Free Will

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Free Will

#13041  Postby newolder » Oct 28, 2018 1:29 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Schiedinger standing there staring into his box.


How on earth did you get "Schiedinger"? Was it by means of some stochastic process?

I mean, if you consciously chose to type "Schiedinger", tell us what your evil intent was. :lol:

Schiedinger, Epstein and Boar were all present at the Solway Convention of 1685 in Carpenhogen where the details of the MWI were hammered out after staring intently into their boxes. Are you from another timeline or sumfink?
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 5396
Age: 7
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#13042  Postby Cito di Pense » Oct 28, 2018 1:52 pm

newolder wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Schiedinger standing there staring into his box.


How on earth did you get "Schiedinger"? Was it by means of some stochastic process?

I mean, if you consciously chose to type "Schiedinger", tell us what your evil intent was. :lol:

Schiedinger, Epstein and Boar were all present at the Solway Convention of 1685 in Carpenhogen where the details of the MWI were hammered out after staring intently into their boxes. Are you from another timeline or sumfink?


Aww, c'mon. It's not as if I've never stared intently into anyone's box before.

"Show me the box," I'd say. It's roughly equivalent to Jerry Maguire's "show me the money".
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26999
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13043  Postby newolder » Oct 28, 2018 2:04 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:...

Aww, c'mon. It's not as if I've never stared intently into anyone's box before.

"Show me the box," I'd say. It's roughly equivalent to Jerry Maguire's "show me the money".

According to our records, your Tardis was dispatched over a month from now. It was due for pick up at Aldebaran last week. If you can't pop 65 light years to go fetch it, the next passing Vogon rep. will be able to give you the correct forms for re-dispersal. (Don't let it start with the poetry, though. :nono: )
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 5396
Age: 7
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13044  Postby ughaibu » Nov 05, 2018 8:32 am

It's been more than a week and no response from Rumraket, so I guess there isn't going to be one. Of course, no response is better than a response advocating the posts of GrahamH and Newolder, but not much.
Let's be quite clear about this, the equivocation in their replies is obvious. It's easy to imagine someone overlooking it if they're posting after a few glasses of wine, but once it's been pointed out, it should be obvious, and once it's been spelled out, what is one to think of people who still act as if it isn't there?
On the face of it, there are three possibilities. First, these two just are too stupid to understand the equivocation. Second, they're completely nuts and so out of touch with reality that they can't understand it. Third, they're lying, they understand the equivocation but are pretending to be too stupid to.
The third possibility is by far the most plausible. In fact, had such a facile equivocation been posted in defence of evolution denial, I'm sure these two would have got it as quickly as anyone else.
But the problem isn't that there are two members posting tripe, it's that nobody has pointed this out. It's that the culture of this site is one that encourages people to behave inconsistently, to tolerate that which they wouldn't ordinarily tolerate as long as it's posted by someone who chants the right slogans.
Such behaviour isn't acceptable on any intellectually respectable site. So, this site fails to meet the minimum level required for intellectual respectability. And I dare say this explains why almost all the interesting and well informed posters left the site four or five years ago. After all, who wants to post on a site on which attempts to discuss matters seriously are met by hysterical and unsupported accusations of "woo", irrelevant rambling waffle from Cito and the kind of crap above from GrahamH and Newolder? It's neither productive nor fun. And look at the result, after a few silly jokes about Dr.Who, the discussion has been successfully killed.
I suggest the site be renamed Irrational Dogmatism, and the mission statement rewritten to accurately reflect the ethos of the site.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4221

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13045  Postby newolder » Nov 05, 2018 8:40 am

[/flouncey flouncey]
:lol:
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 5396
Age: 7
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13046  Postby Fallible » Nov 05, 2018 10:22 am

:waah:
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 47255
Age: 45
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13047  Postby Destroyer » Nov 05, 2018 11:32 am

ughaibu wrote:It's been more than a week and no response from Rumraket, so I guess there isn't going to be one. Of course, no response is better than a response advocating the posts of GrahamH and Newolder, but not much.
Let's be quite clear about this, the equivocation in their replies is obvious. It's easy to imagine someone overlooking it if they're posting after a few glasses of wine, but once it's been pointed out, it should be obvious, and once it's been spelled out, what is one to think of people who still act as if it isn't there?
On the face of it, there are three possibilities. First, these two just are too stupid to understand the equivocation. Second, they're completely nuts and so out of touch with reality that they can't understand it. Third, they're lying, they understand the equivocation but are pretending to be too stupid to.
The third possibility is by far the most plausible. In fact, had such a facile equivocation been posted in defence of evolution denial, I'm sure these two would have got it as quickly as anyone else.
But the problem isn't that there are two members posting tripe, it's that nobody has pointed this out. It's that the culture of this site is one that encourages people to behave inconsistently, to tolerate that which they wouldn't ordinarily tolerate as long as it's posted by someone who chants the right slogans.
Such behaviour isn't acceptable on any intellectually respectable site. So, this site fails to meet the minimum level required for intellectual respectability. And I dare say this explains why almost all the interesting and well informed posters left the site four or five years ago. After all, who wants to post on a site on which attempts to discuss matters seriously are met by hysterical and unsupported accusations of "woo", irrelevant rambling waffle from Cito and the kind of crap above from GrahamH and Newolder? It's neither productive nor fun. And look at the result, after a few silly jokes about Dr.Who, the discussion has been successfully killed.
I suggest the site be renamed Irrational Dogmatism, and the mission statement rewritten to accurately reflect the ethos of the site.

You are very wrong about GrahamH. Newolder probably doesn't take this thread very seriously, understandably so; and Cito, despite having so much to offer - as you quite rightly say - can always be counted upon to try and stifle any intelligent debate. As to why many good posters from the past have left, they would have to answer for themselves, but I suspect that it is simply due to a lack of stimulating conversations, in the main.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1606
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#13048  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 05, 2018 4:54 pm

Destroyer wrote:Cito, despite having so much to offer - as you quite rightly say - can always be counted upon to try and stifle any intelligent debate


I leave you to explain how intelligent debate by people who know what they're doing can be stifled without the use of blades and/or firearms. The diminution of debate here is the dawning recognition by some people that they don't know what they're on about.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26999
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13049  Postby Destroyer » Nov 05, 2018 5:10 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:Cito, despite having so much to offer - as you quite rightly say - can always be counted upon to try and stifle any intelligent debate


I leave you to explain how intelligent debate by people who know what they're doing can be stifled without the use of blades and/or firearms. The diminution of debate here is the dawning recognition by some people that they don't know what they're on about.

Anyone with a little insight and familiarity with your posting history can determine what your aim is in these debates; and it most certainly is not to contribute positively.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1606
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13050  Postby felltoearth » Nov 05, 2018 6:45 pm

ughaibu wrote:It's been more than a week and no response from Rumraket, so I guess there isn't going to be one. Of course, no response is better than a response advocating the posts of GrahamH and Newolder, but not much.
Let's be quite clear about this, the equivocation in their replies is obvious. It's easy to imagine someone overlooking it if they're posting after a few glasses of wine, but once it's been pointed out, it should be obvious, and once it's been spelled out, what is one to think of people who still act as if it isn't there?
On the face of it, there are three possibilities. First, these two just are too stupid to understand the equivocation. Second, they're completely nuts and so out of touch with reality that they can't understand it. Third, they're lying, they understand the equivocation but are pretending to be too stupid to.
The third possibility is by far the most plausible. In fact, had such a facile equivocation been posted in defence of evolution denial, I'm sure these two would have got it as quickly as anyone else.
But the problem isn't that there are two members posting tripe, it's that nobody has pointed this out. It's that the culture of this site is one that encourages people to behave inconsistently, to tolerate that which they wouldn't ordinarily tolerate as long as it's posted by someone who chants the right slogans.
Such behaviour isn't acceptable on any intellectually respectable site. So, this site fails to meet the minimum level required for intellectual respectability. And I dare say this explains why almost all the interesting and well informed posters left the site four or five years ago. After all, who wants to post on a site on which attempts to discuss matters seriously are met by hysterical and unsupported accusations of "woo", irrelevant rambling waffle from Cito and the kind of crap above from GrahamH and Newolder? It's neither productive nor fun. And look at the result, after a few silly jokes about Dr.Who, the discussion has been successfully killed.
I suggest the site be renamed Irrational Dogmatism, and the mission statement rewritten to accurately reflect the ethos of the site.


That’s the most verbose Craigging I’ve come across in a long time, if ever.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 9790
Age: 51

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13051  Postby romansh » Nov 12, 2018 9:55 pm

zoon wrote:
Your comment above about “belief in morality” highlights, I think, where we are differing in what we take morality to be. You are taking it in the traditional sense, as a set of supernaturally backed rules, supposedly transcending science and human emotion. I strongly agree with you that any such morality is to be dismissed; it’s not believable, there’s no evidence for god or for any supernatural moral order to the universe.

I don't think I am taking on any traditional [religious] sense of morality. More the sort of the emotional sense of morality we can find on the Trump thread or on the death of our dear departed Maggie T.

I agree we have emotions of fairness, disgust etc. I have a sense of objects being red, that does not mean they are in of themselves red. While this concept of red is really useful in a pragmatic sort of way; it does not mean I have to believe the said object is actually red. While I concede it might be useful to think of certain actions as moral or immoral, I don't have to believe they are.

Yes we have predispositions. So what? Is my predisposition moral? The question does not even make sense.

What I am actually trying to argue is not that controversial; morality does not exist beyond a concept.

zoon wrote: I think you are also arguing that mere evolved emotions are too simple and unstable to be acceptable bases of our behaviour, we should use reason and science instead?

No I am not arguing that emotions are far too simple for morality.

zoon wrote: I don’t see how we can expect to get rid of emotions, they are what make life worth living in the first place; we use reason and science to fulfil them (as Hume suggested)

I am not arguing for getting rid of emotions. Far from it … just not to think actions as a result of emotions are moral or immoral as such.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2502

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 4 guests