JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:07 AM
what blows me away about determinists is the countless amount of times they argue over and over and call other people stupid for not believing them. I mean if it was determined, you would think they would understand to accept people for following their own destiny. It’s so funny. Then you have people who say oh no, it was determined they would get mad at the people who believe in free will. But then again… GIVE me a break!! hahaha the typical destiny excuse..
@JLeeMagnetic, when people talk about an event being causally determined, most don’t mean that “fate” or “God” predestined the event. They simply mean that the oil-spill on the curve of the busy road meant that an accident was inevitable. To take the position that The Big Bang or God predestined the spill and ensuing accident is a religious position, because it is unfalsifiable, thus unscientific.
Also, determinism is a general philosophical thesis with variation. Read the Wikipedia article.
Also, it can be argued that the “determinists” who get mad do so because the anger was cause by something, just like the ignorance of individuals has a cause.
Hairy, my son’s 5 lb Chihuahua was murdered by the 90 lb pit bull next door. Neither talking about free will nor determinism will cause our anger and grief to go away. Humans are animals and feel an intense desire to bite back in such situations.
Disproving determinism doesn’t prove free will. Quantum randomness isn’t freely chosen.
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:33 PM
Forget about causation for a moment. Outside of that, I feel that most people on YT preaching determinism/singularity seem to be pretty negative about it. They don’t seem happy and when they see someone believing in free will, they seem even less happy. I don’t really understand the point of trying to prove determinism. What are the benefits of that? On the other hand, people who talk about free will do seem atleast happier. That’s from what i have observed.
@JLeeMagnetic, you are so deluded by a belief in free will that you assume a “determinist” can freely choose to act as you presume he would–instead of as nature has made him. The fact is, a person’s behavior is determined his genetic endowment, which is traceable to the evolutionary history of the species, and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed.
Also, anecdotal evidence is often more fantasy than fact; therefore, such is not accepted by science.
Have you ever heard the adage, “ignorance is bliss.” There is much truth in the statement. In fact, some of the writers of the Old Testament noted the same phenomena in The Book of Ecclesiastes. The author(/s) went on to say that it is better to be wise and miserable than to be a fool living in bliss. And I’ll agree. But of course, one can not freely choose to be wise. Wisdom is determined by the same factors that determine a person’s behavior, mentioned above (genetic-environmental interaction)
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:37 PM
@unseenstrings I also don’t get that. If the dog was killed based on determinism, then yea i can see determinists people determined to not get mad at all, but instead understand that it was out of anybodies control. If i were a determinists i don’t think i would get mad about the dog. Instead, i would be like a robot because i would understand this was the only thing that could have happened. So i still find humor in the fact that determinists people still act like they have free will.
@JLeeMagnetic you keep harping on and on about determinism and I’ve already pointed out that determinism is a complex philosophical position with much variation. I couldn’t imagine you rambling on and on about determinism if we were trying to ascertain the innerworkings of a porpoise brain. So why do you bring so much irrelevancy into discussions concerning the complex physical system that is commonly referred to as the “human” brain? Free will is a pseudoexplanation. Define free will if you can
How do you suppose a robot with AI on par with human intelligence is suppose to act? The same survival mechanism evolution built into humans would need to be built into a “Terminator” type robot in order for it to function efficiently. Suppose the human brain were reverse engineered. Suppose nano-technology and new discoveries in quantum mechanics allowed AI researchers to built a robot with a quantum computer brain as intelligent as you. Would you claim the machine had free will or just humans?
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:38 PM
@unseenstrings see that’s what i don’t get about determinists. They choose to continue to argue and act like they have free will. Then they say well it’s only because something caused me to get mad. But then it’s like you can use that excuse every time and it’s just that, an excuse. After a while who cares if you say something caused it or i say you caused it, still an excuse.
@JLeeMagnetic, you cannot logically assert “They continue to argue and act like they have free will.” You can say that in your blissful state of ignorance and limited awareness they seem to you to have free will. And I couldn’t argue against that point. But of course, I could try to point out some the the causal factors involved
In split-brain research, individuals have made choices with one side of the brain that the other was ignorant of. The ignorant side makes up excuses (reasons) for why
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:39 PM
@unseenstrings Well you can say that there anger is caused by something, but like i said i thought u were gonna say that, seems to me like an excuse either way. If i were a ”determinist” i would accept everything and never get mad at other peoples opinions. Disproving determinism doesn’t prove free will, but in order to have free will you have to have atleast these 2 things, which are the ”feeling” of free will and we have to have indeterminism. So with that said, atleast it’s better..
@JLeeMagnetic, let me see if I have this correct: if a nonhuman animal gets angry, then the anger has a cause? But if the human animal gets angry, then you say we cannot say there was a cause because you would then say that is an excuse and not a reason why. Interesting. I think your state of confusion is primarily caused by your blind belief in free will.
A feeling you are God doesn’t make you God. A feeling you have free will doesn’t mean you do. Indeterminism doesn’t prove free will.
Einstein said, “Schopenhauer’s words: ‘Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,’ accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me.” And Richard Dawkins pointed out that we are “inconsistent,” which I referred to as hypocrites. Your sweeping generalization about all “determinists” is quite illogical. Some “determinists” TRY not to get mad because of their awareness that free will is an illusion.
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 4:24 PM
@unseenstrings Oh come on. Most animals are not as smart as humans. A human has an ability to rationalize. Im saying humans can make excuses. Animals are not even smart enough to make excuses. I didn’t say indeterminism doesn’t prove free will. But neither does determinism. Im saying it opens the gate for free will. Determinism would completely rule it out. And in order to have free will, you have to at the very least feel it. If you feel like a robot, you don’t have it for sure.
@JLeeMagnetic, I’m “rationalizing.” You’re “rationalizing.” But we don’t agree. Philosophers are the best “rationalizers” in the world and they vehemently differ in their rationalizations. Seems you put too much faith in the human ability to be rational. In fact, I’ve already mentioned that the findings of split-brain research indicate patents use the linguistic side of their brain to “rationalize” behavior initiated by the opposite side–behavior that the linguistic side was wholly ignorant of.
No doubt one person will “rationalize” homosexual behavior & another will “rationalize” heterosexuality. The Christian will “rationalize” a belief in “God.” And the atheist will rationalize just the opposite. What you really mean is the human robot experiences particular feelings–feelings that it did not freely choose. And this biological robot is driven to & fro by the feeling, but makes up excuses for the ensuing behavior. Yet he calls his own excuses, rational, & claims others invent excuses
@JLeeMagnetic, 2 points invalidate your argument. 1) You can not logically state what being a robot would feel like unless you were a robot. (This is besides the fact that, in a sense, you are a biological robot created by natural selection.) 2) Awareness of possible threats and awareness of available options determine choice behavior more-so in certain instances than so called, “intelligence.” (We humans have learned to use the greater awareness of our dogs to our advantage.)
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 4:25 PM
@unseenstrings And you just said that im in a state of confusion. Im not because you haven’t got me understood. Im saying once you know better, you can’t keep making the same excuse over and over. Otherwise that is being immature.
@JLeeMagnetic, wow, you keep making up the same excuse over and over for human behavior. Now you’re saying the person who does so is immature. I say you are merely being illogical for repeating that human behavior is caused by a magic thing that you call free will. And I say your actual maturity has nothing to do with whether your “premise” is logical or not.
Free will is superfluous. It adds nothing to our understanding of the way the human brain functions in the real world
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:53 PM
@unseenstrings I also believe you have the free will for what your sexual orientation is.
@JLeeMagnetic, so you’re saying you’re personally driven by nature to feel equal attraction regarding both homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships. But you choose to have one type of relationship instead of the other. Interesting. Maybe you’re bisexual. That would explain why you feel attracted to men and women, but choose–for whatever reason (I still cannot imagine a human choosing to do something without feeling the choice was necessary or desirable)–one over the other.
Once I felt a need to make a decision but was in the dilemma of indecision. The necessary strength of feeling didn’t bubble into conscious awareness to stimulate me into choosing. So, to fulfill the choice requirement, I flipped a coin. Now be aware that just because a person cannot predict the outcome of a coin toss with over what is considered pure chance, the outcome of the coin toss is causally determined. A lack to predict outcome does not mean the phenomena was free from causality.
@JLeeMagnetic, would you make all the same choices that you now make, providing you’d never been taught language? No, you wouldn’t, because language and how you’ve learned to use it is a causal factor that has an effect on the way you think. You can do what you will, but you cannot will yourself to experience a particular will without first experiencing the will to do so, i.e., you can do what you WANT, but you can not freely choose the WANT before it is experienced. watch?v=v6fk8m3WxwI (my vid)
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Friday, September 23, 2011 8:13 AM
@unseenstrings but that is common sense, has nothing to do with free will. that paragraph you wrote does not prove or disprove anything.
@JLeeMagnetic, free will is akin to God in the sense that it is a metaphysical claim. And such claims cannot be proved nor disproved by physical beings functioning in a physical world according to physical laws. However, love, pain, learning, hunger, thirst, fear, are a few of many words that make no sense in a world ruled by free will. Your choices are determined by such factors in combination with “who you are.” And, like a robot, you had to develop into “who you are” before you could choose.
@JLeeMagnetic, when I stated some common causal factors that have an influence on choice behavior, you said, “but that is common sense…” And you went on to deny the factors contradicted free will. WTF? Now, that’s sad.
Yes, its true that the facts I stated are common sense. But here is another fact for you: Free will is common nonsense. It is an illusion passed down to us from our ignorant ancestors.
Very much intelligence can be wasted in ignorance when the need for illusion is great.
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Friday, September 23, 2011 4:35 PM
@unseenstrings Yea but if i was determined to say that, then there was no other possibility. So I really believe that it is completely insane for a determinists to judge anyone for there actions. It is insane. Because it’s like interacting with a rock. Im a rock. There is nothing that is going to change my path. Knowing that, you should agree and say hmm he’s right. That motherfucker.
@JLeeMagnetic, you’re a dynamic physical system. A rock isn’t. A very sophisticated robot with AI would also be a dynamic physical system. A rock can’t do what such a robot could do. But that doesn’t mean the robot would have free will any more than it means you have free will.
The fact that causality is true means that our conversation could effect the way each of us think. Free will would mean that you are not only free from such influences but from all influences–even “supernatural” ones.
If you had free will then you would be more like a rock rolling down a hill than the dynamic physical system that you are. No words could alter your path. No threats of hell-fire could make you afraid to think certain thoughts or question what you’d been taught. You could decide today to believe in a different god every day of the year. And you could start off the New Year as an atheist. Your mind would be free from the psychological ploys of salesmen, politicians and preachers alike. Free will?
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:54 PM
@unseenstrings Robot? I never said anything about being a robot. I am not sure what you are trying to say. I don’t think you read what i wrote and just started to write whatever you felt like.
@JLeeMagnetic, you said, “If you feel like a robot, you don’t have it for sure.” You insinuated that a robot would feel like a robot. I stated that unless you were a robot then you cannot state what it would feel like to be a robot. And since you are a biological robot of sorts created by natural selection, and since you’ve developed the feeling of having free will, then a robot can be programmed to feel as if it had free will. You don’t seem to understand what you said or what I stated in reply
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:56 PM
@unseenstrings Yes a complex rock. You are no more free than a rock. Even if you are more complex and move around, you are no more free. If causality is true, you cannot affect the way one thinks. The reason is because that was predetermined and was supposed to happen that way. You did not change anything. you feel like you did. You are still a rock. Just like rocks bouncing off each other. There is no error.
@JLeeMagnetic, earlier you stated that if someone keeps using the same excuse then he is immature. I found the word usage a bit unsophisticated. Now I suspect your reasoning and word usage may have revealed a bit about you. You’re a kid–a rebellious adolescent who thinks he has everything figured out. Now I could be wrong because naiveness isn’t exclusive to youth. I’ve met older people who had lived sheltered lives that seemed to be as naive as you
You are spouting lots of logical fallacies
So far seems every time you open your mouth you puke out a logical fallacy. I see an argument from ignorance. I see an argument from repetition. I see a continuum fallacy. I see an equivocation fallacy. I see a circular cause and consequence fallacy (free will). I see a false dilemma fallacy. I see fallacy of the single cause. I see an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. I see a mind projection fallacy. I see the hasty generalization fallacy. I see an appeal to ridicule fallacy & exaggeration fallacy
@JLeeMagnetic a dog isn’t a rock. He is a dynamic physical system. I can use vocalizations to have a causal effect on a dog’s mind. I can use vocalizations (words) to have a causal effect on the human mind too. But you want to call the human “a rock.” And you want to deny the fact that words can causally effect the human mind. I pointed out that a person with free will would be more akin to a rock than we are. Free will could not be influenced by anything. But you seemed to have ignored the fact
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:57 PM
@unseenstrings Unseenstrings, you are absolutely insane. The reason is because whatever i thought, was not my fault. Therefore for you to say stuff like wtf? and that’s sad, is insane. I am just like a rock bouncing down a hill, i have no control over what i do. You should be the person to understand that. You keep pulling a switch on me and saying but, if, yea. There is no butt. It is the way it is. You are doomed my friend. so am i.
@JLeeMagnetic, “insane,” now there you go with the ad hominem fallacy. And if any fallacy can be construed as evil in the world of logic, the ad hominem fallacy would be at the top of the list. You see, the ad hominem is an attack on the person instead of the argument being presented. It is quite irrelevant whether you are a naive bisexual young man or not. It is quite irreverent whether you are under psychiatric care. What matters in the world of logic is the argument you present, nothing else.
I can ask “WTF?” when I notice how my statements are being misrepresented. Did you read the Wiki article on determinism as I suggested. You are still spouting the same fallacious BS. Knowing the facts increases your awareness. You seem to be afraid to face up with the facts. What causes you to call a complex dynamic physical system a “rock.” A rock isn’t a complex dynamic physical system. Dogs are. Humans are. But not rocks. What causal factors have you in a state of denial? Its all your fault.
The San Andreas Fault is the earth’s fault. But I try to avoid use of the word “fault” because it is incompatible with reality. You see, one sense of the word requires “free will” to be assumed. And I already know free will is an illusion. Therefore, one meaning of the word promotes an illusion.
I’ll remind you again: when people talk about an event being causally determined, most don’t mean that “fate” or “God” predestination the event. Read the Wikipedia article as suggested please.
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:58 PM
@unseenstrings You are not free to do anything unseenstrings.
@JLeeMagnetic, your apparent ignorance and denial of the facts is sad. You see, I can do anything I WANT, providing it is within my physical limitations. However–and this is extremely important–I do not consciously create the WANT that I experience. Why did I WANT butter pecan ice cream in one instance but strawberry cheese-cake flavor in another? I did not choose to WANT one or the other. I merely experienced the want and chose accordingly. Now I WANT more to keep my blood glucose level down.
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:59 PM
@unseenstrings you are insane to even try to convince me since im a rock.
@JLeeMagnetic, yes its sad that you are so naive and represent determinism in such a distorted fashion. But, I do realize that if you are a young person as I suspect, then maybe life will teach you some important lessons as you continue to grow and get older–thereby increasing your awareness. However, if you happen to be a naive older person, then that would be really sad. Well, I guess if you died at a ripe old age in a blissful state of ignorance, it wouldn’t be so very sad for you personally
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Saturday, September 24, 2011 9:44 PM
@unseenstrings Unseenstrings, you’re saying i represent determinism in a distorted fashion? With all due respect, isn’t determinism just determinism? I mean aren’t I correct that if determinism is true, then that means i was determined to act naive? So how is that sad if I can’t do anything about it? You understand what Im saying? Say it in a way that makes sense to me.
@JLeeMagnetic, well if you have a reading comprehension problem and couldn’t quite grasp the Wikipedia article, then why didn’t you say so. I’ll try to explain as simply as possible. Determinism is an idea with variations that are hotly debated in philosophical circles. Are you a academic philosopher? I’m not. And I cannot imagine entering into a argument about something that even professional philosophers can’t agree on. However, causality is a simplified form of determinism used by everyone.
You use it. I use it. Science uses it. The doctor, when you go for a check up, uses it. Police investigators use it. The school cook uses it. When you set your alarm to awake in the morn, you assume causality. When I press the brake-pedal in my car, I’m assuming causality. When the doctor finds a disease, he assumes causality. When the police investigate a robbery, they look for profile, motive and other causal factors. Pretending the robber had free will is reserved mainly for court-room drama.
No one starts engaging into deep philosophical disputes concerning determinism when we discuss the functions of a car. No one engages into deep philosophical disputes concerning determinism when he wonders about the disease he has be diagnosed with. In fact, we can talk about the universe and the formation of our sun and solar system, yet no one starts engaging into hotly debated philosophical issues. The human brain is the only issue that gets infected with hotly debated philosophical disputes.
The logic boils down to this: If hotly debated philosophical issues are irrelevant to the scientific study of all other complex physical systems then it is irrelevant to the study of the human brain. In fact you can never truly understand any system when disputes abound. Science lets philosophers hammer out disputes between each other and science gets down to being scientific. Science has even been able to provide empirical data that contradicted long held philosophical beliefs
@JLeeMagnetic, one last causal factor relevant to why you appear like a rock, seemingly unaffected by my words: when a gazelle sees a lion attack and kill another gazelle, the imagery stored in memory is long-lasting and hard to erase. The human had an evolutionary history that also resulted in such terrifying memories being long-lasting and hard to erase. Furthermore, once the human has been effectively taught language, words can be used to create terrifying imagery and even illusions, etc, etc
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:00 PM
@unseenstrings So then it’s not my fault then right Unseenstrings? Im just a victim of the history of humans.
@JLeeMagnetic, remember what I said about the word, “fault?” Of course it is your fault, providing you consider the way you are a fault. The San Andreas Fault is the earth’s fault. If you had brown eyes and considered that a “fault,” then that would be your fault too. Yet I must ask, why do you want to use a word that isn’t clear and concise? It can only cause confusion. How about instead the word defect? Of course you have a defect, providing you consider yourself defective. Thats your opinion.
However as I’ve pointed out before: Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. And they don’t pop into existence by magic but develop according to physical laws.
You really don’t seem to be reading or absorbing my previous replies. I guess that is another defect
Are you insinuating that if you’d been placed in a sterile room at birth and attended by masked caretakers, never taught language or how to potty, and let out yesterday, then all your choices would be exactly as they now are?
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Monday, September 26, 2011 8:07 AM
@unseenstrings But from a practical sense, it is not my fault. If it was preordained it was not my fault. Just agree with me dammit.
@JLeeMagnetic, of course it is your fault just as much as the continental plates colliding are the earth’s fault. The San Andreas Fault isn’t a fault that I have or that you have, it is the earth’s fault. Likewise, your faults are none other than your own.
But I must ask, “Are you wanting to play the blame game?” Is it the metaphysical and ignorantly moralistic sense of the word that you mean? If so, then why not come out and state the fact clearly, concisely, and coherently? Why be vague?
There you go again trying to inject your superfluous belief in predestination. Practicality requires you to be practical. Trying to figure out the infinite regress of causes and effects for any physical system is not only impractical, it can prevent one from learning the immediate aspects of what causes the system to function. In fact, since all the causal factors that have acted on any given system are more like a network than a chain, backtracing each to the starting point would be impossible.
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Monday, September 26, 2011 8:10 AM
@unseenstrings Let me ask you a question. Do you talk like this in your everyday life with your peers/coworkers? I have to admit that I am really really really confused with most of the things you are pointing out. I cannot wrap my head around it. Now your confusing me with ”fault.” And talking about lions. Do you think like this all day long?
@JLeeMagnetic I find it ironic that you want to ask me another question but you’ve failed to answer any of the questions I’ve asked
At one time I was trying to keep up with the Joneses and didn’t have time to ponder life’s experience. All my conversations with peers/coworkers were rather superficial. Now I don’t have coworkers. I’m an elder. I’ve retired. I have no peers, per se. I didn’t move into a retirement community nor am I a socializer. I can sit back and take a look at the big picture
Most of my friends are Christian, which is understandable, since personal experience determines perception. And this is a country that at one time provided primarily only experiences conducive to developing Christians. Times change. Christians have boycotted corporations in the past and in turn corporations have become less friendly toward Fundamentalism.
When I read Einstein, Sam Harris, d’Holbach, and other intellectuals, I realize I’m in good company. They too saw free will as an illusion.
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Monday, September 26, 2011 6:56 PM
@unseenstrings Because im lost in the questions you asked. Ok let me ask you this. If you just met your grandaughters friend. Are you going to start talking to her about determinism right away? Say this is when she’s older. Also, you sound semi convincing when you wrote that letter. But i believe that if you were to pretend to believe in something else, you would also sound just as convincing
@JLeeMagnetic, you don’t even realize you are contradicting the notion of free will when you say I sound “convincing.” Remember, free will would mean the will is free from any influence, regardless of whether that influence is natural or supernatural
If I just met my granddaughter’s friend, and she was having a problem with self-acceptance, then I may mention some of the causal factors involved. Otherwise, the belief in free will is tied to too many other concepts for me to tackle all at once
Just be aware that the open letter to my granddaughter wasn’t just to my granddaughter. It was directed toward anyone who now has children or who may one day have some.
The people who play the blame game with their children are not acting in the child’s best interest. When the child misbehaves, then the parent should wonder why instead of blaming the child for being as any normal child would be under the circumstances. And attempts should be made to “correct” the child without playing the blame game.
I probably couldn’t “pretend” to believe in something I didn’t believe and be convincing. But no doubt some actors and actresses can. Mirror neurons in your brain can make you feel and thus react to the emotional displays of others. That is the reason drama is such an effective tool in the hands of the propagandist.
Note that nowhere have I attributed the thoughts or behavior of individuals to free will. That is because the notion of free will effectively stops one from wondering about causes
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Monday, September 26, 2011 6:57 PM
@unseenstrings Also I realized if randomness comes into play, then it means that you have a free will. You did say so yourself that it might come into pay. I myself believe that randomness in its whole is the same thing as free will or partly. Determinists have yet to figure everything out and it doesn’t look like they will disprove free will anytime soon. If I believe something, you can’t prove me wrong because it’s just a belief. I can believe in unicorns and if i do it’s a true statement.
@JLeeMagnetic, causal determinism would mean you don’t have free will. And causal indeterminacy would mean you don’t have free will. I’ve already pointed those facts out. Sam Harris put it something like this: If you are magically in charge of your actions, somehow separated from your physical brain, but every once in awhile some form of randomness enter the equation, then that wouldn’t be free will but insanity. I gave the example of choosing to change the baby but instead killing the president
Should you happen to believe in unicorns then a true statement would be that you BELIEVE in unicorns. No statement of the truth or falsity of your belief is possible merely based on your firm conviction that it is true. The same applies to any metaphysical claim–even if it happens to be claims of a soul or of free will
When you say “determinists,” do you mean philosophers? Please define the word since you keep using it
Also, no one has “everything figured out” and I doubt such can ever be
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Monday, September 26, 2011 7:00 PM
@unseenstrings The thing is if somehow hypothetically speaking, more evidence suggested a soul or free will (Im not saying it is) But if it did and your logic was not in favor, I think you would get pissed. You do not want people to have freedom. You want them to be spectators, but not have a say in anything. Your whole joy in life is debunking free will and if you couldn’t do it, you would probably become suicidal im guessing. On other hand if determinism is true, then i don’t feel shame.
@JLeeMagnetic, you’re thinking is a false presumption. I believed in free will for many years, because that is what I had been taught. But when I stepped back and saw that Iran was creating Muslims, India was creating Hindus, and Tibet had for many years created Buddhists, then I started wondering. The more I looked into the issue the more I saw that free will was an illusion. Why would I get pissed if suddenly scientific evidence were produced proving free will is true? Thats silly for sure.
No doubt I would experience a very unsettling paradigm shift similar to the one I experienced when I realized free will is an illusion. And likewise the adjustment might be a bit painful to me. But I don’t see where it would make me suicidal, unless you mean it would make me start playing the blame game. And the blame game might make me experience so much resentment and rage that I may become suicidal. Is that what you mean? Is that what you feel? Would you like to kill all the “bad” people?
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:54 AM
@unseenstrings But there r many smart people who also believe every bit as much as u, but they believe free will isnt an illusion. I cant say that your more convincing then them, although your convincing. So i can’t be on your side just like that. The reason y u might get pissed if scientific evidence suggested free will, is cuz u would think you wasted your time and maybe taught your grand daughter the wrong thing in the letter, when you could have chose otherwise. That’s what im guessing.
@JLeeMagnetic, but I couldn’t have chosen otherwise, not based on my character and the fact I realize free will is an illusion. I was compelled to do what I felt was best for my granddaughter. It made me feel good to teach her something that could give her an edge in life.
“Most scientists today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind.” – Richard Dawkins
You may know some smart people who are ignorant about the most recent findings of science. Free will is a belief based on ignorance.
@JLeeMagnetic, the primary reason you feel, ” i can’t be on your side just like that” is because evolutionary forces have not fashioned your mind to flip-flop back and to between contradictory beliefs. I already covered that. I covered that also in my video, “What Caused TheWoodsOfJordan?” (watch?v=Vriw4vIntBQ). Bear in mind that YT User, TheWoodsOfJordan was flip-flopping back and to between different versions of Christianity (not perfectly contradictory), and he was also on psychotropic drugs.
JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:54 AM
@unseenstrings Here’s my next question. can the future be predictable? Why or why not? My friend says everything can be calculated, even knowing what your gonna eat at what time tomorrow, lets say its tuna. He said i could not prove the prediction wrong. The scary thing is EVEN if i TRIED, i would lost control of my body and i would be forced to eat the tuna. Now that is ANTI free will to me. Can that happen? If you could calculate the future, you can’t eat something else? HOW SCARY. explain.
@JLeeMagnetic, the future may be predictable providing all causal factors are known. However, we are too ignorant to make an absolute prediction of the future. We can say the future will turn out like so-and-so providing such-and-such factors don’t change. And we may make some fairly accurate prediction about the future of one small segment, such as the future of space research. Otherwise, accurate prediction concerning every future state and event is impossible.
Now in order to predict what you are going to eat tomorrow, one would need to know your eating habits, what time you usually get hungry, what food is available, and whether you will be subjected to anything that could effect your appetite, such as medications or stimulating advertisements. I doubt your friend would have enough knowledge to make an accurate prediction.
The only way you could be forced to eat tuna is if you were literally forced, or if you couldn’t get anything to eat but tuna.
By the way, I cannot read but 961 characters of the personal message you sent (the portion that was sent along with notification of the personal message to my email address). You see, I can login to reply to comments. But when I try to view my YT Channel or my Inbox, I get the message that I MUST create a Google account and link it to my You Tube account. Fuck Google.
Google’s motto is to “do no evil.” But more people have been killed and tortured in the name of “good” than any other reason.