Why should a man have to suffer painfully so we can go to he

Post Reply New Topic

Well let me know when arguing actually produces some actual worth because the way I see it you and I are are just spinning wheels and wasting both of our times.
If you have to resort to online discussions for any real philosophical input, I would reccomend stepping off your computer and having a nice conversation with someone.


Best Regards,

Jake

Last edited by NAKnight on 22 Dec 2012, 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So now it's a neurological discussion? Please, drop the issue. What point do you have to prove?


Best Regards,

Jake

Even so, if there are quantum states involved the outcome is not deterministic.

Your computer is made of earthly stuff, yet the workings of the transistors are governed by non-deterministic quantum physical laws.

ruveyn

Randomness doesn't mean that free will, therefore, exists.

Free will is not supposed to be "random will" according to the proponents of free will.

You make it sound like I changed the subject to something completely irrelevant.

are you suggesting that the computer has freedom of will?

No.

I actually agree with the viewpoint you are expressing but the thread seems to have floundered. The topic of freewill usually does get stuck with not many people grasping the deterministic nature of decisions made by the brain. Freewill is what might be described as a persistent illusion. If I ask someone to say either "cat" or "dog" they may think they have freewill to chose one word or the other (or say nothing or say something entirely different) - however, whatever action they chose is due to their brain wiring, neural activity, memories and state of interaction with their environment at that moment in time. If the brain uses a random algorithm to chose an action there is no freewill there either in the outcome.

I think the problem with freewill debates is the angle with which they are approached. As a generalisation, those who approach from a philosophical or religious point of view tend to argue in favour of freewill and those approaching from a mechanistic, biological point of view argue against freewill. The two approaches are somewhat incompatible for debate. There are also semantic issues when talking about freewill as not everyone agrees on the same definition anyway.

I agree with TallyMan re: free will.

I just want to pick up on this. Hell is not "traditionally" eternal fire, only because of Dante and Milton do people think like that.

We are currently "separated from God". The atheist is already in Hell. Only someone who has a relationship with God has any true happiness. The death you believe in is indistinguishable from the modern view of Hell i.e. you will cease to be conscious without ever knowing God.

(Again, this is not my personal opinion. I don't believe in Hell)

The concept of hell being eternal fire is in the Bible as far as my literal and parsimonious interpretation of it goes. And people before Dante's time believed in such concept.

No. I am saying that it is governed by physically non-deterministic processes. The the next state of your computer is (almost always) the most probable follow on state. Every now and again you computer will blow a transistor.

ruveyn

Ok, so if the computer has no freewill despite this, why would a human be any different?