User Tag List

First 7151617181927 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 352

  1. #161
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Right I want to comment on the fact that I haven't fully taken on whether I believe in pure determinism or the randomness nature of quantam mechanics. Not to mention that this discussion will move into discussion about things that aren't empirically observable or can't be proven.

    Otherwise...
    I'll roll along with a basic definition of common day speech regarding free will -being allowed to make a decision after consideration and influence.

    Meh. I can't give a decent argument, how about you provide me one?
    No worries, Kai. It's a Typology message board - how concerned with raw science can we possibly be?

    My question is of genuine conversational interest - 'free will' is a fascinating coin, as it conflates unrelated (yet independently valid) theory into broad, fuzzy existential 'slang'.

    From a religious stance, I get that 'free will' is a generally viewed as an act of divine grace imparted as a methodology to assert our respect for God, while pursuing a reality that actively seeks to encourage awareness of His message. A spiritual symbiosis, fusing intellectual awareness with humble self-deprecation.

    If we are speaking in terms of biology, 'free will' is just another way of describing the evolving eminence of our brain over time. We began this process with simple impulse regulation centers (thalamus; brain stem; mid-brain) that eventually evolved into structurally-complex, connection-rich neurological ecosystems (Frontal Cortex) that functionally cooperate with the 'older' parts of our brain to conceive a creative, reasoned awareness of ourselves and our world.

  2. #162
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    So your argument is Christianity (not people who happen to be Christians) helped the Feminist movement and abolition of slavery when your argument for the flip side is, well, people who JUST happen to be Christians, abused and misinterpreted the religion? How do you justify such an obvious bias between the two sides of arguments?

    Because I can just as soon come back with correlation and association where "Christianity" (or as you'd say, peeps who just *happen* to be christians) HINDERED both those causes....

    For example, exerpts from the bible were being flung by BOTH sides (for and against) during the Suffragist debates on women's right to vote. So...? Where are you getting a final overall conclusion of Christianity HELPED?
    Who do we hold up as great early feminists? Mary Wollstonecraft? Elizabeth Cady Stanton? Katherine Bushnell? All Christians.

    I'm not arguing for a bias. You're just not getting it. You're not getting the simple fact that different people will use a philosophy for different means.

    Socialism, for example, has been used for both great evil and great good in the world; it's also an atheistic philosophy. Capitalism? Many would say it is evil, but other would say that it's changed the world for the better : not atheist, but still a decidedly secular philosophy. Libertarians can twist their philosophy to claim how altruistic and freeing it is, others will claim it as justifcation for their gross selfishness: it is mainly perceived in our culture as an atheistic philosophy. America is good. America is bad. I could go on and on.

    Christianity can be used for good. Christianity can be used for evil. It all comes down to the person interpreting it. Christianity was crucial in the early feminist movement, and also played a part in the civil rights movement. Whether or not you want to accept that is your choice. The fact of the matter is the world simply isn't as black and white as people on this thread appear to being trying to make it to be.

  3. #163
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    From a religious stance, I get that 'free will' is a generally viewed as an act of divine grace imparted as a methodology to assert our respect for God, while pursuing a reality that actively seeks to encourage awareness of His message. A spiritual symbiosis, fusing intellectual awareness with humble self-deprecation.

    If we are speaking in terms of biology, 'free will' is just another way of describing the evolving eminence of our brain over time. We began this process with simple impulse regulation centers (thalamus; brain stem; mid-brain) that eventually evolved into structurally-complex, connection-rich neurological ecosystems (Frontal Cortex) that functionally cooperate with the 'older' parts of our brain to conceive a creative, reasoned awareness of ourselves and our world.
    Yeah. I'd imagine that I'm looking for something inbetween, something that incorporates both positions coming from an eastern religion position. Otherwise I'd go with what biology mentions, which sort of contradicts all of the above.

    Thinking a little more about the subject. I'd imagine that the free will aspect for religion or spirituality comes from the notion that the soul exists, and as it is a part of us, we'll never be fully binded by causality. Yet this doesn't really answer my own problem that people argue that we have free will because our future hasn't be determined. And only produces more questions that I couldn't really find answers too previously... does the soul not get influenced by information as well? Does this part constitute as a different identity?

    I do like the idea that the fact that people can claim their lives at any point as evidence for free will, but people can still shoot that down by reasoning that it was from influences.

    Argh. Will have to do more research.

  4. #164
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Yes, I specifically used numb rather than dumb. It wasn't a typo.
    I do remember reading in a book about a person who didn't have hands becacuse she never developed them in terms of exploring them, but I can't help but feel surely there is part of the self that definitely knows that it is itself from birth. Pain induced by the baby counts as an external stimuli?
    Then there is such thing as temporality. Time A to Time B, these are the shifts in memory accumulation, relating one to the other....allows for a picture of this instrument/system called self. I was using touch as an example (and kinda completely missed the numb versus dumb ). There's many many things outside the brain that together allows us to form our picture.

    Pain induced by baby is all fine and well, but, a baby doesn't know (yet) that it caused itself the pain. All it reacts to is the pain. Until..it understands...ohhh, these things (hands) are mine (understanding what mine/me is).


    It does make me wonder what a baby thinks of it's own thoughts straight after birth, whether it even realises that it comes from itself. Right, so I take back my words that the baby knows it's own body. It seems that is indeed learnt.
    It would be hella interesting, wouldn't it? Asking a baby to relate how it sees the world. But, we only have available to us, proxy experiments in psychology and informed inference.

    What would happen to an individual locked up for an extensive period of time, apart from dying, would they eventually recgonise their own thoughts and when does it occur?
    It's interesting that you brough that up because, well, there's some obvious restrictions to finding such questions out...that of the ethical kind, because we can't do psych experiments for the sole purpose of finding such things out by depriving a newborn of all sensory inputs.

    But, we come close though naturally occuring case studies...called, FERAL CHILDREN. Fascinating stuff has come out of looking at these children...and one thing they consistently see is the quite striking underdevelopment of the brain's processing. They have to be taught that a name means THEM. There's reports that some extreme cases do not even recognize their own reflection. And, other very detrimental physical and psychological set-backs.

    Here's a cool site if you're interested in more:
    FeralChildren.com | Psychological development of feral children

  5. #165
    Senior Member ThinkingAboutIt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Ok, I will join the show.


    If christian God exists that means that he/she/it created the universe and laws of physics in this universe. What mean that he/she/it is directly responsible for the fact that Nuclear warfare in this reality is possible.

    So the question is why would God do such a thing?
    Especially since this does not make much sense even if he/she/it is testing us.
    Since this allows a very small minority to wipe out majority with one blow.
    I was just thinking about this topic so I hope you don't mind if I reply. It can be likened to this - if you are married, and your wife goes out and commits a crime, say shoplifting, are you responsible? No, she is solely responsible for her actions and will at some point pay the consequences that result from her decisions. Can she be stopped, yes, a variety of means can be employed. But if she is stopped, controlled, etc. then she does not learn, grow, or accept responsibility...she will just wait for the opportunity to do it the next time because she was not the one that made the decision to stop? Is it fair that the store she stole from loses? No, but cause and effect is reality - to the good or bad.
    Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

  6. #166
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    Who do we hold up as great early feminists? Mary Wollstonecraft? Elizabeth Cady Stanton? Katherine Bushnell? All Christians.

    I'm not arguing for a bias. You're just not getting it. You're not getting the simple fact that different people will use a philosophy for different means.

    Socialism, for example, has been used for both great evil and great good in the world; it's also an atheistic philosophy. Capitalism? Many would say it is evil, but other would say that it's changed the world for the better : not atheist, but still a decidedly secular philosophy. Libertarians can twist their philosophy to claim how altruistic and freeing it is, others will claim it as justifcation for their gross selfishness: it is mainly perceived in our culture as an atheistic philosophy. America is good. America is bad. I could go on and on.

    Christianity can be used for good. Christianity can be used for evil. It all comes down to the person interpreting it. Christianity was crucial in the early feminist movement, and also played a part in the civil rights movement. Whether or not you want to accept that is your choice. The fact of the matter is the world simply isn't as black and white as people on this thread appear to being trying to make it to be.
    Yes, now we're getting to the crux of what I'm trying to say (which, you're not getting...we are missing each other, it seems).

    They're ALL man-made ideologies. Hence, it can be used as a vehicle for good and bad, because if it was by divine intervention, it would be perfection in truth. It would not be culturally applicable (the bible mentions slavery and how to treat them, all apostles were men, the big women figures, were the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalena...and, very much so tied to the time's significance of women, tied predominately to their sexuality). It would surpass any of these cultural limitations of the time to be relevant throughout...and not for us to rely on debates of interpretive differences during modern times. As such, we can only use ONE or the OTHER as an argument.

    (1) X ideology allows for interpretation. As such, certain people within the ideology tainted it - towards good, towards bad.

    Or

    (2) X is an ideology that has good merits and bad merits.


    If (1) and we are speaking of Christianity, it really calls into question this notion of God's words/divine intervention, unless we allow god to be less than perfect. As such, he/she/it was short-sighted enough to write only to the culture at the time, allow for ambiguity, etc, etc.

    If (2) then god is not goodness. God is good and bad.

    We can't use the ideology as an indisputable truth, and excuse the bad instances as those that went astray and the good as those that TRULY understood it. This is the bias I speak of. Use the same evaluating scale for the good and the bad. Or don't use the scale at all as a gold standard.

  7. #167
    Senior Thread Terminator Aerithria's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkingAboutIt View Post
    I was just thinking about this topic so I hope you don't mind if I reply. It can be likened to this - if you are married, and your wife goes out and commits a crime, say shoplifting, are you responsible? No, she is solely responsible for her actions and will at some point pay the consequences that result from her decisions. Can she be stopped, yes, a variety of means can be employed. But if she is stopped, controlled, etc. then she does not learn, grow, or accept responsibility...she will just wait for the opportunity to do it the next time because she was not the one that made the decision to stop? Is it fair that the store she stole from loses? No, but cause and effect is reality - to the good or bad.
    God created the universe with the tools necessary for nuclear weapons. You did not create your wife, so the fact that she is capable to shoplift has nothing to do with you. However, the fact that nuclear weapons can be created has everything to do with God, for making them have the ability to exist in the first place.

    Now, had you said pet robot...
    [insert funny quote/saying/etc.]

  8. #168
    Senior Member ThinkingAboutIt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aerithria View Post
    God created the universe with the tools necessary for nuclear weapons. You did not create your wife, so the fact that she is capable to shoplift has nothing to do with you. However, the fact that nuclear weapons can be created has everything to do with God, for making them have the ability to exist in the first place.

    Now, had you said pet robot...
    Consider a child then. Is a parent responsible for an adult child?

    There is much more to this - Gods sovereignity, His established authorities on earth - e.g. government, leadership, etc., in addition to His ability to limit free will of man when He wishes, but based on past posts being removed, I doubt we will be discussing it much though it is exclusive and relevant to Christianity and this topic.
    Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

  9. #169
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aerithria View Post
    God created the universe with the tools necessary for nuclear weapons. You did not create your wife, so the fact that she is capable to shoplift has nothing to do with you. However, the fact that nuclear weapons can be created has everything to do with God, for making them have the ability to exist in the first place.

    Now, had you said pet robot...
    You got it right.

    But that is not all.
    On wife that is stealing from stores and billions of dead people and destroyed biosphere are not exactly the same thing.

    I simply don't inderstand why would God create a tool for wiping of milions and millions of devoted christians.

    In the case that God is behind this I must rise a question " Does he really love us as he/she/it claims? " (In the case that God exists in the first place.)

  10. #170
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkingAboutIt View Post
    in addition to His ability to limit free will of man when He wishes,

    If "he" can limit 'free' will, is it truly free will?

Similar Threads

  1. Quotes to Motivate You to *Get To Work*
    By Usehername in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09-21-2014, 12:36 PM
  2. If You Had to Pick, What Are Your Top Two Needs Out of This List?
    By Evolving Transparency in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-21-2014, 04:41 PM
  3. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 05-28-2010, 03:22 PM
  4. [NT] NTs, if you had to pick...
    By Zarathustra in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 03-29-2010, 02:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO