double

This post was edited by Neptunus on Apr 26 2014 01:02pm

Sounds like you don't buy into determinism at all xD

the concept of free will is metaphysical mumbo jumbo but i imagine that's common among social scientists.

I got a C in Spanish 2 in college in an online course. It is the only C I've ever gotten in college. I got it because I missed two oral exams completely and slacked off on online homework which I frankly hate. However I have done all those things in every other class I've ever taken, have gotten 2 Bs and the rest As. In Spanish 1 I got an A. A determinist would say that no matter what I couldn't have gotten anything other than a C when in reality I chose to put off homework and do it late and I chose not to call on certain Friday nights between 10 and 11. I could have done those things, I had a choice, and I made a choice. Believing anything else would just be putting some sort of self-negating faith in something and there is just no grounds to do this.



I think Sartre does a pretty good account of working through the mind/body problem.

omg that was amazing

Lol at bold. Do you really believe this?

Do you think mental acts like creativity and imagination exist at all? Or are creative acts impossible?



Social scientists tend to me empiricist and determinist. They pretend that observations can be objective and that our senses don't lie to us.

Your life is nobody's fault but yours.

This post was edited by Skinned on Apr 26 2014 09:04pm

do you really believe your mind possesses some metaphysical will? sorry, I don't.

So nobody ever makes decisions in their life, and everything is just scripted?

I think that is metaphysical mumbo jumbo and more escapist than anything. People through acts of will overcome material circumstances everyday.

Really the consciousness is the only thing that can be said to really exist, everything else is ontologically suspect.

Plenty of naturalist scientists don't believe in determinism as well, many biologists for example believe in vitalism and believe that life itself is emergent from biological processes...and living things are fundamentally different than rocks.

If reductionists were correct we would be able to create Frankenstein's monster in real life, but if I take my cat apart and put it back together in the exact way it was, something would be lost.

This post was edited by Skinned on Apr 26 2014 10:02pm

decisions, sure. people weigh options and choose the one that best serves them. how does that suggest that thoughts somehow transcend causality?

scripted? no. that implies design



Your belief that determinism is "escapist" is a bias that only hurts your argument.



these are just words



hard emergence is more metaphysical mumbo jumbo



Well first of all, you can't put something back together the exact same way it was, but it's clear you're not convinced of the validity of physics. Second of all, no one has even come close to reverse engineering a cat brain, so you can't make that claim.

This post was edited by dothe on Apr 26 2014 10:48pm