I want to believe...

[wrightguy0]

I believe Werewolves and other monsters actually exist and that there are people with abilities beyond our understanding.

 

[Little Woodsman]

I try not to believe in anything that I do not have evidence for. That being said, I have seen some things which I could not explain.

One was a big white creature that moved fast enough to almost appear as a white blur. My friend and I were walking down a hill surrounded by woods to our cars parked at the bottom. We could see something big and white near the cars when all of a sudden it ran up the hill and past us in to the woods.

Where were you and about how big was the creature? I ask because here in the mid-west/south-west parts of
America & in Northern Mexico there are coyotes & coyote/dog hybrids that are often a light gray color and
and can move *really* fast when they want to.

It was summer, in the woods of eastern Canada. And this "beast" was easily bigger than I.
It was in the middle of the night, but the creature had such white fur that it was very easily visible.

It's hard to give any more detail, as it easily traveled 15 meters uphill then back in to the woods in under 5 seconds.
At least, it felt like 5 seconds. Difficult to judge these things that happened so long ago.

Well it definitely wasn't a coyote then....
(You don't have coyotes in Canada, do you?)
Was it a quadraped? If it was it could have been a wolf.

 

[hooblabla6262]

I try not to believe in anything that I do not have evidence for. That being said, I have seen some things which I could not explain.

One was a big white creature that moved fast enough to almost appear as a white blur. My friend and I were walking down a hill surrounded by woods to our cars parked at the bottom. We could see something big and white near the cars when all of a sudden it ran up the hill and past us in to the woods.

Where were you and about how big was the creature? I ask because here in the mid-west/south-west parts of
America & in Northern Mexico there are coyotes & coyote/dog hybrids that are often a light gray color and
and can move *really* fast when they want to.

It was summer, in the woods of eastern Canada. And this "beast" was easily bigger than I.
It was in the middle of the night, but the creature had such white fur that it was very easily visible.

It's hard to give any more detail, as it easily traveled 15 meters uphill then back in to the woods in under 5 seconds.
At least, it felt like 5 seconds. Difficult to judge these things that happened so long ago.

Well it definitely wasn't a coyote then....
(You don't have coyotes in Canada, do you?)
Was it a quadraped? If it was it could have been a wolf.

A wolf was what it always made me think of. Only bigger. With exceptionally white fur. And I can't stress how fast this thing was. Literally moved like a blur. I would have thought I was crazy if my friend hadn't been standing right beside me to witness the beast as well.
But from what I can recall, it was a quadraped. Though to run up a hill that fast, I think some sort of bipedal beast would probably go down on all fours.

And we do have coyotes. And coyote/wolf hybrids are kinda common-ish.

 

[Little Woodsman]

I try not to believe in anything that I do not have evidence for. That being said, I have seen some things which I could not explain.

One was a big white creature that moved fast enough to almost appear as a white blur. My friend and I were walking down a hill surrounded by woods to our cars parked at the bottom. We could see something big and white near the cars when all of a sudden it ran up the hill and past us in to the woods.

Where were you and about how big was the creature? I ask because here in the mid-west/south-west parts of
America & in Northern Mexico there are coyotes & coyote/dog hybrids that are often a light gray color and
and can move *really* fast when they want to.

It was summer, in the woods of eastern Canada. And this "beast" was easily bigger than I.
It was in the middle of the night, but the creature had such white fur that it was very easily visible.

It's hard to give any more detail, as it easily traveled 15 meters uphill then back in to the woods in under 5 seconds.
At least, it felt like 5 seconds. Difficult to judge these things that happened so long ago.

Well it definitely wasn't a coyote then....
(You don't have coyotes in Canada, do you?)
Was it a quadraped? If it was it could have been a wolf.

A wolf was what it always made me think of. Only bigger. With exceptionally white fur. And I can't stress how fast this thing was. Literally moved like a blur. I would have thought I was crazy if my friend hadn't been standing right beside me to witness the beast as well.
But from what I can recall, it was a quadraped. Though to run up a hill that fast, I think some sort of bipedal beast would probably go down on all fours.

And we do have coyotes. And coyote/wolf hybrids are kinda common-ish.

Could it have been one of those? Like I said before, coyotes can run ridiculously fast when they want to,
and wolves aren't exactly slow either.
Though from the sound of it, you're familiar enough with both those kinds of animals to have recognized
one when you saw it.
So yeah, bit of a puzzle.

 

[Phuctifyno]

All that proves is how far you're willing to go to make a point.

Odd, that.

Willing
1. Ready, eager, or prepared to do something.
2. Given or done readily: "willing obedience".

Has nothing to do with free will.

It sure does. Check this out: willing / free will

In order to be willing to do something, the option to not be willing must be present, thus giving the willer a choice, which the willer will make using his free will, or his willie's free will.

Spoiler: Click on this, if you're willing.

BAM

I sincerly hope you never take a philosophy course, or that you're just trolling.
Saying will does not prove free will. Will exists. Here's it's definition:
Will
-Intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen: "he was doing what the saint willed".

Free will on the other hand, does not exist.

I've got a best friend going for his Ph.D. in it. I sincerely hope I never take it either.

For starters, the "will" in free will, willing, or even just on it's own, is the same word. Adding "free" to it does create a new term with it's own baggage, but does not change the meaning of that one word. Okay, so let's try this.

Free Will
1. free and independent choice, voluntary decision: "you took on the responsibility of your own free will"
2. philosophy, the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces

Free will exists!


Do you have anything more than definitions? Life experience, maybe? An idea of your own, at least? If somebody claims to only believe in facts and logic, as you did, that person cannot rely on books for anything. It's an epistemological fallacy. Only first-hand experience can produce true knowledge. You weren't there yourself when the facts in the book were discovered, recorded, or decided upon, so you're really only taking it on faith that the book is true. If the fact that everybody else you know also believes it is enough to convince you, that's fine, and it is most other people's measuring stick as well. But that's not logic; that's a choice.

 

[BytByte]

Oddest thing that I believe in would be Deja Vu. Usually I have some dream that is me just doing some mundane task that would normally happen in life. After a few weeks or months, I am literally in the same position doing the same thing. Since it is so inconsequential, I don't really dedicate any time to trying to prove it or something, just let it happen.

 

[shadyh8er]

I want to believe that whatever happens after we die is completely up to us. Like we can choose to come back as a ghost, choose to get reincarnated, etc. Becoming nothing when we die is just....weird.

 

[Arakasi]

All that proves is how far you're willing to go to make a point.

Odd, that.

Willing
1. Ready, eager, or prepared to do something.
2. Given or done readily: "willing obedience".

Has nothing to do with free will.

It sure does. Check this out: willing / free will

In order to be willing to do something, the option to not be willing must be present, thus giving the willer a choice, which the willer will make using his free will, or his willie's free will.

Spoiler: Click on this, if you're willing.

BAM

I sincerly hope you never take a philosophy course, or that you're just trolling.
Saying will does not prove free will. Will exists. Here's it's definition:
Will
-Intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen: "he was doing what the saint willed".

Free will on the other hand, does not exist.

I've got a best friend going for his Ph.D. in it. I sincerely hope I never take it either.

For starters, the "will" in free will, willing, or even just on it's own, is the same word. Adding "free" to it does create a new term with it's own baggage, but does not change the meaning of that one word. Okay, so let's try this.

Free Will
1. free and independent choice, voluntary decision: "you took on the responsibility of your own free will"
2. philosophy, the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces

Free will exists!


Do you have anything more than definitions? Life experience, maybe? An idea of your own, at least? If somebody claims to only believe in facts and logic, as you did, that person cannot rely on books for anything. It's an epistemological fallacy. Only first-hand experience can produce true knowledge. You weren't there yourself when the facts in the book were discovered, recorded, or decided upon, so you're really only taking it on faith that the book is true. If the fact that everybody else you know also believes it is enough to convince you, that's fine, and it is most other people's measuring stick as well. But that's not logic; that's a choice.

Who's to say I didn't come to the revalation on my own first and then read it elsewhere?
Because that's what happened.
If the brain is nothing more than an advanced biological computer, by what means do we have choice? It's all determined by prior events (determinism) or prior events with some element of randomness (indeterminism). There is nothing free about your choices being bound to one destiny or having them be partially random.

 

[Phuctifyno]

Who's to say I didn't come to the revalation on my own first and then read it elsewhere?
Because that's what happened.

You imply it when you offer irrelevent definitions as an argument.

If the brain is nothing more than an advanced biological computer, by what means do we have choice? It's all determined by prior events (determinism) or prior events with some element of randomness (indeterminism). There is nothing free about your choices being bound to one destiny or having them be partially random.

(determinism)
That's like saying the cake is a lie because only eggs, milk, flour, and sugar exist. Those are just ingredients. Of course prior events will shape your choices, as will the limitations of your choices, and mood effecting factors like the weather or chemicals inside you or other subconsious reactions to your environment, or maybe even an evil genius who's controlling you with a computer chip. These variables influence you but they don't force you. Except the evil genius; he's a forceful bastard. Additional point: free will can be overcome by any of these things, but that doesn't negate it's existence.

(indeterminism)
If a choice you made was random, how exactly is free will not involved? If there are an infinite number of possiblities available, it's up to you to grab one out of the ether. I know you're implying a case where the choices are unkown, in which case no specific desire is involved (nor responsibility for consequences of said choice), but it is still free will that is used to choose one blank door from another. That's not what I'm talking about, though, so let me talk more about getting naked [licks lips, breathes heavily].

When I said I'd stripped to prove a point about free will, you said it was a show of how far I was willing to go. That isn't the right interpretation, since I'm not on a railway and it isn't an issue of distance. The point is that was one specific thing I chose to do out of an infinite selection. I could have punched my opponent, or sung a song, or spoke in French or gibberish, or lit something on fire, or stood on my head, or poured milk all over my writhing naked body, or just left, or whatever else. I picked that one thing. What influenced me is that I was trying to win an argument and it was good for a laugh, but I wasn't forced into it, and there were tons of other things I could have done for the same effect.

When you apply hindsight, it's all too easy to say "well, no, you did that one thing therefore that is the only thing you could have done", which is garbage. Obviously it can't be changed now because it's over and time doesn't go backwards, but at the time it could have gone one of many different ways, and the linchpin was the choice that I freely made.

 

[flying_whimsy]

I like to think that Atlantis was real and had super advanced technology, but a mishap with nanomachines wiped them all out and the only reason anything on earth was left was because someone sacrificed themselves while setting off a really big EMP. There's no trace of atlantis because the nanomachines literally ripped it apart at the molecular level.

Yes, I know it's not true, but it would be cool if it was.

Also, there's a surprising amount of deeply philosophical posts in this thread, many regarding free will and determinism. As someone with a BA in the field, it sure has been fun to read.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I always kinda wanted to believe soylent green was people just cause that would be a cool story (and means to solve a population problem) in a more morbid area of my mind.

other than that, I like to believe KH3 and HL2E3 and HL3 are either a) never going to be done or b) already done, game developrs are just setting on them because they know at some point the market will really really get bad and then they'll release them and stand as gods among men.

 

[Blow_Pop]

I want to believe that the blatant sexism that still runs rampant in hiring women to work in the automotive business as mechanics will go away and I'll actually finally get a job doing what I love. Unfortunately as I'm still in the same situation I've been in for almost 10 years now......it's getting harder and harder to believe it.

Also that I will be able to run around at least shirtless like half the population gets to without getting arrested and having to register as a sex offender for it.

And that eye bleach and brain bleach will be invented to target specific memories or sights.

 

[Fluffythepoo]

I believe fast food is good for me, tho bad for the environment.

 

[Gatx]

I believe in aliens, and my reasoning is pretty much on par with a lot of the reasons already stated. Also that some cryptids have to be real, especially aquatic ones. Personally I think researchers are too closed minded when it comes to looking for evidence of these things.

I believe fast food is good for me, tho bad for the environment.

The documentary Fat Head, a response to Supersize Me, shows that you can actually lose weight with a diet of only fast food as long as you avoid starchy foods like fries, mashed potatoes, etc., and sugary sodas and dessert items, and get a bit of regular exercise (nothing hardcore, just a daily walk and some aerobics or something). So while not "healthy" per se, not quite deserving of all the villainizing it gets.

 

[Phuctifyno]

Curious Phuctifyno, how much exposure have you had to the idea that there is no Free Will?

Well, I've started and quit smoking, I've been with my girlfriend for five years, and I have a daughter... [laugh,laugh,laugh,laugh]
There's also that friend of mine pursuing the Ph.D. in philosophy who carries on about it from time to time.

Because from what I can see you have used the most basic and primitive rebuttals that are very common amongst those who simply have a knee-jerk reaction to the suggestion that their free will is nothing more than an illusion.

Ugh ungh. [drools, scratches crotch] Huh? Ghghgrgrg.

Perhaps, before jumping to a position actually do some research into the discussion. Reason being do you really think you, handsome, verile, omg so hawt, browser has instantly debunked the position(s) of (in)determinism put forth by the likes of Laplace, Hawking and Einstein. <--(?)

Ah, okay. Just like the other guy(girl?); all reference, no substance. Don't stand on the shoulders of giants and expect to impress or engage anyone; put it in your own words (I'm afraid you might have to risk pseudo-intellectuals thinking you're primitive). I have no interest in arguing with famous physicist quote-mines, and I'm not going to rely on Will James, Rob Kane, Jean-Paul Sartre, or even Yoda to talk for me. I've heard all about determinism/indeterminism and am not convinced they are all-encompassing of the human experience, and you and Arakasi aren't doing much to expound or expand the material... nothing at all, really; just definitions in his(her?) case, and name-dropping in yours. I can understand that it's pretty hard to believe in free will if your own has atrophied.

Just saiyan.

Not much.

 

[Jfswift]

I don't like to say I "believe" in things.

But I do think that some people have strange "powers" if you will, or something that has not been explained by science as of yet.

The main thing are those "Deja Vu" moments that lots of people seem to have. Just the other day I had one. I was flipping channels and I came to the show Rosanne. I saw a scene and was able to recite the dialogue between John Goodman and Rosanne verbatim for a good minute or two. It was as though I just remembered what would happen since I'd seen it before, just like I can do with some dialogue in the first 3 Star Wars films since I watched them many times. But I never have once watched the show Rosanne. Its not my thing, and I've never walked through a room while someone else was watching it or anything else. I just don't watch that show, and yet I knew what the characters would say exactly. What the hell.

I've had other experiences like that too, where I'll be in a conversation with a friend and know what happens next before we get to that point in the conversation. That Deja Vu... has anyone else had these? or know what I'm talking about?

I don't know what to think, maybe our dreams are something more than just dreams? Who knows.

There's a movie called, "Dark City" that might interest you. Anyway, I experience Deja Vu every once in a while. It is a strange feeling, like you've done all this before. I've also had idle thoughts, about a phrase or a person arriving. Just something small like that, only to see it occur soon thereafter. It's happened enough times that I find it hard to believe it's just coincidence.

I wonder about ghosts too. I'm reasonably certain I've seen them on three separate occasions now, but that's another story, for another day.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

(determinism)
That's like saying the cake is a lie because only eggs, milk, flour, and sugar exist. Those are just ingredients. Of course prior events will shape your choices, as will the limitations of your choices, and mood effecting factors like the weather or chemicals inside you or other subconsious reactions to your environment, or maybe even an evil genius who's controlling you with a computer chip. These variables influence you but they don't force you. Except the evil genius; he's a forceful bastard. Additional point: free will can be overcome by any of these things, but that doesn't negate it's existence.

No no no no. Youve misunderstood and as such are easily destroying a very stupid version of determinism. I wont call it a straw man because you definitely were not intending to be malicious or intentional, i think it was just explained a bit poorly.

Imagine a box in a zero g environment with 2 bouncing balls floating around in it. If you told me their direction, speed, their bouncyness and the bouncyness of the wall as figures i could predict their motions forever basically. The balls interact and bounce around according to very basic physics. Most A level mechanics students could continue to predict the path of the balls. It really isnt difficult.

The idea behind that is, when the big bang occured, all that happened was we had a LOT of balls in a VERY big box bouncing around. Where you to be omnipotent about ALL the particles you could predict their movements and interactions forever. You could know where each molecule is and ever will be because the interaction of ALL particles is, according to some models of physics, 100% predictable. There is NO random with colliding particles. There are laws and they are followed each time, exactly.

The logic follows that, in your brain, a series of molecules and electrical charges decide what you think and do, not in an indirect sense, but DIRECTLY. Each synapse firing. Each calcium ion entering each cell to produce the electrical charge that fires off a thought on your head. This isnt "Previous actions affect what you do" this is "The particles moving in your brain are behaving according to predictable physics, those particles are what make up your consciousness". Said particles behave according to the same principle as my original box and ball scenario. The electricity is similarly predictable. As such where i to know the EXACT starting conditions of your brain and had enough time to calculate the movement of every particle i could know where each one will move and what will happen. Unless you have a way of changing the particles motion in any direction you want and thus break the laws of popular models of physics free will is impossible.

There are many good arguments against this though. Uncertainty theory DOES imply the interaction of particles can be changed based on how they observed and how people interact with them just by watching. Its enough in my mind to throw doubt on the concept. However its important to know that you do not disporve determinism by saying:

"I chose to click this thread" because the real meat of the theory is in the laws of physics. Unless you can demonstrate that you can, at any time, choose to move a particle in a way no physics could predict ever free well cannot exist by the use of demonstration. Instead you need to undermine the idea that all interactions between particles can only go a single way.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

That we're living in a computer simulation of a universe. Not like "Everyone's a program, and I'm the only real sentient/sapient being" solipsism a la Breakfast of Champions, but like "We're all programs." I also don't think it'd be like the Matrix where we're essentially brains in jars, but we're actually programs with no corporeal form in the universe in which our simulation exists.

Mathematically speaking, if it is physically possible to create an AI program capable of intelligent thought, then the chances of you being right is almost 100%.

This is because the hypothetical program we are a part of could have been created at any point in time, but there is only one point in time that is "real." So the odds against this being reality are near-infinity to one.

Furthermore, us being programs means we could have been created 10 seconds ago, and our memories are simply loaded in. This would explain why we never notice any glitches (as a program as complex as our universe would have millions): they probably happen all the time, but our memory is periodically altered and defragmented. Maybe that's what dreaming is...

Incidentally, if you've never seen Dark City (1998) I'd highly recommend it.
It's a great movie which explores a similar premise.