User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2015-12-15 at 3 AM UTC in Freewill
Then why not simply say what the other perspective was instead of ducking around the point? Given the language you used it seems pretty obvious you were coming purely from a materialist standpoint. If you disagree then either explain how I misinterpreted your OP or acknowledge that it wasn't clear. You don't have to insist that the OP was perfect and unable to be critiqued like some sort of egotist.
I don't insist the OP is perfect and unable to be critiqued, you're wrong on that. I also never claimed that there is only one perspective on free will. However I do think that my approach to free will is the only one that makes any sense at all other than redefining free will to mean the freedom to do what you will, like the definition used in court. Unless you can demonstrate a way to approach free will that is better than this, you seem to just be making irrelevant complaints. -
2015-12-15 at 1:39 AM UTC in Should we let this scum into the West? Is it too late?
-
2015-12-15 at 1:20 AM UTC in Should we let this scum into the West? Is it too late?
What is your opinion on the refugee invasion? -
2015-12-14 at 10:52 PM UTC in Post pictures of a girl you currently want to fuck
.
-
2015-12-14 at 10:01 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
A lava lamp like the one pictured above does objectively exist. We can objectively measure and verify various properties of the lava lamp like the height, width, breadth of the object as a whole or as various parts. We can objectively measure its mass and capacity. We can objectively determine the materials used in its construction. We can objectively determine the amount of electrical power needed to operate this device. We can even objectively determine the specific wavelengths of light it emits and reflects. We cannot, however, objectively determine the colours of those wavelengths of light. Where person A would see a yellow colour, person B would see more of a green colour. This is because colour is not objective, it is subjective.
Put that in your lava lamp and smoke it.
-
2015-12-14 at 5:29 AM UTC in Freewill
It's not irrelevant at all. You claimed there is only one perspective on freewill, which is clearly wrong regardless of the weight of evidence behind dualism.
Of course there is more than one perspective on free will. I never claimed that there is only one perspective on free will, you are wrong about that. I even mentioned another perspective on free will in the OP. The relevant detail to take from this is that unless you are defining free will as the freedom to do what you will, it doesn't make any sense. Whether we are talking about free will from a dualistic perspective or a materialist perspective is irrelevant because it doesn't make any sense either way. -
2015-12-13 at 6:18 PM UTC in Freewill
The dualist conception of freewill, as espoused by actual dualists, clearly maintains that it can affect the real world.
Unless that can be shown to be true it's sort of irrelevant what dualists claim. Who cares about their ridiculous fantasy?That said, I understand where you're coming from.
That's great. -
2015-12-13 at 4:41 AM UTC in The Universe and You
Pretty obvious that it only appeals to hippies. Stay away from the devil's lettuce, obbe.
My last post and the OP in this thread were paraphrased from Neil deGrasse Tyson who is a scientist. Open Your Mind, bro. -
2015-12-13 at 4:17 AM UTC in The Universe and You
It's a nice thought, sure, but it doesn't say anything about death or change anything about my current existence. It's just like…Oh yeah, that's cool…moving right along.
It doesn't mean much to you personally. To many people this realization can change their whole perspective on life and death, can change the way they live their life. If you're not one of those people you won't feel the same way. I do not know of any deeper spiritual feeling than what this realization brings to me. -
2015-12-13 at 4:08 AM UTC in Freewill
What makes you think the dualist conception of free will can't affect the real world?
As I understand dualism it is at its core the conceptual separation or division of body and mind, or the material and the immaterial. I do not think body and mind can actually be separate. Rather they are just two conceptual aspects of the same thing, my existence. They affect each other, are mutually dependent on each other. While they can be conceptually divided into contrasting aspects of my existence, they are ultimately united as one thing. Therefore the mind is not an independent force in this world, and so it cannot possibly have free will.Like Lanny said, most dualists actually do make this claim.
A lot of people claim ridiculous things. The question is are they true? I cannot see how the mind and body could be separated beyond a conceptual separation. Therefore I cannot see how free will could magically exist in the mind, I cannot understand how a mans will would remain uninfluenced by the world he lives in. If you do understand how that would work I would appreciate your explanation.Besides, the point just serves to demonstrate that there is more than one way to approach the topic of free will, whereas the OP seemed to suggest there is only one.
I admit you are right about that. There are probably many ways to approach this topic. I just haven't learned any other way that makes any sense. If you know a way to approach free will that makes more sense than my approach, let me know. -
2015-12-12 at 6:09 PM UTC in All I think about is animal abuse, heartbreak, killing, drugs, suicide, & pedophiliaObviously everyone who thinks it's so disgusting that they got together and declared it illegal gives a fuck. I know, I know, you don't care about the law but that doesn't make it not a crime or not disgusting. About consent: People develop at different rates and there is no magic age which makes everyone mature enough to understand what they are consenting to. Even some adults are not mature enough to really understand it. Most teenagers don't know what they are doing, even though they fuck like horny rabbits it doesn't mean they aren't idiots about it. So when a child gives you consent they are most likely not actually mature enough to understand what it's all about. That's why there are age of consent laws, to protect those immature individuals who would otherwise be taken advantage of by disgusting perverts.
-
2015-12-12 at 12:09 AM UTC in All I think about is animal abuse, heartbreak, killing, drugs, suicide, & pedophilia
Remember it is just a sexual orientation
So is necrophilia. They are also both disgusting. -
2015-12-11 at 11:57 PM UTC in Freewill
There are a lot of kinds of dualist, a majority propose some sort of casual interaction between material and non-material (the canonical example being Descartes thinking the pineal gland was the way that the non-material soul controlled the body). There are problems with that approach too, the largest would probably be conjuring evidence for dualism in the first place but then there's also the issue that if we admit interaction of non-material mind with the physical world we seem to face the same dilemma with the non-material world as we faced with the material one, either it behaves deterministically or non deterministically (that seems pretty exhaustive of the options here) and neither really affords room for libertarian free will.
That's right. However I am more interested in the discussion you and I were having above. -
2015-12-11 at 11:54 PM UTC in The sophist hate threadYou're a disgusting person.
-
2015-12-11 at 1:04 PM UTC in The Universe and YouWho knows what happens when you die? What we do know is that you are connected to rest of the universe atomically, chemically, biologically and perhaps even spiritually if you're into that sort of thing. How is that meaningless?
-
2015-12-11 at 12:56 PM UTC in FreewillThat sounds like a pretty useless thing to believe. If their "free will" is unable to affect the real world, how is it really free will?
-
2015-12-11 at 4:01 AM UTC in The sophist hate threadHe also supports the cult-like FDR club. It's probably best not to associate with him.
-
2015-12-06 at 11:07 PM UTC in NoWords can hurt but not as much as sticks and stones.
-
2015-12-06 at 6:06 PM UTC in The Universe and You
Who your creator? Because I'm pretty sure I made him.
@ -SpectraL, tell us about your creator. -
2015-12-06 at 5:41 PM UTC in whos your favorite super hero?Dr. Manhattan a.k.a Dr. Jonathan Osterman
Abilities- Twelfth-level Intelligence
- Super-human strength
- Telekinesis
- Teleportation
- Full control of matter at sub-atomic level, can create and destroy matter
- Reactive adaptation/evolution
- Duplication (Ability to create fully independent copies of himself)
- Force-field creation
- Projection of destructive energy
- Full perception of time (perceiving past, present, future simultaneously)
- Physiological manipulation
- Omni-linguism
- Physical immortality (able to walk on surface of the Sun)
- Resurrection
- Healing Factor
- Ability to reverse entropy
- Ability to create life/Animation
- Intangibility/phasing
- Cross-dimensional awareness
- Psionic blast
- Gravity manipulation
- Dimensional travel
- Flight
- Size shifting
- Precognition
- Disintegration
- Density control
- Mass manipulation
- Superhuman tracking
- Ecological empathy
- Ability to reconstruct himself on the atomic scale
- No need for air, food or water
The character of Doctor Manhattan is one that invokes thought on metaphysical philosophy. There are various themes addressed throughout the Watchmen series from philosophy of time and eternalism, to determinism and its relationship to ethics, to addressing questions such as what it means to be human? and do the means justify the end?
The character is primarily cited as the representation of the potential side effects and dangers of a superintelligence. Side effects which include detachment from the rest of humanity and potentially characteristics of apathy.
