Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Great Dichotomy

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 12:32:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
After temporarily going insane questioning logic, I realized something. Everything we've ever learned about science passively assents to the same seemingly maniacal conclusion. It's like puzzle pieces coming together. Biology tells us that we came from THINGS...OBJECTS..organic compounds that came together and made RNA/DNA. Neuroscience tells us that there are factors in the brain that precipitate conscious decisions. Physics tells us that an object will not act unless CAUSED to act by an external force. And of course the development of androids becoming more sophisticated bring to question our "inherent uniqueness".

The conclusion is...We are machines! We need energy to operate! We obey the laws of nature!

I firmly believe that if you agree with science, this is where it will lead you, whether or not you deny it. Therefore, we are either machines or you abandon science and we are spirits. They are mutually exclusive and wholly incompatible. If science is objectively correct, and nothing in science supports such a concept as souls, then it is false.

We are at a transition stage as we speak. We were once enchanted by animistic explanations...now today we half believe in animism and half in science. That is contradictory. If you trust science then we are machines. Otherwise, if you still want to believe in spirits, then you deny science altogether.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:05:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:04:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Smoke salvia.

you're going to die much sooner than everyone else.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:06:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: OH GOD!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:17:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:05:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:04:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Smoke salvia.

you're going to die much sooner than everyone else.

lol For crying out loud, salvia won't kill you.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:20:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:17:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:05:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:04:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Smoke salvia.

you're going to die much sooner than everyone else.

lol For crying out loud, salvia won't kill you.

How is salvia in reference to shrooms? I've had salvia before and didn't notice the effects. However, I bought a weaker version of it out of fear from stories I've heard from it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:24:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:17:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:05:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:04:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Smoke salvia.

you're going to die much sooner than everyone else.

lol For crying out loud, salvia won't kill you.

If you say so. I consider inebriation an abuse of the body. You'll make up for it someway, somehow. Just like someone would make up for eating fried oreos everyday.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:27:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, I knew that there isn't anything I could say that would reveal to you that everything you think, believe, value and hold near and dear to your heart is utter bullshit and a sham of limitless proportions. But smoking salvia would do that so I recommended it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:31:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:20:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:17:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:05:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:04:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Smoke salvia.

you're going to die much sooner than everyone else.

lol For crying out loud, salvia won't kill you.

How is salvia in reference to shrooms? I've had salvia before and didn't notice the effects. However, I bought a weaker version of it out of fear from stories I've heard from it.

haha Well, salvia is of a different breed altogether... I hate it. The bodily sensations are overwhelmingly uncomfortable though it only lasts a few minutes. But yeah, it'll definitely shift your consciousness for a moment, if that's what you're interested in. I suspect this is why Freedo suggested ike do it- he wants a new perspective.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:33:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:24:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:17:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:05:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:04:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Smoke salvia.

you're going to die much sooner than everyone else.

lol For crying out loud, salvia won't kill you.

If you say so. I consider inebriation an abuse of the body. You'll make up for it someway, somehow. Just like someone would make up for eating fried oreos everyday.

Well, each drug is a bit different. Some have long-term effects, some don't. So you can't really guess that they all have long-term effects based on fried oreos........
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:36:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:33:57 PM, Oryus wrote:
Well, each drug is a bit different. Some have long-term effects, some don't. So you can't really guess that they all have long-term effects based on fried oreos........

Nope. You're wrong. ALL drugs are EXACTLY like fried oreos, particularly like fried oreos being shoved into your eye balls. Bad stuff, man. Very bad stuff.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:37:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:36:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:33:57 PM, Oryus wrote:
Well, each drug is a bit different. Some have long-term effects, some don't. So you can't really guess that they all have long-term effects based on fried oreos........

Nope. You're wrong. ALL drugs are EXACTLY like fried oreos, particularly like fried oreos being shoved into your eye balls. Bad stuff, man. Very bad stuff.

Oh yeah, I think I learned that in D.A.R.E.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:38:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
lol was the OP really that boring that it got derailed before even starting a discussion?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:40:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:37:11 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:36:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:33:57 PM, Oryus wrote:
Well, each drug is a bit different. Some have long-term effects, some don't. So you can't really guess that they all have long-term effects based on fried oreos........

Nope. You're wrong. ALL drugs are EXACTLY like fried oreos, particularly like fried oreos being shoved into your eye balls. Bad stuff, man. Very bad stuff.

Oh yeah, I think I learned that in D.A.R.E.

I remembered in D.A.R.E that a person will put a gun to your head and force you to do drugs. But you have to be strong and resist the urge and say no. Because doing drugs is worse than a bullet in your head.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:42:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:40:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:37:11 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:36:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:33:57 PM, Oryus wrote:
Well, each drug is a bit different. Some have long-term effects, some don't. So you can't really guess that they all have long-term effects based on fried oreos........

Nope. You're wrong. ALL drugs are EXACTLY like fried oreos, particularly like fried oreos being shoved into your eye balls. Bad stuff, man. Very bad stuff.

Oh yeah, I think I learned that in D.A.R.E.

I remembered in D.A.R.E that a person will put a gun to your head and force you to do drugs. But you have to be strong and resist the urge and say no. Because doing drugs is worse than a bullet in your head.

That's so funny you say that. Me and my thugs were just forcing people in alley ways at gun point to take salvia the other day.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:45:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:42:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:40:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:37:11 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:36:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:33:57 PM, Oryus wrote:
Well, each drug is a bit different. Some have long-term effects, some don't. So you can't really guess that they all have long-term effects based on fried oreos........

Nope. You're wrong. ALL drugs are EXACTLY like fried oreos, particularly like fried oreos being shoved into your eye balls. Bad stuff, man. Very bad stuff.

Oh yeah, I think I learned that in D.A.R.E.

I remembered in D.A.R.E that a person will put a gun to your head and force you to do drugs. But you have to be strong and resist the urge and say no. Because doing drugs is worse than a bullet in your head.

That's so funny you say that. Me and my thugs were just forcing people in alley ways at gun point to take salvia the other day.

If a male is wearing a tie dye shirt, then he's just asking to be forced to smoke saliva at gun point.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:47:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:45:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:
If a male is wearing a tie dye shirt, then he's just asking to be forced to smoke saliva at gun point.

siggy
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:48:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:40:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:37:11 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:36:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:33:57 PM, Oryus wrote:
Well, each drug is a bit different. Some have long-term effects, some don't. So you can't really guess that they all have long-term effects based on fried oreos........

Nope. You're wrong. ALL drugs are EXACTLY like fried oreos, particularly like fried oreos being shoved into your eye balls. Bad stuff, man. Very bad stuff.

Oh yeah, I think I learned that in D.A.R.E.

I remembered in D.A.R.E that a person will put a gun to your head and force you to do drugs. But you have to be strong and resist the urge and say no. Because doing drugs is worse than a bullet in your head.

Oh god. I remember D.A.R.E *shudders*
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 2:05:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:38:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol was the OP really that boring that it got derailed before even starting a discussion?

hahaha No. As much as all the D.A.R.E. talk is cracking me up, I am considering the topic at hand.

I like reading your threads. So I take it you are a determinist?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 2:06:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 2:05:00 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:38:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol was the OP really that boring that it got derailed before even starting a discussion?

hahaha No. As much as all the D.A.R.E. talk is cracking me up, I am considering the topic at hand.

I like reading your threads. So I take it you are a determinist?

yep, incompatibilist
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 2:09:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 2:06:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2012 2:05:00 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:38:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol was the OP really that boring that it got derailed before even starting a discussion?

hahaha No. As much as all the D.A.R.E. talk is cracking me up, I am considering the topic at hand.

I like reading your threads. So I take it you are a determinist?

yep, incompatibilist

The Great Dichotomy here is that your intelllectualism is all manual.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 2:19:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 2:06:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2012 2:05:00 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:38:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol was the OP really that boring that it got derailed before even starting a discussion?

hahaha No. As much as all the D.A.R.E. talk is cracking me up, I am considering the topic at hand.

I like reading your threads. So I take it you are a determinist?

yep, incompatibilist

I tend to lean that way myself so I don't really have much to say. haha

Although I will ask- if people don't have free will, then how can you judge them for an interest in, say, fried oreos? :P
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 5:01:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 2:19:44 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 2:06:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2012 2:05:00 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:38:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol was the OP really that boring that it got derailed before even starting a discussion?

hahaha No. As much as all the D.A.R.E. talk is cracking me up, I am considering the topic at hand.

I like reading your threads. So I take it you are a determinist?

yep, incompatibilist

I tend to lean that way myself so I don't really have much to say. haha

Although I will ask- if people don't have free will, then how can you judge them for an interest in, say, fried oreos? :P

You're an incompatiblist? That's interesting...

I don't like hard distinctions, so I've never called myself a humanistic . They believe, for example, that mental illnesses are freely-made decisions. I disagree with that; clearly, there's a distinct cause for those people acting out of character.

But, that's the thing. This framework that we consider a person's character, it would be generally static, if you're going to be flatly incompatiblist. This belies two concepts in my eyes: innovation and persuasion. How can one be innovative if our actions are deterministic? Where did this innovation come from? It wasn't consciously deduced applying logic and empiricism? Instead, it was magically borne of the amalgamation of our inherent inclinations and experiences? That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Likewise, how could one possibly persuade themselves of something if their thoughts are predetermined? Take, for example, rigorous exercise. Pushing out that last pushup, or that last crunch. Forcing yourself to run that last lap. Sometimes, in those moments, your body is telling you to stop, and you're fighting it. There's a part of your rational mind that believes you should stop, but you know the objective, and you must not. You must push yourself just that much further, because it is the only way you will improve. Many times, you will lose that battle, and will stop. Others, you will push forward.

How could that possibly be predetermined?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 5:07:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 12:32:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
After temporarily going insane questioning logic, I realized something. Everything we've ever learned about science passively assents to the same seemingly maniacal conclusion. It's like puzzle pieces coming together. Biology tells us that we came from THINGS...OBJECTS..organic compounds that came together and made RNA/DNA. Neuroscience tells us that there are factors in the brain that precipitate conscious decisions. Physics tells us that an object will not act unless CAUSED to act by an external force. And of course the development of androids becoming more sophisticated bring to question our "inherent uniqueness".

The conclusion is...We are machines! We need energy to operate! We obey the laws of nature!

I firmly believe that if you agree with science, this is where it will lead you, whether or not you deny it. Therefore, we are either machines or you abandon science and we are spirits. They are mutually exclusive and wholly incompatible. If science is objectively correct, and nothing in science supports such a concept as souls, then it is false.

We are at a transition stage as we speak. We were once enchanted by animistic explanations...now today we half believe in animism and half in science. That is contradictory. If you trust science then we are machines. Otherwise, if you still want to believe in spirits, then you deny science altogether.

The Fool: so you are saying that we think such ways because of evolution, and evolution is such because we think such ways, which is because of evolution, which is why we think such ways, which it because evolution. and around and around and around we GO.

Mabye something is missing in you explanation I think?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 5:27:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 5:01:27 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/26/2012 2:19:44 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 2:06:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2012 2:05:00 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:38:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol was the OP really that boring that it got derailed before even starting a discussion?

hahaha No. As much as all the D.A.R.E. talk is cracking me up, I am considering the topic at hand.

I like reading your threads. So I take it you are a determinist?

yep, incompatibilist

I tend to lean that way myself so I don't really have much to say. haha

Although I will ask- if people don't have free will, then how can you judge them for an interest in, say, fried oreos? :P

You're an incompatiblist? That's interesting...

I wouldn't call myself that. I'm unconvinced but I tend to lean toward it, yeah. It needs more investigation.
I don't like hard distinctions, so I've never called myself a humanistic . They believe, for example, that mental illnesses are freely-made decisions. I disagree with that; clearly, there's a distinct cause for those people acting out of character.

But, that's the thing. This framework that we consider a person's character, it would be generally static, if you're going to be flatly incompatiblist. This belies two concepts in my eyes: innovation and persuasion. How can one be innovative if our actions are deterministic? Where did this innovation come from? It wasn't consciously deduced applying logic and empiricism? Instead, it was magically borne of the amalgamation of our inherent inclinations and experiences? That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Likewise, how could one possibly persuade themselves of something if their thoughts are predetermined? Take, for example, rigorous exercise. Pushing out that last pushup, or that last crunch. Forcing yourself to run that last lap. Sometimes, in those moments, your body is telling you to stop, and you're fighting it. There's a part of your rational mind that believes you should stop, but you know the objective, and you must not. You must push yourself just that much further, because it is the only way you will improve. Many times, you will lose that battle, and will stop. Others, you will push forward.

How could that possibly be predetermined?

What kind of predetermined? It sounds like you're talking about biological determinism. It's not that I believe in biological determinism. It's that I'm unconvinced of free will. There are many other things at play which move you through your life along with your biology. But your comment was interesting to read and consider, nonetheless.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 5:31:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 5:01:27 PM, Ren wrote:

But, that's the thing. This framework that we consider a person's character, it would be generally static, if you're going to be flatly incompatiblist. This belies two concepts in my eyes: innovation and persuasion. How can one be innovative if our actions are deterministic? Where did this innovation come from? It wasn't consciously deduced applying logic and empiricism? Instead, it was magically borne of the amalgamation of our inherent inclinations and experiences? That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Suppose you decided out of nowhere to start clapping. Why did you do that? Is it because you wanted to clap? What made you want to clap? Because you felt like it? What made you feel like it? You see, for something to have been done out of "freewill" the will must have caused the action. But what made the will cause the action? There are 2 answers to that question:

1. something made the will cause the action (the will is determined)
2. nothing made the will cause the action (the will made a random decision)

that 2nd part is what people like to doubt, but if you think about it, it's correct. If the will just made a spontaneous choice that had no influence, then it was random. The law of excluded middle would defend this argument. Randomness and cause is a true dichotomy....freewill must be one or the other,...it can't be its own category.

If one insists that freewill is its own category,...he has done away with logic.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 5:43:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 5:27:08 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 5:01:27 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/26/2012 2:19:44 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 2:06:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2012 2:05:00 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:38:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol was the OP really that boring that it got derailed before even starting a discussion?

hahaha No. As much as all the D.A.R.E. talk is cracking me up, I am considering the topic at hand.

I like reading your threads. So I take it you are a determinist?

yep, incompatibilist

I tend to lean that way myself so I don't really have much to say. haha

Although I will ask- if people don't have free will, then how can you judge them for an interest in, say, fried oreos? :P

You're an incompatiblist? That's interesting...

I wouldn't call myself that. I'm unconvinced but I tend to lean toward it, yeah. It needs more investigation.
I don't like hard distinctions, so I've never called myself a humanistic . They believe, for example, that mental illnesses are freely-made decisions. I disagree with that; clearly, there's a distinct cause for those people acting out of character.

But, that's the thing. This framework that we consider a person's character, it would be generally static, if you're going to be flatly incompatiblist. This belies two concepts in my eyes: innovation and persuasion. How can one be innovative if our actions are deterministic? Where did this innovation come from? It wasn't consciously deduced applying logic and empiricism? Instead, it was magically borne of the amalgamation of our inherent inclinations and experiences? That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Likewise, how could one possibly persuade themselves of something if their thoughts are predetermined? Take, for example, rigorous exercise. Pushing out that last pushup, or that last crunch. Forcing yourself to run that last lap. Sometimes, in those moments, your body is telling you to stop, and you're fighting it. There's a part of your rational mind that believes you should stop, but you know the objective, and you must not. You must push yourself just that much further, because it is the only way you will improve. Many times, you will lose that battle, and will stop. Others, you will push forward.

How could that possibly be predetermined?

What kind of predetermined? It sounds like you're talking about biological determinism. It's not that I believe in biological determinism. It's that I'm unconvinced of free will. There are many other things at play which move you through your life along with your biology. But your comment was interesting to read and consider, nonetheless.

What do you mean by "free will?"

And, I did include experiences as well as inherent inclinations... you know, everything that comprises the human condition and experience. I do personally consider that separate of consciousness, although it greatly influences consciousness. I'm pretty sure determinism considers consciousness a derivative sensation of that amalgamation, rendering them effectively indistinct.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 5:49:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 5:31:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2012 5:01:27 PM, Ren wrote:

But, that's the thing. This framework that we consider a person's character, it would be generally static, if you're going to be flatly incompatiblist. This belies two concepts in my eyes: innovation and persuasion. How can one be innovative if our actions are deterministic? Where did this innovation come from? It wasn't consciously deduced applying logic and empiricism? Instead, it was magically borne of the amalgamation of our inherent inclinations and experiences? That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Suppose you decided out of nowhere to start clapping.

It's easy to prove determinism when you remove the decision-making process from the equation. Clapping is something of an automatic response to signify approval, generally speaking, which means that it's already considered deterministic. This is different from deciding how you feel about a performance and explaining it, then attempting to classify that process as deterministic.

Or, better yet, pondering a concept to determine whether you consider it logical. How could that be considered deterministic? What led to your ponderance, and how did each thought lead to each other thought? How could that lead to new conclusions that didn't previously exist in your mind, without a conscious effort to arrive to those conclusions by integrating your thoughts, as well as the thoughts of others, then testing those thoughts for logical rigor?

Why did you do that? Is it because you wanted to clap? What made you want to clap? Because you felt like it? What made you feel like it? You see, for something to have been done out of "freewill" the will must have caused the action. But what made the will cause the action? There are 2 answers to that question:

1. something made the will cause the action (the will is determined)
2. nothing made the will cause the action (the will made a random decision)

that 2nd part is what people like to doubt, but if you think about it, it's correct. If the will just made a spontaneous choice that had no influence, then it was random. The law of excluded middle would defend this argument. Randomness and cause is a true dichotomy....freewill must be one or the other,...it can't be its own category.

If one insists that freewill is its own category,...he has done away with logic.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 5:59:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 5:49:38 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/26/2012 5:31:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2012 5:01:27 PM, Ren wrote:

But, that's the thing. This framework that we consider a person's character, it would be generally static, if you're going to be flatly incompatiblist. This belies two concepts in my eyes: innovation and persuasion. How can one be innovative if our actions are deterministic? Where did this innovation come from? It wasn't consciously deduced applying logic and empiricism? Instead, it was magically borne of the amalgamation of our inherent inclinations and experiences? That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Suppose you decided out of nowhere to start clapping.

It's easy to prove determinism when you remove the decision-making process from the equation. Clapping is something of an automatic response to signify approval, generally speaking, which means that it's already considered deterministic. This is different from deciding how you feel about a performance and explaining it, then attempting to classify that process as deterministic.

Or, better yet, pondering a concept to determine whether you consider it logical. How could that be considered deterministic? What led to your ponderance, and how did each thought lead to each other thought? How could that lead to new conclusions that didn't previously exist in your mind, without a conscious effort to arrive to those conclusions by integrating your thoughts, as well as the thoughts of others, then testing those thoughts for logical rigor?

It seems like you're asking me to articulate what causes what in the process of complex reasoning. I can't do that...we'll need higher technological capabilities to determine that. However, with what we have now, we know that things are being caused.

I could show you a study where neuroscientists could predict what button their subjects would press with 80% accuracy, up to 700 milliseconds before they were actually aware that they had made a decision.

I'm not sure how you can reconcile those findings with the kind of unpredictable, uncaused spontaneity you attribute to freewill.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault