How is anything really anyone's 'fault'?

[Metsfanmax]

Does free will exist?

No.

Do people really make choices?

Yes.

These answers are incompatible. A lack of existence of free will implies that one does not have the capability of actually making choices; that is, your actions (the ones you perceive as choices) are truly predetermined from the start. What we perceive as choice is simply the result of complex interactions in the brain governed by immutable physical laws of the universe.

it's not his fault, he was forced to post that

And I was forced to call him out.

[Aradhus]

God made me espouse a pro free will position via contradiction.

[jay_a2j]

You always have a choice on what you do. You can't always control how you feel. I believe homosexuals can not help feeling attracted to the same sex (I believe usually this is because there was some sort of trauma in their childhood; sexual abuse, mistreatment/neglect of one parent, etc.) But we have control over what we DO. (engage in same-sex relationships, inappropriate activity with children etc.)


Just as an alcoholic has control over picking up a drink or not, though he may desire a drink, it is his choice whether or not to drink.

[natty dread]

I believe the idea goes like this: all the particles in the universe follow the laws of physics. If all the particles move and interact with each other according to a certain set of rules (all of which we don't even know yet) then the universe is basically deterministic: the universe was born, the particles & energy were put into motion, and now it is just like a train on tracks, the universe just plays out according to the preset rules and laws of physics.

So free will is an illusion. We are all just heaps of particles, and our brains are these same particles, interacting with each other according to the rules of physics. Our complex brains give us the illusion of control, but actually, all the processes of which our consciousness is born, the processes that we mistake for our own free will, are also following the laws of physics: therefore they are pre-programmed by the universe.


Now, I don't necessarily subscribe to this idea myself. We don't know enough about how the universe works yet to be able to accurately state that it follows a deterministic pattern. We don't even exactly understand the concept of "consciousness" yet, so it's a bit premature to make such statements. But even if the hypothesis is true, it doesn't really affect our daily lives. If we have the illusion of free will, then from our persepctive, we have free will, and we can live our lives as such.

Anyway, the main reason I reject determinism is that it's an easy excuse for inaction (or taking the easy way). With determinism, it becomes easy to say "well, I don't really have any control on my actions anyway, so I don't have to take any responsibility of them either".

[nietzsche]

I'm liking BBS more and more.

Yes it's a matter of definition of free will.

Imagine a glass container of spherical form, inside there's the universe, everything there is. You and I are observers right now, don't argue how we are outside for now. Inside the sphere, there's a deterministic universe, everything has a cause, particle A just hit particle B because before that, radiation from a hotter object caused the substance of which these two particles are part to gain heat, meaning its particles are more dynamic. For the sake of the explanation don't ask how are we observing these without bouncing light out of this universe.

From the nano scale to our scale, from the "simplicity" of a hydrogen atom to a chain of proteins to the complexity of a human brain, from gravity to an earthquake, everything follows a set of rules, everything was caused by a previous event. The incredulous smile you are having right now would be predictable for us who are outside the universe if we could stop the time in this glass container and be able to capture all of the status of this universe in a super computer bigger and more powerful and capable than the universe in the glass container.

So, in a few words, a deterministic universe.

BUT

We are not outside of the universe nor is our cognitive abilities something that happens out o the materialistic world. Our thinking involves mater interacting. Our thinking and knowing is a materialistic action. Our own pondering on materialism, dualism, determinism, free will are in themselves causes, and were caused by previous events.

Oh but we are capricious and we want a world with meaning and all those fairy tales...

Enters "free will": meaning?

Whatever wikipedia says, we want to know that we can control ourselves, we don't want to believe that what we will do in the future is already determined and we are doomed to suffer with no point at all because what we feel and think is of no importance in the world.

The thing is, we are part of this universe we described in a sphere. We are protons and atoms and molecules and proteins and tissues and organs moving, adapting renewing and dying in time. Thinking and suffering and pondering and reading post too.

So, since everything matters in the universe, since every particle has its role to play, you, who are part of this universe, matter too, your every action or thought influences the outcome.

And from the pragmatical point of view as AoG guessed, when you think you can't control anything, when you actually embrace that thought and feeling, you sink little by little into a living hell. On the contrary, when you take responsibility for your actions and your life you actually learn to control yourself more and more and enjoy a better life.


YOU'D BETTER FUCKING READ IT BECAUSE IT TOOK ME LIKE 20 MINUTES TO WRITE IT

[Metsfanmax]

And from the pragmatical point of view as AoG guessed, when you think you can't control anything, when you actually embrace that thought and feeling, you sink little by little into a living hell. On the contrary, when you take responsibility for your actions and your life you actually learn to control yourself more and more and enjoy a better life.

I am not looking for therapeutic advice on how to live my life. I am just arguing that choice does not exist, because every action we engage in is predetermined by the physical laws that govern nature. There is no way to dispute this, because every time you "make a decision" all that has really happened is that you have engaged in one course of action, which could not be distinguished from a universe in which people truly do not have any decision making capabilities at all. It might feel like, say, that I had the choice whether to respond to your post or not, but how can I know that I actually made a decision? I can choose to believe that to retain my sanity, but that doesn't make it any more true.

[BigBallinStalin]

And from the pragmatical point of view as AoG guessed, when you think you can't control anything, when you actually embrace that thought and feeling, you sink little by little into a living hell. On the contrary, when you take responsibility for your actions and your life you actually learn to control yourself more and more and enjoy a better life.

I am not looking for therapeutic advice on how to live my life. I am just arguing that choice does not exist, because every action we engage in is predetermined by the physical laws that govern nature. There is no way to dispute this, because every time you "make a decision" all that has really happened is that you have engaged in one course of action, which could not be distinguished from a universe in which people truly do not have any decision making capabilities at all. It might feel like, say, that I had the choice whether to respond to your post or not, but how can I know that I actually made a decision? I can choose to believe that to retain my sanity, but that doesn't make it any more true.

How are you defining "choice"?


What do you mean by "choice does not exist"? That doesn't make sense because I constantly face several different opportunities in my future. I perceive my available choices, and at the moment nothing is predetermined. I have to select from a variety of future paths. Then, I choose to follow one of them. Choice existed just then, and choices exist constantly.

"how can I know that I actually made a decision?"

Because at that moment, you were faced with a set of opportunities: respond or ignore. The availability of options demands a choice to be made. If a choice didn't exist, then how could you decide to do anything? You couldn't; you have to make a choice, so choices do exist. Anyway, you chose "respond." How can you sincerely not know that you made a decision?


If choices didn't exist, then I could go on auto-pilot and everything I wanted accomplished would be accomplished. But that doesn't happen in the real world. I have to decide how to use my time and how much resources I must dedicate to any particular task. This process requires making choices...

How about deciding what to eat for breakfast? I have eggs, bread, steak, vegetables, and many combinations of spices, peppers, seasonings, etc. How did the physical laws that govern nature predetermine that I would eat cereal with milk?

Basically, please explain how the physical laws that govern nature predetermined all my above decisions.



Oh, I see what you're doing. From a 3rd person perspective, one couldn't tell if everything was already predetermined. That doesn't exclude the perception of the people who you are monitoring. They perceive choices and make them. This process occurred within their pasts, at the present, and their set of opportunities arranges their future options--which is constantly changing due to previous decisions made (and from exogenous factors that are beyond one's control). In reality, there is no "3rd observer"; it's merely an abstract concept. You can't perceive what others perceive. You're basically looking at the outcomes of their decisions and are unable to see the process which went into their decisions. By only focusing on the present outcomes, you conveniently excluded the past decisions which has shaped their available opportunities in the present. They've made choices, which shapes their future opportunity sets, but you can't see that process; therefore, you'll erroneously declare that choice doesn't exist because everything was predetermined.

[Metsfanmax]

How are you defining "choice"?

I define choice as the concept of engaging in an action that fundamentally could not have been predicted by an outside observer, should one with enough background information and computing power attempt to predict an individual's actions. For that is truly what choice is, as commonly understood: the use of one's own mind to evaluate the options one has and consequently make a choice. Since it is believed that the mind has some sort of control of the body, and each mind is ostensibly unique, real choice could not be predicted by an outside observer who did not have access to the mind of the individual.

What do you mean by "choice does not exist"? That doesn't make sense because I constantly face several different opportunities in my future. I perceive my available choices, and at the moment nothing is predetermined. I have to select from a variety of future paths. Then, I choose to follow one of them. Choice existed just then, and choices exist constantly.

I mean that not only is your perception of your options based on your past experiences and your genetic nature, but that your evaluation of the options itself (and your consequent action) was predetermined even if you did not feel like it was predetermined.

"how can I know that I actually made a decision?"

Because at that moment, you were faced with a set of opportunities: respond or ignore. The availability of options demands a choice to be made. If a choice didn't exist, then how could you decide to do anything? You couldn't; you have to make a choice, so choices do exist. Anyway, you chose "respond." How can you sincerely not know that you made a decision?

This statement assumes that we have the option of choosing one choice preferably over another, whereas I would argue that such is not really a choice but simply a consequence of simple physical laws that govern how our mind operates.

If choices didn't exist, then I could go on auto-pilot and everything I wanted accomplished would be accomplished. But that doesn't happen in the real world. I have to decide how to use my time and how much resources I must dedicate to any particular task. This process requires making choices...

How about deciding what to eat for breakfast? I have eggs, bread, steak, vegetables, and many combinations of spices, peppers, seasonings, etc. How did the physical laws that govern nature predetermine that I would eat cereal with milk?

Basically, please explain how the physical laws that govern nature predetermined all my above decisions.

I don't know, it's pretty complicated. But to deny that your choice is predetermined is to claim that there is something other than fundamental physical laws of nature governing the processes in your mind; that is, that consciousness exists in a realm outside of the physical universe.

Oh, I see what you're doing. From a 3rd person perspective, one couldn't tell if everything was already predetermined. That doesn't exclude the perception of the people who you are monitoring. They perceive choices and make them. This process occurred within their pasts, at the present, and their set of opportunities arranges their future options--which is constantly changing due to previous decisions made (and from exogenous factors that are beyond one's control). In reality, there is no "3rd observer"; it's merely an abstract concept. You can't perceive what others perceive. You're basically looking at the outcomes of their decisions and are unable to see the process which went into their decisions. By only focusing on the present outcomes, you conveniently excluded the past decisions which has shaped their available opportunities in the present. They've made choices, which shapes their future opportunity sets, but you can't see that process; therefore, you'll erroneously declare that choice doesn't exist because everything was predetermined.

I address most of this above, but your argument about "past decisions" is irrelevant because all of those past decisions were governed by the same process that governs the current one; repeat at will, tracking backwards in time, until birth.

[BigBallinStalin]

How are you defining "choice"?

I define choice as the concept of engaging in an action that fundamentally could not have been predicted by an outside observer, should one with enough background information and computing power attempt to predict an individual's actions. For that is truly what choice is, as commonly understood: the use of one's own mind to evaluate the options one has and consequently make a choice. Since it is believed that the mind has some sort of control of the body, and each mind is ostensibly unique, real choice could not be predicted by an outside observer who did not have access to the mind of the individual.

Even if an action was predicted, then how does that not make it a choice in the past? For example, I predict that you'll respond to someone's post in the ConquerClub forum some time in the near future. If I'm correct, does that mean that you had no choice? No, that doesn't follow because you still have to make a choice.

If you choose to not respond anywhere in the forum in the near future, does that make my prediction false, or are you merely choosing not to post in order to prove my prediction wrong? (lolol, isn't that fun?)

Choices exist independently from a 3rd party's ability to predict someone's actions.

What do you mean by "choice does not exist"? That doesn't make sense because I constantly face several different opportunities in my future. I perceive my available choices, and at the moment nothing is predetermined. I have to select from a variety of future paths. Then, I choose to follow one of them. Choice existed just then, and choices exist constantly.

I mean that not only is your perception of your options based on your past experiences and your genetic nature, but that your evaluation of the options itself (and your consequent action) was predetermined even if you did not feel like it was predetermined.

Yet you fail to explain: how do you know? (see below)

"how can I know that I actually made a decision?"

Because at that moment, you were faced with a set of opportunities: respond or ignore. The availability of options demands a choice to be made. If a choice didn't exist, then how could you decide to do anything? You couldn't; you have to make a choice, so choices do exist. Anyway, you chose "respond." How can you sincerely not know that you made a decision?

This statement assumes that we have the option of choosing one choice preferably over another, whereas I would argue that such is not really a choice but simply a consequence of simple physical laws that govern how our mind operates.

And still no explanation as to how that's the case... (continue below)

If choices didn't exist, then I could go on auto-pilot and everything I wanted accomplished would be accomplished. But that doesn't happen in the real world. I have to decide how to use my time and how much resources I must dedicate to any particular task. This process requires making choices...

How about deciding what to eat for breakfast? I have eggs, bread, steak, vegetables, and many combinations of spices, peppers, seasonings, etc. How did the physical laws that govern nature predetermine that I would eat cereal with milk?

Basically, please explain how the physical laws that govern nature predetermined all my above decisions.

I don't know, it's pretty complicated. But to deny that your choice is predetermined is to claim that there is something other than fundamental physical laws of nature governing the processes in your mind; that is, that consciousness exists in a realm outside of the physical universe.

"You don't know." You just appeal to some cause without explaining as to why it's the case. We can reasonably reject your argument because you have failed to support it. You just say "physical laws of nature predetermined our choices."

It's just as logical for me to say "God did it." And then, when pressed to explain how, I'll throw my hands up and say, "I dunno, it's complicated, yet I'm still correct because God did it." It seems that you have entered the realm of the unfalsifiable.



Even if I were to accept that there is something other than fundamental physical laws of nature governing the processes in my mind, it doesn't follow that your physical laws explanation has predetermined my future and past. It can only explain how I made these choices, but can it explain why? Why did I choose cereal with milk instead of steak and eggs? How did this physical process predetermine that choice from the day I was born?

Oh, I see what you're doing. From a 3rd person perspective, one couldn't tell if everything was already predetermined. That doesn't exclude the perception of the people who you are monitoring. They perceive choices and make them. This process occurred within their pasts, at the present, and their set of opportunities arranges their future options--which is constantly changing due to previous decisions made (and from exogenous factors that are beyond one's control). In reality, there is no "3rd observer"; it's merely an abstract concept. You can't perceive what others perceive. You're basically looking at the outcomes of their decisions and are unable to see the process which went into their decisions. By only focusing on the present outcomes, you conveniently excluded the past decisions which has shaped their available opportunities in the present. They've made choices, which shapes their future opportunity sets, but you can't see that process; therefore, you'll erroneously declare that choice doesn't exist because everything was predetermined.

I address most of this above, but your argument about "past decisions" is irrelevant because all of those past decisions were governed by the same process that governs the current one; repeat at will, tracking backwards in time, until birth.

Unfortunately, you've just repeated your argument without explaining why it's even correct. (Tautological argument, amirite?)

"Past decisions" are completely relevant because your 3rd person argument only looks at outcomes in the present. By ignoring the past, you can smugly conclude that everything was predetermined. You need to explain how these physical laws of nature have predetermined everyone's choices from the moment of one's conception. Otherwise, my explanation still stands.


What's funny is that my auto-pilot argument would stand using your logic. If I just left things on auto-pilot, I could get everything done, because hey! the physical laws of nature have already predetermined my choices! Woo! Choices don't exist because physical laws of nature only provide the perception of choices! I can't wait to get my essay done today. If I sit back, the physical laws of nature will do the work! But reality doesn't work this way... why?

[Metsfanmax]

Even if an action was predicted, then how does that not make it a choice in the past? For example, I predict that you'll respond to someone's post in the ConquerClub forum some time in the near future. If I'm correct, does that mean that you had no choice? No, that doesn't follow because you still have to make a choice.

If you choose to not respond anywhere in the forum in the near future, does that make my prediction false, or are you merely choosing not to post in order to prove my prediction wrong? (lolol, isn't that fun?)

Choices exist independently from a 3rd party's ability to predict someone's actions.

When I said prediction, I meant a prediction grounded in some absolute belief, and not an educated guess. That is, a complete simulation of the physical makeup of one's body, which could then be used to determine what stimuli affect the brain and thus what choice would be made. Such a simulation is far too complex to be done at the present time but could be accomplished, in principle, assuming that it is reasonable at some point to stop modeling the outside world at some cutoff point at the present time. If I had chosen not to respond to anyone's CC posts for some time, that would make your prediction incorrect, regardless of the reasoning inside my head. Since your prediction is based on nothing more than an educated guess based on my past posting history, it is not the kind of prediction I am talking about.

I don't know, it's pretty complicated. But to deny that your choice is predetermined is to claim that there is something other than fundamental physical laws of nature governing the processes in your mind; that is, that consciousness exists in a realm outside of the physical universe.

"You don't know." You just appeal to some cause without explaining as to why it's the case. We can reasonably reject your argument because you have failed to support it. You just say "physical laws of nature predetermined our choices."

It's just as logical for me to say "God did it." And then, when pressed to explain how, I'll throw my hands up and say, "I dunno, it's complicated, yet I'm still correct because God did it." It seems that you have entered the realm of the unfalsifiable.

You misunderstand the argument. I do not need to understand or be able to model the complex interactions that cause a choice to occur in order to make this argument. All I need to do is be correct in saying that whatever the mind is, it follows the same physical laws as everything else in the universe, since it exists within the universe. Regardless of how those laws actually play out, if one can be sure that those laws exist and apply to the mind, then the resulting outcomes can (in principle) be predicted, given enough knowledge and time.

Even if I were to accept that there is something other than fundamental physical laws of nature governing the processes in my mind, it doesn't follow that your physical laws explanation has predetermined my future and past. It can only explain how I made these choices, but can it explain why? Why did I choose cereal with milk instead of steak and eggs? How did this physical process predetermine that choice from the day I was born?

We do not have a deep enough understanding of neurological processes to be able to answer that question, currently. That doesn't mean that there is no answer. All I can be certain of is that it can explain why, in principle, since I have no reason to believe that the mind exists outside of the universe.

"Past decisions" are completely relevant because your 3rd person argument only looks at outcomes in the present. By ignoring the past, you can smugly conclude that everything was predetermined. You need to explain how these physical laws of nature have predetermined everyone's choices from the moment of one's conception. Otherwise, my explanation still stands.

The "past" was determined by the same physical laws that determine the "present." I am not ignoring the past, only saying that the physical laws govern every decision, not just the ones in the present.

What's funny is that my auto-pilot argument would stand using your logic. If I just left things on auto-pilot, I could get everything done, because hey! the physical laws of nature have already predetermined my choices! Woo! Choices don't exist because physical laws of nature only provide the perception of choices! I can't wait to get my essay done today. If I sit back, the physical laws of nature will do the work! But reality doesn't work this way... why?

I do not understand what your "auto-pilot" argument implies. I contend that you can't "go on auto-pilot" because your mind is not capable of doing so. It is only capable of doing one particular set of actions, that which is fundamentally determined by the laws of nature. Asking this question is like asking why humans don't have wings.

[natty dread]

BBS & Mets, read my previous post in this thread, I explained everything in it, I don't see why you guys are still arguing over this.

[BigBallinStalin]

When I said prediction, I meant a prediction grounded in some absolute belief.

What's an absolute belief? And how does a prediction from an absolute belief prevent the existence of a choice?

I don't know, it's pretty complicated. But to deny that your choice is predetermined is to claim that there is something other than fundamental physical laws of nature governing the processes in your mind; that is, that consciousness exists in a realm outside of the physical universe.

"You don't know." You just appeal to some cause without explaining as to why it's the case. We can reasonably reject your argument because you have failed to support it. You just say "physical laws of nature predetermined our choices."

It's just as logical for me to say "God did it." And then, when pressed to explain how, I'll throw my hands up and say, "I dunno, it's complicated, yet I'm still correct because God did it." It seems that you have entered the realm of the unfalsifiable.

You misunderstand the argument. I do not need to understand or be able to model the complex interactions that cause a choice to occur in order to make this argument. All I need to do is be correct in saying that whatever the mind is, it follows the same physical laws as everything else in the universe, since it exists within the universe. Regardless of how those laws actually play out, if one can be sure that those laws exist and apply to the mind, then the resulting outcomes can (in principle) be predicted, given enough knowledge and time.

Sorry, bud, but you need to explain how this process works and why it predetermines our choices from the moment of our conception. You don't even explain what these "laws" are, how they shape our paths, how they predetermine our paths, etc. Without providing anything to be tested, your argument is beyond the realm of science.

Your argument is just as unfalsifiable as the "God did it" argument or "string theory."

I'll admit that the above 3 are logically possible, but if no solid explanations can be provided and tested, then I'll reject them in favor of my argument because it makes more sense.

We do not have a deep enough understanding of neurological processes to be able to answer that question, currently. That doesn't mean that there is no answer. All I can be certain of is that it can explain why, in principle, since I have no reason to believe that the mind exists outside of the universe.

But you offer no explanation. You just say, "physical laws of nature" but don't explain what the physical laws are, how they interact with nature, and etc. "Flying Gnomes" is equally as possible as yours, until you provide some better explanation for your argument.


Basically, you need to explain how these physical laws of nature have predetermined everyone's choices from the moment of one's conception. Otherwise, my explanation still stands.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS & Mets, read my previous post in this thread, I explained everything in it, I don't see why you guys are still arguing over this.

From what I recall, you said basically that it doesn't matter because we perceive the choices and act accordingly.

He's saying perception doesn't matter. Everything's predetermined because he says "physical laws of nature" man. Just don't press him for evidence, or he'll push his argument into the realm of faith.

I don't see how you can convince him otherwise.

[natty dread]

BBS & Mets, read my previous post in this thread, I explained everything in it, I don't see why you guys are still arguing over this.

From what I recall, you said basically that it doesn't matter because we perceive the choices and act accordingly.

He's saying perception doesn't matter. Everything's predetermined because he says "physical laws of nature" man. Just don't press him for evidence, or he'll push his argument into the realm of faith.

I don't see how you can convince him otherwise.

My point was, that we don't actually know if the laws of physics allow us to have a choice or not. We don't have enough evidence to say either way at this point.

[nebsmith]

The universe is NOT deterministic, at the smallest scales it is probabalistic and Chaotic. This is also the scale that our brains work at.
The future of a Chaotic system cannot be predicted by knowing its current state. Which I would suggest is a good argument for the exsistence of free will.

While it is true that many of the choices we appear to make are initiated in the brain before we are consciously aware of them, reaching out to pick something up for example. This doesn't mean that all choices are automatic. I would say that the choice as to what to do with the thing you have just picked up is a conscious one.

Does anyone think that spending 10 minutes considering what to do before taking your turn in a game on this site gives a predetermined choice.

[Pirlo]

PENIS!

[Aradhus]

PENIS!

Ooh, whenever I see penis I salivate. I can't help it.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS & Mets, read my previous post in this thread, I explained everything in it, I don't see why you guys are still arguing over this.

From what I recall, you said basically that it doesn't matter because we perceive the choices and act accordingly.

He's saying perception doesn't matter. Everything's predetermined because he says "physical laws of nature" man. Just don't press him for evidence, or he'll push his argument into the realm of faith.

I don't see how you can convince him otherwise.

My point was, that we don't actually know if the laws of physics allow us to have a choice or not. We don't have enough evidence to say either way at this point.

Good enough for me.

Do you think Mets' "explanation" was as logically possible as the Flying Gnomes Theory?

[BigBallinStalin]

PENIS!

Where were you earlier when we needed you most?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Ah I like where this discussion is going (not the penis part... although...), as I've always found the concept of choice fascinating, especially when it relates to, say, the voluntary skeletal muscles of your body, or really the biology of it. I know this probably sounds stoner-ish, but sometimes I'll move my fingers and am amazed that I can consciously decide to move all these phalanges in such a concerted manner with amazing dexterity, which then in turn leads me to the genesis of the movement. I mean, the physiology is interesting, too, like the action potential across the sarcolemma and the neuromuscular junctions and all that, but really where it begins, in the brain, is nothing short of amazing. When I consider it further, it really astounds me. What perceived benefit would me wiggling my fingers in front of my face have (this would probably look quite odd to an observer, I admit), especially if we're assuming a deterministic reality? That I can be awed by such an act (again probably looking weird) also begs the question as to the mechanics of consciousness, which confuses and amazes me even more. I guess ~100 billion neurons and upwards of 500 trillion synapses can produce some impressive effects. Not to mention the effects of losing part of the brain on attitude and cognitive functions (which is where I often derive my argument against the soul).

tl;dr TG sometimes wiggles his fingers and grins like an idiot (don't make fun).

-TG

[Metsfanmax]

Sorry, bud, but you need to explain how this process works and why it predetermines our choices from the moment of our conception. You don't even explain what these "laws" are, how they shape our paths, how they predetermine our paths, etc. Without providing anything to be tested, your argument is beyond the realm of science.

Your argument is just as unfalsifiable as the "God did it" argument or "string theory."

I'll admit that the above 3 are logically possible, but if no solid explanations can be provided and tested, then I'll reject them in favor of my argument because it makes more sense.

My statement has nothing to do with the particular reasons why physical laws are the way they are. It doesn't matter if they are the result of flying gnomes, or God, or string theory. The point is that all of these things result in events in the universe that occur independent of the processes that occur in the human mind, and in fact are ultimately responsible for said processes. In other words, I'm just making the trivial statement that nature works in some way that the human mind is slaved to, and since the human mind is governed by whatever rules govern the universe, the "mind" cannot exercise choice but is constantly at the will of said rules. I don't need to understand the reason the brain works the way it does, because disagreeing with the statement leads to the logical fallacy of implying that the mind does not obey the rules of the universe it exists in. Since any statement that disagrees with mine contradicts a basic tenet of our understanding of the universe, my interpretation is the only valid one. The only way to disagree with me is to say that the mind is not bound by the rules of the universe, and therefore that the mind shapes the way the universe evolves (and not vice versa).

[Pirlo]

PENIS!

Where were you earlier when we needed you most?

had to serve a pussy detention!!

[Aradhus]

Sorry, bud, but you need to explain how this process works and why it predetermines our choices from the moment of our conception. You don't even explain what these "laws" are, how they shape our paths, how they predetermine our paths, etc. Without providing anything to be tested, your argument is beyond the realm of science.

Your argument is just as unfalsifiable as the "God did it" argument or "string theory."

I'll admit that the above 3 are logically possible, but if no solid explanations can be provided and tested, then I'll reject them in favor of my argument because it makes more sense.

My statement has nothing to do with the particular reasons why physical laws are the way they are. It doesn't matter if they are the result of flying gnomes, or God, or string theory. The point is that all of these things result in events in the universe that occur independent of the processes that occur in the human mind, and in fact are ultimately responsible for said processes. In other words, I'm just making the trivial statement that nature works in some way that the human mind is slaved to, and since the human mind is governed by whatever rules govern the universe, the "mind" cannot exercise choice but is constantly at the will of said rules. I don't need to understand the reason the brain works the way it does, because disagreeing with the statement leads to the logical fallacy of implying that the mind does not obey the rules of the universe it exists in. Since any statement that disagrees with mine contradicts a basic tenet of our understanding of the universe, my interpretation is the only valid one. The only way to disagree with me is to say that the mind is not bound by the rules of the universe, and therefore that the mind shapes the way the universe evolves (and not vice versa).

What if one of the rules of the universe is that we have free will? What if there are no set rules to the universe and everything that happens the way we predict it happening is the result of wicked awesome mind staggering coincidence after coincidence.

[Army of GOD]

I feel the need to bump this in light of natty(_)dread's irrational loathing for pedophiles.

It's interesting to see someone defend that homosexuality is natural yet he tries to publicly humiliate anyone who he might consider a pedophile. I agree that pedophilia differs from homosexuality in that homosexuality at least involves consenting post-pubescent people while pedophilia involves an older person and a pre-pubescent child in which longterm harm can be done, yet it amazes me that he's so hostile towards a group that has no choice over their thoughts or attractions.

I think we in the business call that bigotry.

oh, and for the record, I do not consider myself to be a pedophile.

[Haggis_McMutton]

oh, and for the record, I do not consider myself to be a pedophile.

Click image to enlarge.