(January 9, 2019 at 4:35 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:(January 9, 2019 at 2:48 pm)tackattack Wrote: I agree Thoreauvian, nihilist was proposing that our only inputs are desires we can't control. In a materialistic view there can be no free will and we're all just robots, following programming.
We have multiple inputs for desires to inform our actions. Some can be responsive to instinctual desires, but the mere fact that we can plan our wife's 40 birthday a year in advance means at least some of those desires are non-reactionary and in line with free will . I think the materialist view on a lot of things is rock solid and valuable, but I don't think it informs the entirety of the human condition. Thanks for the clarification Thoreauvian, I appreciate it.
How do you demonstrate you could really have done something else in that exact circumstance, as oppose to you will do something else in what you conceive to be like circumstances?
Free will is a pernicious concept precisely because it is utterly appealing while utterly undemonstrable. Basing a world view on it is to base it on mere assertion.
Well since the party hasn’t happene, it’s in the future, I can stop planning right now if I choose to. The fact that you asked a question about it is also reactionary evidence for free will. Did you have to ask me the question, we’re you compelled to, or could it have been ignored and unasked?
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
