User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2017-08-18 at 5:55 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
-
2017-08-18 at 5:37 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
-
2017-08-18 at 5:30 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
-
2017-08-18 at 5:12 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
-
2017-08-18 at 4:30 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
-
2017-08-18 at 3:15 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
-
2017-08-18 at 11:52 AM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Duh. This is my definition too, not just the classical idea. But the difference is that I'm defining the "person in control" to be that person, even if they are a deterministic system. Whereas you require "the person" to be some pie in the sky black box outside of reality that somehow can't be predicted by their setup conditions, but is also not random.
Yeah, there is no red blue octopus. Why the fuck would you even entertain such a notion? The idea isn't even coherent.
An absolutely free being is given the choice between a bologna sandwich and an ice cream sandwich. How does it make a decision, and how does its decision making process differ from either randomness, or what we have now?
I'm asking this because it is a nonsense idea that you're insisting on. You're telling me that definition of a "blue monkey" is "a red birb, but it has to be a blue monkey". I'm telling you that the red birb is called a blue monkey. You're telling me it cannot be, because the red birb must be a blue monkey. What are you expecting?
You're not clearly defining free will, you're not defining what element of the concept makes it impossible, or what element we can grant as a black box to make it work, you're just telling me the whole thing is a black box.
Why would I "like" compatibilism? I'm telling you why what you're saying is logically incoherent, and why what I'm saying, is. Compatibilism does in fact deal with the "problem of free will". The contention is simply that the question, as stated, isn't coherent. Which it is in fact not.
The classical idea of free will does not require a person to be "pie in the sky", only to be in absolute control of their own desires, thoughts and actions.
Explain how you think the person in compatabilist free will is in control of anything at all? If they are part of a deterministic universe, are they not just another cog in a series of cogs? A cog has no control, it only turns when it is being turned. -
2017-08-17 at 10 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I mean if you give it a retarded, internally consistent and self-contradictory meaning then of course. I'm asking you for any definition of free will that isn't selfcontradictory. You're saying it is not possible and everything is "not it". But you're not saying what "it" is.
Yes I am, the classical idea is that a person with free will is absolutely in control of their actions, decisions, thoughts, etc. It is a vague concept, but basically it is the idea that people are the absolute cause of their own behavior, that they are not driven by anything else. I don't need to explain this to you at all, you already know exactly what I am talking about when I say libertarian or classical free will, you have studied it, you're just being an asshole.
I don't need to create any scenario where this concept of freewill could exist, that isn't my argument. My argument is that this concept of freewill is impossible. You agree with this.
I understand you like compatibilism, you prefer defining freewill in that way, and I agree that it is well defined and should be the definition used in a court of law.
My only problem with it is that it completely ignores the interesting part about having a philosophical discussion about freewill - the part where people feel like they are not just machines processing inputs and output, but rather that they do have absolute control over all their decisions and thoughts and actions, and how that is literally impossible considering the way reality actually works. The classical "problem of free will".
What's your end goal here captain? What point are you trying to convey? Are you really just trying to be as disrespectful as possible? Do you think we should all just become compatibilists and ignore the classical problem of free will? Why don't you just say it? -
2017-08-17 at 6:09 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Compatibilism has already addressed this question. Again, if you're not willing to brush up on the basic terms, then why are you insisting on discussing the subject?
Is a computer an agent of free will? No. Considering that it is being compelled by an(other) agent of free will (whatever human or ultimately human designed system goes into creating it), it is not. So stop babbling it over an over. In compatibilist theory, this would be like me putting you in chains and making you perform a certain action.
Your output is not determined by external inputs. You, as a system, are creating outputs as a result of your mechanical (in the most literaly sense of the word, your physical mechanics) predispositions, and we both agree on that. But you are literally giving me a nonsense argument for how that isn't free will because you could not do otherwise.
so again, for the jillionth time, ignore any part of my argument, and answedr this question; for a free being, if they do not spit out outputs based on some mechanical predisposition, by what mechanism would they make a free choice, and how would it be distinct from either randomness or free choice?
I don't want your retarded babbling about the the intuitive idea of free will, because you're trying to avoid making a specific definition by trying to make me accept a flawed inference. I have explicitly defined my parameters, and it is time for you to define yours, or kill yourself.
I'm not the one who insisted on talking about this. You did.
I haven't been talking about compatibilism at all. I'm talking about classical, libertarian free will. I have already defined it as such. You are just asking me to repeat myself. I get the feeling you don't actually want to talk about this at all, you just want to go around in circles and call me names.
My argument is not nonsense. You are just trying to switch what freewill means. I have not been speaking about compatibilism. Freewill as I have been using it is literally impossible. -
2017-08-17 at 6:04 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
-
2017-08-17 at 3:12 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
-
2017-08-17 at 3:01 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
-
2017-08-17 at 11:02 AM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon No because you, as an agent of free will, are making it do something. Its predisposition, by the fundàmental laws of the universe, is to stay at rest. In the same way, me hitting you in the head with a sledgehammer does not make the spattering of your brains into a free action.
So this argument now is about you not understanding compatibilism and using my simplified version for you (because you're getting dinner and dumber in the discussion) to give a weird broken idea of it and build an argument off it.
In compatibilist theory, we account for qualia of thought, second (and higher) order reasoning and agency. But I'm not going to get into this discussion with you because at this point, it's just your job to educate yourself on basic terms rather than vomit out words without understanding the core concepts involved.
Thoughts just arise in the mind. You are no more the author of your next thought that you are of the next sentence I write. You believe input goes into person, person spits out output, and you call that free will. Even if a person's supposed "free will" output is already determined by the input. -
2017-08-16 at 11:25 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.People are like really complex organizations of stuff that, lacking that organization, is like a pile of crud. The laws of physics don't magically give way to free will when the stuff the universe is made of becomes organized into complex structures we call people.
-
2017-08-16 at 9:23 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Of course your decisions are predetermined. But this predetermined entity spits out decisions based on inputs, and it is "you". Therefore it is a free and unconstrained action on your part. Your idea of free will, which you keep refusing to properly define, seems to require that "you" must be some sort of black box outside of time and space that magically (but not randomly) produces uncaused outputs. I.e. you have set up a paradoxical definition of self, to act like free will is impossible.
A rock that is hit with a hammer spits out an "output" relative the "input" it is given ... according to your logic, this is what you consider to be free will. -
2017-08-16 at 8:49 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.You don't pick your desires. You have no choice or control over what you desire, or what drives your behavior. Saying "but it's still your desire" is meaningless. It is not something you can change or control or choose. Where is the free will in that?
What do you mean what would it look like? A sense of free will is what people naturally experience when they decide what to pick from the menu at a restaurant or what colour to paint their walls - an illusory experience of being in control of their desires and decisions. But you and I know that they are not in control. You already agreed with that when you stated that you believe your decisions are predetermined. -
2017-08-16 at 8:04 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Again, you are babbling the same thing like a retard. WHY IS IT NOT FREE WILL? WHAT WOULD A FREE BEING'S DECISION IN THE SAME CASE ENTAIL?
It is absolutely free will, because it is performed by your motive. You cannot decide your motive. But your motive decides how you act. And your motive is your motive. That's the ENTIRE POINT.
Because you are not in control of it. It's beyond your control. If I smash a rock with a hammer and it cracks in two, you are basically saying that is the freewill of the rock. If it doesn't crack in two, you are arguing that is the free will of the rock. But in reality whether or not the rock cracks has nothing to do with free will. The rock is not deciding how it will react. And neither do people. -
2017-08-16 at 5:19 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon How the fuck does not being able to function without food = not having free will? Your desires and predispositions are a part of your free will, they inform your free will.
Once a-fucking-again, you are still acting under your own motive.
You are not acting under your own freewill. If I were to ask you to name a city, any city you want, whatever you decided is not through your own free will. It might feel that way, which is why everyone feels like they have freewill, but it isn't. It's completely out of your control. That's the problem of freewill. I don't understand why you are still arguing about this. What's the problem? -
2017-08-16 at 4:52 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.Do you truly believe you can choose to stop eating? Maybe you can, for awhile, if your desire to abstain from eating is greater than your desire to eat. But the point is that you are not in control. Your desires and predispositions are driving your behavior, your actions. "You" play no roll in that. How is that free will?
-
2017-08-16 at 3:56 PM UTC in Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Whatever goes in informs that will, and what comes out IS that will. I don't see the problem.
The problem is that your desire to eat is not something you chose or have any control over. How is that freedom? How is that "your" will if you didn't decide it? You can call it "you" but it doesn't feel like it. That's the whole point.
