Moderator: Community Team
warmonger1981 wrote:Its pretty basic. You control through mathematics, algorithms, color, smell, sight, music/rhythm and half ass truths. It creates an artificial reality. Just like that Jim Carrey movie. You can't tell me that its impossible to create an artificial reality or environment.
chang50 wrote:I predict reintroducing this subject will be as controversial as on all the previous occasions,just like religion threads usually are.Those who support freewill do so with the same fervour as theists refusing to accept the burden of proof and turning to emotional appeals.Angry polemic will be exchanged as the freewillers feel assaulted in their very integrity as human beings and sceptics become frustrated,all very predictable.
It would be nice to be wrong....
Dukasaur wrote:chang50 wrote:I predict reintroducing this subject will be as controversial as on all the previous occasions,just like religion threads usually are.Those who support freewill do so with the same fervour as theists refusing to accept the burden of proof and turning to emotional appeals.Angry polemic will be exchanged as the freewillers feel assaulted in their very integrity as human beings and sceptics become frustrated,all very predictable.
It would be nice to be wrong....
Au contraire, I predict that too little time has passed since this issue was last fought over. People are still tired from the last episode, and won't have the energy for too many angry polemics.
I predict a sitzkrieg.
Hunter S. Thompson wrote:The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over..
Dukasaur wrote:chang50 wrote:I predict reintroducing this subject will be as controversial as on all the previous occasions,just like religion threads usually are.Those who support freewill do so with the same fervour as theists refusing to accept the burden of proof and turning to emotional appeals.Angry polemic will be exchanged as the freewillers feel assaulted in their very integrity as human beings and sceptics become frustrated,all very predictable.
It would be nice to be wrong....
Au contraire, I predict that too little time has passed since this issue was last fought over. People are still tired from the last episode, and won't have the energy for too many angry polemics.
I predict a sitzkrieg.
DoomYoshi wrote:Round 3? The question of Free Will goes back as far as the oldest human documents.
Army of GOD wrote:f*ck all yall
BigBallinStalin wrote:Gentlemen, I have considerably scaled back my belief in free will. Of course, our daily activities involve other humans, so we are largely influenced by other humans to varying degrees. More importantly, we are also influenced by institutions which we're hardly cognizant of. Some of the orders which emerge from our interactions are deliberately designed (e.g. direct political action), but much order is not from design but rather from human action. That is, certain kinds of order are unintended yet emerge from our interactions (e.g. most markets). In short, free will is constrained in this sense.
Nevertheless, in regard to determinism, it's not the case that I believe that scientists can predict our every move, desire, and anticipation. Instead, scientists don't have to. With the rise of 'artificial intelligence', humans have become more easily predictable--through ads, google searches, siri, and possibly even presidential elections.
Eh.. just skip the messy biologics all together. We don't need humans, only mechanical minds.BigBallinStalin wrote:On average, humans becoming marginally obsolete, so either you can complement your skills with the rise in 'artificial' intelligence or fall behind.
DoomYoshi wrote:Round 3? The question of Free Will goes back as far as the oldest human documents.
PLAYER57832 wrote:(or, to put it another way, we all know that dice are not truly random.
Maugena wrote:My take on it (as it has been for years) is that matter definitively follows the laws of physics and reality shows.
nietzsche wrote:Say that as Maugena mentions, the "soul" is physical somehow, (I prefer the term consciousness for it doesn't have the religious connotations).
tzor wrote:nietzsche wrote:Say that as Maugena mentions, the "soul" is physical somehow, (I prefer the term consciousness for it doesn't have the religious connotations).
There is a subtle difference between soul and consciousness (I prefer to think of soul as the integration of consciousness over time).
But more over the notion of "free will" being a function within the general input,process,output of consciousness the question of another layer of processing doesn't add considerable amount of evidence to the question that if all the inputs are known (but we know they can't) can the output be precisely determined?
nietzsche wrote:I didn't quite understood you.
I was equating soul with consciousness because to this point was sort of the same idea.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users