 |
Duration: 02:09 minutes Upload Time: 2007-11-01 07:33:03 User: pyrrho314 :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Description: response to: http://youtube.com/watch?v=uFXBS5bWXuQ&watch_response |
|
Comments | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-11-09 14:10:34 I understand you but why? EVERYTHING is evidenced for us by sense impression or else it is metaphysical, sure, but if sense impressions do give us our definition (e.g. experiences where we seem to have chosen), then we can merely ask "what is the nature of these experiences we call 'free'?" That question has some answers. __________________________________________________ | |
| brice322 ::: Favorites 2007-11-08 23:16:28 Evidence as given through sense impression cannot possibly serve as evidence indicating the existence of a free-will. You are attempting to generate knowledge of something that cannot be experienced in the first place. You can only reasonably expect yourself to be free, but not know it nor prove it. Such things are "unknowable" in that they do not have any correlation in the sense-given world. Free-will has to be metaphysical, not experiential. __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-11-03 23:19:56 I think it's worth mulling over. A lot follows from what we personally decide for outselves. I'm fine with being informed by everyone's views including those I find wrong or and even especially those than seem incomprehensible. __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-11-03 23:18:52 I think that is beyond the scope of logic, and within logic relies on the truth of the input principles used to prove one or the other. free will is experiential, we experience, that means we do interact with it, it is not metaphysical. __________________________________________________ | |
| docrufus ::: Favorites 2007-11-03 09:17:50 Maybe the answer to that is both & neither- so let's not waste our time then eh- if it truly makes a difference for you all I can say is live it as you understand it to be... Take care eh. __________________________________________________ | |
| adaalman ::: Favorites 2007-11-03 00:08:23 One could as easily prove that free will exists and that it does not exist at the same time within logic. Do objects affect one another or are they caused by one another? To approach a metaphysical problem from a scientific position is a waste of time. __________________________________________________ | |
| docrufus ::: Favorites 2007-11-02 22:50:44 Just to clarify- the topic isn't a metaphysical one (in my humble opinion)- sorry to disappoint- neuroscience supports this overall simple view (free-will/control/choice doesn't really exist) but with complex details (brain workings). Guess that's it then eh. __________________________________________________ | |
| adaalman ::: Favorites 2007-11-02 20:53:35 How it possible to discuss a metaphysical subject such as free will without philosophy? Your response to the points I raised was nothing more than a shrug, so I guess this discussion is over. __________________________________________________ | |
| docrufus ::: Favorites 2007-11-02 13:50:20 Me don't do philosophy anymore my friend if that's what your asking- my standard is usually common sense simple logic- the idea of 'control' is moot at this point. __________________________________________________ | |
| adaalman ::: Favorites 2007-11-02 10:11:51 The "cosmic interplay" goes on internally and externally, and that was my point. If you refuse to make any division at any given point in understanding, then nothing could ever have any relation which is different interally or externally. So when you say "control" what are your standards? What is your standrd for the distinction between a person and thier environment? It's just a matter of distinction in my opinion, do you believe the concept of "control" is even valid? __________________________________________________ | |
| jogayot ::: Favorites 2007-11-02 10:03:29 but brain, body as a collection of atoms is autonomous... anything originating in it is of itself. our conscsiousness is only realization of it. but we are it and it is us. __________________________________________________ | |
| docrufus ::: Favorites 2007-11-02 06:31:13 Thanks 'A'man- megets what you say- all is in relation to something- a cosmic interplay if you like- but the main point needs repeating for us humans- 'we' are NEVER IN CONTROL of ANYTHING we do, say, think, feel- like the universe we're just a continuously happening thing dude- with personal pronouns of course. __________________________________________________ | |
| adaalman ::: Favorites 2007-11-01 21:59:13 Sorry if how I write is rigid and wierd, I'm not very good at writing. __________________________________________________ | |
| adaalman ::: Favorites 2007-11-01 21:58:31 I don't think this is the case because if it were then nothing within conception, that is nothing at all, could ever be considered free. But things can be freer or less free from the influence of one thing or another. For example, to be tied up limits your body, to be untied removes limitations. Relations are not monochrome. The same is true of the mind. __________________________________________________ | |
| adaalman ::: Favorites 2007-11-01 21:57:41 Free will is not specific enough to even consider properly. What must the will be free from? If you consider freedom to be that which is free from any relation to anything else it can not, within the reach of conception, ever be free because the instant it is considered, a relation is projected onto it. __________________________________________________ | |
No comments:
Post a Comment