Reply With Quote
I agree. I highly recommend the book - it's more of an essay. It is an easy read and only 70 pages, but I think he makes a pretty compelling argument free will doesn't exist.
I have not but I will put it on my list.
i have just felt that brain chemistry as it evolves to further and further understanding will lead to all manner of discoveries beyond just simple psychology.
Its a stark reality but if you can reduce all human activity to understandable phenomenon then where is the soul for example. Where is free will.
If it cannot be explained as such then it will lead us in a different direction in terms of what we need to understand or finding out what we are capable of understanding.
Its a worthwhile pursuit.
I agree. I highly recommend the book - it's more of an essay. It is an easy read and only 70 pages, but I think he makes a pretty compelling argument free will doesn't exist.
Good reads. Thanks.
Life is, because without life we could not value values or achieve them.
ah, teleology
This is circular logic. You say it is because you define 'life' by the premise.
There are a whole manner of things that comprise 'life.' I assume you are talking about consciousness or that you can experience things. That life comprises how a being experiences things through time.
However different people experience different things in 'life' and come to value different things. Mutually exclusive things. All you do is label your values as 'good.'
If you want to define life as some mystical thing then we are at a fundamental disagreement and there is no point in talking more.
you're right, there isn't
man u are so dense. Life I mean as in living as opposed to death. Otherwise, nevermind you are re ed, and dont even know what circular logic is. Can values be valued if you are a corpse?
And I dont advocate universal values you stupid Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_, I have already said ppl.are different and require tjeir own specific values. All I said is that those values are only.good if they further the life of the individual.
I don't buy that the fittest necessarily survive. It's the 21st ing century. It's way more accurate to say the survivors survive. Putting the results down to values is yet another begged question...but I digress...were you saying something?
I'm guessing your drunk, Ig. You are usually much more inherent and less belligerent. Although it could be that I can be irritating.
Regardless, we were talking about objective values versus subjective. Specifically:
Again what is the objective standard?
You said life; I talked about what life is in my estimation: experience as perceived by consciousness. Are you talking about some transcendental ?
Isn't that allowed anymore, or did you already dismiss it from class?
Ignignokt can talk about whatever he wants, asshole.
Living up to your name, wine? What are you upset with this time?
What you are asking/claiming is hardly coherent. I never dictated anything. i even made a point to say what I thought he meant by saying life versus some widespread declarative.
I actually find the notion of a rational objective construct appealing. I just have found few that are compelling. Euler's equations go a long long way though. I don't see a moral framework there though.
The last was a legitimate question. The notion of an oversoul or the cosmic pulse or whatever else notions that Emmerson injected are significant in American culture. I have no direct experience or belief in the notion myself but that doesn't mean that I am anything other than a skeptic. Its unprovable.
I'm just trying to understand what he is saying.
which you're not too good at
Are you trying to troll me? You have yourself a good little rage cry?
cry over what, pointing out that you're a pretentious dolt with a bad temper and even worse manners?
that didn't hurt at all
cry over what, pointing out that you're a pretentious dolt with a bad temper and even worse manners?
you calling me pretentious.
I didn't lose my temper in this case. You are the one throwing the tantrum.
Your little rants at me remind me of my ex-girlfriend. I wonder what specifically I said that started you down this path. You are entirely too emotional about me.
You should stop.
what, being bored?
"Don't sell yourself short, Judge, you're a tremendous slouch."
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-14-2012 at 03:30 PM.
For someone that bores, I certainly elicit a strong emotional response. I just picture you drunk raging when you rant post 4 times in 2 minutes at 3AM.
Hope you don't drive like that.
When I called transcendentalism ' ' it really seemed to set you off. Your stark anger at going cavalier defending Ig's right to think something reads as you defending your own beliefs.
how would you know this?I certainly elicit a strong emotional response.
all I've done is to address you with the same dismissiveness and sarcasm you use on us all the time. you got a problem with that?
get bent.
You channeling Poptech now?
How would you know that I have a bad temper?
Really about the only thing more you could do to act more butthurt would be to start a callout thread about me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions