tmx3

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’ve reread your posts. You appear to be saying free will exists because of some stuff in the Bible that you won’t cite and the fact that a parasite can take control of the mind of certain organisms. The idea being that control by a parasite wouldn’t be possible if the will of the controlled weren’t first free  

Is that correct? If not, please restate the position you’re asking me to address, ideally without all the attitude and invective.

I suspect I’ve already covered whatever point you’re making in this free will thread or in the many others in which I’ve participated, but perhaps I’ve not and I’m happy to continue the discussion... civilly. 

Last I checked, it was sunny and you're with your kids. What business do you have writing to me now?

And here's the last message you get. I'm deleting my account with this useless, worthless site full of pompous arrogant pseudointellectuals like yourself who want to belittle the opinions of others who come from a perspective of faith, who have genuine interest in helping others, all because you think you're "smarter than thou".  Please, take a seat. 
 

Your knowledge came from your teachers who settled to get paid $15/hour to support their families if it means feeding minds like yours bullshit theory after another bullshit theory.  And you'd believe it.  But come to the idea of God, and everybody wants to act like we're talking about santa claus.

I'm done disrespecting myself by entertaining this bullshit argument with you. I call you out on your lack of civility. Now you want to wear a mask and fake being civil. Get out of here

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Tmx3 - Thank you for all the negative reps and abusive comments on my profile wall, but the weather is nice here and I’m spending time outdoors with my kids. If there’s a specific question you’d like me to address, kindly please summarize it here and perhaps I’ll consider returning to it later. All the best. 

Nice acting you do. Here's some advice. The next time you want to belittle someone's genuine opinions when they sought to help OP who seemed to be having an existential crisis, do not come across as an arrogant, self righteous know it all.

Don't "all the best" me with your fake self. Humble your arrogant ass self.

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You are ASSUMING free will exists. Your example does nothing to PROVE it. You can make the same argument without the parasite even being present by simply saying that by running away from the cat, the rat exhibits free will.

The parasite example is an example of the lack of free will, not the other way around. Proof of activity "X" does not simultaneously prove the opposite of activity "X".

Okay. So the rat running away from the cat proves free will. And the parasite inhibiting the rat from running away proves the parasite inhibits the rat's free will.

And, even using your example... if a gun is pointed at someone, their will is manipulated by the gunman. They give up money, not wanting to--doing something against their will. In some cases, when given the chance, one would fight back. In BOTH cases, free will is exhibited--one, where it is imposed upon and limited, and the other in which it is acted upon.

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Then you should’ve PM’d him, but you didn’t. You entered open discourse here which means your ideas will be scrutinized and picked apart by members just like any other. 

LOL. I recommend you dial it back a bit and focus more on making better arguments than on making personal attacks on the people who dissect them. 

I quoted him--it's directly to him. Open for all, yes, but directed towards him. And I welcome all comments--just lose the attitude. 

LOL. I recommend you try harder to prove me wrong. You can't, keyboard warrior. You just want to sit there and act like you have a point, but you don't. Funny how when I tell you to stop throwing words you learned in writing class at me, you have a lot less to say.

Just now, zapatos said:

So if I make you give me your money at the point of a gun, that is an example of free will? Wouldn't you refusing to give me your money at the risk of being shot, be a better example?

You pointing a gun at me to take my money is an example of you imposing your will and LIMITING MY FREE WILL by making me do something I would otherwise choose to not do (unless of course you were homeless or needed the money, then I would).

A better example? Maybe. But it's not the only way of showing free will exists.

Then again, this could be another scenario. 

A parasite making the rat do something that it would otherwise choose to not do, is an example of free will on the rat's part. It's that simple.

@zapatos 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Unless you’re citing the Bible as evidence of human gullibility, willingness to accept as true internally inconsistent and contradictory messages, or the idea that popular fictions existed even thousands of years ago, then no. It’s not the type of “evidence” that belongs anywhere near a scientific discussion. 
 

Unless you’re saying humans would be somehow immune to this type of parasite, then this example actually speaks to the absence of free will, not the existence of it.  It’s directly counter to the conclusion at which you’ve arrived for seemingly religious reasons. 

My message is for OP. Not you. Keep your attitude to a zero or don't bother messaging me with your disgusting self. You're superior to no one for you to go on typing on a keyboard like you have all the answers. I'm giving my input and perspective to OP. Allow me to do that without you coming at me like a disgusting, attitude filled narcissistic pretentious know it all.

The fact that there is absence of free will, means there is free will to begin with. Try to use common sense and not a whole bunch of words you learned from your writing class that you want to throw at me, okay? Okay.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I was thinking the same thing as I read the post. At least if the cat had run away while infected with the parasite, or if the cat had stayed while free of the parasite, it would have been an example that might indicate a free will.

That doesn't even make sense. Who in their right mind would even want to put themselves into harm's way? Inherently, we want to do the right thing, the thing healthiest for us, be at peace and in harmony with other beings. Why would anyone willingly choose some disaster to befall them? Clearly it was the neuroparasite manipulating the rat's will to do itself any good, by forcing it to go into a situation where it would do itself harm (get killed, get eaten). Its free will is being affected. Its will is being imposed upon by the will of another. That is the whole point.

On 12/15/2019 at 8:34 PM, NonScientist said:

Okay, so I’m new here. Hi everyone.

So I’m not sure why this is affecting me this severely, but I recently discovered the whole “free will vs. determinism” question, and I’ve realized quickly that I should’ve never been introduced to this idea, because I’m finding it almost impossible to deal with the notion of not having free will. It has sent my mind into this state of extreme shock, agony, and despair that almost seems insurmountable. It’s like my whole world and everything I believed has been flipped on its head. I’m serious in saying that this has sent me into a straight panic and shock. I feel like I’m having this nervous breakdown. It’s an overwhelming feeling.

 I’m trying to keep myself calm and just relax, but this has really messed me up. 

Does anyone here believe in free will? Or can offer any good defenses or arguments for free will? I feel like I need to be reassured that there is free will or else I won’t be able to deal with it. The idea that everything is predetermined, and I’m just robot with no agency or ability to do otherwise is more than my psyche can handle. I’m sort of in this crisis.

I completely believe we have free will.  I would give an example from the Holy Bible but refrained since I'm not sure if that's the kind of evidence you'd want to hear. Let me know if you do, and I'll give you my perspective on it.

From a more scientific point of view, you'll find this interesting... Look up this disease called Toxoplasma gondii, research it a little.     You'll find that it's a parasite wanting to live and reproduce in the intestines/stomach of cats but can only enter the cat through an intermediary host (like a bird or rat) as it needs an intermediary to morph into the form which can then travel within a cat's body.

For a while, people noticed a strange type of "bravery" occurring in rats, where these rats would jump at cats instead of running away from them.  When these rats were taken into the lab for testing, they were found to have this same parasite living in them, and these parasites were essentially manipulating the rat's normal behavior (which would be to run away from cats) and instead were a cause for the rats to be appearing brave and jumping toward the cats--basically doing what they would otherwise choose to not do.    

The goal of this neuroparasite is to have its intermediary host ingested by the cat, so that the parasites can then make their way to the stomach/intestines of the cat, which is where they reproduce. 

Look at it this way... a parasite was able to alter the way a rat would normally behave, so that the rat would specifically have itself killed and eaten by a cat, which is where the parasite was trying to go... 

It still blows my mind thinking about it, but, yes, free will does exist. That's half my take on it; the other half I'm leaving out to avoid the type of talk people these days run from.

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Right.Thanks. It's bad when people spoil a good song, isn't it?  I'm haunted by that guitar now. Actually sounds like The Edge from way back.

Understatement of the year. Lol. 

Definitely... that song sounds edgy, but I mean Daughter in general is indie/indie folk. 

17 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Bleak but nice. The guitar in this one strikes a chord for me. What style is this group?

 

Yikes this song reminds me of my ex so I honestly couldn’t even listen the whole way through... Just sad. She’s amazing in all her songs though no matter how the music is (I really like softer music).

They’re indie by the way

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m sympathetic to this view. The thought is like a seed which left unchecked could grow into a fruit, or garden, or forest. But not all seeds grow into the same things.

Some seeds don’t grow at all. Some begin to sprout, but then falter. Some are intentionally pulled like weeds upon reaching a certain size. Others turn into something unexpected and undetrimental and often quite wonderful. 

But thoughts happen. Seeds sometimes drop or even sprout. It’s natural, and unrelated to the love of existing significant others. 

What you seem to be proposing requires a certain purity, one that is too challenging to achieve even for the most chaste among us. Your view strikes me as laden with unnecessary risk, as one that too often sacrifices the good in pursuit of the perfect. 

Im sympathetic to your view. Much like every journey begins with a single step, unfaithfulness indeed begins with a single thought... but not every step we take turns into a journey nor does every thought we think nor every glimmer of attraction turn into unfaithfulness. 

I hear you, but it seems like your idea of “a step taken that does not become a journey” is similar to one objectively stating whether someone is attractive. The difference is in seeing yourself with that person, or being so obsessed as in OP (I think it was OP???) where the friend was witnessing one’s girlfriend go on and on about some athlete or celebrity to the point where she has photos of the athlete on her phone. 

If she had the chance she probably would get with the athlete. I’m just saying. 

Going on a tangent, but I sometimes see gun reform as an undercover plot to remove guns from the public so the government has more say as to what happens to the people. 

I was never really one to call myself a conspiracy theorist, and as devastating as these mass murders via shootings are, I have to take a step back and question what’s really going on. 

One only needs to look at Trump and what he’s done during his totalitarianistic reign—I can’t even call it a time of “presidency”—to understand what I mean. 

To answer your question, I’m thinking, nothing will change. I’m hopeful that it will, but with the NRA having the power that it does, with Trump being as unstable as he is, and now with the idea of arming teachers with guns in schools to help appease angry family members and friends still mourning the loss of their loved ones...I don’t see change coming as much as I or anyone else have wished it would. 

On 3/27/2018 at 7:46 AM, Alfred001 said:

I've often found it odd when people who are in relationships will comment on the attractiveness of other people. I don't mean kind of dispassionately saying that some person is objectively attractive, but in a really animated way talking about how hot another person is.

I'm talking about celebrities here, not people in the person's general social circle.

Here's a specific example: A friend's girlfriend used to talk about how hot a famous athlete was (in my friend's presence) and had photos of him on her phone.

My friend's attitude was, what do I care, it's not like she can end up with him. This is not how I see this. I see this behavior as completely unacceptable and, in my view, I think you shouldn't gush about another person's attractiveness if you're in a relationship, whether that person is an unattainable celebrity or not.

From my observations, I seem to be in the minority here and most people seem to think this is perfectly normal behavior.

I'm wondering what people think about this? I want to stress that I'm referring specifically to situations where the person is talking about an unattainable celebrity, not someone in the couple's lives.

I strongly believe that unfaithfulness begins at the emotional level. It starts with a thought. 

How strongly do you love your significant other, if they’re not the only one you have eyes for? 

Doing The Right Thing

The Vegetarian by Han Kang. It’s a must-read. 

On 9/20/2013 at 9:03 AM, ydoaPs said:

The title is a common view among crackpots. They often think that the ability to imagine something means that the universe might actually be that way or could have been that way were things differently. To use philosophy words, they often think that conceivability means epistemic or metaphysical possibility. But, the question is, is that true?

 

To find that out, we need to find something that is conceivable but is impossible. For the first sense of possibility, (how things might actually be), that is incredibly easy. All we have to do is find something that is conceivable but not the case. Have you ever been wrong about something? If you have, you've shown that conceivability does not mean epistemic possibility.

 

The second one is a bit harder, since there's disagreement on the exact requirements of what makes something metaphysically possible, but we do know that for something to be metaphysically possible, it must also be logically possible. That is, were things different, an accurate description of the universe still wouldn't entail a contradiction.

 

So, we can knock this out by finding something which is conceivable, yet logically impossible. Can we imagine things which are contradictions? You might be tempted to say "No one can imagine a square circle!". But I'd like to talk about one which almost everyone intuitively conceives.

 

People intuitively like to group things. It's how we make sense of the world. We have apples, chairs, etc. All you have to do is put things together and you have a group. In mathematics, we call these kind of groupings 'sets'. The things in these groups are called "members". Any group of members of a set is called a "subset". This does mean that all sets are subsets of themselves, but that's not of interest to us here. What we're interested in is the idea that you can group whatever you want into a set. You can make sets of sets. You can take your set of cats and your set of dogs and put them together into a new set!

 

So, let's take a look at a specific set: the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. The set of all cats is not a member of the set of all cats-it's a set of cats, not of sets! So, it goes in! Likewise, any set consisting of no sets will go in this set of all sets which are not members of themselves.

 

So, we pose a question: Is this set of all sets which are not members of themselves (from here on out, we'll call it 'R') a member of itself? If R is a member of R, then it fails to meet the requirements to be in R, so it isn't a member of R. That's a contradiction, so that's no good. That means R must not be a member of itself. But what happens if R is a member of itself? If R is a member of itself, it meets the requirement to be in R. Since R is the set of ALL sets meeting this requirements, it goes in. Again we have R both being a member of itself and not being a member of itself. So, either way, we get a contradiction. This means something is logically impossible. But we got this result simply from the definitions of sets and members and from the very conceivable idea that you can group whatever you want together.

 

This is a situation in which something is conceivable, but logically impossible. This means it is not the case that whatever you can imagine is possible. Crackpots, take note: the fact that you can imagine something in no way implies that it is possible. It doesn't matter how clear your perpetual motion device/unified theory/God/electric universe is, imagining it doesn't cut the mustard. This is one of the reasons you NEED the math.

If I can see it, then I can do it. If I just believe it, there's nothing to it... I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky!!!