Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

One can rationally support the claim that the

TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:23:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The perspectives
1st person perspective- Your personal perspective, taking into account only what you perceive.(just like in a story)

3rd person detached- observes all things that happen as if looking at them, takes into account every attribute in a situation except the experiences themselves (just like a movie narrator)

3rd person omniscient- This perspective takes into account everything, every perspective and every detail of a situation, even its own.

The Argument Part 1

1.) Everything in the universe is calculable and thus "predetermined"

2.) As a human individual I could theoretically be put in a position demonstrating the calculable nature of other people and things

3.) As a human individual I could never be put into a position demonstrating my own calculability, this would bare a paradox

4.) Thus from my perspective I am the only individual with free will

Thus if we look into this scenaro from a 3rd person detached (narrator's) perspective who is viewing all humans, we would be able to see that nobody has free will, yet if we look from the perspective of an individual, only they (that individual) would have free will, finally if we were to view the situation from everybody's collective and unified perspective, then everyone has free will. The ultimate theme here being, perspective, perspective and its relation to the word and meaning of 'free will/freedom' and 'choice'. Thus, because I am stuck in my mortal and first person based perspective, I can logically, reasonably and rationally say that only I have free will.

watcha think

-for Kozu
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:27:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:23:19 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
The perspectives
1st person perspective- Your personal perspective, taking into account only what you perceive.(just like in a story)

3rd person detached- observes all things that happen as if looking at them, takes into account every attribute in a situation except the experiences themselves (just like a movie narrator)

3rd person omniscient- This perspective takes into account everything, every perspective and every detail of a situation, even its own.




The Argument Part 1

1.) Everything in the universe is calculable and thus "predetermined"

2.) As a human individual I could theoretically be put in a position demonstrating the calculable nature of other people and things

3.) As a human individual I could never be put into a position demonstrating my own calculability, this would bare a paradox

4.) Thus from my perspective I am the only individual with free will



Thus if we look into this scenaro from a 3rd person detached (narrator's) perspective who is viewing all humans, we would be able to see that nobody has free will, yet if we look from the perspective of an individual, only they (that individual) would have free will, finally if we were to view the situation from everybody's collective and unified perspective, then everyone has free will. The ultimate theme here being, perspective, perspective and its relation to the word and meaning of 'free will/freedom' and 'choice'. Thus, because I am stuck in my mortal and first person based perspective, I can logically, reasonably and rationally say that only I have free will.




watcha think

-for Kozu

The claim
"(I) can rationally support the claim that (I am) the only individual in exsistance with free will"

Is a 1st person perspective claim. Trying to prove someone does or doesn't have free will from another perspective is another debate.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:35:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:27:42 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 4/19/2015 10:23:19 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
The perspectives
1st person perspective- Your personal perspective, taking into account only what you perceive.(just like in a story)

3rd person detached- observes all things that happen as if looking at them, takes into account every attribute in a situation except the experiences themselves (just like a movie narrator)

3rd person omniscient- This perspective takes into account everything, every perspective and every detail of a situation, even its own.




The Argument Part 1

1.) Everything in the universe is calculable and thus "predetermined"

2.) As a human individual I could theoretically be put in a position demonstrating the calculable nature of other people and things

3.) As a human individual I could never be put into a position demonstrating my own calculability, this would bare a paradox

4.) Thus from my perspective I am the only individual with free will



Thus if we look into this scenaro from a 3rd person detached (narrator's) perspective who is viewing all humans, we would be able to see that nobody has free will, yet if we look from the perspective of an individual, only they (that individual) would have free will, finally if we were to view the situation from everybody's collective and unified perspective, then everyone has free will. The ultimate theme here being, perspective, perspective and its relation to the word and meaning of 'free will/freedom' and 'choice'. Thus, because I am stuck in my mortal and first person based perspective, I can logically, reasonably and rationally say that only I have free will.




watcha think

-for Kozu

The claim
"(I) can rationally support the claim that (I am) the only individual in exsistance with free will"

Is a 1st person perspective claim. Trying to prove someone does or doesn't have free will from another perspective is another debate.

so because the resolution is from a first person perspective, it must be defended entirely from a first person perspective?
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:44:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:35:58 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:

so because the resolution is from a first person perspective, it must be defended entirely from a first person perspective?

You just can't ignore the 1st person perspective. It seems like your entire argument is proven through a 3rd person perspective despite being a 1st person claim.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:55:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:44:53 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 4/19/2015 10:35:58 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:

so because the resolution is from a first person perspective, it must be defended entirely from a first person perspective?

You just can't ignore the 1st person perspective. It seems like your entire argument is proven through a 3rd person perspective despite being a 1st person claim.

The best method of discovery is questioning, thus I'll ask a couple:

How would your point be effected if the resolution was Not a first person claim?

and

How am I ignoring the 1st person?
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 11:13:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:55:35 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 4/19/2015 10:44:53 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 4/19/2015 10:35:58 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:

so because the resolution is from a first person perspective, it must be defended entirely from a first person perspective?

You just can't ignore the 1st person perspective. It seems like your entire argument is proven through a 3rd person perspective despite being a 1st person claim.

The best method of discovery is questioning, thus I'll ask a couple:

How would your point be effected if the resolution was Not a first person claim?

and

How am I ignoring the 1st person?

I just suggested to post it here so you could get other peoples opinions to.

How about you substantiate your premises so we can understand your thought process?

"As a human individual I could never be put into a position demonstrating my own calculability"

Once you learn this is true for others though, the claim doesn't seem to rationally hold.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 11:23:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"if we were to view the situation from everybody's collective and unified perspective, then everyone has free will"

Since you know this, I don't see how you can rationally support your claim.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 1:43:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:55:35 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 4/19/2015 10:44:53 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 4/19/2015 10:35:58 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:

so because the resolution is from a first person perspective, it must be defended entirely from a first person perspective?

You just can't ignore the 1st person perspective. It seems like your entire argument is proven through a 3rd person perspective despite being a 1st person claim.

The best method of discovery is questioning, thus I'll ask a couple:

How would your point be effected if the resolution was Not a first person claim?

and

How am I ignoring the 1st person?

1.Then my point would be irrelevant.

2.By focusing on the 3rd person perspective to prove your point. Your conclusion doesn't look back on the very important fact that
"if we were to view the situation from everybody's collective and unified perspective, then everyone has free will.".