Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 23, 2014, 02:14:02 PMQuote from: Lord Ruler on November 23, 2014, 02:12:51 PMBut we're still choosing aren't we?Yes, you merely can't choose to choose. Choice is a necessary part of human life, as lying in bed all day doing fuck all is still a choice. It's merely that your choices are necessarily part of this determined stream.So what if I didn't answer the question?
Quote from: Lord Ruler on November 23, 2014, 02:12:51 PMBut we're still choosing aren't we?Yes, you merely can't choose to choose. Choice is a necessary part of human life, as lying in bed all day doing fuck all is still a choice. It's merely that your choices are necessarily part of this determined stream.
But we're still choosing aren't we?
- An expanding universe and a model that shows us we should be contracting. According to a physical model of the Universe, we should be contracting not expanding. But yet here we are, expanding. The mathematics simply don't work.
- Life from non-life. According to evolution, life arose from a "hot mix of chemical goop". But there's no evidence for it and the process cannot be recreated in a lab. As a means of damage control, scientists then claimed that life came from somewhere else in the galaxy. But that still leaves the question as to how that strain of life came to be. Is there just a never ending cycle of strains of life that come from another planet?
- Consciousness and free will, a contradiction to evolution. How are you to act upon instinct, survive, and reproduce if you're not being told you have to? Scientists claim that consciousness is explainable through biological processes, and that its purpose is to give humans the illusion that we operate under free will. But there's still no purpose in evolving towards free will if our biology dictates us to act the way they want us to act and not the way we act through free will. And if consciousness is simply an illusion, who is this illusion being relayed to? Another consciousness?
- The four fundamental forces. There's no reason why or how the fundamental forces exist, and in fact we can only measure their effect, but the particles that should make up these forces don't seem to exist. We invent names like the Graviton to make it seem like they exist, but they have as little evidence for them as dark matter.
Quote from: RC5908 on November 23, 2014, 02:09:01 PMwhat a retarded ass way to view free will.Not really. Compatibilists often use a definition for "free will" which isn't qualitatively different from "autonomy". The only metaphysically meaningful definition of free will that really exists is the ability to act completely without circumstantial restraint, necessity or fate, which is demonstrably false.
what a retarded ass way to view free will.
restricted free will is still free will. not being god doesn't make us unable to alter our world.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 23, 2014, 02:12:42 PMQuote from: RC5908 on November 23, 2014, 02:09:01 PMwhat a retarded ass way to view free will.Not really. Compatibilists often use a definition for "free will" which isn't qualitatively different from "autonomy". The only metaphysically meaningful definition of free will that really exists is the ability to act completely without circumstantial restraint, necessity or fate, which is demonstrably false.restricted free will is still free will. not being god doesn't make us unable to alter our world.
Quote from: RC5908 on November 23, 2014, 03:33:20 PMrestricted free will is still free will. not being god doesn't make us unable to alter our world.Again, that's not metaphysically significant. I never said people can't make choices.
Quote from: RC5908 on November 23, 2014, 03:33:20 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on November 23, 2014, 02:12:42 PMQuote from: RC5908 on November 23, 2014, 02:09:01 PMwhat a retarded ass way to view free will.Not really. Compatibilists often use a definition for "free will" which isn't qualitatively different from "autonomy". The only metaphysically meaningful definition of free will that really exists is the ability to act completely without circumstantial restraint, necessity or fate, which is demonstrably false.restricted free will is still free will. not being god doesn't make us unable to alter our world.Missing the point.
Quote from: GodspeedGojira! on November 23, 2014, 03:39:15 PMQuote from: RC5908 on November 23, 2014, 03:33:20 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on November 23, 2014, 02:12:42 PMQuote from: RC5908 on November 23, 2014, 02:09:01 PMwhat a retarded ass way to view free will.Not really. Compatibilists often use a definition for "free will" which isn't qualitatively different from "autonomy". The only metaphysically meaningful definition of free will that really exists is the ability to act completely without circumstantial restraint, necessity or fate, which is demonstrably false.restricted free will is still free will. not being god doesn't make us unable to alter our world.Missing the point.apparently
isn't the ability to choose free will?
Quote from: RC5908 on November 23, 2014, 03:39:31 PMisn't the ability to choose free will?you can choose to act on your will, but you can't choose your will.
Quote from: RC5908 on November 23, 2014, 03:39:31 PMisn't the ability to choose free will?Some compatibilists would say so, but I don't think that's a very significant definition. Free will, properly defined, is the ability to choose without constraint. This is fundamentally undermined when you realise you aren't in control of your capacity to choose. Think of it like this: you can choose to act on your will, but you can't choose your will. The choices you make, and the autonomy you exercise, will always be part of this determined stream.
Quote- An expanding universe and a model that shows us we should be contracting. According to a physical model of the Universe, we should be contracting not expanding. But yet here we are, expanding. The mathematics simply don't work.Which model of the universe says we should be contracting?Quote- Life from non-life. According to evolution, life arose from a "hot mix of chemical goop". But there's no evidence for it and the process cannot be recreated in a lab. As a means of damage control, scientists then claimed that life came from somewhere else in the galaxy. But that still leaves the question as to how that strain of life came to be. Is there just a never ending cycle of strains of life that come from another planet?See: Miller-Urey Experiment. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, though.Quote- Consciousness and free will, a contradiction to evolution. How are you to act upon instinct, survive, and reproduce if you're not being told you have to? Scientists claim that consciousness is explainable through biological processes, and that its purpose is to give humans the illusion that we operate under free will. But there's still no purpose in evolving towards free will if our biology dictates us to act the way they want us to act and not the way we act through free will. And if consciousness is simply an illusion, who is this illusion being relayed to? Another consciousness? Consciousness as in a moral instinct, or consciousness as in awareness? Quote- The four fundamental forces. There's no reason why or how the fundamental forces exist, and in fact we can only measure their effect, but the particles that should make up these forces don't seem to exist. We invent names like the Graviton to make it seem like they exist, but they have as little evidence for them as dark matter. This is some heavy quantum mechanics shit that nobody on here is qualified to discuss, but I'll start by saying that three of the four forces do in fact have corresponding particles, whereas gravity doesn't because it's instead a property of spacetime rather than the an interaction between subatomic particles. There is currently research being done to find a relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity, but that's ongoing without conclusive answers so far.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 23, 2014, 03:51:47 PMQuote from: RC5908 on November 23, 2014, 03:39:31 PMisn't the ability to choose free will?Some compatibilists would say so, but I don't think that's a very significant definition. Free will, properly defined, is the ability to choose without constraint. This is fundamentally undermined when you realise you aren't in control of your capacity to choose. Think of it like this: you can choose to act on your will, but you can't choose your will. The choices you make, and the autonomy you exercise, will always be part of this determined stream.So, what you're saying is, because we don't have infinite choices and are bound by the actions of others, as well as space and time, we aren't free since some things are just out of our control?That's a different argument than I expected, and I can agree with that.
Life from non-life. According to evolution, life arose from a "hot mix of chemical goop". But there's no evidence for it and the process cannot be recreated in a lab. As a means of damage control, scientists then claimed that life came from somewhere else in the galaxy. But that still leaves the question as to how that strain of life came to be. Is there just a never ending cycle of strains of life that come from another planet?
You can actually recreate organic molecules like protein and amino acids in a lab. The problem occurred when scientists couldn't recreate them under conditions seen on the surface of a primordial earth.
Scientific contradictions
