This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Guns don't kill people. Video games do. Really CNN?

#101schadowPosted 2/3/2013 4:17:33 AM
Guns don't kill people. Lazers do.
---
MageofBlood391 posted...
GameFAQs: Because if all else fails, you can always argue semantics.
#102DolphLundgrennnPosted 2/3/2013 4:31:36 AM
MLG should be banned and all members should receive the death penalty!
#103SuiCaederePosted 2/3/2013 7:13:28 AM
VanderZoo posted...

VanderZoo, while I do agree with the idea that free will is nonsensical, I do not think you have to resort to the subconscious in order to counter it. Determinist philosophers have already weakened the notion that we "choose" and replaced it with what you suggested in one of your previous posts- that we are mere spectators of what we think we choose. Whether we're aware of the information processing that goes on in our brains right before we "choose" something is not important. I think explaining that no decision really takes place should be our first hurdle in this debate.

As I'm sure you know, the core of this argument in determinism is that there is an inevitable causal chain (the combination of nature, nurture, etc) that renders us unable to simply disconnect from the innumerable elements that have led to creating our specific selves and just "choose" something at random.

Whether we are situated in what we deem an important scenario or a trivial one- if that universe was replicated, we would always make the same choice. I am being generous by saying "make the same choice" as what occurs is simply the continuation of a deterministic chain.

I've enjoyed your posts so far, and observed that we have very similar views on the matter. And lastly, I appreciate the fact that you've remained calm, despite some of the offensive (and often uneducated) posts thrown your way in this thread.
#104VanderZooPosted 2/3/2013 7:15:03 AM
Ba_bel posted...
VanderZoo posted...

Ba_bel posted...
Lol your argument doesn't have any proof on it. You just say "can you prove otherwise?"; so what if I ask you to prove me that he never had a chance to not answer the question, for example. Can YOU prove your thesis? And sorry, but the way you put it it seems more a religion than even a pseudo-scientific argument.


I'll put it simply, if you choose A over B, it's because you were more inclined to choose A. So if you were more inclined to choose A, then how 'could' you have ever chosen B instead? In hindsight and in theory, you say you could have, but how is that possible?

This is the illusion, we have choices, but we were only ever going to make one choice, and the choice was made before our rational brain even realises it.


The question isn't "did B never have a chance?" or "is he really inclined to think only A?".
The question is "can you prove it?".


Those aren't the questions I asked. We KNOW he was predisposed to choosing A because he chose A.The question is, can you prove he could have chosen B? You can't because it's never been done, it's impossible, it would require time travel and the ability to go back and watch yourself numerous times facing the same choice hoping to see a different outcome.

Free will is just a theory, there's no evidence for its existence, in fact, there's evidence to the contrary. Google free will neuroscience. Scientifically and philosophically, we actually have no basis for believing free will exists.

The best philosophical argument for free will is the rather ironic "of course we have free will, we have no choice but to have it". There's also the religious argument which is equally as ironic "of course we have free will, God says we do".
---
necro00 - So she sounded really cute, and I saved her from dying a bunch of times, I messaged and talked to her for a few mins and she then blocked me wtf
#105VanderZooPosted 2/3/2013 7:17:22 AM
SuiCaedere posted...
VanderZoo posted...

VanderZoo, while I do agree with the idea that free will is nonsensical, I do not think you have to resort to the subconscious in order to counter it. Determinist philosophers have already weakened the notion that we "choose" and replaced it with what you suggested in one of your previous posts- that we are mere spectators of what we think we choose. Whether we're aware of the information processing that goes on in our brains right before we "choose" something is not important. I think explaining that no decision really takes place should be our first hurdle in this debate.

As I'm sure you know, the core of this argument in determinism is that there is an inevitable causal chain (the combination of nature, nurture, etc) that renders us unable to simply disconnect from the innumerable elements that have led to creating our specific selves and just "choose" something at random.

Whether we are situated in what we deem an important scenario or a trivial one- if that universe was replicated, we would always make the same choice. I am being generous by saying "make the same choice" as what occurs is simply the continuation of a deterministic chain.

I've enjoyed your posts so far, and observed that we have very similar views on the matter. And lastly, I appreciate the fact that you've remained calm, despite some of the offensive (and often uneducated) posts thrown your way in this thread.


Oh thank god, you're a breath of fresh air in this topic lol.
---
necro00 - So she sounded really cute, and I saved her from dying a bunch of times, I messaged and talked to her for a few mins and she then blocked me wtf
#106Ba_belPosted 2/3/2013 8:38:12 AM
VanderZoo posted...

Those aren't the questions I asked. We KNOW he was predisposed to choosing A because he chose A.The question is, can you prove he could have chosen B? You can't because it's never been done, it's impossible, it would require time travel and the ability to go back and watch yourself numerous times facing the same choice hoping to see a different outcome.


It's true I cannot prove he had a chance; though, you can't prove he did NOT have a chance either, so my theory is as credible as yours.
And just so you know, I don't believe in God.
---
---To hit the mark, we aim above the mark--- R. W. Emerson
#107JusticeSwordPosted 2/3/2013 8:54:04 AM
Surely In a country that possesses the legalisation of guns x The notorious & severe lack of education & judgement in its main populous x an overly biased media system x severe poverty & inequality throughout the society, is a far more dangerous catalyst for gun crime than video games/movies/music?
---
PSN:TheDragonzord
>_> Sonic The Hedgehog 3 & Knuckles HD remix please
#108Godly_GoofPosted 2/3/2013 9:03:16 AM
VanderZoo posted...
Ba_bel posted...
VanderZoo posted...

Ba_bel posted...
Lol your argument doesn't have any proof on it. You just say "can you prove otherwise?"; so what if I ask you to prove me that he never had a chance to not answer the question, for example. Can YOU prove your thesis? And sorry, but the way you put it it seems more a religion than even a pseudo-scientific argument.


I'll put it simply, if you choose A over B, it's because you were more inclined to choose A. So if you were more inclined to choose A, then how 'could' you have ever chosen B instead? In hindsight and in theory, you say you could have, but how is that possible?

This is the illusion, we have choices, but we were only ever going to make one choice, and the choice was made before our rational brain even realises it.


The question isn't "did B never have a chance?" or "is he really inclined to think only A?".
The question is "can you prove it?".


Those aren't the questions I asked. We KNOW he was predisposed to choosing A because he chose A.The question is, can you prove he could have chosen B? You can't because it's never been done, it's impossible, it would require time travel and the ability to go back and watch yourself numerous times facing the same choice hoping to see a different outcome.

Free will is just a theory, there's no evidence for its existence, in fact, there's evidence to the contrary. Google free will neuroscience. Scientifically and philosophically, we actually have no basis for believing free will exists.

The best philosophical argument for free will is the rather ironic "of course we have free will, we have no choice but to have it". There's also the religious argument which is equally as ironic "of course we have free will, God says we do".


.... Okay enough of this bulls*** I'm just going to turn your idiotic logic on its head.

He picked A, but why? Was he predisposed? Maybe or was it free will? It could have been either or neither, he could have been predisposed to pick B instead, but by free will he chose otherwise, or it could have been that through free will he was going to pick B but then instead didnt pick it by picking something else instead.

Your entire argument is flawed because it could but it also couldn't be, and there is no way of proving one way or another it is or isn't.

By that same logic the color blue is actually green, we were just either A) predisposed to have it occur that we wouldnt call it that or B) by free will chose against it. Can we prove it either way? No we cant.

And genetic and mental predisposition is just the stupid bulls*** failures tell themselves to hide that it's their own fault their lives suck. It's just the defeatist perspective on life wereas Free Will is the optimist.

As I said before your a total dumbass that doesnt even understand his own philosophical perspective :/
---
"All things are about Jesus Homer .......... Except this."
#109Pato468Posted 2/3/2013 9:25:42 AM
VanderZoo posted...
OrangeSchweese posted...
VanderZoo posted...
ReDDevil2112 posted...
I think maybe you're just insane. Controlling thought is one thing (your mind goes where it goes), but your actions should be well within your control.


That's contradictory, if you can't control your thoughts, and your thoughts control your actions, then you can't control your actions.


Not true. People have crazy thoughts all the time and don't act on them. Psychosis is what you're referring to: where someone can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.


I'm not referring to psychosis, I'm referring to pre-determination. Your DNA, your environment, all the things that make you as a person you have no control over. Charles Manson was always going to be a killer, he had no control over it. The decisions we make that govern our lives are made at a subconscious level.

Ohhh, we're getting into some crazy metal gear stuff now..


The problem with determinism is that it should excuse everyone of everything they do. Be it murder, rape, all the way to cheating at test or to your gf/bf, bad work performance and kill-stealing at online games. With that in mind, what would thr point of ANY reward-punishment system be?

Also, many brothers, under the exact same circunstances, turn out to be completely diferent, which is way it's more accurate to speak of being conditioned towards something insted of being determined to something.
#110majin nemesisPosted 2/3/2013 9:41:25 AM
VanderZoo posted...
majin nemesis posted...
VanderZoo posted...
Here's the catch, the neuroscientists, who are actively scanning the brain during this process, know some moments, even full seconds, which button the person chooses to press before that person themselves does.

but it was still the person choice to press or not press the button after choosing which one to press also the person could simple choose not to press the button


lol, again, choosing not to answer is not a loophole, it doesn't work that way, you're thinking too simplistically. Because even that choice could be read and monitored by scientists, who will know you're not going to choose before you are consciously aware you're not going to.

Go to a shopping mall and stand at the bottom of an escalator, and watch which way people turn when they get to the bottom. Now go interview those people, ask them why they turned right or left, the majority will have no idea why they turned in the direction they did, the decision to do so was made without their own knowledge.


i think you're playing to many games and it's making you think you are in one or something you need help
---
Swann:This is the last time.I'm tired of running damage control every time he makes a mess
Campbell:Right.You're the control,and if that fails,I'm the damage