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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-09-2010, 02:20 PM #127
babsa_90
 
 
babsa_90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
I just thought i should jump in here, from reading the first page. A lot of people here believe that having wants and desires is evidence of free will. On the contrary, i believe that wants and desires are basic programming that we have. When your body lacks a nutrient/vitamin it releases endorphins when you consume it.
I do not claim to be a scientist, but i have seen this series of shows on the human body on the discovery channel and remember this guy's survival story. He was stranded in the ocean and caught a fish and ate it's eyeballs and said that he had a strong desire to eat more of it. So take that for what you will.

Last edited by babsa_90 : 02-09-2010 at 02:26 PM.
babsa_90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 02-09-2010, 03:57 PM #128
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
This is good for moral responsibility, but it does not mean that you have free will.
see but I disagree with that. I feel it's just a puppet show in Schopenhauer's world. Without free will, we are just an arbitrary slice of predetermined reactions. How can we hold such a nominal entity responsible for anything?
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 04:48 PM #129
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
I have free will.

Because of the chaotic nature of the world, nothing is set in stone until it happens. For example, when examining a collection of particles, their motion is by definition chaotic, there is no way to know, predict, or predispose them to do any one thing. This eventually leads to the idea of entropy, and why I don't believe that the complex systems in the world have any predetermined outcome.

But no, I'm not going to debate evolution, so don't even bring it up.


What does entropy have to do with this? If anything, as a law of thermodynamics, entropy would cause predetermined outcomes.

edit: You're taking the "disorder" aspect of entropy in the wrong way.

As for quantum indeterminacy, it's a pretty ****ty argument for free will. We don't know nearly enough about it to show how it relates to human action. So I'll say again: Tell me how an event can occur without a sufficient cause. If you can't come up with some way to reconcile this, then you're talking out of your butt.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 10:15 PM #130
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
see but I disagree with that. I feel it's just a puppet show in Schopenhauer's world. Without free will, we are just an arbitrary slice of predetermined reactions. How can we hold such a nominal entity responsible for anything?
Because the feeling of responsibility is factored into the wants. But feeling responsibility is inevitable, it is determined. Everyone feels like they have responsibility for their actions. This feeling just factors into the wants.
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 10:35 PM #131
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
Because the feeling of responsibility is factored into the wants. But feeling responsibility is inevitable, it is determined. Everyone feels like they have responsibility for their actions. This feeling just factors into the wants.
right, but I just don't see how predetermination can create any "factual" culpability. In a supposedly closed system, the individual is nothing more than another determined perception of a certain number of also predetermined reactions. Essentially, we just draw a line in the sand and say "this is Dylan", but the actual line is meaningless. Why is "Dylan" responsible for some reactions, over which he has no control, but not others which he is equally powerless to change? Why is "Dylan" not equally responsible(or non-responsible) for the Big Bang and the Holocaust?
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 11:20 PM #132
Crede777
Resident Agnostic
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Crede777 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
Why is "Dylan" not equally responsible(or non-responsible) for the Big Bang and the Holocaust?
Are you implying that we may retroactively affect things which occurred prior to our birth? While it may be hard to determine boundaries for "Dylan," it is possible to point out when "Dylan" begins to act upon the environment as he obviously couldn't if he has yet to be formed. That's assuming that a physical form is required in order to have an effect upon the environment.
__________________
"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
Crede777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 03:06 AM #133
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
see but I disagree with that. I feel it's just a puppet show in Schopenhauer's world. Without free will, we are just an arbitrary slice of predetermined reactions. How can we hold such a nominal entity responsible for anything?
Why can't we just be arbitrary slices of predetermined reactions? It's entirely plausible that the "choices" we make are a result of the information we have at that exact moment, and had we faced the same decision at any other time we would have chosen differently. Thus we are trapped into acting a set way at any given time. I think the reason the argument sounds "off" to some of the posters in this thread is that it is extremely general and can seemingly turn into a circular-like argument very quickly. I think what we need to do is maybe start a new thread and set a time to discuss it without all of the clutter and maybe work through the issues all at once before our thoughts escape us.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 06:19 AM #134
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
Why can't we just be arbitrary slices of predetermined reactions? It's entirely plausible that the "choices" we make are a result of the information we have at that exact moment, and had we faced the same decision at any other time we would have chosen differently. Thus we are trapped into acting a set way at any given time. I think the reason the argument sounds "off" to some of the posters in this thread is that it is extremely general and can seemingly turn into a circular-like argument very quickly. I think what we need to do is maybe start a new thread and set a time to discuss it without all of the clutter and maybe work through the issues all at once before our thoughts escape us.
we are talking about moral responsibility, not just free will. It is possible that we are said arbitrary slices, but I'm arguing that it is impossible to assign moral culpability if that is true.

edit: crede, the molecules that currently inhabit the space we are now calling Dylan have existed long before we made that arbitrary(or perhaps predetermined) distinction. They have been reacting and responding to physical stimuli long before the distinction was made.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 09:08 AM #135
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
we are talking about moral responsibility, not just free will. It is possible that we are said arbitrary slices, but I'm arguing that it is impossible to assign moral culpability if that is true.

edit: crede, the molecules that currently inhabit the space we are now calling Dylan have existed long before we made that arbitrary(or perhaps predetermined) distinction. They have been reacting and responding to physical stimuli long before the distinction was made.
Even if there is no moral culpability society can still punish criminals based on the fact that there is obviously something "wrong" with them. They are aware of the possible repurcussions when they make a decision to commit a crime. Thus, their wants/desires guided the person to conclude that the benefits of committing the crime outweighed the negatives. So even if the person isn't "responsible", they still cannot be trusted in society.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 02:14 PM #136
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
Even if there is no moral culpability society can still punish criminals based on the fact that there is obviously something "wrong" with them. They are aware of the possible repurcussions when they make a decision to commit a crime. Thus, their wants/desires guided the person to conclude that the benefits of committing the crime outweighed the negatives. So even if the person isn't "responsible", they still cannot be trusted in society.
they are not led to a conclusion. They happen to be defined by the space which said molecules reacted. They don't make decisions, just like tnt doesn't get a choice to not explode, he never had a choice to not commit the crime. It was as sure as the sunrise.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 08:11 PM #137
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
they are not led to a conclusion. They happen to be defined by the space which said molecules reacted. They don't make decisions, just like tnt doesn't get a choice to not explode, he never had a choice to not commit the crime. It was as sure as the sunrise.
The point is that "decisions" are made with the available information already taken into account, thus possible repurcussions were "weighed" when the decision to commit the crime was made. So whether or not the person made an actual choice is irrelevant since they can't be allowed to remain in society if they commit crimes.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 11:00 PM #138
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
The point is that "decisions" are made with the available information already taken into account, thus possible repurcussions were "weighed" when the decision to commit the crime was made. So whether or not the person made an actual choice is irrelevant since they can't be allowed to remain in society if they commit crimes.
that doesn't sound like moral culpability to me, just that a statement that one has committed a crime. It doesn't assign responsibility, which is what we're talking about.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 12:18 AM #139
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
that doesn't sound like moral culpability to me, just that a statement that one has committed a crime. It doesn't assign responsibility, which is what we're talking about.
My entire point was that responsibility is irrelevant.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 07:17 AM #140
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
Because you haven't shown anything that goes against his argument. Conceptually your example falls right within the parameters.

"I wanted to read all the posts in this thread but i chose not to"

This is easily explained by your greater want to not read all the posts.

You can pull out that "you don't know what's going on in my mind" bull**** that you do with every other topic, but then you aren't proving anything at all. It's a total cop out and it makes the argument meaningless. You have yet to understand this.
you are absolutely correct. but my WANT for choosing to not read the posts being greater, does not NEGATE the want I have for reading the posts. the WANT is still there - no matter what you wnat to call it. it is not caca to me, it is still a want, it is just one I chose not to act upon. there was no definition of greater or lesser WANTs. only WANTs.

therefor his logic is faulty. all the options and variables werenot defined. and younot kowing what my WANTs are is NOT a cop out. it simply is a truth. to try to negate that issue is the cop out, rather than trying to have any kind of perception of my personal desires, WANTs and paradigm, you choose to refer to it as a cop out and lift yourself up to the top of the pillar in order to look down on me as I attempt to present my view.

apparently you feel you are more intillectual than me and my perceptions, beliefs and WANTs are not important enough. perhaps because you are too busy looking down your nose at my statment as not being intelligent enough for you?

so yes, I WANT to read all the posts in this thread, but I chose not to. My WANT to not read them is greater, but it is not the greatest. nor is the WANT to read them the least. NEEDs are a different issue, perhaps, but this was not about the needs, it was about WANTs.
__________________
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
Old 02-12-2010, 12:52 PM #141
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamboPreacher View Post
you are absolutely correct. but my WANT for choosing to not read the posts being greater, does not NEGATE the want I have for reading the posts. the WANT is still there - no matter what you wnat to call it. it is not caca to me, it is still a want, it is just one I chose not to act upon. there was no definition of greater or lesser WANTs. only WANTs.

therefor his logic is faulty. all the options and variables werenot defined. and younot kowing what my WANTs are is NOT a cop out. it simply is a truth. to try to negate that issue is the cop out, rather than trying to have any kind of perception of my personal desires, WANTs and paradigm, you choose to refer to it as a cop out and lift yourself up to the top of the pillar in order to look down on me as I attempt to present my view.

apparently you feel you are more intillectual than me and my perceptions, beliefs and WANTs are not important enough. perhaps because you are too busy looking down your nose at my statment as not being intelligent enough for you?

so yes, I WANT to read all the posts in this thread, but I chose not to. My WANT to not read them is greater, but it is not the greatest. nor is the WANT to read them the least. NEEDs are a different issue, perhaps, but this was not about the needs, it was about WANTs.
hahaha this is actually great, i am enjoying this Rambo. lol ur funny. wuts ur real name?
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 01:21 PM #142
markcheb
surrender...don't move
 
markcheb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: across the Jordan river
You're fond of sigs. Read his.



Or mine if you like. I'd recommend the Romans link, or the Luke one both are good.
__________________
Which thief ~~ are you?
ChristKrew #185
Anointing foreheads with the paintball for a while now.
Where's God? - Read Luke 15:11-32

Last edited by markcheb : 02-12-2010 at 01:26 PM.
markcheb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 04:48 PM #143
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη
 
 
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NC
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη helped look for balloons
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamboPreacher View Post
you are absolutely correct. but my WANT for choosing to not read the posts being greater, does not NEGATE the want I have for reading the posts. the WANT is still there - no matter what you wnat to call it. it is not caca to me, it is still a want, it is just one I chose not to act upon. there was no definition of greater or lesser WANTs. only WANTs.

therefor his logic is faulty. all the options and variables werenot defined. and younot kowing what my WANTs are is NOT a cop out. it simply is a truth. to try to negate that issue is the cop out, rather than trying to have any kind of perception of my personal desires, WANTs and paradigm, you choose to refer to it as a cop out and lift yourself up to the top of the pillar in order to look down on me as I attempt to present my view.

apparently you feel you are more intillectual than me and my perceptions, beliefs and WANTs are not important enough. perhaps because you are too busy looking down your nose at my statment as not being intelligent enough for you?

so yes, I WANT to read all the posts in this thread, but I chose not to. My WANT to not read them is greater, but it is not the greatest. nor is the WANT to read them the least. NEEDs are a different issue, perhaps, but this was not about the needs, it was about WANTs.
You still don't have free will.
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 06:13 PM #144
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamboPreacher View Post
you are absolutely correct. but my WANT for choosing to not read the posts being greater, does not NEGATE the want I have for reading the posts. the WANT is still there - no matter what you wnat to call it. it is not caca to me, it is still a want, it is just one I chose not to act upon. there was no definition of greater or lesser WANTs. only WANTs.

therefor his logic is faulty. all the options and variables werenot defined. and younot kowing what my WANTs are is NOT a cop out. it simply is a truth. to try to negate that issue is the cop out, rather than trying to have any kind of perception of my personal desires, WANTs and paradigm, you choose to refer to it as a cop out and lift yourself up to the top of the pillar in order to look down on me as I attempt to present my view.

apparently you feel you are more intillectual than me and my perceptions, beliefs and WANTs are not important enough. perhaps because you are too busy looking down your nose at my statment as not being intelligent enough for you?

so yes, I WANT to read all the posts in this thread, but I chose not to. My WANT to not read them is greater, but it is not the greatest. nor is the WANT to read them the least. NEEDs are a different issue, perhaps, but this was not about the needs, it was about WANTs.

His argument is somewhat intuitive. I honestly can't tell if you understand the point of it and you disagree, or if you simply don't understand it.

I have no desire to "look down" on you or anyone. I just can't help it when you make asinine statements. What do you want me to say? Your entire outlook is philosophic ****. No scientist or philosopher worth anything would take things you say seriously.

If you want to refute his argument, you have to present an example of human behavior which conceptually violates it. You have to show an instance in which a "decision" could not possibly be the result of merely a greater want. This is basic ****, you don't understand it, so sorry if I'm not nicer but you just pollute discussion.


No one said that a greater want negated a lesser want, merely that the action will satisfy the greater want over the lesser one. It's analogous to two forces pulling on an object - obviously the greater force wins out. So I do suppose that one force "negates" the other in a sense. But it's not as though the other force doesn't exist, it simply does not become a decision.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 06:14 PM #145
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by markcheb View Post
You're fond of sigs. Read his.



Or mine if you like. I'd recommend the Romans link, or the Luke one both are good.
what does that suppose to mean? like really, what does that even mean?
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 06:15 PM #146
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη
 
 
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NC
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη helped look for balloons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
what does that suppose to mean? like really, what does that even mean?
(His sig has his name in it.)
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 06:17 PM #147
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη View Post
(His sig has his name in it.)
oh...why did he mention the bible verse links then?
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump