Makaze
-
Posts
637 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Makaze
-
QOTD Thread II - 420 - Favourite question so far?
Makaze replied to Parrhesia's topic in Far from the Forest...
Amazing. -
Moss
-
Not a rapper though.
-
[spoiler=LoGH]That is a secret you should not keep, Fräulein...
-
QOTD Thread II - 420 - Favourite question so far?
Makaze replied to Parrhesia's topic in Far from the Forest...
My cousin, lamenting seeing couples walking down the street, once said, "Why do all the gay guys get the girls?" -
Repeat
-
Teller
-
http://xubuntu.org/getxubuntu/ Best OS I've tried. I love it.
-
You are quite welcome. You did me a favor. I would have been significantly more bored today without it.
-
I'll say this flat out then: A consciousness has no form without desire. Suppose I have an innate preference for any color but green. When you describe Makaze, you will describe me as someone who, if born into a world full of monotonous green, will become miserable, spiteful and pessimistic, and if born into a world of any other color, will exhibit other traits. The environment can change, but the desire is specific to my individual existence. It's the if that tells you something. Makaze is not inherently miserable, but Makaze does inherently dislike green. On a deeper level, desire is the basest influence. The environment itself is neither positive nor negative without desires to make you prefer one to the other. Without desires we will not make choices relative to our environment and our environment will not give rise to personality. There will be no reactions, no change. Therefore the absence of desire cannot cause desire. Consider the possibility that those desires are the first cause (i.e. came into existence randomly). That they are the influence that starts the chain no matter what brings them about.
-
It may be caused by them, but we merely assumed that the reality we perceive is real. There is a 50/50 chance that we have no physical existence at all and that everything is in our minds (to be distinguished from 'heads'). I asked you earlier if you thought of free will in the physical sense, or the metaphysical. This is the significance. I don't think it matters if causality exists or not. Free will cannot exist in vacuum even if your mind happened into existence randomly. You can forgo physical determinism completely because you don't need it to explain your point. Atemporal existences are definitively impossible—or impossible to observe. The moment anything interacts with anything else, three temporal states are created: before, during, and after the interaction. Without the interaction, there is no change. Without the change, there is no existence. Therefore it is impossible for interaction to come about due to a lack of interaction. Consider the physical parallel. The minute we interact with something, via light particles or otherwise, it enters the temporal flow relative to us. We cannot observe anything at absolute zero because any attempt to measure it will increase its temperature from absolute zero. Here's the real kicker—we can't say for sure that it existed before we interacted with it. The short of it: Atemporal describes something that 'has absolutely no interaction with anything else' which is another way of saying it functionally does not exist. The discovery that time is relative puts the idea of an atemporal being to rest. Anything that created us would have to interact with us, creating a 'before', 'during' and 'after' the act of creation relative to itself. Multiversum is an interesting take, but consider Hattusili I's point: Even a being with equal magnitude of desires is restricted in the sense that they will create all possible worlds and still have no choice in the matter that they want to create all possible worlds. They have no more autonomy than any other force of nature.
-
That is correct. You could be said to be free of will itself if you have none, however. Buddhism is based around attaining this level of ego death.
-
I would go a step further. Those desires exist even in a vacuum with no environment. The way we react to the room we are born into comes from those innate desires. Whether you cry in pain or look around in joy depends on your internal nature. These exist before you open your eyes. Your desires can be developed over time, but the feedback loop can't even get started without those starting preferences. Forgoing that, where the desires come from ultimately doesn't matter. The problem remains that you cannot choose your desires. If a god desires a certain kind of world, you must ask 'Why do you desire that?' If the god says they made themselves desire it, you must ask, 'Why did you want to want it?' It leads to an infinite regress/tautology.
-
I thought I was clear before, but... I believe that freedom of will is contradictory to the idea of will itself. If you have a will, you are not free by definition because you have a will. The only way for your will to be 'free' is to have equal magnitudes of desire for everything. If you have no desire for anything, you will want to do nothing. If you have equal desire to do everything, you will not be able to decide on anything to do. Apathy and ambivalence, in other words. Not even a god can have a 'free' will because of that. I don't think it matters if we have free will. If I want something, it doesn't matter if I was led to want it or not. I'll do my damnedest to make it happen. Criticism and judgment, even morality, are merely ideas we weaponize to get each other to do things we want. If we propagate the idea that A is good and B is bad, we might be able to get a society where A is more common than B, and we want that.
-
lmao
-
Nevermind. Figured it out. Ouch.
-
Is that a typo or transliteration of incredibly unfortunate accented singing?
-
"My name is Makaze, and I am an addict."
-
I came to the conclusion that even quantum theory does not grant free will. Either my actions are random, or they are determined by factors that are random. If there are random events, then my will operates such that 'if random variable X returns true, then I will do Y; if it return false, then I will do Z' without me deciding which I am predisposed to do at any stage.
-
Publicly visible results? No thanks.
-
What type of determinist? Physical or metaphysical?
-
I'm curious about the meaning of your member title. Is it a subtle critique of the idea of free will?
-
My mistake, then.
-
Do you like it?
-
Have you played Euchre? I think you would like it.
