Hazard

Members
  • Content Count

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Hazard

  • Rank
    $$

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Michigan

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Jordan
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    DMB, Jason Mraz, Good Will Hunting, Garden State
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking
  1. Wow, Thanks for all the responses! Very interesting
  2. Hello again everyone! It's been a while. I've noticed that I tend to use different definitions than other people when arguing philosophy or theoretical topics. For example, I often drop by OL every few months with a topic on Free Will (as its something that bothers me often) however, earlier today, I realized that my definition of free will may be crippling my argument / the "successfulness" of the discussion. For example, today I realized how my definition probably differs from that of others: I can do many things, but don't. Most would say this means I have free will because I can. There is no mental block. I am free to do these actions. And I suppose that makes sense. Whereas in my own mind, I defined free will as what someone will do in the future, not what they are able to do. I do not mean to spark another debate of free will here, I am simply amused how one's definition of a word can corrupt a successful debate. Any thoughts? Sincerely, Hazard
  3. Wow, I really like that. Thank you Brant. I may be over thinking it and at some point it is best to just be practical. Top-notch, Brant. I knew you could do it, if you moved to two-liners! Ouch! --Brant Lol, well, I'm serious. That was quite profound.
  4. Wow, I really like that. Thank you Brant. I may be over thinking it and at some point it is best to just be practical.
  5. I completely agree. Self-esteem is the result of achieving one's values, not the cause.
  6. Morten, I've come across the same discovery. My life is much better if I act as if I have free will. I think that is what we are supposed to think or else we couldn't function right. Theodore, I am not merely arguing that we don't have free will. I am arguing that free will is doesn't exist. It is a circular square, an impossibility. The idea that an action could be made without a cause is absurd. The cause is, yes, our value system. But our value system also has a cause, some obvious and some not so obvious. The easiest way to see that it does have a cause is by inspecting our biological needs. Needs and wants translate to values. We don't choose what to need or want, we just do. I am in a weird predicament though, agreeing with Mortan that it is best to believe in free will. Ba'al, I want to. All the evidence (inspecting my own choices) points to a clear cause for all my actions. Whoa, wait a second! What if you all have free will but I don't? ~Hazard
  7. http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_will_our_kids_be_a_different_species.html Juan Enriquez suggests that in the not so distant future, we may be able to not only clone humans but to transfer our memories into those cloned bodies, thus allowing us to live forever. However, even if we develop this technology I don't think it will work and here is why: I'm not spiritual so I don't believe in the spirit or the soul or anything like that, but I think that cloning oneself and transferring all your memories would only server to create a twin brother or sister, a copy of yourself, but not yourself. I don't think that you will wake up to be in a new body. I'd just be a second "you" walking around and talking with all your memories. This leads me to consider interesting questions. If there is no soul, what is the "me" that sees what my eyes see and thinks what my brain thinks? Am I just the some of my biological parts? But who is the "who" that wakes up every morning? These questions are easier for me to understand when I see them in the light of the above mentioned "cloning experiment". The clone would think its me. It would have all my memories, feelings, etc. But I would still be me too. I couldn't wake up in his body. This leads me to believe that if there is no soul, no essence that IS the self, then I act and think as the result of the construct that biologically is me at any given moment. I could hypothetically be the clone right now and not know it because I have all the memories of the original. I might only be 1 day old and there is no way for me to know for sure because when I woke up I had all the memories of years before. Even though I don't believe in the soul, I still feel like there is something more. Why am I me and not somebody else if I am just brain waves? Who is the ME that experiences my experiences? Food for thought... Thoughts?
  8. Hey everyone, I've been away for a while, very busy, but things have improved significantly for me. First off, I think the winter did quite a number on my spirits. So now that that is over I'm doing quite better. I got accepted to a technical college with a good scholarship and will be going there for Math. So things are looking up, -Jordan
  9. Hi Silvana, In my earlier post I made a distinction between making a choice, and having the free will to make any choice. My theory in it's most crude state explains that people are more likely to do certain actions (like eat breakfast) than they are to do others (like cut off ones fingers). This can be seen throughout society, it is an observable fact - that people tend to follow a particular set of general actions. However, I take it a bit further. I lost my belief in free will when I realized that I could determine the cause of any one of my actions - even complicated ones. Either experiences, or emotions, or whatever you want to point to - I could see how they were the reasons that I did what I did. So I do think that my hypothesis has observable evidence that supports it. To answer your example, teenagers and popstars who do nonsense things to get attention are doing these things because they know it will get them attention. Thats the reason clear and simple. So, in response to your theory, again, I do believe in "choice" just not free choice. We, as humans, are constrained. The more complicated the decision, the harder it is to see the cause, but its there. I have been unsuccessful with defining free will concretely. Google defines it as: "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion" However, I dispute the idea that our discretion is truly free. It is developed - nature nurture. If you were born in another country with another family do you think your free will would lead you to have the same values as you do today. I don't think so. I don't believe in a spirit, and I don't think that what you may call "free will" exists outside of our physical brain. We develop, we learn, we refine, but in the end our "choices" are a very complex method of sorting information and picking the best option at the time. Whether urges are driving the brain to choose cake or reason prevails to choose the salad. These things are learned choices. Simple logic decisions "I want the cake, but I will get fat if I eat it so I will choose the salad" or non-logic "I want the cake, i want the cake, i don't care about consequences" Anyways, that's my idea. Its still a work in progress -Jordan
  10. Everyone, Thank you for the responses, I am absolutely slammed at the moment with work and school and I will make a well-thought out response just as soon as I can. Also, My real name isn't tied to this account so I don't think there is any possibility that what I say here could get me disqualified for a job. Anyway, in a few days when things slow down I will take some time to respond to you all, Thanks, Jordan
  11. Ah, so he is suggesting that purpose and intent exist as a byproduct of free will. Well, Google defines purpose as: "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists." And defines reason as: "A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.". If one asked, "what is the purpose of life (in general, not just human life)?" One could argue that the purpose of life is to sustain and continue its processes. Anything that lives multiplies and reproduces, its one of the qualifiers that allows something to be labeled as "life". If something that does not have free will (life in general) can have a purpose, then the argument is void because purpose is not a byproduct of free will. Purpose is simply and explanation for the reason or cause behind an action with respect to an outcome. For example, "what is the purpose of photosynthesis?" To sustain the life of the plant. It is the end that the action supports. That is purpose and that is independent of free will. Do you disagree? Ok, so are you agreeing with me? That is exactly how I am saying that decisions are made, per my previous post. Right, I still believe that we are responsible for our actions. Crime should still be punished, etc. Even though I don't believe in free will, I don't think anything should change about how we actually act. Its an odd conclusion that I've come to, I know. Not so, if the machine could analyse an infinite amount of information then it would know how this person would react to hearing any future and it would continue to foresee reactions until it found the future that the person would obey. -Jordan
  12. Mike M., Thank you for the suggestions. I would be surprised if my problems were psychosomatic, but who knows? I go to a chiropractor/nutritionist who has helped me "keep it under control", but my problems aren't gone, just being managed. Out of curiosity, if it were psychosomatic, is there a way that I could tell for sure? A lot of my pain happens when I am not paying attention, which leads me to believe that it isn't. If it is, do you think that tai chi/yoga etc is a solution to psychosomatic pain. Thank you for the suggestions, Jordan
  13. Dennis, I think you are actually describing my point (please, correct me if I am wrong). I am suggesting that "an event" / "choice" is the products of the complex operation of our brain using the "value hierarchy" to focus. This focus is not a choice, but a preprogrammed action in order to support the values. Just as a spider will "freak out" and run around like crazy when it feels threatened, its focus leaves making the web or what ever it was doing to concentrate entirely on staying alive. I believe this example can be applied to almost any living animal. Is this what you mean by focus? Mike M., What do you refer to here: "See the comments on 'Changing Your Name.'" ? Could you post a link? I can't find it on the forum. -Jordan