DeepSight:

With profound apologies and deep respect, I doubt I have ever read this much sttupidity in my life.
Carry on!

It will get you every where. After all its just mindless chemical reactions in ya head abi. That absolves you of everything as well.
You are therefore free.

Oh sire,
The fact that you could not, in all your renowned eloquence, offer a fair critique, a fair challenge of my thesis, speaks volumes of the voracity of my thesis, and the palpable fear that engulfs you goddist and intelligent design proponents when you are presented with real facts.

You, as someone who meditates, look inward for peace, harmony and balance, I find it difficult to imagine why you would disagree that the true essence of your character may very well lie with the 100 trillion micro-gods that make up more than 90% of your body cells.

Please take time to think about this: That negotiating with, and a successful peace accord with the microbes in your body might very well be the key not only to good health, harmony and balance , but might also be the key to the kingdom of god.
Jesus said[b] " The kingdom of god is within you"[/b] ( Though later deliberately mistranslated to " the kingdom of god is amongst you" ).

Please , during your next meditations, contemplate and pay special attention to the 100 trillion microbes that are within you, that also directly and indirectly govern your body, and surreptitoustly and ultimately govern your mind, character and social behavior.

No thanks. You may or may not have noticed, but I no longer have the time or aptitude to play ten - ten with the likes of you, wiegraf, JC, AIO and Logicboy anymore - and I promised I wouldn't.

You can all journey merrily into your subjectivist illusory land with your vapid, empty, pedestrian, and unserious and shallow minds.

Enjoy.

DeepSight: No thanks. You may or may not have noticed, but I no longer have the time or aptitude to play ten - ten with the likes of you, wiegraf, JC, AIO and Logicboy anymore - and I promised I wouldn't.

You can all journey merrily into your subjectivist illusory land with your vapid, empty, pedestrian, and unserious and shallow minds.

Enjoy.

No sir, that would not be a wise thing to do.

We need your insight.
Most of us forget that we are primarily here to hear other viewpoints and learn from one another.

Your mind would rust if you are not constantly challenged by new ideas and new ways of looking at reality.
If you choose to shut your mind , then it is further proof that your precious notions of god and reality are simply the fabrications of your own mind, and nothing else.

I am fine with that, thanks.

DeepSight: No thanks. You may or may not have noticed, but I no longer have the time or aptitude to play ten - ten with the likes of you, wiegraf, JC, AIO and Logicboy anymore - and I promised I wouldn't.

You can all journey merrily into your subjectivist illusory land with your vapid, empty, pedestrian, and unserious and shallow minds.

Enjoy.

Am I topping the list? That may be cause to celebrate

To take this topic further, here is today's news flash from yahoo news, and lets see how it dovetails into this topic of volition and freewill.


http://news.yahoo.com/evil-not-banal-says-disturbing-probe-060901725.html

plaetton:
To take this topic further, here is today's news flash from yahoo news, and lets see how dovetails into this topic of volition and freewill.


http://news.yahoo.com/evil-not-banal-says-disturbing-probe-060901725.html

One thing the article does not really treat is the subject of driving force which is what you are trying to expatiate on in this thread. It says nothing as to the basis of why the people in the experiment made the choices they made.

LordReed:

One thing the article does not really treat is the subject of driving force which is what you are trying to expatiate on in this thread. It says nothing as to the basis of why the people in the experiment made the choices they made.

Yes it did.

The first conclusion on the experiment was that they were acting as mindless zombies who were simply following orders from higher authority.

The much later conclusion is that they were actually thoughtful of their actions, but thought their actions were serving a higher, nobler ultimate purpose.

plaetton:

Yes it did.

The first conclusion on the experiment was that they were acting as mindless zombies who were simply following orders from higher authority.

The much later conclusion is that they were actually thoughtful of their actions, but thought their actions were serving a higher, nobler ultimate purpose.

Those conclusions do speak about the basis of the motivation. Doing as you are told by a higher authority is the outcome of your motivation not its basis.

LordReed:

Those conclusions do speak about the basis of the motivation. Doing as you are told by a higher authority is the outcome of your motivation not its basis.

Motivation and basis? Are they mutually exclusive?

I hardly get your point.

What about consequences of an action irrespective of motivation or basis?

Remember we are talking about freewill and volition here.
My op is that freewill and volition are not only encumbered by extraneous factors beyond the conscious control of the individual, but also, is also hugely dependent on the amount of real, truthful or factual information available to one who exercises such freewill and volition.

For example, in the experiments cited, can you venture to tell us where the subjects used or could have made proper use of their freewill and volition?

plaetton:
Motivation and basis? Are they mutually exclusive?

I hardly get your point.

What about consequences of an action irrespective of motivation or basis?

Remember we are talking about freewill and volition here.
My op is that freewill and volition are not only encumbered by extraneous factors beyond the conscious control of the individual, but also, is also hugely dependent on the amount of real, truthful or factual information available to one who exercises such freewill and volition.

For example, in the experiments cited, can you venture to tell us where the subjects used or could have made proper use of their freewill and volition?

In the context of this thread the basis of choice is biochemical reactions that is my point. The article doesn't explore far back enough in the chain of choice unless you want to tie it in in a different way.

Now to the above point you made about volition and freewill being influenced by other factors, recall the definition I quoted for freewill which acknowledges the input of external factors. That position accepts those factors and goes on to say that they are necessary in order to distinguish individuals. So in this experiment though they are being "controlled" by an external factor we see them attempt to justify their choices. That attempt is the pathways by which they arrived at those choices and still remain under the "control" of the individual. Anyone of those people could have decided not continue with the experiment even though that was not one of the "options" the "higher authority" gave.

In essence freewill also encapsulates the various factors at play in choice making, it is not a "standalone" operation.

LordReed:

In the context of this thread the basis of choice is biochemical reactions that is my point. The article doesn't explore far back enough in the chain of choice unless you want to tie it in in a different way.

Now to the above point you made about volition and freewill being influenced by other factors, recall the definition I quoted for freewill which acknowledges the input of external factors. That position accepts those factors and goes on to say that they are necessary in order to distinguish individuals. So in this experiment though they are being "controlled" by an external factor we see them attempt to justify their choices. That attempt is the pathways by which they arrived at those choices and still remain under the "control" of the individual. Anyone of those people could have decided not continue with the experiment even though that was not one of the "options" the "higher authority" gave.

In essence freewill also encapsulates the various factors at play in choice making, it is not a "standalone" operation.

If I understand you correctly, then I don't see any disagreement here.

plaetton:

If I understand you correctly, then I don't see any disagreement here.

Possibly but you say freewill is an illusion so I do wonder.

LordReed:

Possibly but you say freewill is an illusion so I do wonder.

Yeah.

It is an illusion to think that we make full clear conscious choices everyday in our lives without the influence of factors, many factors beyond our conscious control.
In other words, freewill is not totally free.

Plaetton was truly confused in a profound manner to have posted this nonsense. I can't believe I took good time to try to argue with him.