101–110 of 190 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The richest country in the world has been at war overseas almost constantly since the end of WWII.
And it went to war for the following reasons: a) scarcity of resource (oil) / humanitarian reasons (whichever you prefer to believe) b) was provoked into it (because of cold war or terrorists)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
5 dried grams of magic mushrooms. Or listen to 40+ hours of lectures from Alan Watts.
5??????
On a more serious note, look into 4-AcO-DMT. Essentially mushrooms without the unpleasantness of actually having to eat mushrooms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, mainstream science maintains that we're neither individuals nor have free will. What is your definition of free will such that mainstream science says that we do not have it? In general, I'd recommend always stating your definition of free will when discussing it, because people's definitions differ. Given that definition, how would the world look if we did have it, and if we didn't? (You are part of the w…
This is really not a point of contention in philosophy. And that's I think why the OP didn't bother to define it as well. I suggest reading one of the philosophy encyclopedias online to get answers to the question of definition.
> “Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.)
The first three sections after that (1.1, 1.2, 1.3) are about different definitions of free will. Where did you get the idea that free will had a settled definition? Is there something else I should be reading?
This is true even at a personal level. If you think you know why you act the way you do but you have never done an experiment to validate it you have a pretty good chance of being wrong. Even for simple things, like how fast you drive, is it the speedometer and you are looking at it, or is it how your engine sounds, and if turn up your music do you drive faster and is that because you are more aroused/excited, or is…
Everyone is living in fairytale narratives that we spend decades crafting for ourselves. And doing so has some great benefits! But it is also can be very problematic at times. I've been trying to figure out how to live while minimizing the extent of my personal fabricated narrative. It's a bit tricky... As with many things, I think basic awareness of the phenomenon is the first productive step.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you agree with the following: - Mainstream science operates on the assumption of physicalism. - Mainstream science operates on the assumption that mind/consciousness is reducible to the brain organ. - Mainstream science operates on the principle of causation. What follows from that is that libertarian free-will is impossible. What you're left with is determinism (and compatibilism which isn't a scientific view, bu…
If we had free will we'd choose not to get into big online discussions about whether or not we have free will, without first defining what we meant by free will...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you agree with the following: - Mainstream science operates on the assumption of physicalism. - Mainstream science operates on the assumption that mind/consciousness is reducible to the brain organ. - Mainstream science operates on the principle of causation. What follows from that is that libertarian free-will is impossible. What you're left with is determinism (and compatibilism which isn't a scientific view, bu…
None of your postulates are accurate or well-defined. --I don't know what 'physicalism' means. --Mainstream science doesn't even claim to know what consciousness is, let alone what it can be reduced to. --Science does not operate on the principle of causation. The point is to make falsifiable predictions that can, when verified, be considered as evidence that your hypothesis for how things work might just be how they…
>--I don't know what 'physicalism' means.
Is "well-defined" a codeword for "I don't understand"? Physicalism is as well-defined of a concept as anything can be.
>--Mainstream science doesn't even claim to know what consciousness is, let alone what it can be reduced to.
Since you don't understand what is "physicalism" I don't think you're going to get this point. The idea is that everything is reduced to elementary physical structures. Therefore nothing can be extra-physcial, super-natural or otherwise. I.e. non-dualist. Therefore the mind must be reduced to physical structures.
>--Science does not operate on the principle of causation.
So is there anything that is uncaused? When the scientist constructs an experiment do they think "oh what if the billiard ball moved without cause?".
>There is just so much we don't know. Using science to justify some new-agey claptrap about determinism is just malfeasance.
Actually "new-agey" thought tries to do the exact opposite: save dualism and free will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone is living in fairytale narratives that we spend decades crafting for ourselves. And doing so has some great benefits! But it is also can be very problematic at times. I've been trying to figure out how to live while minimizing the extent of my personal fabricated narrative. It's a bit tricky... As with many things, I think basic awareness of the phenomenon is the first productive step.
>I've been trying to figure out how to live while minimizing the extent of my personal fabricated narrative. sounds interesting. Do you know of any suggested reading on the topic?
> sounds interesting. Do you know of any suggested reading on the topic?
The Bible, there's no better. Jesus preaches and teaches truth, truth will erode this false fabricated narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I've been trying to figure out how to live while minimizing the extent of my personal fabricated narrative. sounds interesting. Do you know of any suggested reading on the topic?
>> I've been trying to figure out how to live while minimizing the extent of my personal fabricated narrative. > sounds interesting. Do you know of any suggested reading on the topic? The Bible, there's no better. Jesus preaches and teaches truth, truth will erode this false fabricated narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is really not a point of contention in philosophy. And that's I think why the OP didn't bother to define it as well. I suggest reading one of the philosophy encyclopedias online to get answers to the question of definition.
The first three sentences of the free will article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy say: > “Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and…
>If there is such a thing as free will, it has many dimensions. In what follows, I will sketch the freedom-conferring characteristics that have attracted most of the attention
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I've been trying to figure out how to live while minimizing the extent of my personal fabricated narrative. sounds interesting. Do you know of any suggested reading on the topic?
Over the last couple years, I've been exploring this. I can't provide any answers, but I've found all the usual recommendations useful. CBT, Watts, Stoicism, yoga, mindfulness. Of those, the last -- mindfulness -- has been the most crucial. I cannot usually control my reaction to stimulus, but the hardest part for me (and in others, now that I observe them) is the identification of the event trigger. Once you identif…
Sounds a little hippy-dippy, sure, but for me it falls into the "it just works" bucket.