12 of 16
12
Sam’s new thoughts on free will
Posted: 23 September 2012 07:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 166 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
GenerousGeorge - 23 September 2012 07:16 PM

LOL   I had not seen that ..... like poor Jimmy didn’t have enough problem without killer rabbits.


I’m one of the few that supported Jimmy in this affair.
I figure if a rabbit comes after you….....and you have an oar…........

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 07:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 167 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

SMACK THAT SUCKER!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 07:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 168 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
GenerousGeorge - 23 September 2012 07:28 PM

SMACK THAT SUCKER!

grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 07:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 169 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  20
Joined  2012-09-22
Hunt Stoddard - 09 September 2012 04:40 PM
toombaru - 09 September 2012 02:54 PM

It is impossible to discuss how things would be without something that doesn’t exist.

Discussing how things would be without something that doesn’t exist is the same as discussing how things are, but that’s not the point because the discussion is about how things would be without lending credence to the “notion of free will,” which does exist.

Agreed.If you are discussing that things doesn’t exist,then that is the same as saying things exist,because you wouldn’t be discussing anything if it doesn’t exist.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 07:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 170 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
anneyours - 23 September 2012 07:29 PM
Hunt Stoddard - 09 September 2012 04:40 PM
toombaru - 09 September 2012 02:54 PM

It is impossible to discuss how things would be without something that doesn’t exist.

Discussing how things would be without something that doesn’t exist is the same as discussing how things are, but that’s not the point because the discussion is about how things would be without lending credence to the “notion of free will,” which does exist.

Agreed.If you are discussing that things doesn’t exist,then that is the same as saying things exist,because you wouldn’t be discussing anything if it doesn’t exist.


Can you speak about nothing?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 07:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 171 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

We can discuss the Flying Spaghetti Monster which does not exist. Discussing it will not change that.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 07:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 172 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
GenerousGeorge - 23 September 2012 07:33 PM

We can discuss the Flying Spaghetti Monster which does not exist. Discussing it will not change that.


Ok…...let’s discuss the Flying Spagehetti Monster.
You start.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 07:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 173 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2012-08-29
anneyours - 23 September 2012 07:29 PM
Hunt Stoddard - 09 September 2012 04:40 PM
toombaru - 09 September 2012 02:54 PM

It is impossible to discuss how things would be without something that doesn’t exist.

Discussing how things would be without something that doesn’t exist is the same as discussing how things are, but that’s not the point because the discussion is about how things would be without lending credence to the “notion of free will,” which does exist.

Agreed.If you are discussing that things doesn’t exist,then that is the same as saying things exist,because you wouldn’t be discussing anything if it doesn’t exist.

I’ll inform the throngs of Star Trek and Tolkien scholars.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 07:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 174 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2012-08-29

Wow, three of us jumped on that poor boy in an instant.  I see the work of His noodley appendage in this.


He came after us like a swamp rabbit does an oar wielding boater.

[ Edited: 23 September 2012 07:47 PM by TheCoolinator]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 07:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 175 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

Wellll, he can take comfort that it is all illusory anyway.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 07:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 176 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
GenerousGeorge - 23 September 2012 07:47 PM

Wellll, he can take comfort that it is all illusory anyway.

If there were a he to take it.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 08:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 177 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2012-08-29

If I may return to something a little more serious.


George has generously flattered me by allowing me to believe I may have had some influence on his opinion about free will.  I am concerned however, about statements which allow for the possibility of a ‘super intelligence’ or ‘meta cognition.’  Unlike subjective free will, which all lapel wearing people agree that they experience (illusory or otherwise), there is no evidence whatsoever upon which to support that kind of hypothesis, and we should take care not to advance such notions in the absence of evidence.


I have spent much time in this forum attacking Naturalists.  I very much agree, however, with the foundation of their philosophy, that there are no supernatural forces.  If free will exists there is only one possibility by which it could have emerged in an organism: natural selection.  As I have said, if a single photosensitive cell can evolve into an eye (as has happened 40 times that biologists have identified - if we are to believe Dawkins) then there is nothing incredible about the idea that an arbitrary selector neuron may evolve into a neural circuit capable of free will.  As for external forces on our cognition, I would limit my hypotheses to verified phenomena in the physical world.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 08:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 178 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
TheCoolinator - 23 September 2012 08:07 PM

If I may return to something a little more serious.


George has generously flattered me by allowing me to believe I may have had some influence on his opinion about free will.  I am concerned however, about statements which allow for the possibility of a ‘super intelligence’ or ‘meta cognition.’  Unlike subjective free will, which all lapel wearing people agree that they experience (illusory or otherwise), there is no evidence whatsoever upon which to support that kind of hypothesis, and we should take care not to advance such notions in the absence of evidence.


I have spent much time in this forum attacking Naturalists.  I very much agree, however, with the foundation of their philosophy, that there are no supernatural forces.  If free will exists there is only one possibility by which it could have emerged in an organism: natural selection.  As I have said, if a single photosensitive cell can evolve into an eye (as has happened 40 times that biologists have identified - if we are to believe Dawkins) then there is nothing incredible about the idea that an arbitrary selector neuron may evolve into a neural circuit capable of free will.  As for external forces on our cognition, I would limit my hypotheses to verified phenomena in the physical world.


If a single photosensitive cell could evolve into a functioning eye then a brain that reacts could evolve an entity that has free will.
By that reasoning an entity that has free will may itself evolve into a creator god.
Hey….............wait a minute…....maybe the Mormons are a step ahead of us.
:-0

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 08:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 179 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2012-08-29
toombaru - 23 September 2012 08:19 PM

If a single photosensitive cell could evolve into a functioning eye then a brain that reacts could evolve an entity that has free will.
By that reasoning an entity that has free will may itself evolve into a creator god.
Hey….............wait a minute…....maybe the Mormons are a step ahead of us.
:-0

Once again you’ve resorted to fallacy in a crude attempt to extend my arguments to propositions I reject.  But to be fair, I wouldn’t put the Mormons ahead of you.  I think they are precisely on par in the number of claims they have accepted on faith.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 08:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 180 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
TheCoolinator - 23 September 2012 08:39 PM
toombaru - 23 September 2012 08:19 PM

If a single photosensitive cell could evolve into a functioning eye then a brain that reacts could evolve an entity that has free will.
By that reasoning an entity that has free will may itself evolve into a creator god.
Hey….............wait a minute…....maybe the Mormons are a step ahead of us.
:-0

Once again you’ve resorted to fallacy in a crude attempt to extend my arguments to propositions I reject.  But to be fair, I wouldn’t put the Mormons ahead of you.  I think they are precisely on par in the number of claims they have accepted on faith.


Non-belief requires no faith and no supporting evidence.
You base your belief in self its free will on faith.
And that is simply because there is no evidence to support their reality.

 

Profile
 
 
   
12 of 16
12
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed