Conquer Club

Discuss?

Hard determinism when I'm being cynical. Usually I don't really bother thinking about it.

InkL0sed wrote:Discuss?

Do we have any choice?

jonesthecurl wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Discuss?

Do we have any choice?

Maybe...

There is something surreal about voting about whether you have free will...

jonesthecurl wrote:There is something surreal about voting about whether you have free will...

I wouldn't go so far as to call it "surreal", bizarre maybe, but not surreal.

Free will. Determinism is ghey. Free will is also a wonderfully compelling argument against the existence of an omniscient deity.

heavycola wrote:Free will. Determinism is ghey. Free will is also a wonderfully compelling argument against the existence of an omniscient deity.

True.


Also, I'm tempted to bring out Hume and make fun of anyone who voted a single option.

I fall into the "let's look really carefully at our brains and try to figure it out" camp.

Science FTW!

heavycola wrote:Free will. Determinism is ghey. Free will is also a wonderfully compelling argument against the existence of an omniscient deity.

Seems like we covered this already.

The bottom line is if we each make choices and see results based upon those choices, then whether a diety somewhere knows ahead of time (or per some models, everything exists at the same time ..) or not is irrelevant.

AND, whether one believes everything is predetermined or not, I can gaurantee you WILL face results of your actions.

But, that's just my thinking ... on with the debate ...

I think it's a combination of the two, or at least that's how I operate. I'm not talking about my own life, being unable to see into the future with the 20/20 of hindsight more or less forces me into operating on a fully free will presupposition, since I can't know the future. (this also plays into my thoughts on death)

When I write fiction, I have that benefit of seeing the future with the 20/20 of plot. Always best to take the story to an ending I already know, than to plod along with no idea where it's leading.

In that case, of course fatalism becomes nearly par for the course, and so common in literature. But the greatest stories give the characters and story the quality of free will combined with the determinism of the plot. The guiding hand of the storyteller, the creator.

So, if in the case that there is determinism in my life, I don't know it, and couldn't comprehend it if I could. I do know that I don't fear death, however. If it's fate, then so be it. Otherwise, I lose nothing but the present moment. I cannot own the past since I can't possess what is already gone, and I can't own the future, since who can possibly know what is to come?

When we all come to die, our loss is precisely equal. And this is why determinism doesn't work out in practical application in anything but fantasy.

pimpdave wrote:I think it's a combination of the two, or at least that's how I operate. I'm not talking about my own life, being unable to see into the future with the 20/20 of hindsight more or less forces me into operating on a fully free will presupposition, since I can't know the future. (this also plays into my thoughts on death)

When I write fiction, I have that benefit of seeing the future with the 20/20 of plot. Always best to take the story to an ending I already know, than to plod along with no idea where it's leading.

In that case, of course fatalism becomes nearly par for the course, and so common in literature. But the greatest stories give the characters and story the quality of free will combined with the determinism of the plot. The guiding hand of the storyteller, the creator.

So, if in the case that there is determinism in my life, I don't know it, and couldn't comprehend it if I could. I do know that I don't fear death, however. If it's fate, then so be it. Otherwise, I lose nothing but the present moment. I cannot own the past since I can't possess what is already gone, and I can't own the future, since who can possibly know what is to come?

When we all come to die, our loss is precisely equal. And this is why determinism doesn't work out in practical application in anything but fantasy.

I think you're basically describing soft determinism...

InkL0sed wrote:I think you're basically describing soft determinism...

Or a stoic cynicism. But I voted soft determinism, yeah.

Everybody's life is exactly as long as any other.
Each life goes from point a (the start) to point b (the end).
This is a line.
Every line has an infinite number of points in it.
No matter how long or short the line.

Hello arse, here comes my head.

Whoops that makes me a circle, and therefore I need to invent a whole new philosophy.

jonesthecurl wrote:Everybody's life is exactly as long as any other.
Each life goes from point a (the start) to point b (the end).
This is a line.
Every line has an infinite number of points in it.
No matter how long or short the line.

Hello arse, here comes my head.

Whoops that makes me a circle, and therefore I need to invent a whole new philosophy.

Some infinities are longer than others.

Plus, a line cannot be infinite if it is not infinite... ya dig?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

heavycola wrote:Free will. Determinism is ghey. Free will is also a wonderfully compelling argument against the existence of an omniscient deity.

Seems like we covered this already.

The bottom line is if we each make choices and see results based upon those choices, then whether a diety somewhere knows ahead of time (or per some models, everything exists at the same time ..) or not is irrelevant.

AND, whether one believes everything is predetermined or not, I can gaurantee you WILL face results of your actions.

But, that's just my thinking ... on with the debate ...

The weight watchers are god! They're dietists that know ahead of time whether people will gain weight or not.



Really, I've said it often enough already, the e comes before the i.

MeDeFe, you must remember the rules of English are always contradictory. This is just one of those contradictions.

"'I' before 'E' except after 'C'"

Ditocoaf wrote:I fall into the "let's look really carefully at our brains and try to figure it out" camp.

Science FTW!

Oh, and I voted "other", but Science FTW should be a poll option.

InkL0sed wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Everybody's life is exactly as long as any other.
Each life goes from point a (the start) to point b (the end).
This is a line.
Every line has an infinite number of points in it.
No matter how long or short the line.

Hello arse, here comes my head.

Whoops that makes me a circle, and therefore I need to invent a whole new philosophy.

Some infinities are longer than others.

Plus, a line cannot be infinite if it is not infinite... ya dig?

He's not saying the line is infinite... he's saying that it contains an infinite number of points, which is geometrically correct. I'm not sure what the analogy is supposed to mean, but he is geometrically correct.

Skittles! wrote:MeDeFe, you must remember the rules of English are always contradictory. This is just one of those contradictions.

"'I' before 'E' except after 'C'"

and when weighing neighbors.

heavycola wrote:Free will. Determinism is ghey.

You would be the expert no doubt.

Nikolai wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Everybody's life is exactly as long as any other.
Each life goes from point a (the start) to point b (the end).
This is a line.
Every line has an infinite number of points in it.
No matter how long or short the line.

Hello arse, here comes my head.

Whoops that makes me a circle, and therefore I need to invent a whole new philosophy.

Some infinities are longer than others.

Plus, a line cannot be infinite if it is not infinite... ya dig?

He's not saying the line is infinite... he's saying that it contains an infinite number of points, which is geometrically correct. I'm not sure what the analogy is supposed to mean, but he is geometrically correct.

I "understand" this as well as probably anyone can, I guess you didn't understand that I wasn't being too serious. My point was that though every line has an infinite number of points between its endpoints, I think most would agree that a long line has more points than a short line, no? And yet, infinity cannot be greater than infinity...

I suppose that conundrum is related to the fact that .999999999 repeater is actually equivalent to 1 (this can be proven algebraically, I forget how though)

InkL0sed wrote:I suppose that conundrum is related to the fact that .999999999 repeater is actually equivalent to 1 (this can be proven algebraically, I forget how though)

That proof is awesome by the way.

I've always liked Epicurus' idea of time as being a river. Always in motion, never stopping. Powerful enough to wipe away entire civilizations, yet also gentle enough to promote their prosperity. The river always changes things in it's path, etc.

I guess it just depends on what kind of boat you get born on when you're starting, in most parts of the world.

In America, we're supposed to get paddles and the training necessary to learn how to supe up our boats. But thanks to fuckhead Boosh, that's been excluded from the American experience.

And that's enough cross-referential ranting from me for today.

I like the idea that "time" isn't a thing, and can only be represented spatially, not treated like space. Things just happen. Measuring time is just measuring how many times things can or do happen.