User Controls
Policeman beheaded and son has heart/skin removed while alive
-
2018-02-16 at 7:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick So let's get this straight: a few scientists conducted a single study which included a handful of participants, and you're ready to extrapolate these results to establish a universal principle that every being that will ever be can never act spontaneously?
The study I posted is evidence that we lack free will, but it isn't the sole reason I am saying we lack free will. We lack free will because our thoughts and behaviors are the result of a chain of cause and effect that we have no influence over. -
2018-02-16 at 8:01 PM UTCThen we simply have different definitions of free will.
The end. -
2018-02-16 at 8:04 PM UTC
-
2018-02-16 at 8:51 PM UTC
-
2018-02-16 at 8:59 PM UTC
-
2018-02-16 at 10:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Compatibilism defines free will in a stupid kind of way that completely ignores the "problem of free will" we have been discussing and changes the topic from "free will" to "freedom to exert your will".
Why does the libertarian definition of primacy though? I'm not saying it doesn't, but why do you think counts as evidence that one definition for a term is legitimate while another is while another is stupid? What authority could preside over natural language to makes this determination? -
2018-02-16 at 10:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Why does the libertarian definition of primacy though? I'm not saying it doesn't, but why do you think counts as evidence that one definition for a term is legitimate while another is while another is stupid? What authority could preside over natural language to makes this determination?
I just think that's what people mean when they talk about free will. They talk about how they could have acted differently than they did in the past. They say they feel like they are the conscious source of their thoughts and actions. Obviously that feeling is an illusion. -
2018-02-16 at 10:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind I just think that's what people mean when they talk about free will. They talk about how they could have acted differently than they did in the past. They say they feel like they are the conscious source of their thoughts and actions. Obviously that feeling is an illusion.
Who says they are the conscious source of their thoughts? I don't think any claims exclusive executive domain the contents of their minds, simple sense perception (which we clearly are not in total control of) is an immediate counter example. A claim that one "could have acted differently in the past" could either mean having the compatibilist freedom to have done differently (being able to act according to one's will, has one's will been different) or simply an uncritical colloquial expression.
There's a really interesting paper in 2005 that tried to find out what people do mean when they talk about free will using responses to some cases that don't implicate the linguistic issue here. The whole thing is interesting but the gist of it is on page 556 (6th page in the pdf):
https://philpapers.org/archive/NADSFF.pdf
And it suggests that people do actually accept the compatibilist notion of free will when examining these cases.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-16 at 11:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Who says they are the conscious source of their thoughts?
I believe most people feel that way. I used to feel that way. Most of the time when I'm not having a discussion about free will I live my life as if I am the conscious source of my thoughts and actions. I believe that's just the natural way human beings are.
Originally posted by Lanny A claim that one "could have acted differently in the past" could either mean having the compatibilist freedom to have done differently (being able to act according to one's will, has one's will been different) or simply an uncritical colloquial expression.
I suppose that's true. But when people express regret over actions that they intended, like losing a lot if money because they enjoy gambling, saying how they should have done things differently, obviously they are talking about libertarian free will.
I suppose an easier way to express what I'm saying is to eliminate "free will" all together to prevent confusing what I mean by the term with what others might mean by the term and just say that we are not the conscious source of our thoughts and actions and that we could not have acted differently in the past than we did.
Originally posted by Lanny There's a really interesting paper in 2005 that tried to find out what people do mean when they talk about free will using responses to some cases that don't implicate the linguistic issue here. The whole thing is interesting but the gist of it is on page 556 (6th page in the pdf):
https://philpapers.org/archive/NADSFF.pdf
And it suggests that people do actually accept the compatibilist notion of free will when examining these cases.
Thanks I will look at that. -
2018-02-16 at 11:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Who says they are the conscious source of their thoughts? I don't think any claims exclusive executive domain the contents of their minds, simple sense perception (which we clearly are not in total control of) is an immediate counter example. A claim that one "could have acted differently in the past" could either mean having the compatibilist freedom to have done differently (being able to act according to one's will, has one's will been different) or simply an uncritical colloquial expression.
There's a really interesting paper in 2005 that tried to find out what people do mean when they talk about free will using responses to some cases that don't implicate the linguistic issue here. The whole thing is interesting but the gist of it is on page 556 (6th page in the pdf):
https://philpapers.org/archive/NADSFF.pdf
And it suggests that people do actually accept the compatibilist notion of free will when examining these cases.
Raped. -
2018-02-16 at 11:36 PM UTC
-
2018-02-16 at 11:58 PM UTC
-
2018-02-17 at 12 AM UTC
-
2018-02-17 at 12:09 AM UTC
-
2018-02-17 at 12:39 AM UTCI found a video of someone ripping out another guy's heart with his bare hand.
https://gfycat.com/ImaginativeSlightKoalabearThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-17 at 12:41 AM UTC
-
2018-02-17 at 12:47 AM UTC
-
2018-02-17 at 2:46 AM UTC
-
2018-02-17 at 2:58 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-02-17 at 4:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I'm not going through this whole argument again, nigger
That's the thing though - there is nothing wrong with my argument. It is logically sound. You might disagree with how I use the term "free will", as I disagree with how you use it, but that's about it. You already admitted
Originally posted by Captain Falcon The way you act is a result of your genetics responding to the environment.
Which is basically exactly what I'm saying.
