Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 153

Thread: Free will. Do we really have it?

  1. #121
    Ying Yang Member Saith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    75
    But it wasn't inevitable. I could totally just choose not to do so. I'm choosing not to do so, right now! Sure, you could try to argue that that's inevitable, but dude. That's ridiculous. That's totally being all 'AHAHA I GUESSED WRONG ON PURPOSE. I TOTALLY KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO DO THAT THING THAT I DIDN'T SEE COMING' level of ridiculous. I can't think of anything to say, other than arguing that anything you do, you were going to do otherwise, without a scrap of evidence other than 'I totally fucking called it' is kind of dickish. It's like arguing that blue tastes like cheese, or that happiness sounds like nails on a chalkboard. It's really not worthwhile, and is based on almost nothing but faith.

  2. #122
    Palindrome Member ClockHand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,789
    It's not about knowing or not knowing (us), is about that your decision is just the reflect of the events in your brain. Let's say this, you got home and you find a guy who just killed your lover, your reactions are going to be A) Rage, B) Paralysis or C) Negation (yes, there are more, but its enough with those). If you enter in a rage state, its because X chemicals are reaction on your brain that are provoking you to enter in a rage state, the level on the stage or better say, every decision you are making is just the cause of X chemicals reacting in your brain so killing the killer or forgiving him is determined on the chemicals not in your personal choice. You could take any possible effect that the situation could cause and at the end the process would be the same, X,Y,B or any chemical will react in your brain and your final action is just going to be the reflect of that.

  3. #123
    Ruler of the Seventh Empire GunZet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Preparing the laser beam, we're gonna use it tonight.
    Posts
    11,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Kodos View Post
    Except the choice to jump out the window was not a choice. It was inevitable the outcome of a chain of causal events. Your genetic makeup, your emotional state, your mental state, and countless other things (not that these 'causes' themselves have causes) all led to this outcome. It's quite possible given the way particles interact that literally every human 'choice' is the result of a causal chain literally stretching back to the big bang, in some way.

    Man, you guys are going to force me to fucking dig up papers I wrote on this shit.
    Couldn't you just choose to jump out just cause? Cause I mean...you could.

  4. #124
    Ying Yang Member Saith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    75
    Sure, okay.
    And what I'm saying is that that's Ontological Argument levels of bullshittery.
    Ignoring the problems of that specific example, the entire theory is just... Unconvincing. At first glance, it might seem logically sound, but on some instinctual level, I Know it's wrong. With a capital K.
    It's the same thing with the Ontological argument. After reading it, well, God must exist! Of course!
    You throw your tobacco tin in the air with shock!
    'By Jove!' you exclaim, 'The Ontological Argument is sound!'
    And then you go home, and you think about it for a little while, maybe when you're showering, maybe when you're trying to sleep, and there's something about it that's just... Wrong. How can a simple word game prove the existence of a deity? Even if you cannot come up with a complaint, you just know that it's wrong.

    But okay, as Hume said, 'ought implies could'. In any situation that you could do something, you also had the ability to not do something. I know it's all cool and edgy and makes you look like a rockstar when you try to argue against free will. Chicks dig determinism, after all. But in the end, when all is said and done, anything you do, you have the capacity to simply... Not do. Any decision, no matter how small, gave you the capacity to choose not to make it. Whenever you think back on a situation, and in hindsight, you realise you made the wrong decision, implies that you could have made another. Now, regret is a word, and so it's not something that only I feel, therefore, other people must be able to feel it. In that case, people think back on actions, and wish they had chosen something else. Doing that shows there was another course of action to take - for otherwise, there would be nothing to regret! You would wish a decision had turned out differently, but you wouldn't despise your own actions! No, you know that there was something else you could have done, and you [i]chose[i] not to.

  5. #125
    Bad Enough Dude to Rescue the President Kodos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,813
    The ontological argument is wrong because existence is not, in and of itself, a quality.

    Look, I can't make it any more simple than this.
    Premise 1: Human consciousness is a product of electrochemical reactions taking place within the body.
    Premise 2: The body is made of matter.
    Premise 3: Matter obeys certain physical rules unfailingly. When all factors are replicated identically, the outcome of a given force or reaction acting on matter will always be the same.
    Premise 4: Chemical reactions obey certain physical rules unfailingly. When all factors are replicated identically, the outcome of a given reaction will always be the same.
    Conclusion: Human consciousness obeys certain physical rules unfailingly. When all factors are replicated identically, the outcome of a given 'choice' will always be the same.

    Do you like big boobs? Dragons? Ninja? Martial arts? Wizards? Then click here and make all your wildest dreams come true!!

  6. #126
    Palindrome Member ClockHand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,789
    the capacity to simple not do, is just reflect of the same process that are happening on your brain, and there is no moment when those process are not happening. Those process have their cause and so the level of the process also have a cause.

  7. #127
    Ying Yang Member Saith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    75
    But that's the thing. The Ontological Argument seems sound when you play by its rules - when you look at it from a different perspective it just feels wrong. There're many reasons why it doesn't work, and yet none of those reasons could ever apply to it if you play by its rules. It's like arguing about Israel and Palestine, with a guy who keeps bringing up Hitler.

    The ways in which the same stimuli might be evaluated in different minds could produce massively different outcomes.
    I mean, okay, so you're arguing simple cause and effect. That everything that happens must have a cause, and that said cause will always produce the same outcome in identical conditions. I'm trying to find a way to gradually segue into Quantum Physics, but I can't, so fuck it. I'm pretty sure the whole 'atoms produced from nowhere with no reason' aspect of QP kind of shags cause and effect in the eye socket.

  8. #128
    Bad Enough Dude to Rescue the President Kodos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,813
    Quantum randomness would mean nothing for the existence of free will except that you are a slave to random chance rather than to causality. There is still no agency. I already addressed that.

    And the ontological argument fails because the rules it is playing by are complete and utter bullshit. You have not addressed my argument above.

    Do you like big boobs? Dragons? Ninja? Martial arts? Wizards? Then click here and make all your wildest dreams come true!!

  9. #129
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,301
    Hey, if you like I can dig up the reason every single form of the Ontological Argument is bullshit. Revision notes are a great thing.

    EDIT: So basically, screw 'feels wrong', 'is wrong' is closer to the mark.
    Last edited by Delphinus; 12-11-2011 at 12:31 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenn
    You forgot your F in Modesty.

  10. #130
    Sir-Mass-a-Lot
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    7,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Kodos View Post
    And the ontological argument fails because the rules it is playing by are complete and utter bullshit. You have not addressed my argument above.
    I think they're really focused more on proving themselves right, than educating themselves on why they're wrong.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •