Regarding Franko...

[wraith]

So, it means that the LG has no responsability on our intrinsic nature??

thats right

Then, she is not so powerful as I thought.

LOL
....powerful enough to bring you here

Imagine an intrinsic evil soul (a killer), who is responsible for his actions in this Universe?? The LG, who controls and determines every thing here, or this evil guy???

The evil guy Q-Source!

 

[wraith]

Are you serious? Imagine the numbers to be non-integers. What is the range of the non-integer 2? And non-integer 4? Come on, you can do it!

Hans

no hans

Im dealing with 2 + 2 here

 

[MRC_Hans]

And, Frank, what is you definition of (non integer)2?

Does 2 flocks of birds + 2 flocks of birds equal 4 flocks of birds?

Hans

 

[wraith]

Using the definition I have provided (numerous times), Free Will is the ability to choose between available, perceived options, you were not able to tie your shoes, so that was not an available option. As I have said, free will increases as you learn and mature.

your MPB has already selected your choices...

look at my toilet example

You can continue to repeat, "whatever you chose was your MPB" and I can say "whatever you chose was free will". As Misa has pointed out, even by your own description, the two concepts are nearly identical. There is one variation, which I will address in a moment.

MPB does not equal free-will...
Do you agree that your choices have already been selected?

2 + 2 does not choose to equal 4...
free-will believers say that it does...

But I did speak to you in French, therefore your conclusion is incorrect.

How? You spoke one sentence in french to mock me. That was the perceived benefit. However, you wouldnt type out this whole post in french if you wanted my opinion on something and I didnt understand french...

Now admittedly I did not and could not speak to you in Mandarin. That is because I don't know Mandarin. It is not an available option. If I learned Mandarin, then I would have that option, thus increasing my free will.

actually, your MPB decides whether or not you learn another language...
why not learn mandarin now?

Correct. Again, I perceived a benefit, so I chose it. MPB = free will.

In the same way that 2 + 2 chose to equal 4?

Well, there is no doubt that showing off for the opposite sex has caused more bad decisions than almost anything else, but in this case no. There were no women present. Besides, I'm happily married.

nice
keep up the good work

So you say. The parking lot episode gives evidence that coersion does not always result in the "logical" choice. Do you have any evidence that coersion by the LG is effective? If so, let's see it.

coersion?
You saw that choice as being "beneficial" so you acted upon it...
if you knew that it was going to yield a certain outcome that you would have perceived as non-beneficial, then you wouldnt have "chosen" it.
Why do you think people always say "I wish I could go back in time and done this..."?

I'm not saying you should do anything. I'm saying you choose for yourself what to do. Maybe it's a good choice, maybe bad. Personally, I think you have made some bad choices on these boards which have caused you to be humiliated by Misa and others. I cannot fathom why you perceive a benefit in encouraging people to lose respect for you. But such is the nature of free will.

well, if double standards takes your fancy, then Pixy is kicking my arse

I have given you my definition. That is the only definition I am arguing. I understand that you don't accept my definition. You may debate whether or not my definition is correct, but to claim I haven't defined it is... a bad move by your free will.

Sorry, bad wording...
Im saying describing free-will is like describing a 4 sided tri...
oh, are you going to show me this 4 sided tri of yours?
haha

And this is different how?

free-will is not MPB
read above!

Now, I have a request that will help demonstrate the difference between MPB and free will. Think of a number between 1 and 100.

done

 

[wraith]

And, Frank, what is you definition of (non integer)2?

Does 2 flocks of birds + 2 flocks of birds equal 4 flocks of birds?

Hans

it does actually
lol

 

[Watcher]

Ultimately, you see a benefit by responding to my posts. You seek the destruction of my beliefs. It will make you feel better about your own...

Yep, I see a benefit, that's absolutely right. As you've said yourself many times, we do things out of perceived benefit. My point is that it's quite possible that I would see more benefit in other actions. In other words: we don't always do what we perceive as most beneficial. The "perceived benefit" rule doesn't disprove free will, it merely restricts it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Frank:

it does actually

*Yawn*

OK, have it your way: For a non-integer, there in principle exist an infinite number of decimals, even if we choose to represent only a few, or even none at all.

Thus, (non-integer)2 can per definition really be any value between 1.5 and 2.499...

So, for small values of 2, 2+2 = 3 (for large values of 3)

And my reason for bringing this up is that in real life, true integer values are surprisingly rare (e.g. 2+2 flocks of birds may equal 127 birds, but the next 4 flocks may equal 966 birds).

Hans

 

[wraith]

Frank:
*Yawn*

OK, have it your way: For a non-integer, there in principle exist an infinite number of decimals, even if we choose to represent only a few, or even none at all.

Thus, (non-integer)2 can per definition really be any value between 1.5 and 2.499...

So, for small values of 2, 2+2 = 3 (for large values of 3)

And my reason for bringing this up is that in real life, true integer values are surprisingly rare (e.g. 2+2 flocks of birds may equal 127 birds, but the next 4 flocks may equal 966 birds).

Hans

small values of 2 hey?
what about 2?


keep going han-z

 

[wraith]

Yep, I see a benefit, that's absolutely right. As you've said yourself many times, we do things out of perceived benefit. My point is that it's quite possible that I would see more benefit in other actions. In other words: we don't always do what we perceive as most beneficial. The "perceived benefit" rule doesn't disprove free will, it merely restricts it.

whats an exmaple?

 

[Watcher]

whats an exmaple?

Debating you. Doing my homework would be more beneficial. Yet here I am, using my time to debate you.

 

[MRC_Hans]

small values of 2 hey?
what about 2?

Forget it, Frank. I was just testing out my suspicion that your math capability never came past integer level.

QED.

cheers
Hans

 

[Q-Source]

Me:
Imagine an intrinsic evil soul (a killer), who is responsible for his actions in this Universe?? The LG, who controls and determines every thing here, or this evil guy???

The evil guy Q-Source!

That sounds to me as Free Will. When he decides that to kill somebody is his MPB, he is controlling his own destiny and he is determining the outcome of his future life (or path).

At the end, you are not a Fatalist, wraith.

 

[hammegk]

Hammy, are you saying that you are a biological chat bot? you have no control over what you type on this forum? It is all pre determined?

Certainly questions materialists/atheists need to answer for themselves.

What does your mpb tell you? And why are you still a materialist/atheist?

 

[Upchurch]

That sounds to me as Free Will. When he decides that to kill somebody is his MPB, he is controlling his own destiny and he is determining the outcome of his future life (or path).

Perhaps there is another way to think about that very situation, Q-Source.

When a killer uses a gun to shoot a bullet at a victim, it is the bullet that actually does the killing. The killer and the gun can be several feet/yards away.

Is the bullet morally responsible for the death of the victim? I would claim that it is not morally responsible for two reasons. First, it is not a conscious entity and not applicable for moral decision making. Second, it had no choice (or free will, if you like) in the matter. It was a tool of the gun.

Is the gun morally responsible for the death of the victim? Like the bullet, the gun is not applicable as a conscious, moral entity and further, had no choice in the action. It was a tool of the killer.

Is the killer morally responsible for the death of the victim? To answer this we must look at the question from the two sides of our "free will/determinism" issue. In either case, we'll assume that the killer is a conscious entity and capable of moral decision-making. (edited to add: In hindsight of writing this post, that can't be true. In a completely deterministic universe, the killer would be incapable of making any decisions, even moral ones.)

free will: Having free will, the killer has the freedom to make the choice to use the gun, and therefore the bullet to kill the victim. In which case, the responsibility relies solely with the killer because no one/thing forced the killer into action. i.e., the killer was not a tool of anything but himself.

determinism: Under determinism, or fatalism, the killer had no choice in the matter. The killer used the gun and bullet because someone/thing (in this context, call it TLOP, if you like) forced him to use the gun and bullet to kill the victim. The killer was a tool of TLOP.

Continuing on with this line or reasoning, we see that with free will, the killer is responsible for the death of the victim. On the other hand, in a completely deterministic universe, it is TLOP/God/the Universe/whatever who is responsible for the death of the victim.

Upchurch

 

[Aardvark_DK]

Upperchurchy whined
On the other hand, in a completely deterministic universe, it is TLOP/God/the Universe/whatever who is responsible for the death of the victim.

Obviously youre wrong A-Theist nitwit. I would explain fate to you if you werent so stupid.


Ooops! Posted under wrong user name!

 

[Franko]

Upchurch said:

Perhaps there is another way to think about that very situation, Q-Source.

When a killer uses a gun to shoot a bullet at a victim, it is the bullet that actually does the killing. The killer and the gun can be several feet/yards away.

Is the bullet morally responsible for the death of the victim? I would claim that it is not morally responsible for two reasons. First, it is not a conscious entity and not applicable for moral decision making. Second, it had no choice (or free will, if you like) in the matter. It was a tool of the gun.

Is the gun morally responsible for the death of the victim? Like the bullet, the gun is not applicable as a conscious, moral entity and further, had no choice in the action. It was a tool of the killer.

Is the killer morally responsible for the death of the victim? To answer this we must look at the question from the two sides of our "free will/determinism" issue. In either case, we'll assume that the killer is a conscious entity and capable of moral decision-making.

Upchurch you keep making post like this and people are going to start thinking you are a skeptic.

Okay … so let’s take your analogy a little farther. I take it that we’d both agree that the Bullet is a tool (an implement), and the Gun is a tool, so my question is Why can’t the Killer also be a tool?

Let’s suppose that Adolph Hitler – a very charismatic and influential/manipulative person – takes several infants and has them indoctrinated into the Hitler Youth. These children are totally brainwashed and conditioned to be loyal and blindly obedient servants of dur Fuehrer. So now, as adults, Hitler uses these individuals (just like a gun or a bullet) to kill someone.

Why isn’t it Hitler who is responsible, and this trained/conditioned/programmed Killer is no different then Hitler’s Gun or Hitler’s Bullet. They just have better range and accuracy. They are just more deadly, it’s just a better technology …

 

[Tricky]

Perhaps there is another way to think about that very situation, Q-Source.

When a killer uses a gun to shoot a bullet at a victim, it is the bullet that actually does the killing. The killer and the gun can be several feet/yards away.

Is the bullet morally responsible for the death of the victim? I would claim that it is not morally responsible for two reasons. First, it is not a conscious entity and not applicable for moral decision making. Second, it had no choice (or free will, if you like) in the matter. It was a tool of the gun.

Is the gun morally responsible for the death of the victim? Like the bullet, the gun is not applicable as a conscious, moral entity and further, had no choice in the action. It was a tool of the killer.

Is the killer morally responsible for the death of the victim? To answer this we must look at the question from the two sides of our "free will/determinism" issue. In either case, we'll assume that the killer is a conscious entity and capable of moral decision-making. (edited to add: In hindsight of writing this post, that can't be true. In a completely deterministic universe, the killer would be incapable of making any decisions, even moral ones.)

free will: Having free will, the killer has the freedom to make the choice to use the gun, and therefore the bullet to kill the victim. In which case, the responsibility relies solely with the killer because no one/thing forced the killer into action. i.e., the killer was not a tool of anything but himself.

determinism: Under determinism, or fatalism, the killer had no choice in the matter. The killer used the gun and bullet because someone/thing (in this context, call it TLOP, if you like) forced him to use the gun and bullet to kill the victim. The killer was a tool of TLOP.

Continuing on with this line or reasoning, we see that with free will, the killer is responsible for the death of the victim. On the other hand, in a completely deterministic universe, it is TLOP/God/the Universe/whatever who is responsible for the death of the victim.

Upchurch

This defense has actually been used in court. It is known as "the insanity defense".

 

[Upchurch]

Okay … so let’s take your analogy a little farther. I take it that we’d both agree that the Bullet is a tool (an implement), and the Gun is a tool, so my question is Why can’t the Killer also be a tool?

Absolutely the point I was making, if you assume absolute determinism. You should explain that to your little wraith, who claims that the killer is responsible and not the LG, as your determinisc beliefs state must be the case.

Upchurch

 

[Upchurch]

Why isn’t it Hitler who is responsible, and this trained/conditioned/programmed Killer is no different then Hitler’s Gun or Hitler’s Bullet. They just have better range and accuracy. They are just more deadly, it’s just a better technology …

Why isn't Hitler (a killer) responsible? Because from your LD viewpoint, Hitler was just another tool of the LG, who technically would be morally responsible for the Holocaust (by using Hitler, who used the Nazis, etc).

Upchurch

 

[Franko]

Upchurch:
Why isn't Hitler (a killer) responsible? Because from your LD viewpoint, Hitler was just another tool of the LG, who technically would be morally responsible for the Holocaust (by using Hitler, who used the Nazis, etc).

Ahh, you could say that She was responsible in the same way that you could claim Bill Gates was responsible for every Window’s based computer-virus that was ever written.