shitty arguments. I've posted twice.
You "keep" being retarded and not understanding the contention of compatibilism, which is that we are in fact a meat computer but that doesn't prevent us from taking responsibility for our actions/have agency. I say "keep" because I've already addressed this at least a dozen times. I can't really do anything if you refuse to grasp basic English.
I'll use the simplest possible words to put this as a syllogism:
1. If you want to do something and
2. Someone else's wants don't stop you from doing something or make you do something then
3. You are free -
2018-01-24 at 7:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon You "keep" being retarded and not understanding the contention of compatibilism, which is that we are in fact a meat computer but that doesn't prevent us from taking responsibility for our actions/have agency. I say "keep" because I've already addressed this at least a dozen times. I can't really do anything if you refuse to grasp basic English.
I'll use the simplest possible words to put this as a syllogism:
1. If you want to do something and
2. Someone else's wants don't stop you from doing something or make you do something then
3. You are free
1. If the universe is governed by a set of laws that determine the physical
2. And you are part of the universe, governed by those laws
3. Then you are not free.
Not being impeded by another person in the process of taking an action you "want" to do changes nothing as to whether you were free/had a choice to "want" that in the first place. -_-The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-01-24 at 7:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon You "keep" being retarded and not understanding the contention of compatibilism, which is that we are in fact a meat computer but that doesn't prevent us from taking responsibility for our actions/have agency. I say "keep" because I've already addressed this at least a dozen times. I can't really do anything if you refuse to grasp basic English.
I'll use the simplest possible words to put this as a syllogism:
1. If you want to do something and
2. Someone else's wants don't stop you from doing something or make you do something then
3. You are free
Right except that just ignores the problem of free will, that people feel like the conscious source of their thoughts desires and actions, and changes the topic from "free will" to "the freedom to do what you will." -
2018-01-24 at 7:25 PM UTCHow are there 16 pages of this?
-
2018-01-24 at 7:27 PM UTC
-
2018-01-24 at 7:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Even if a person considers themself to "have agency", they still are not the conscious source of their thoughts and actions. They could not have had acted differently than they did in the past. Therefore they do not have the free will that they feel they do.
It's not about considering yourself to have agency, or considering themselves the ultimate cause of their thoughts and actions. They absolutely could have done otherwise by lack of constraint by another agent, but not by predisposition.
Now again, I'm going to call you a retard because we've already moved past this. Now you have to attack why it is not valid to say that someone has free will if they are able to fulfill their motive or predisposition without constraint or compulsion by another agent.
I know you're short circuiting because you don't have a Sam Harris quote to rip off from but do try to use your brain, my boy. -
2018-01-24 at 7:33 PM UTCEssentially this boils down to CF saying you have free will if you're free to enact your will, and me 'n' obbe saying you have free will if your will itself is not a result of factors outside your control.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-01-24 at 7:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by εεδ½ ηδΈζδΈζ How are there 16 pages of this?
How are there ten mafillion pages of laymen and philosophers from all eras discussing this?
I guess it's because we're meat computers and this was programmed in to happen.
Hey maybe I CAN get on board with this whole concept that I don't have any free will. It's a nice easy go-to for answering a lot of questions and avoiding having to come up with explanations.
"mmQ, why were you 4 hours late"
"Meat computer, bitch! I ain't got no fucking choice. Deal with it!" -
2018-01-24 at 7:38 PM UTC
-
2018-01-24 at 7:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ How are there ten mafillion pages of laymen and philosophers from all eras discussing this?
I guess it's because we're meat computers and this was programmed in to happen.
Hey maybe I CAN get on board with this whole concept that I don't have any free will. It's a nice easy go-to for answering a lot of questions and avoiding having to come up with explanations.
"mmQ, why were you 4 hours late"
"Meat computer, bitch! I ain't got no fucking choice. Deal with it!"
This is basically where this argument always ends up - there's no good argument FOR free will's existence, but there's always the insinuation that either the person arguing against it is afraid of accountability or that without the accountabilty provided by the illusion of free will everyone is a piece of shit. *sigh* -
2018-01-24 at 7:43 PM UTC
-
2018-01-24 at 7:45 PM UTCIf men can call themselves women, I want to be a deity.
-
2018-01-24 at 7:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by D4NG0 I am enslaved by gravity. pls help
You're enslaved by all the fundamental forces, and their ramifications. If your brain is responsible for all your actions, and your brain is controlled by chemistry, which is controlled by physics... you are controlled by physics.
Originally posted by εεδ½ ηδΈζδΈζ If men can call themselves women, I want to be a deity.
I didn't have a choice. π€π -
2018-01-24 at 7:47 PM UTC
-
2018-01-24 at 7:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS This is basically where this argument always ends up - there's no good argument FOR free will's existence, but there's always the insinuation that either the person arguing against it is afraid of accountability or that without the accountabilty provided by the illusion of free will everyone is a piece of shit. *sigh*
Well without free will it would seem to make me have a much more carefree attitude. The whole "such is life.." thing.
But I still think we have free will and I don't care if it isn't the right technical term. -
2018-01-24 at 7:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS Essentially this boils down to CF saying you have free will if you're free to enact your will, and me 'n' obbe saying you have free will if your will itself is not a result of factors outside your control.
Yes, we've already stated that. Obbe (and I guess you since you're on that side of the fence) can't even give a cogent definition of free will, but keep trying to assert what isn't it. Saying "free will isn't possible" or "free will isn't coherent" doesn't answer the question: what the fuck is this "free will" that you're saying isn't coherent or isn't possible?
By contrast, I'm giving you a definition in a syllogistic form. Now you can either tell me why the syllogism is invalid, or you can offer your own, superior definition for free will and we can argue about that.
If your definition is simply "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate" then we can both agree that that isn't possible. But that's not, contrary to what Obbe is trying to weasel in, what people mean when they say free will because I could talk to any person and get them to agree that we're a combination of our genes and our environment, but they would still believe they have agency. Why is that? Is that possible? I say yes. You say no. I've given my justification but you have failed to do so. -
2018-01-24 at 7:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS This is basically where this argument always ends up - there's no good argument FOR free will's existence, but there's always the insinuation that either the person arguing against it is afraid of accountability or that without the accountabilty provided by the illusion of free will everyone is a piece of shit. *sigh*
No, you dimwit. What he's laid out is not that he's afraid of accountability or a lack of it, it's that it's a shit deflection that yields no information. Why are you late? It's ultimately because the universe conspired to make you a dickhead. But the proximal cause is that you're a dickhead. You can admit that it was an inevitability but still take responsibility for it because it was your inevitability and no one else's. -
2018-01-24 at 7:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Yes, we've already stated that. Obbe (and I guess you since you're on that side of the fence) can't even give a cogent definition of free will, but keep trying to assert what isn't it. Saying "free will isn't possible" or "free will isn't coherent" doesn't answer the question: what the fuck is this "free will" that you're saying isn't coherent or isn't possible?
By contrast, I'm giving you a definition in a syllogistic form. Now you can either tell me why the syllogism is invalid, or you can offer your own, superior definition for free will and we can argue about that.
If your definition is simply "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate" then we can both agree that that isn't possible. But that's not, contrary to what Obbe is trying to weasel in, what people mean when they say free will because I could talk to any person and get them to agree that we're a combination of our genes and our environment, but they would still believe they have agency. Why is that? Is that possible? I say yes. You say no. I've given my justification but you have failed to do so.
I just gave a definition... "free will is will that is not a result of processes outside your control".
You keep saying we refuse to define it, but we have, and you refuse to agree with that definition and keep arguing strawmen (unimpeded will).
If you can demonstrate that your will is not predetermined by factors you have no control over, you will have demonstrated free will exists. If you cannot... then that's on you. -
2018-01-24 at 8:02 PM UTCWell IIII say free will is making a choice when I think I could have made the other. That being how I feel, I have free will.
/thread
