This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - TheBestUsername
Pages: [1]
1
« on: April 01, 2011, 01:23:54 AM »
Lets look at this post did you have a choice to make this? yes
what more do we need? XD
Take my whole fucking life for an example, i've grown upp in a over christian house with mostly ignorant people around me. From this I chose to 1 become an atheist 2 start studying and make something out of my life. you argue that genes had something to do with this, then why the hell have no1 else in my entire famiy tree ever tried to take eduacation to this level.
anyways I think in the nature vs nurture thing that we are made 70% out of nature and the other 30% out of nurture, or something along those lines.
I would elaborate but I am tired and hungover so...
You've all missed the point. Did I have the choice to reply to this? Of course I did. I could have clicked off it instead, right? Right?! Well, what if my genes and my environment have dictated that I am in fact inclined to reply, rather than desist? I only came back to this thread because I'm a bit bored and I have a headache (which was caused by...), but as I expected, no one got the point, whether for lack of intellect or knowledge (though I am going to go with intellect). It's a little depressing that my zeitgeist is not as advanced, but it's always been this way over the ages...
2
« on: March 27, 2011, 08:58:21 AM »
So your argument is that we don't have free will due to restrictions on our decisions such as parents, genes, and environment? That whether we pick to go left or right down that fork on the road, is a result of such things?
Well we have to break everything down. It ultimately comes down to genes+environment for us, at least on the scale that we have observed thus far (Genes are still quite ill-defined).
But yes, this idea of no free will is very uncomfortable to most people are greatly challenges the status quo. I expect most people to disagree with what I have said, especially making use of strawman arguments.
Strawman?
I believe our genes, past, environment, and a multitude of other things affect our decisions. So essentially if things in my past hadn't happened I wouldn't make certain decisions. Now that I think about it, what do genes have to do with it? Oh, ill defined, yeah.
I'm a nurture man, in the nature vs nurture argument. So I believe everything that happens to you builds you to who you are. You aren't born into the world as the person you'll be in 20 years. Who you are in 20 years is a result of everything that happens to you. Etc. So on terms of free will, I believe it exists. Every decision you make is that of free will, and helps you make better decisions in the future.
Without wanting to be condescending (but seeing no way to avoid this), I won't bother giving an in-depth response to this. Put it this way: the scientific literature shows that your intelligence is mostly given by your genetics (at least 70%), which shows that nature by definition already has a far greater effect on your life than "nurture". Look at the greatest geniuses and tell me their lives were ideal. Look at people like Einstein, like Darwin, like Nietzsche, like Mozart...That is anecdotal at best, so you'll have to do your own reading. I recommend James Flynn's latest work as a good starting point. You could try Matt Ridley's books on the topic, too, though they're a bit too simplified for my taste.
3
« on: March 27, 2011, 01:54:43 AM »
So your argument is that we don't have free will due to restrictions on our decisions such as parents, genes, and environment? That whether we pick to go left or right down that fork on the road, is a result of such things?
Well we have to break everything down. It ultimately comes down to genes+environment for us, at least on the scale that we have observed thus far (Genes are still quite ill-defined). But yes, this idea of no free will is very uncomfortable to most people are greatly challenges the status quo. I expect most people to disagree with what I have said, especially making use of strawman arguments.
4
« on: March 27, 2011, 01:37:46 AM »
Hey, I'm new to this forum. I was going to apply for admin stuff but I got sidetracked looking at all these debate topics. One that took my interest was the one on free will. I tried to reply to someone called "crypto" (I believe), but I couldn't because it's a "dead debate", so I thought I'd do so here, if that's alright.
You said:
"Unless you can prove the existence of a supreme being (God, fate, whatever), there is zero reason whatsoever to reject the notion of free will. Sure, there are environmental factors that limit our freedoms, but free will is literally a scientific characteristic of our species, being self-conscious organisms and all that stuff."
Whoever replied to you about still having free will if there is a God is incorrect. I don't know if you explained to them why that is, but meh.
As for free will, no, we do not have free will.
I was first told why free will is non-existent by a girl about a year ago. I was open-minded enough to consider the notion, but unwilling to commit to the idea at first. So I thought about it for a while and every argument that I could posit in favour of purporting that we have free will was easily destroyed by my counter-arguments.
I think I'll touch on this briefly. First argument against free will is Hume's Fork: Either our actions are determined, in which case we are not responsible for them, or they are the result of random events, in which case we are not responsible for them.
Now my first counter-point to this was: "Our actions are determined, but by us".
But everything can actually be decided by the genes+environment debate. Your genes are pre-determined; you can do nothing about this. But you can control your genes, right? I mean, we're both men, and as men, are supposed to be sexually promiscuous as evolutionary theory dictates (to a degree; culturally we have become monogamous...somewhat), but we can overcome our sexual desire, right? Well, some of us can, some of us don't...Why is this? Obviously something has occurred in our genes that allows us to overcome this. Most likely we inherit this from our mothers, as women are evolutionarily more likely to be prudish rather than promiscuous.
However, this does not change the fact that something in our genetics is allowing us to overcome something else in our genetics. Or perhaps it is our environment? Well what environment we put ourselves in is decided by our genes...and our family...But your parents have genes, so in effect, the foundations are your genetics, at least on this proximate level.
I've rushed this response, so you'll have to lull over it and analyse it and try to come up with your own ideas for and against, but let me know what you think.
As for being self-conscious, we are like that because the niche that we have now occupied dictated that we were required to do so. It all comes down to gene theory (though if you want to be more up to date, RNA).
Someone else mentioned not seeing the point in living if we don't have free will. Listen, I don't have the freedom to do a lot of things, but that does not stop me from enjoying my life. I accept that I am inherently limited by my evolutionary past, but the most powerful instinct that we have, our most basal instinct is that of survival of our genes...So there is your answer (to whoever said that and will most likely not even see this).
5
« on: March 27, 2011, 01:00:22 AM »
Technology pretty much exists for the sake of extending, easing, and otherwise aiding human life. War exists for the sake of none of those.
Sorry, on the first page I can't really see the original post so I don't know your original point. But I want to take issue with, "War exists for the sake of none of those.". You could be meaning intellectual war, rather than physical. But the result is pretty much the same. So let's imagine we have one shop. We also have two families. Imagine that both families can co-exist using this one shop for supplies, and it lasts them until they are 80 years of age (the parents) We know nothing of the moral values of these people. Either they both co-exist and they must ration supplies. Say, if a girl is having PMS pains, she cannot afford to take medication for it, etc etc. Well what if they "went to war"? One family could live blissfully then. In this case war can "extend, ease and aid human life". I could be missing your point, though, so apologies if that is the case.
6
« on: March 27, 2011, 12:40:28 AM »
Global Warming is it bullshit or fact?
If it is a fact should we worry?
No, global warming is not bullshit. Global warming (and cooling) has occurred since the dawn of this planet and will continue to do so, cyclically, though with a trend favouring cooling on a geological scale. As someone else said, Al Gore's video had mistakes in it ( 9 if I remember correctly). Now, the question is, and I think you may have meant it as, "is global warming man-made?". The answer to this question isn't that simple, but taken in the right context, not it is not. Enough research into the scientific literature will show that it is not. What advantages are there to proliferate the lie that global warming is anthropocentric? Well, you can tax carbon emissions; you can write articles on the issue; you can publish books on the issue; you can DISTRACT people from more important issues (such as your government reducing taxes for the rich or pharmaceuticals not making available simple medicines to fight disease in developing countries). You can also use it as a tool for campaiging for office. Imagine you had two countries: X and Y. X is far more efficient. This country saves money on electricity, gas and its public sector is bolstered by newspaper sales and book sales. Y does nothing and is wasteful. Which one makes more economical and political sense? I've not gone in to any depth here about the science, because that is just knowledge, whereas what I have mentioned might require a little more intellectual depth to conclude. Hope this helps...
Pages: [1]
ShoutBox!
|
Show Posts