Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Imheretoo

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 17, 2018, 12:25:43 AM »
I just found this article while looking for some studies that support free will. This does not support free will but it does help explain some of my arguments, and more, more in depth than I did.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/one-among-many/201803/five-arguments-free-will

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 16, 2018, 09:12:47 PM »
I going to begin this reply with a request to you to not insult me. Not because I really care about the opinion a person who I have never met has of me, but because I am trying to have an intellectually honest debate with you.

You're aren't being intellectually honest, though. You're making assertions with no evidence, defining terms based on your own whims, and claiming you've done research into natural sciences when you've clearly done no such thing. You keep asking people to prove you wrong and yet you've never once proven yourself right in the first place. This is a mockery of intellectual discussion, not a portrayal of the real thing, and you should be ashamed for even claiming yourself to be intellectually honest.
I admit that I made the assertion that given enough of the factors it would be possible to predict the actions of a person. I admit that this would be impossible to do. However, I claimed this because my research into the studies done in psychology and neurology have never come to the conclusion that the only way to explain someone's decision in because of their free will. The specific focuses of each study (such as the amygdala, PFC, vmPFC, etc.) each give explanations for various behaviors exhibited by people. Again, no study has ever come to the conclusion that a decision is based on "free will". My definition for "control" can be found in a google search and my definition for "I" does come from my own search for what is the closest thing to me, which must be the thing which perceives everything else. If you would like to debate about semantics I'm up for it.
I want to make it clear that I do not think I have proven myself right. If I truly believed that then I wouldn't even try to debate because I already know I am correct. The reason I am here is because I am looking for some line of reasoning that disproves my claim and supports the claim that people act on their own free will.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 16, 2018, 08:11:27 PM »
Again, I disagree. There are very few things in this world that we can predict but as I said in a previous reply, the fact that the weather forecast is usually wrong is not an argument that weather has free will.

We can't accurately forecast weather because we don't entirely understand weather. Likewise, you can't forecast a person's actions because you don't understand a person. You're making a claim you can't prove, the basis of all ignorance.

I have personally come to the conclusion that almost all of what we do is inevitable because of my own research in psychology, neurology, and other natural sciences which have in depth and evidence based explanations for what goes on when we make a decision and why we choose a certain one. This is combined with my own experiences when being mindful in which I sit down and attempt to quiet my mind and disown the thoughts in my head and watch them.

It sounds like you're an uneducated person who is unable to reconcile their lack of knowledge with their desire to know. Just a single subject of science can take a lifetime to properly understand and I wager that you understand absolutely zero of them. This is a very "I'm 14 and this is deep" post usually made by people who have come to a conclusion based on whatever happens to be rolling through their head at any given time. Hilariously enough, you've already claimed you can't control your own thoughts, so I think the two issues are deeply related.
Sorry, I missed this last bit.
I define control as the power to direct. I define "I" as thing that perceives everything around it, including various feelings and sensations in my own head.
So when I say that "I" don't have "control" over the thoughts in my head, I mean that there is nothing in my head that is separate from the thoughts which seem to control them. The thing in control is not the "I".

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 16, 2018, 08:01:54 PM »
Again, I disagree. There are very few things in this world that we can predict but as I said in a previous reply, the fact that the weather forecast is usually wrong is not an argument that weather has free will.

We can't accurately forecast weather because we don't entirely understand weather. Likewise, you can't forecast a person's actions because you don't understand a person. You're making a claim you can't prove, the basis of all ignorance.

I have personally come to the conclusion that almost all of what we do is inevitable because of my own research in psychology, neurology, and other natural sciences which have in depth and evidence based explanations for what goes on when we make a decision and why we choose a certain one. This is combined with my own experiences when being mindful in which I sit down and attempt to quiet my mind and disown the thoughts in my head and watch them.

It sounds like you're an uneducated person who is unable to reconcile their lack of knowledge with their desire to know. Just a single subject of science can take a lifetime to properly understand and I wager that you understand absolutely zero of them.
I going to begin this reply with a request to you to not insult me. Not because I really care about the opinion a person who I have never met has of me, but because I am trying to have an intellectually honest debate with you. Thank you.
If we lack understanding in the area of weather as we do in the area of people's decision making, then does that mean that weather has just as much chance of having free will as people? Why stop at saying that people have free will and not continue looking at the functions and mechanics of the brain and what conclusions studies in psychology come to? These are areas of science that make evidence based claims of how people make decisions.
Your last two claims are more directed at me than the argument itself so could you elaborate as to why you think my reasoning for my belief is wrong?
I would also like to add that I am more than ready to believe in free will, but I just don't think that I have seen reasoning that has been convincing enough for me.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 16, 2018, 05:35:07 PM »
People pick their perceived path of pleasure. My belief that I am predestined to have a certain kind of dinner in no way diminishes the fact that I enjoy dinner, I need dinner, and it will be my (say it with me now) perceived path of pleasure.

This seems pretty inarguable because there's literally no way to prove it true or false. No matter what scenario myself or Thork gives, you'll just say "oh whether you know it or not, that's your perceived path of pleasure". I've done things that I've gained no pleasure from because I feel like it's The Right Thing To Do™, even if I selfishly don't want to do it and feel shitty and grumpy about it. But I'm guessing you'll say I think it'll bring me something in the long run or whatever. Which, again, loops around to my point of what's the point of even discussing this if literally any answer we give is going to be rebutted with "actually that's your perceived path of pleasure, either now or later"? If I'm writing a song and need a rhyme and decide lamp or damp or ramp or tramp, I am exercising free will and considering it, and I will end up going with one for a myriad of reasons. Maybe it fits the song better, maybe I like something else but think another works better thematically.

But, again, I'm guessing: Perceived Path of Pleasure©
Also, things that feel bad physically are usually done only if they feel good in your head. As in you would feel bad if you didn't do something that benefits someone else. In this case, if doing something hurts you but helps someone else, then you will try to figure out if it would feel worse to help someone or don't do anything. In any case, you will pick the one that feels better compare to the other. Again, unless your a masochist, you will pick the path that feels the best. And that feeling does not need to be physical.

Keep in mind, it's the determinists oppressing all free will with no escape.

What you perceive as pain or pleasure is a result of your personal biochemistry and personal psychology. You biochemistry is the result of everything that ever happened to your genetics since the first organism. Your personal psychology is is the result of everything that ever happened to you. The things that happen to you genetically and psychologically was spawned by the events that happened before and they were spawned by the previous events. Their theory says that everything you do or feel can be traced back to the beginning of time. If you change your mind about something at the last minute, that last minute change is as preprogrammed in you as your hair color.

It's easy for someone to connect aspects of our existence to a large scale frame of reference that can't be proven. We need to come up with a thought experiment or equation trying to connect with a frame of reference beyond all that is possible. There was Goedel's Ontological Proof formula which purported to prove the existence of God but my understanding is that it had problems that rendered it unusable.


So the first one to develop an equation connecting our everything to some other everything beyond our everything wins a $5 Amazon gift card.
Well I'm no mathematician but I have a vague idea that if you ask "why" enough times, you'll get to the answer. My problem with free will is that if you ask why someone does something and someone gives a reason, and then you keep asking and they keep answering, their final answer will have to be free will. If you ask why it is that free will is the answer, well, it isn't possible to answer that question because if there was then it wouldn't be free will. On the other hand if people are willing to go past their belief in free will, then we get answers that involve neurology, psychology, etc. When we keep asking why something happens or someone does something, I am confident that we can find the answer unless we are blocked by the rejection of the question.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 16, 2018, 01:37:15 PM »
People pick their perceived path of pleasure. My belief that I am predestined to have a certain kind of dinner in no way diminishes the fact that I enjoy dinner, I need dinner, and it will be my (say it with me now) perceived path of pleasure.

This seems pretty inarguable because there's literally no way to prove it true or false. No matter what scenario myself or Thork gives, you'll just say "oh whether you know it or not, that's your perceived path of pleasure". I've done things that I've gained no pleasure from because I feel like it's The Right Thing To Do™, even if I selfishly don't want to do it and feel shitty and grumpy about it. But I'm guessing you'll say I think it'll bring me something in the long run or whatever. Which, again, loops around to my point of what's the point of even discussing this if literally any answer we give is going to be rebutted with "actually that's your perceived path of pleasure, either now or later"? If I'm writing a song and need a rhyme and decide lamp or damp or ramp or tramp, I am exercising free will and considering it, and I will end up going with one for a myriad of reasons. Maybe it fits the song better, maybe I like something else but think another works better thematically.

But, again, I'm guessing: Perceived Path of Pleasure©
Also, things that feel bad physically are usually done only if they feel good in your head. As in you would feel bad if you didn't do something that benefits someone else. In this case, if doing something hurts you but helps someone else, then you will try to figure out if it would feel worse to help someone or don't do anything. In any case, you will pick the one that feels better compare to the other. Again, unless your a masochist, you will pick the path that feels the best. And that feeling does not need to be physical.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 16, 2018, 07:31:03 AM »
It is pointless to claim that an action was inevitable if you could not predict it. Analyzing the past should be used as a way to predict or modify the future. If your model can't accurately predict the future, then the basis for your model is wrong. If you claim that someone had to do something, you need to be claiming it as a future event, not as a past observation. In other words, predestination is pointless conjecture without valid evidence. Making assertions without evidence is for the weak of mind.
Again, I disagree. There are very few things in this world that we can predict but as I said in a previous reply, the fact that the weather forecast is usually wrong is not an argument that weather has free will.
I have personally come to the conclusion that almost all of what we do is inevitable because of my own research in psychology, neurology, and other natural sciences which have in depth and evidence based explanations for what goes on when we make a decision and why we choose a certain one. This is combined with my own experiences when being mindful in which I sit down and attempt to quiet my mind and disown the thoughts in my head and watch them.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 16, 2018, 07:26:52 AM »
People pick their perceived path of pleasure. My belief that I am predestined to have a certain kind of dinner in no way diminishes the fact that I enjoy dinner, I need dinner, and it will be my (say it with me now) perceived path of pleasure.

This seems pretty inarguable because there's literally no way to prove it true or false. No matter what scenario myself or Thork gives, you'll just say "oh whether you know it or not, that's your perceived path of pleasure". I've done things that I've gained no pleasure from because I feel like it's The Right Thing To Do™, even if I selfishly don't want to do it and feel shitty and grumpy about it. But I'm guessing you'll say I think it'll bring me something in the long run or whatever. Which, again, loops around to my point of what's the point of even discussing this if literally any answer we give is going to be rebutted with "actually that's your perceived path of pleasure, either now or later"? If I'm writing a song and need a rhyme and decide lamp or damp or ramp or tramp, I am exercising free will and considering it, and I will end up going with one for a myriad of reasons. Maybe it fits the song better, maybe I like something else but think another works better thematically.

But, again, I'm guessing: Perceived Path of Pleasure©
While I didn't come up with the perceived path of pleasure argument and I have no way of knowing if it works in every scenario, I do find it hard to believe that anyone would decide to do something purely for the fact that it feels bad. (Besides masochists but that's because it is their perceived path of pleasure.
When coming up with a rhyme for a song you decide which words rhymes the best depending on if it makes sense in the context of the lyrics, it goes with the rhythm, it sounds good, etc. Let's say that after you have excluded all of the words that don't fall under these categories you still have five words that could work (even though this is rarely the case). You will pick the one that "feels" the best in that place of the song. Here is my argument: If you could decide, they you would decide that every word "feels" good in that place, because then it would be easy to write a song and love it no matter what. The problem is that what you think "feels" good as a lyric in your song is predetermined by your experience with previous songs, your goal with the song, and the context of the lyric that you want to write it in. The next time you write a song I want you to be mindful and watch all of your reasoning to see how much choice you were really given, and ask your self how inevitable it was that you would decide to put a certain word in a certain place.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 15, 2018, 07:55:01 PM »
I have worked over the course of my life to be a better person. I aspire to be better and I know I'm more aware, caring, and honest than I was as a snotty teenager. I believe it was my freewill choice to take that course rather than let my emotions, instinct and appetites guide my actions.

The threat to my freewill comes from the deterministic idea that all events in the world are caused by prior events. As I am an series of events in the world, my current actions can be traced to previous events traced to previous events traced to previous events all the way back to the beginning of time. Everything was predestined by the shape of a nugget at the heart of the big bang. It is my personal arrogance that makes me believe I have free will.

However, when we create a frame of reference that is so large as to encompass all that is possibly knowable, it leaves us with an unknowable void that we can fill with anything we choose. We can't know or affect anything beyond all that is knowable so insert the forces, deity or emptiness of your choice.

In the words of one neo-classical philosopher, "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will."
I would agree with most of this but I would not equivocate forces with deities. Deities do fill part of the void with a purpose, reason, etc. However mathematical equations based on the forces observed in nature have incredible predictive ability that give them a tangible value. If having understanding forces was the same thing as having faith in a deity, I doubt we would be able to communicate through forums, on the internet, on a computer. While different people have different interpretations of deities, it took a collective agreement on how electrons, atoms, etc, interact in order to make this conversation possible.

Some good points on deities vs forces but the hard core determinists will say that I'm just a force that can be measured and if they could account for thousands of variables they could predict my behavior just like the weather. If they were to believe in God, they could apply the same logic. "If we had enough data on God we could predict his behavior."

I want to believe that God and I are fine people acting with awareness, purpose and reason. That we're not just a manifestation of molecular jumbling. But I don't have an answer to the determinists other than to tell them, "I know you're wrong because I control my destiny." Since their ideology stretches to the unknowable and untestable they can't prove me wrong. Since they can't prove God wrong, God can just politely show them his big middle finger.


I wanted to take some credit for developing from a snotty teenager into a wise, weird, old hipster but now you shot the shit out of that. Which means now I'm just a balding, old fart with knobbly knees that can't sing or dance destined to be that way from the beginning of time.
Also, I do agree with those hardcore determinists who think that if they could account for enough variable they could predict your behavior. I do doubt that it would be possible to measure every molecule in a person's body. However as far as psychologists, biologists, neurologists, doctors, etc. are concerned, if there is a way to test it, it can be tested and, most likely, predicted. That being said, even the weather channel is usually wrong but I doubt that that qualifies as evidence that weather has free will.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 15, 2018, 07:47:39 PM »
I have worked over the course of my life to be a better person. I aspire to be better and I know I'm more aware, caring, and honest than I was as a snotty teenager. I believe it was my freewill choice to take that course rather than let my emotions, instinct and appetites guide my actions.

The threat to my freewill comes from the deterministic idea that all events in the world are caused by prior events. As I am an series of events in the world, my current actions can be traced to previous events traced to previous events traced to previous events all the way back to the beginning of time. Everything was predestined by the shape of a nugget at the heart of the big bang. It is my personal arrogance that makes me believe I have free will.

However, when we create a frame of reference that is so large as to encompass all that is possibly knowable, it leaves us with an unknowable void that we can fill with anything we choose. We can't know or affect anything beyond all that is knowable so insert the forces, deity or emptiness of your choice.

In the words of one neo-classical philosopher, "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will."
I would agree with most of this but I would not equivocate forces with deities. Deities do fill part of the void with a purpose, reason, etc. However mathematical equations based on the forces observed in nature have incredible predictive ability that give them a tangible value. If having understanding forces was the same thing as having faith in a deity, I doubt we would be able to communicate through forums, on the internet, on a computer. While different people have different interpretations of deities, it took a collective agreement on how electrons, atoms, etc, interact in order to make this conversation possible.

Some good points on deities vs forces but the hard core determinists will say that I'm just a force that can be measured and if they could account for thousands of variables they could predict my behavior just like the weather. If they were to believe in God, they could apply the same logic. "If we had enough data on God we could predict his behavior."

I want to believe that God and I are fine people acting with awareness, purpose and reason. That we're not just a manifestation of molecular jumbling. But I don't have an answer to the determinists other than to tell them, "I know you're wrong because I control my destiny." Since their ideology stretches to the unknowable and untestable they can't prove me wrong. Since they can't prove God wrong, God can just politely show them his big middle finger.


I wanted to take some credit for developing from a snotty teenager into a wise, weird, old hipster but now you shot the shit out of that. Which means now I'm just a balding, old fart with knobbly knees that can't sing or dance destined to be that way from the beginning of time.
I personally don't believe in any traditional interpretations of God, and the one's that I do believe in fall under things which can be observed or proven with reasoning that I can agree with. However, if anyone or thing was to have free will, it would have to be one of the major Gods.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 15, 2018, 05:50:49 PM »
I have worked over the course of my life to be a better person. I aspire to be better and I know I'm more aware, caring, and honest than I was as a snotty teenager. I believe it was my freewill choice to take that course rather than let my emotions, instinct and appetites guide my actions.

The threat to my freewill comes from the deterministic idea that all events in the world are caused by prior events. As I am an series of events in the world, my current actions can be traced to previous events traced to previous events traced to previous events all the way back to the beginning of time. Everything was predestined by the shape of a nugget at the heart of the big bang. It is my personal arrogance that makes me believe I have free will.

However, when we create a frame of reference that is so large as to encompass all that is possibly knowable, it leaves us with an unknowable void that we can fill with anything we choose. We can't know or affect anything beyond all that is knowable so insert the forces, deity or emptiness of your choice.

In the words of one neo-classical philosopher, "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will."
Sorry, I left this part out. I also disagree that it was your free will acting which made you stop being a snotty teenager. People growing out of immature behaviors is an extremely common phenomenon. If it were free will acting then there would be more of a 50/50 split.
Here is a video explaining why:

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 15, 2018, 05:44:40 PM »
I have worked over the course of my life to be a better person. I aspire to be better and I know I'm more aware, caring, and honest than I was as a snotty teenager. I believe it was my freewill choice to take that course rather than let my emotions, instinct and appetites guide my actions.

The threat to my freewill comes from the deterministic idea that all events in the world are caused by prior events. As I am an series of events in the world, my current actions can be traced to previous events traced to previous events traced to previous events all the way back to the beginning of time. Everything was predestined by the shape of a nugget at the heart of the big bang. It is my personal arrogance that makes me believe I have free will.

However, when we create a frame of reference that is so large as to encompass all that is possibly knowable, it leaves us with an unknowable void that we can fill with anything we choose. We can't know or affect anything beyond all that is knowable so insert the forces, deity or emptiness of your choice.

In the words of one neo-classical philosopher, "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will."
I would agree with most of this but I would not equivocate forces with deities. Deities do fill part of the void with a purpose, reason, etc. However mathematical equations based on the forces observed in nature have incredible predictive ability that give them a tangible value. If having understanding forces was the same thing as having faith in a deity, I doubt we would be able to communicate through forums, on the internet, on a computer. While different people have different interpretations of deities, it took a collective agreement on how electrons, atoms, etc, interact in order to make this conversation possible.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 15, 2018, 07:21:24 AM »
If you have no control and everything is determined, why not just do the easiest thing in every situation. Don't get a job. Don't go to uni. Don't bother cooking dinner. These things were all going to happen anyway, right? Just let whatever happens happen. But you don't. You try. Because you know you can change the course of your future. you know this. We all do. This reductionist argument about everything being preordained and therefore you've no responsibility for anything that happens because you are just an cog in a machine with no say is nonsense. Its nihilism for dummies.

Rules are not the same as a predetermined sequence of events. A coffee shop has rules. Pay for your drinks. Don't shout at the staff. Piss in the toilet and not on the floor. That doesn't determine which customers visit on any particular day.
First of all, this is a terrible argument because it does nothing to disprove my claim, it just tries to guess how I should live my life based on it.
Secondly, I don't know why you refuse to understand this but I beg you to try: People pick their perceived path of pleasure. My belief that I am predestined to have a certain kind of dinner in no way diminishes the fact that I enjoy dinner, I need dinner, and it will be my (say it with me now) perceived path of pleasure.
The coffee shop analogy doesn't work because the rules only apply to that coffee shop, not the entire world.
And finally my notion that I don't have free will does not make me value myself or anyone else any less. I still find inherent value in the things that I do and other people do because of the potential of each of us to experience pleasure or pain. I will always decide to pick pleasure, even if my perception of which path I should choose is wrong.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 15, 2018, 12:21:43 AM »
If the universe isn't keeping a ledger, it isn't ordering things. Things happen as they happen. It isn't predetermined. Probability teaches us this.

I'll ask you another way. Are you helpless?

If everything just happens to you, you are a helpless victim of the universe. You have no say. Do you feel helpless? Like there is nothing you can do in any situation to make your life better? Or do you just sit about waiting for awful things to happen to you?
I do not know how you could contend for a second that the universe does not order things. Laws of thermodynamics? Motion? The forces like friction or buoyancy? If things were not ordered then what stops me from falling through the floor? Of course things happen based on things that happened before them. While one flip of a coin does not determine the outcome of another flip, what does determine the outcome is air density, force of flick, height, etc.
I do not feel helpless. I may have not made my position clear but I believe that I am not separate from my thoughts. This means I cannot exhibit control over them but it does not mean that I can attempt to experience them to their full potential, and causally the actions which result from them. I am not in any less control than you are, and the fact that I am aware of it does not change it.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 15, 2018, 12:07:09 AM »
Chaos theory is a thing.

You cannot determine the outcome of something that is chaotic. Therefore you cannot determine people's lives. They react and adjust and make decisions in the moment. There is nothing written saying what will happen.

If I flip a coin it might come up heads. If I flip it again that doesn't mean it has to be tails this time. The universe doesn't remember the coin toss that already happened. I could flip 10 heads in a row. It is still 50/50 that the next flip will be a head. It isn't determined.
If people's lives were chaotic the world would be in complete anarchy. I do agree with everything else though but I'm confused how this demonstrates free will.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 15, 2018, 12:00:44 AM »
You can't just say ... you tend to make logical choices and therefore your life is auto-determined. I make logical choices because I am not insane. Mad people make utterly illogical choices.

Sanity isn't the definition of determinism. And if you want to make it so, I give you exhibit A ... mad people. Who make bonkers choices. Are they the only people with free will?
No, they are not the only one's with free will because they have even less control over the thoughts in their head. I would argue that rational thinking is directly linked to determinism. It is making a decision based on reasoning with presented information, which part of that leaves room for free will, since you will obviously not make a stupid decision?

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 14, 2018, 11:57:46 PM »
Reasons for doing things don't always have to be based on long term benefit, that is called system one decision making. A concept that I would like for you to think about is that idea that people will always pick the perceived path of pleasure. This means that the path is not actually the right one, but it appears to be that way for the person at the time they are making the decision.
I go to the gym. I hate it. It hurts. It makes me sweaty. It uses up my day. Its really boring. It isn't the path of pleasure. I do it because its good for me. My brother who also likes baths doesn't go to the gym. He chooses not to. We have the exact same choice. And we choose differently. We have free will.

Also I sincerely hope the lie was taking a bath with your sister.
Erm, Ok. I mean who the hell would tolerate a dirty bedroom but whatever.  :-\
This is an example of system two decision making: There are not immediate benefits to your action but you see in the long term it will benefit you. This is combined with the fact that you probably feel great satisfaction after a good workout. If you perceived absolutely no pleasure to be gained from going to the gym then you would not do it.
So masochists don't exist? Or are you going to tell me that is system 3 decision making?
Let me make this easy for you: Masochists are people whose PERCEIVED PATH OF PLEASURE is pain. Also the dual-process model of decision making is widely accepted by psychiatrists.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 14, 2018, 11:48:16 PM »
Reasons for doing things don't always have to be based on long term benefit, that is called system one decision making. A concept that I would like for you to think about is that idea that people will always pick the perceived path of pleasure. This means that the path is not actually the right one, but it appears to be that way for the person at the time they are making the decision.
I go to the gym. I hate it. It hurts. It makes me sweaty. It uses up my day. Its really boring. It isn't the path of pleasure. I do it because its good for me. My brother who also likes baths doesn't go to the gym. He chooses not to. We have the exact same choice. And we choose differently. We have free will.

Also I sincerely hope the lie was taking a bath with your sister.
Erm, Ok. I mean who the hell would tolerate a dirty bedroom but whatever.  :-\
This is an example of system two decision making: There are not immediate benefits to your action but you see in the long term it will benefit you. This is combined with the fact that you probably feel great satisfaction after a good workout. If you perceived absolutely no pleasure to be gained from going to the gym then you would not do it.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 14, 2018, 11:44:03 PM »
I don't think that you can say it is a false interpretation of free will based on the fact that there are a multitude of interpretations of free will and they all claim to be correct.
I am getting at the idea that if my actions are determined by decisions made by the thoughts I experience in my head, and I have no control over these thoughts, I therefor have no control over the actions I commit. This is why I don't believe in free will.

If you truly feel that you have absolutely no control over the thoughts in your own mind then I highly suggest seeing a psychiatrist. While all humans have intrusive thoughts that they cannot control, to have nothing but intrusive thoughts is a symptom of various disorders.
Abnormal psychology is extremely different from mindfulness. I defined control as an ability to direct them. I have not yet been able to find a me that is separate from my thoughts and can thus direct them. This is why I say that "I" do not have "control" over my thoughts. Do you agree with my reasoning?

I agree that you still need to see a psychiatrist.
That is noted. Please tell me the flaw in my reasoning, or if we simply disagree on definitions.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« on: November 14, 2018, 11:39:21 PM »
These are behaviors that domestic animals are more likely to exhibit than wild ones. It would be impossible for us to know this if they were unpredictable. Also, have you ever made a stupid decision on purpose? Probably not, because it would be stupid. Every decision you make is made based on reasoning and the smartest decision you could come up with is made. This fits very nicely into determinism.
No. Sometimes I make decisions based on impulse ... like eating a bag of crisps. I don't need to eat the crisps. I know they aren't good for me. I choose to eat them cos they taste nice. Sometimes I make decisions based on lust. These are always terrible decisions. Like telling a client I have the hots for them or asking my sister if she wants to share a bath. The sensible thing would be to choose NOT to do that. Sometimes I choose sleep in when I should be working. Sometimes I choose to not clean my room when it is dirty and I'm doing nothing else. Sometimes I choose to just stare into space and do absolutely nothing when anything else would be more productive. Sometimes I choose to tell a lie in my posts on TFES. Can you spot the lie in this post? I did it because I can. Because it amused me. It might not amuse you. You may have already stopped reading because you only skim the first sentence before replying to a post. But all of these things are free choices. As are choosing things that might improve your life like applying for a better job or saving some money.
Reasons for doing things don't always have to be based on long term benefit, that is called system one decision making. A concept that I would like for you to think about is that idea that people will always pick the perceived path of pleasure. This means that the path is not actually the right one, but it appears to be that way for the person at the time they are making the decision.

Also I sincerely hope the lie was taking a bath with your sister.

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >