If I wasw so inclined could take offense at these words, my reasoning
is not mature enough indeed!
However we both know that an attack on the person rather than the
persons arguments are called......? And is indicitive of.......?
So in this case I'll rest easy knowing that you cannot or will not
counter my argument, therefore I am right whoohoo! ;¬)
Do a little bit of experimenation my freind and let me know the
result.
I refer of course to my sandwhich experiment.
Make for yourself three sandwhichs, one of a substance you love, one
that you hate and one of any kind.
Choose which sandwhich or indeed sandwhiches to eat.
Is it possible to eat only the one you love?
Is it possible to eat only the one you hate?
Is it possible to eat any in any combination?
Is it possible for you to eat the sandwhich you hate even though you
do not wish to?
By what trick of the mind, or act of 'faculite control' is it possible
for a hungry man to not eat? Other than of course my prefered option,
freedom of choice.
On Aug 3, 1:23 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you say you can do this and do that it is your reason which is at
> work , and the reason itself is bound by the depth of your
> understanding. It takes a lot of time , patience and introspection to
> fine tone your understanding , otherwise you will just keep on conning
> yourself that it is in your hands to open or close your fist , which
> apparently is to prove to yourself that you are free. But , my friend
> Lee , your reason is not in your hands rather you are in its grip and
> when your reason matures due to considerable deliberations , you will
> realize that you are under the control of your faculties and not vice
> verse.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Heheh it always comes back to this discussion dosen't it?
>
> > RP it is of course possible to act in a contrary way to your nature,
> > isn't it.
>
> > I am largley an honest man, I would not steal the property of another,
> > but I could, I could make that choice and perform that action.
>
> > Let me make it clear, we can only choose from a limited number of
> > choices, we do not have unfettered choice, I could never fly by myself
> > unaided by science. I can though choose to go back to bed instead of
> > go to work, I can choose what route I take to get me to a place.
>
> > All of our choices come with consequences and yes truely these
> > concequnes may indeed colour our choices, but we can still choose to
> > act in a way that brings about bad consequences, we are free to do
> > that.
>
> > On Aug 2, 8:53 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Of the various choices before you , you choose to do that which your
> >> nature decides upon at any given moment. You may let go an opportunity
> >> now to fiercely grasp at a later moment. The choice, of course , is
> >> yours but you are under the control of various motivating forces
> >> which, taking control of your very free will, make you do that which
> >> the strongest force within you at a given moment wants to be done.
> >> That which you do today you will not do tomorrow and all with a
> >> seemingly free will. You can con yourself by opening and closing your
> >> grip that you are the master , but you are not. It is only your
> >> reasoning processes which are at play , which take control over you at
> >> times just as your basic desires. When you think it appears that you
> >> are thinking freely but actually it is some part of your personality
> >> which is carrying you along. If you take psycho-tropic drugs you will
> >> think and act in a bizarre manner but with what to you is free will.
>
> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Jo <jojocasame...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I don't understand how some can say we don't have free will. You can
> >> > choose to do anything you want at any given time. How is that not free
> >> > will?
>
> >> > On Aug 2, 12:51 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> "We have access to a technology that would have looked like sorcery in
> >> >> Descartes's day: the ability to peer inside someone's head and read
> >> >> their thoughts. Unfortunately, that doesn't take us any nearer to
> >> >> knowing whether they are sentient. "Even if you measure brainwaves,
> >> >> you can never know exactly what experience they represent," says
> >> >> psychologist Bruce Hood at the University of Bristol, UK. If
> >> >> anything, brain scanning has undermined Descartes's maxim. You, too,
> >> >> might be a zombie. "I happen to be one myself," says Stanford
> >> >> University philosopher Paul Skokowski. "And so, even if you don't
> >> >> realise it, are you." Skokowski's assertion is based on the belief,
> >> >> particularly common among neuroscientists who study brain scans, that
> >> >> we do not have free will. There is no ghost in the machine; our
> >> >> actions are driven by brain states that lie entirely beyond our
> >> >> control. "I think, therefore I am" might be an illusion.
> >> >> So, it may well be that you live in a computer simulation in which you
> >> >> are the only self-aware creature. I could well be a zombie and so
> >> >> could you. Have an interesting day." (from a recent New Scientist)
>
> >> >> We range over debates in free will and what it is to be human. So far
> >> >> we haven't established free will or even that we are not merely
> >> >> avatars in 'something else's game'.
>
> >> >> I wonder whether there are advantages in considering ourselves as
> >> >> creatures limited by programming and also capable of it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment