 |
Duration: 07:45 minutes Upload Time: 2007-11-06 04:58:16 User: pyrrho314 :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Description: Sort a response to a comment of inmendhams... """ what is will then""" like with the word "heart" there are some archaic and now inappropriate definitions. Will is what we have after the brain calculates a decision (complex but predetermined)... I suppose it appropriate to most associate "will" with decisions that seem counter to conditioned or natural programming. will should at least have the appearance of representing a devotion to a higher principle. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License |
|
Comments | |
| NearVSMello ::: Favorites 2007-11-19 11:49:45 When you do it on the one hand you feel like an idiot for throwing in the towel in a debate. But on the other hand you feel proud because you were able to do something that very few people have been able to do when debating philosophy and things online. __________________________________________________ | |
| NearVSMello ::: Favorites 2007-11-19 11:49:04 Actually believe it or not I have changed my belief now and then like a switch when debating online. But then again I'm a skepticist, and my beliefs aren't really "beleifs" per say as they are "guesses." But even THEN it was pretty tough to do. I can only recall doing it twice in my life. __________________________________________________ | |
| nicolatwo ::: Favorites 2007-11-13 06:03:13 Ha. You are up, too, all night long. It's addictive. Yes. The illusions of moral obligations. But that still does not make the moral obligations less obligatory. __________________________________________________ | |
| phaexus ::: Favorites 2007-11-13 06:00:05 "I am not saying it is uncaused, I'm saying it is a cause." What we call will has to be caused or uncaused. There is no third option, right? If will isn't uncaused then it is caused and bound by causality, which means freedom in choice doesn't really exist. __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-11-13 05:39:51 don't you mean the illusions of moral obligations? __________________________________________________ | |
| nicolatwo ::: Favorites 2007-11-13 03:57:32 Because we have moral obligations within the room of perceived randomness. __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-11-13 02:57:43 why? __________________________________________________ | |
| nicolatwo ::: Favorites 2007-11-12 22:43:18 We are responsbile within the room of perceived choice. __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-11-12 14:21:14 how can someone be responsible when there is NOTHING they could have done about it? __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-11-12 14:20:50 mechanics has room for randomness, this gives room for will. I am not saying it is uncaused, I'm saying it is a cause. It is us, and we are a cause. __________________________________________________ | |
| phaexus ::: Favorites 2007-11-12 03:49:19 You are saying that will operates uncaused. Will is outside causality. Don't you agree that the brain operates according to the "mechanics" of biology? It seems you claim that in the brain there is something which suspends or overrules biology when you use your will. Is this a correct understanding? __________________________________________________ | |
| nicolatwo ::: Favorites 2007-11-12 03:43:28 I hold people responsible, too. Because even though it is deterministic, it still gives us room for responsibility. Just like cause and effect reach into eternity. It appears random to us. Because we can not trace causality back into eternity. It's impossible. __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-11-11 16:58:18 in both cases, "cause" and "will" I think there are phenomenon being identified, and cause is further from the truth than the idea of choice in the will, it seems to me. __________________________________________________ | |
| phaexus ::: Favorites 2007-11-11 11:34:33 Why is it easier for you to label CAUSE as "just a concept" than will power? Science is basically based on causality. Without causality predictions are impossible. Unless I'm mistaken you said in a video that determinism is out the window. What is the agent behind the will power? What moves it? __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-11-09 18:14:41 I don't think it has outlived its universe, but that you have pushed it beyond the threshold of applicability. You grant "cause" an essential role from which you seem to derive many of these conclusions. Free will is a concept with error in it, and it also has not outlived its usefulness. To use cause to disprove freedom means that the basic idea of cause must be defined much better... __________________________________________________ | |
No comments:
Post a Comment