By having the abillity to question your existence, do you not prove that, at least on a basic level, that you have the abillity to choose, such as choosing to post this on a forum?
Poll: Free will, does it exist?
- Thread starter Sad Robot
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, because you wouldn't have a choice at all if you had been aborted instead of raised by a loving family, who gave you a good education and could provide you with internet access.Booze Zombie said:
Any choice you make will always have already been influenced by (1)environmental effects such as your upbringing and (2)character effects, since your personality is a combination of your genes and environment.
And your choices are so strongly affected by these 2 effects that if you could see the full extent of the two effects you could accurately predict a test subjects "free" choice, even though from their perspective they freely choose between options.
That's the argument, at least.
This is true, and usually I'm more than happy to partake in them most of the time because, believe it or not, I'm all about the rhetorical flourishes--but sometimes you just have to step back and realize it's all a great big pissing contest. =PUszi said:
I kid, I kid, somewhat.
Yes.
Please note that this is coming from an atheist. Science would have us believe that our actions are dictated by automatic reactions based on our experiences in the world. We choose the choices that we choose because we believe that will receive the most pleasure by choosing them (based on our own personal definition of pleasure).
In most situations with most human beings, this is absolutely true. A man will choose to eat a candy bar because he likes chocolate.
However, we have multiple sides to our mind. The most prevalent of these are the "primal" side and the "moral" side. We will use the candy bar again. The primal part of the brain would dictate that he absolutely eat that chocolate bar. But perhaps he is attempting to lose weight, or maybe he gave up chocolate for lent. In these cases, the moral part of the brain will, in all likelihood, oppose the primal.
This is free will.
The only thing that a human being cannot avoid in their life is conflict, because free will is conflict between primal desires and moral beliefs.
A human being will, in all situations, be led to a particular choice based on situations and experiences past. However, we have the option to choose any number of OTHER choices. That is free will.
Please note that this is coming from an atheist. Science would have us believe that our actions are dictated by automatic reactions based on our experiences in the world. We choose the choices that we choose because we believe that will receive the most pleasure by choosing them (based on our own personal definition of pleasure).
In most situations with most human beings, this is absolutely true. A man will choose to eat a candy bar because he likes chocolate.
However, we have multiple sides to our mind. The most prevalent of these are the "primal" side and the "moral" side. We will use the candy bar again. The primal part of the brain would dictate that he absolutely eat that chocolate bar. But perhaps he is attempting to lose weight, or maybe he gave up chocolate for lent. In these cases, the moral part of the brain will, in all likelihood, oppose the primal.
This is free will.
The only thing that a human being cannot avoid in their life is conflict, because free will is conflict between primal desires and moral beliefs.
A human being will, in all situations, be led to a particular choice based on situations and experiences past. However, we have the option to choose any number of OTHER choices. That is free will.
Sad Robot said:I don't really either, which is why I don't understand why you brought it up.Samcanuck said:
What do you base this idea on, though? As far as what current scientific understanding suggests, the universe is a lot older than life. So at some point life began. And likely it will end at some point. And as far as we know, life, not to mention intelligent life, is a an incredibly rare phenomenon. It's more of a footnote in the history of the universe, rather than its centrepiece.Samcanuck said:
No, I don't think I can quite wrap my head around it. Maybe that's a fault of mine, but I can't seem to understand how you suggest that life never began or never ends. Furthermore, I don't see how it relates to this topic.Samcanuck said:
What view..? That I don't understand how humanity could ever hope to understand how to solve this issue? No, I can't really understand how you can prove that something doesn't exist.Samcanuck said:
No...it only points at the universe existing prior to human life. Not life itself. Do you actually have any proof or logic behind your views?
It relates in how free will can exist or not and in comparison to what. How is that hard to understand?
I don't really know how someone can prove something exists without proof. So I guess we are on opposites. I prefer proof thanks, if you have none, and no logical explaination, than its bullshit to me.
Might be the text, but you are not trying to meet me half way. In fact your kinda talking like a douche as far as my reading, so I think I'm done talking to you.
I thought it was a well known fact that as far as current understanding goes, life, on Earth at least, came to be much later than the planet itself, about a billion years later or so. Earth being the only place where life is known to exist, and the universe being much older than the Earth, by about nine billion years.Samcanuck said:
Can you give me an example of what you're talking about? I still don't understand, I'm sorry. :/Samcanuck said:
Well, the thing is... You assume free will exists, yes? Wouldn't the burden of proof be on you, then? For the record, I'm not asking you to produce evidence here, just trying to get a grasp of your logic.Samcanuck said:
No, I'm not trying to meet you half way because I don't think I understand what you're saying, and what little I do think I understand, I don't agree with. Why should I meet you half way? Compromise my beliefs for the sake of civil discussion? I don't think that's necessary, I believe I've already had civil discussions about this topic in here with people who disagree with my view. I'm sorry if I sound like a douche, I don't mean to, though according to some people I probably am one.Samcanuck said:
Semantics, semantics. You say it's a philosophical question, fine. I think it's a scientific question in theory, like any question you can think of. Whether it is scientifically relevant, is dependent on whether you can make a valid theory out of it.Uszi said:
This debate, however, isn't scientific, nor was the poll I posted. It's philosophical, a matter of how you look at the world, what deductions and rationalizations you make based on what you know of the universe, yourself, and your place in it.
It's not about "winning" a debate but how you perceive the world, what you find reasonable and plausible - although, people tend to be highly competitive and on the internet especially it quickly becomes a competition, a pissing contest of rhetorics, for me as well.
The same goes for the god debates.
Aren't all internet discussions just a great big pissing contest?Aphroditty said:
