Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-04-2010, 11:53 PM #64
AlphaNeo36
lapping your tears
 
AlphaNeo36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 765-IN
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate
no. you didnt read my argument. i am still waiting for your response. the turn is yours. you are bringing up things we have already talked about.

YOU BROUGHT UP SOMETHING WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT.
Please explain my stance in your own words.

By the way, your argument is unable to be proven or disproven thus it isn't an argument. Just thought I'd point out that fallacy at least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
i don't see how this has anything to do with what we are talking about.
Um, hello? The definition you think corresponds to the term free will is the most important part your stance. If you don't set a line in the sand there is no way anyone will be able to respond with any sort of relevance.
__________________
Overbear: better 10 innocent men be convicted, than a single guilty man go free to commit more crime.
Overbear: I prefer that I be given a license to shoot anyone who would pick socialism or communism over the basic freedoms inherent to consumerism.
MatrixBaller04 AKA EricS6661: I can guarantee something will happen between now and February 9th.
yesme: i'm not saying you should invest in gold first off, you would be much better off to invest in food,stuff you use and will keep for a couple of years, like razors
Blake360: in highschool, my teacher's father worked for the CIA and she brought my class documents proving the Roswell crash was of extraterrestrial origin.
AlphaNeo36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 02-04-2010, 11:56 PM #65
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
"You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing."

is that about on point? I must admit the mind of a child, I hardly think I grasp your argument, much less have an opinion of it.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:11 AM #66
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
If your hypothesis is correct than I am satisfied with saying that the ability to recognize the largest possible variety of wants at any current time is an acceptable definition of freedom, and to be free is to recognize and choose between wants.

Basically, Compatibilism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fubarius View Post
Actually is has everything to do with what we're talking about. One can't prove something doesn't exist with out having an agreed upon definition to base said proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
"You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing."

is that about on point? I must admit the mind of a child, I hardly think I grasp your argument, much less have an opinion of it.
no. before i answer this csan youi just go on face book chat
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:17 AM #67
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
nope, sorry its bedtime.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:23 AM #68
Fubarius
Yep, it's orange.
 
Fubarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New Richmond, WI
Annual Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Fubarius supports our troops
Fubarius has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
no. before i answer this csan youi just go on face book chat
Sorry, can't do that. It's been scientifically proven that just signing up for that service causes irreparable harm to one's typing ability.
Fubarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:23 AM #69
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36 View Post
1.Please explain my stance in your own words.

2.By the way, your argument is unable to be proven or disproven thus it isn't an argument. Just thought I'd point out that fallacy at least.

3.Um, hello? The definition you think corresponds to the term free will is the most important part your stance. If you don't set a line in the sand there is no way anyone will be able to respond with any sort of relevance.
1. no, i don't care - they probably don't make sense and are inconsistent
2. Okay, tell me how my argument is unable to be proven or disproven and then tell me what fallacy that is.
3. I thought intuitively we talk about the same idea. So i think your a little off on the definition of free will. So what is your definition again?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fubarius View Post
Actually is has everything to do with what we're talking about. One can't prove something doesn't exist with out having an agreed upon definition to base said proof.
I thought intuitively we talk about the same idea. So i think your a little off on the definition of free will. So what is your definition again?



Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
f your hypothesis is correct than I am satisfied with saying that the ability to recognize the largest possible variety of wants at any current time is an acceptable definition of freedom, and to be free is to recognize and choose between wants.
How do you consider your wants without wants? On what basis do you have to choose them between?
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys

Last edited by Laureate : 02-05-2010 at 12:28 AM.
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:34 AM #70
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28philosophy%29


my computers about to die and I have to get up in 6 hours. I'll try and comprehend you better tomorrow.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:59 AM #71
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
*Edit*

So, to anyone who can respond:

Where's it made abundantly clear, that "free-will" may only be present within our "conscious" state? And more importantly, (or in other words...) who's to say that the "subconscious" cannot be a factor?

Forgive me, but it has been quite some time since I've last brushed up on my scripture.
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.

Last edited by Aaron5604 : 02-05-2010 at 01:14 AM.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:21 AM #72
AlphaNeo36
lapping your tears
 
AlphaNeo36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 765-IN
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
1. no, i don't care - they probably don't make sense and are inconsistent
2. Okay, tell me how my argument is unable to be proven or disproven and then tell me what fallacy that is.
3. I thought intuitively we talk about the same idea. So i think your a little off on the definition of free will. So what is your definition again?
1. Hahaha, you don't know what my stance is yet it is wrong? I've only had one stance this entire thread. If you can't understand it, the problem exists between keyboard and chair.
2. You can't prove what decides your decisions. I can't prove what decides my decisions. Your argument is based on what you think somebody does in their mind while you actually have no idea and can only speculate. There is no proof one way or the other. In order for your stance to be provable, you would have to be able to predict what my choice would be from a set of choices. Your argument isn't even applicable to the scientific method for ****s sake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
I thought intuitively we talk about the same idea. So i think your a little off on the definition of free will. So what is your definition again?
I go by dictionaries.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+will

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will

The ability to choose without influence.




I'll try to simplify...

Here are a list of my wants right now. (hypothetically)
  1. Listen to some music
  2. Watch a TV show
  3. Play a computer game
  4. Sex with girlfriend
  5. Play basketball

Now, I am homo sapien so I have the ability to perceive things that ordinary life would be unable to. I can reflect on my wants.
  1. Soothing, haven't listened to my iPod for a while
  2. South Park is funny and makes me laugh
  3. I feel like killing some damn terrorists
  4. Sex with girlfriend
  5. Fun to play, socialize with friends

Okay, I have been able to determine where these wants come from and why I have them. What choice am I going to make? It would appear from your position I would choose the one that I have the greatest want for, right? Because I am human I can categorically determine what my greatest need is. In this case, sexy time. Now, I have been able to determine what my greatest want is, therefore, I (but it is not I, it is my unconscious wants as you might say) should choose to sex my girlfriend. Now that I have realized this, I can choose to do something I have the slightly less want for, play basketball, instead. Is this free will or just another want? Now what if I choose to clean my room? I have no want to do such a thing but I could easily get out of my chair and do it at this instance. There is nothing holding me back from doing it.

You can only induce free will if you are able to consciously determine what you are and what you want. Until that point, you are a pawn of naturalistic tendencies.

On that note, as seeing you will probably be reluctant to respond with any sort of rebuttal and resort to additional ad hominems, this is likely my last post.
__________________
Overbear: better 10 innocent men be convicted, than a single guilty man go free to commit more crime.
Overbear: I prefer that I be given a license to shoot anyone who would pick socialism or communism over the basic freedoms inherent to consumerism.
MatrixBaller04 AKA EricS6661: I can guarantee something will happen between now and February 9th.
yesme: i'm not saying you should invest in gold first off, you would be much better off to invest in food,stuff you use and will keep for a couple of years, like razors
Blake360: in highschool, my teacher's father worked for the CIA and she brought my class documents proving the Roswell crash was of extraterrestrial origin.
AlphaNeo36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 02:48 AM #73
Synaptic
antirevelation
 
Synaptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
I just really want a baconzilla now..
__________________
Reason obeys itself;
and ignorance submits to
whatever is dictated to it.
Synaptic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 06:28 AM #74
cuttlefish32
 
 
cuttlefish32's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36 View Post

Cows do not have higher cognative abilities that humans do. There is no comparison to be made. Your point is moot.
I didn't say higher, but I don't see how you can say humans are the only beings with free will. if Hsilman is right, free will is just choosing from multiple wants you recongize. Do animals have wants? Yes, even if its something as simple as "my want to eat is greater then all things" you won't see a chicken eat its own foot if there is no food in front ot if, it will do something else.
__________________
If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right.
-Henry Ford
cuttlefish32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 07:32 AM #75
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuttlefish32 View Post
I didn't say higher, but I don't see how you can say humans are the only beings with free will. if Hsilman is right, free will is just choosing from multiple wants you recongize. Do animals have wants? Yes, even if its something as simple as "my want to eat is greater then all things" you won't see a chicken eat its own foot if there is no food in front ot if, it will do something else.
he said my thought was not what he was saying.

I think I, unfortunately, have issue with the terms of the argument and that's why i'm so frustrated. It devalues the possibility of human decision by essentially saying whatever choice was made was inevitable because it was to satisfy a "greater want". Isn't there an issue if an argument comes to a conclusion without taking into account the actual content of the argument? What defines a "greater want" other than that it was chosen? it's like we're pulling from some vast pre-existing pool of wants, but just as has been shown by the fantastical things some people may desire, I think our imagination is a decent indicator that wants are not pre-existing at all, and are created after analysis of factors which indicates some sort of cognition.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 09:37 AM #76
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
he said my thought was not what he was saying.

I think I, unfortunately, have issue with the terms of the argument and that's why i'm so frustrated. It devalues the possibility of human decision by essentially saying whatever choice was made was inevitable because it was to satisfy a "greater want". Isn't there an issue if an argument comes to a conclusion without taking into account the actual content of the argument? What defines a "greater want" other than that it was chosen? it's like we're pulling from some vast pre-existing pool of wants, but just as has been shown by the fantastical things some people may desire, I think our imagination is a decent indicator that wants are not pre-existing at all, and are created after analysis of factors which indicates some sort of cognition.
Alphaneo, for some reason it won't let me quote you. I will tell you right now that you can't attack the argument that way. It will go on on forever like this. No matter what decision you make, there will be some want at the basis of it.

Ultimately this argument leads me to believe that "self" is either
1. Wants
2. The awareness of wants (but obviously you are limited to making decisions against them.

Hsilman, have you applied the argument to your own life and how you go about things?
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:36 PM #77
Crede777
Resident Agnostic
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Crede777 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
It seems to me that Laureate is talking about Psychological Egoism (people do act towards something which they want [or believe they want] the most) and not Ethical Egoism (people SHOULD act towards something which they want [or believe they want] the most).

The worst part of this debate is that many people confuse hedonism with egoism. Hedonists act solely out of immediate desire whereas egoists act out of intrinsic desire. IE, a hedonist will eat 3 cheeseburgers in a single sitting because he wants to (due to taste, hunger, w/e). An egoist may abstain from eating all 3 cheeseburgers and instead only eat 1 because she wishes to balance her want of a cheeseburger with a want of being healthy.

Hedonists are notoriously hard to coerce into cooperation while egoists may see cooperation as a maximization of resources. For example, an egoist may think "I want this and you want this so it is in my best interest to work with you towards this goal. I may sacrifice something now but will reap a bigger reward in the end."

Finally, hedonists seem to disregard feelings of fear or guilt. A hedonist may allow a child to die because it is in her best interest to not interfere with the child being in danger. An egoist, however, may realize (either consciously or subconsciously) that he would be wracked with guilt if he simply watched the child die and may put himself in immediate danger to save the child. The desire to avoid immediate danger, to him, may pale in comparison to the desire to avoid long term grief or guilt.

To further add to Laureate's post, I feel that millions of years of evolution have shaped our instincts and behaviors to act relatively instantaneously towards this egoistic want. A person does not have time to ponder whether or not he should save the child in danger but instead must act swiftly. Thus, I believe that he is driven by an instinct honed by millions of years of evolution to preserve the youngster and therefore foster an environment where youngsters (and his in particular) are watched out for by other adults. The same goes for needless murder. I do not murder because by murdering I consent to an environment where I, myself, may be murdered. This is not something I want nor is it an environment which I wish to exist in.

There is an important distinction to make between an egoist being cooperative and altruism. I like the metaphor of a wolf pack and thinks it works quite well. I believe that humans may feel that they have higher cognitive functions but instead are driven by instinct much as any organic being is. This trend is hard to see on a micro (or individual) scale but is easier to see on the population level. Wolfs, like humans, work together to achieve an otherwise unattainable goal of taking down large prey. They are not altruistic, though, for the pack acts in the best interest of the majority of the pack. They will NOT sacrifice the good of the pack for the good of a single individual. Instead, they will cast out the individual and therefore reduce the pack by 1 which further improves the efficiency of the pack.
__________________
"We Fight! "We March!"
ST: P Conspiracy - It's what's for dinner
ST:R/P I ain't come from no fish!
Derr: Whether or not you believe the universe is here for a reason is patently irrelevant to whether or not the universe cares.
XBL = On3ManRi0t

Breakout Photos

Last edited by Crede777 : 02-05-2010 at 12:44 PM.
Crede777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:29 PM #78
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Laureate, at one point you asked WHY I go to the computer to respond rather than watching a movie. Here I believe an inherent problem is evident. Asking for sufficient reason for a decision is patently deterministic. For free will to be true, an event must occur without a sufficient cause. This is part of the reason that arguments concerning free will are so ****ed up. As soon as you ask why a decision was made, you're presupposing determinism, and as soon as you say otherwise you presuppose free will.

There are a lot of posters who are pretty confident about the existence of free will, and yet have formulated zero actual arguments. To all those who support free will, I will restate as I have in the past: AN EVENT OCCURRING WITHOUT A SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS AN ABSURDITY. There really isn't any way around this for all you free-willists. If you believe free will is true, you HAVE to say that it isn't the result of anything, that it is self-causing.

Saying "I choose between wants so that's free will" is sickeningly un-philosophical. Everyone is talking about semantics semantics semantics, and maybe 3 people show an understanding of the actual problems associated with it.

I'm not claiming to be any kind of genius or expert, but most posting in this thread only have a remote idea of what they're saying (or trying to say). Everyone should be inquisitive as opposed to assertive and we might get somewhere.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:43 PM #79
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
Laureate, at one point you asked WHY I go to the computer to respond rather than watching a movie. Here I believe an inherent problem is evident. Asking for sufficient reason for a decision is patently deterministic. For free will to be true, an event must occur without a sufficient cause. This is part of the reason that arguments concerning free will are so ****ed up. As soon as you ask why a decision was made, you're presupposing determinism, and as soon as you say otherwise you presuppose free will.

There are a lot of posters who are pretty confident about the existence of free will, and yet have formulated zero actual arguments. To all those who support free will, I will restate as I have in the past: AN EVENT OCCURRING WITHOUT A SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS AN ABSURDITY. There really isn't any way around this for all you free-willists. If you believe free will is true, you HAVE to say that it isn't the result of anything, that it is self-causing.

Saying "I choose between wants so that's free will" is sickeningly un-philosophical. Everyone is talking about semantics semantics semantics, and maybe 3 people show an understanding of the actual problems associated with it.

I'm not claiming to be any kind of genius or expert, but most posting in this thread only have a remote idea of what they're saying (or trying to say). Everyone should be inquisitive as opposed to assertive and we might get somewhere.
This might be the best post ever written on this subforum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
Laureate, at one point you asked WHY I go to the computer to respond rather than watching a movie. Here I believe an inherent problem is evident. Asking for sufficient reason for a decision is patently deterministic. For free will to be true, an event must occur without a sufficient cause. This is part of the reason that arguments concerning free will are so ****ed up. As soon as you ask why a decision was made, you're presupposing determinism, and as soon as you say otherwise you presuppose free will.
I do recall you making a very good post on free will once but I don't remember where to find it.

I have read maybe 3 or 4 essays on free will, but none of them consider what you have said. Is this your idea? And, how is this being ignored? Do I need to go back to Alfred Mele and say, "Hey man, what the ****?"
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 04:57 PM #80
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Yeah I came up with that on my own but there's no way it hasn't been thought of before.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 10:55 PM #81
xXpbdudeXx
 
 
xXpbdudeXx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synaptic View Post
Premise is untrue, sorry. Valid argument though.
You cannot both say that the premise is untrue and support the argument lol.

As to the argument: it is kind of vague, but nevertheless might be true. Determinism does a better job of coming to the same conclusion.
xXpbdudeXx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 11:00 PM #82
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
this is basically identical to an argument schopenhauer made. I don't agree that the decision making process is that simple.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2010, 12:34 AM #83
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
Alphaneo, for some reason it won't let me quote you. I will tell you right now that you can't attack the argument that way. It will go on on forever like this. No matter what decision you make, there will be some want at the basis of it.

Ultimately this argument leads me to believe that "self" is either
1. Wants
2. The awareness of wants (but obviously you are limited to making decisions against them.

Hsilman, have you applied the argument to your own life and how you go about things?
sure, and I agree with it. However, saying that we want something doesn't take into consideration the reasons for that want, not all of which must be necessarily responsive in nature. I honestly don't really bother with free will because it's such a stupid argument either way. We are determined to feel free regardless of the "truth" of such a condition, so why not talk about morality without consideration to some ultimate responsibility?

However, as far as the definition of self, I would say it is only defined in contrast to what is "not self" and the increasing realization of the definition of said categories(self vs. not self)
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2010, 08:25 PM #84
RamboPreacher
Player not a Pro.
 
RamboPreacher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Central Iowa
RamboPreacher is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
I wanted to read all the posts in this thread. I chose not to.
__________________
Brent "RamboPreacher" Hoefling
Founder of the CPPA - Christian Paintball Players Association
Member of: Christ Krew #82

"I believe, in order to understand" or "I understand in order to believe": Augustine/Anselm (paraphrase)
"Science, and especially physics is not about 'truths' - It's about forming beliefs that are less false"; Dr. S. James Gates, Jr.
RamboPreacher is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump