If you have no free will, whatever you say or think is meaningless. LOL does not refute anything. I don't understand why people who are determinists discuss anything w/anyone.
Neither of your points refute determinism. First let me get out of the way that determinism in the form of Laplace's demon, this has been refuted since the founding of quantum mechanics. The universe is not truly deterministic because of randomness of particle decay due to quantum fluctuation.
Now to your (or Sir Lunn's) points. Lack of consistency regarding our actions does not refute the idea of free will. This is what you are talking about by they way, not deterministic laws controlling the natural universe. Every human can change his mind and still be void of free will.
When presented with new evidence humans (rational thinkers) may react differently than they would have initially. A different environment may cause us to act differently. Essentially Mr Lunn is using a fallacious argument (argument from ignorance/incredulity); because he can not envision how lack of free will could cause a person to act seemingly inconsistently he deems this proof for his argument.
Further, you can rationalize the punishment of criminals as a precautionary measure so that a would be criminal takes punishment for his actions into account. The sub conscience mind could decide not to commit a crime based on the consequences of that crime. Just as the mind would weigh the costs and benefits for getting off the couch to make a sandwich. Punishing criminals 1. sets a moral framework for a society 2. acts as a deterrent
Your last argument for free will which was a personal anecdote regarding a person writing a deterministic piece in a newspaper called free will. While mildly amusing, this is not an argument.
Also, when I use wording like rational thought, changing mind, think.. I know you would like to twist these words to show what you believe is hypocrisy. In reality, these are nothing more than competing chemical reactions in the brain. Consequence for an action may cause you to 'change your mind' or a different set of neurons to fire. This is all I am referring to.
alot of moderns don't know the limits of physical science nor the object of such..
The object of the physical sciences is the individual, material, concrete,(including protons etc.) and their relation to each other. No THOUGHT.. THe lower cannot give rise to the higher, nor can non- thinking neurons give rise to thought and consciousness.
I disagree. While thought is immaterial, this does not mean it is not a part of our natural world. Because of this some would like to assign it to the realm of the super natural. A vacuum is immaterial by definition, that is not to say it is not part of our natural world and subject to it. The same applies to our thoughts. To assume that our thoughts are a product of just thinking is ascribing the event as a supernatural one.
what???i cant even hear you, is this even you thinking on the matter??you havent even explained your view on the matter. please post it in a room and give your opinion on the subject please
philosophy without contradicting himself. Mr Cohen,..is
the editor of a periodical in which he proclaims week by week that there is no such thing as
free thought, and consequently no such person as a freethinker. And the name of the periodical is The Free-Thinker. From which It would seem to follow that the free-thinker is a man who disbelieves in the possibility of free-thinking.
Thanks to Mr burn for your comment. If your ideas are only a product of forces of the universe, how you can know I am wrong? Under the determinist system, both of our views are equally dictated by forces of the universe. Beliefs,according to determinism, are not freely weighed by the human intellect (which materialist-determinists necessarily deny exists.)but dictated by irresistable forces. Determinism is intellectual nihilism, and all knowledge in this system is IMPOSSIBLE!
Lol, none of that debuts anything. lol
MSlapik 4 years ago
If you have no free will, whatever you say or think is meaningless. LOL does not refute anything. I don't understand why people who are determinists discuss anything w/anyone.
dawgie102 4 years ago
Lol expresses laughter. This is funny because you take it so seriously but your really not making any sense.
MSlapik 4 years ago
Neither of your points refute determinism. First let me get out of the way that determinism in the form of Laplace's demon, this has been refuted since the founding of quantum mechanics. The universe is not truly deterministic because of randomness of particle decay due to quantum fluctuation.
enclave2k1 4 years ago
Now to your (or Sir Lunn's) points. Lack of consistency regarding our actions does not refute the idea of free will. This is what you are talking about by they way, not deterministic laws controlling the natural universe. Every human can change his mind and still be void of free will.
enclave2k1 4 years ago
When presented with new evidence humans (rational thinkers) may react differently than they would have initially. A different environment may cause us to act differently. Essentially Mr Lunn is using a fallacious argument (argument from ignorance/incredulity); because he can not envision how lack of free will could cause a person to act seemingly inconsistently he deems this proof for his argument.
enclave2k1 4 years ago
Further, you can rationalize the punishment of criminals as a precautionary measure so that a would be criminal takes punishment for his actions into account. The sub conscience mind could decide not to commit a crime based on the consequences of that crime. Just as the mind would weigh the costs and benefits for getting off the couch to make a sandwich. Punishing criminals 1. sets a moral framework for a society 2. acts as a deterrent
enclave2k1 4 years ago
Your last argument for free will which was a personal anecdote regarding a person writing a deterministic piece in a newspaper called free will. While mildly amusing, this is not an argument.
enclave2k1 4 years ago
It is an argument exposing said person as a self contradictor. He is a good example of many determinists in his class.
dawgie102 4 years ago
Also, when I use wording like rational thought, changing mind, think.. I know you would like to twist these words to show what you believe is hypocrisy. In reality, these are nothing more than competing chemical reactions in the brain. Consequence for an action may cause you to 'change your mind' or a different set of neurons to fire. This is all I am referring to.
enclave2k1 4 years ago
alot of moderns don't know the limits of physical science nor the object of such..
The object of the physical sciences is the individual, material, concrete,(including protons etc.) and their relation to each other. No THOUGHT.. THe lower cannot give rise to the higher, nor can non- thinking neurons give rise to thought and consciousness.
dawgie102 4 years ago
I disagree. While thought is immaterial, this does not mean it is not a part of our natural world. Because of this some would like to assign it to the realm of the super natural. A vacuum is immaterial by definition, that is not to say it is not part of our natural world and subject to it. The same applies to our thoughts. To assume that our thoughts are a product of just thinking is ascribing the event as a supernatural one.
enclave2k1 4 years ago
Amen
MSlapik 4 years ago
what???i cant even hear you, is this even you thinking on the matter??you havent even explained your view on the matter. please post it in a room and give your opinion on the subject please
tarotfest 4 years ago
Thanks for your input. I checked the sound .. It is good on this end. - This is not MY view. It is the view of a critic of derminism, Sir Arnold Lunn.
Look him up on the net, or I will post his view here if I can paste it.. Thanx again
dawgie102 4 years ago
It is difficult for a determinist to be
consistent. He cannot even describe his own
philosophy without contradicting himself. Mr Cohen,..is
the editor of a periodical in which he proclaims week by week that there is no such thing as
free thought, and consequently no such person as a freethinker. And the name of the periodical is The Free-Thinker. From which It would seem to follow that the free-thinker is a man who disbelieves in the possibility of free-thinking.
dawgie102 4 years ago
I am a determinist, and I will not contradict myself.
burnvictim77 4 years ago
Thanks to Mr burn for your comment. If your ideas are only a product of forces of the universe, how you can know I am wrong? Under the determinist system, both of our views are equally dictated by forces of the universe. Beliefs,according to determinism, are not freely weighed by the human intellect (which materialist-determinists necessarily deny exists.)but dictated by irresistable forces. Determinism is intellectual nihilism, and all knowledge in this system is IMPOSSIBLE!
dawgie102 4 years ago