Free Will

bountyhunter

Joined Sep 7, 2009
2,512
Well said.

To be honest, I think people might be over-thinking this. There IS no right or wrong answer. The belief in free will alone boils down to many different relating factors. You can present as many examples of free will as you like to support your belief, but no matter how much you say, the other side will match it. You can't win, you can't lose. It's as simple as that.
Actually, it's a lot simpler:

I spent a lot of time in college and the bottom line with philosophy is that somebody can always "prove" thet there is no such thing as reality, all knowledge is just an assumption, blah blah blah.......

And as I said to a professor once:

Sure, but how does that help you when you have to do a tune up on your Volkswagen?

All the crap about free will is just a continual exercise to prove that nobody needs to take responsibility for anything.

Know where that gets us?

HINT: take a look at what's going on in Washington DC today.......

When morality is all "relative", there's no need for morality at all.
 

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
439
Well said.

In fact, we almost seem to be getting into the religious aspects, which not only makes it difficult to discuss logically, but also is frowned upon here at AAC. Personally, I'm thinking I'll stand back in the shadows for the rest of this one. Not sure I'd like to be a major part in it ;)

Best wishes,
Matt
I was done with this discussion yesterday, but just had to reply. Good catch on me using the "B" word though. And yes, it is getting a little bit pointless.

I found "Blink" on line, a light read, but a good intro to the topic. I'll stick with Kant and his writings on morality. And yes, morality is absolute.

Happy New Year,
Victoria

p.s I will now exercise my free will to stop watching Star Trek and go buy myself some food ;)
 
Last edited:

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
I prefer original writings by Kant, as I have cited earlier, who ties morality to free will by necessity.
I tend to dismiss these arguments (despite the fact that I agree with the point being argued for) because they basically come down to, "I don't like the consequences of A being true, therefore A must be false." If predeterminism is true, then it is true regardless of what consequences it has for human freedom and/or morality. The argument Kant puts forth is, IMO, backwards. He is saying that our view of morality is proof of physical reality (i.e., determinism vs free will). Best case, he is saying that our view of morality must be consistent with physical reality and using that as a basis for divining what physical reality is, but then the burden of proof is on him to prove that our view of reality must be consistent with physical reality, and I've never seen any hint of such an effort.
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
I define "sound" as the electrical signals that your brain interprets. The airwaves with changing frequency only create these signals when they are picked up with an ear drum.
If you ever design a burglar alarm, this approach can cause trouble. A deaf burglar would not hear glass breaking, but the alarm should detect the changes of air pressure/movement, or it won't do its job well.

Seriously, sound happens, humans perceive, instruments measure. Sound still happens and instruments still measure regardless of the presence of human perception. I'm just being practical, though it might be called tunnel vision caused by my field of study and life experiences.

Now that I've had my say, what advantages does your method include?
 

DerStrom8

Joined Feb 20, 2011
2,390
If you ever design a burglar alarm, this approach can cause trouble. A deaf burglar would not hear glass breaking, but the alarm should detect the changes of air pressure/movement, or it won't do its job well.

Seriously, sound happens, humans perceive, instruments measure. Sound still happens and instruments still measure regardless of the presence of human perception. I'm just being practical, though it might be called tunnel vision caused by my field of study and life experiences.

Now that I've had my say, what advantages does your method include?
Darn it #12, why do you ask me a question right after I say I'm done? :rolleyes::D

Yes. Changes in air pressure ("waves" with varying frequency) are the cause of sound, but it does not become sound until it's detected by ear drums. Let's use your "deaf" example. I think you made my point very well. A deaf person is someone who has damaged ear drums, or damaged parts of their brain that detect the vibrations on the ear drums, or somewhere in between. A deaf person does not hear sound, because there is a problem with his/her ear drums/brain. Therefore, the air waves cannot be turned into "sound" (electrical signals detected by the auditory centers of the brain). There can be a blasting radio, for example, but to a deaf person there is no sound. Do you see what I mean?

But that wasn't my point. My point was that it all depends on how you define SOUND, or in the case of this thread, FREE WILL. That definition will vary from person to person. Neither is absolutely wrong, and neither is absolutely right. That is why I don't believe this thread is going to get anyone anywhere.

Okay, I've said my final piece. PLEASE don't ask me any more questions :p I think I've said all I can to get my point across :D

Regards,
Matt
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
Sorry. I've been up to my eyebrows in visiting relatives and family demands for a week. Christmas might be a good thing, but my relatives are not the fun part. So...I wasn't paying attention as well as I usually do.
 

GetDeviceInfo

Joined Jun 7, 2009
2,192
let's make it easy; 'Free will' can be expressed through the action of taking away anothers ability to express thier will. Reason or repercussion irrelevant. 'Sound' is a referenced range of frequencies that a human 'could' hear.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
Darn it #12, why do you ask me a question right after I say I'm done? :rolleyes::D

Yes. Changes in air pressure ("waves" with varying frequency) are the cause of sound, but it does not become sound until it's detected by ear drums. Let's use your "deaf" example. I think you made my point very well. A deaf person is someone who has damaged ear drums, or damaged parts of their brain that detect the vibrations on the ear drums, or somewhere in between. A deaf person does not hear sound, because there is a problem with his/her ear drums/brain. Therefore, the air waves cannot be turned into "sound" (electrical signals detected by the auditory centers of the brain). There can be a blasting radio, for example, but to a deaf person there is no sound. Do you see what I mean?
And, therefore, a flashlight only emits light when there is a non-blind person to see it?

And "sound-activated circuits" are a misnomer?

And it makes no sense to talk about the "speed of sound" if "sound" can only refer to the perceptions in the brain that occur after variations in air pressure cause causing motion of the ear drum.

I understand what you are saying about it depending on how you define sound, but we can't just define a jellyfish to be a thing with four wheels -- fine-point definitions needs to be grounded in reasonable extensions, generalizations, or specializations of accepted use. If it is reasonable to narrowly define "sound" as being the limited to a perception in the brain, then there must be a widely accepted term, distinct from "sound" that is the name of the variations in air pressure. What is it?
 

Metalmann

Joined Dec 8, 2012
703
You are always responsible for your actions, if you make a choice, it is yours. Anything else is an excuse. Many people try this in the court systems, "I was abused as a child!" It doesn't usually fly well.


Agreed.
After retirement, I worked when I wanted to; so is that considered Free Will?

I just call it Freedom.;)
 

MvGulik

Joined Nov 3, 2011
41
One sided stories are like advertisements. And that one seems to be for relieving societies members for any effects that might flow from a cultural background. Kinda removing the need to think about cultural effects, and putting the focus only on getting rid of the bad apples that are to stupid to break the laws.

Mmm. No indirect responsibility. ... yea, I like that.
 

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
Darn it #12, why do you ask me a question right after I say I'm done? :rolleyes::D
...
Okay, I've said my final piece. PLEASE don't ask me any more questions :p I think I've said all I can to get my point across :D
...
Ahah! See, he took away your free will to leave the thread and manipulated you to come back and post an answer to his question! ;)
 

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
835
:After reading this hole thread, I think free will was taken when I joined AAC.

Not to say there's anything wrong with that..................

Edit: I think I'm in the Matrix:eek:, (I will take my Steak Medium rare and don't give me that 2nd rate sub routine crap)
 
Last edited:
Top