2013-01-03, 18:23 | Link #21 | |
Custom User Title
|
Quote:
@willx I agree with you mostly. It doesn't have an impact on one's personal life, but that mild distraction you are talking about is reason enough for me to bring it up. But in its extreme form, one has to wonder, if it would really be dangerous, or actually enlightening. The answer to that, we will never know, though, which again brings us to the mild distraction.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-03, 19:44 | Link #22 |
Romanticist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Age: 33
|
From my perspective, Determinism is really no different from Solipsism as a means of viewing the universe.
Both claims are unverifiable, and both rely on a particular set of arbitrary premises. Of course, if I put it that way, just about any metaphysical position would also apply, and that's exactly what I'm getting at. It all boils down to personal preference for a particular theory if it's better or not. There is no better or worse. Arguments can only be held when both parties have a set of shared concepts to discuss on equal terms, but when it comes to metaphysics, I'm afraid that there no limit to how reality can be deconstructed.
__________________
|
2013-01-04, 02:33 | Link #24 | ||
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
Quote:
Quote:
For some people though, just thinking these matters in general can indeed be "fun", and I can relate to that. And I think that's the whole point of "Philosophy" (lit. Love to to think). But sadly it's because of this that Philosophy nowadays (seemingly) often gets the "Math treatment" of "it has no use in life so why do it".
__________________
|
||
2013-01-04, 03:41 | Link #25 | |
Romanticist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Age: 33
|
Quote:
One thing I always like to say to people is that philosophy is not so much a body of knowledge as it is a method.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-04, 08:57 | Link #26 |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
^^
It's funny, there are ads in the subway that say, "What is the meaning of life Philosophy?" for a "School of Philosophy.". I think everyone needs to take basic Philo 101 courses for "Knowledge & Reality" and "Critical Thinking" Anyways, my "mild distraction" point is similar to the "method of thinking" concept espoused above and is similar to how law school works. I have taken a bunch of philosophy courses before, am relatively critical about the universe and am (relatively) thoughtful and logical .. So what now? It's like asking a bunch of lawyers to sit around discussing historical case law for amusement. My view: You've been trained to think, so think, rather than talk about thinking
__________________
|
2013-01-04, 09:31 | Link #27 |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Can a mod please change the title's spelling error? In the last 3 letters, "I" comes before "S", not the other way round. [/grammarnazi]
No, the existence of grammar nazis cannot be determined. They exist, and they do not.
__________________
|
2013-01-04, 09:39 | Link #29 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Grammar is a structural set of rules for construction of words and sentences, so technically speaking, spelling errors should fall under grammar.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-04, 09:50 | Link #30 |
Custom User Title
|
I'm afraid they don't. Grammar operates on the level of individual words in the case of morphology. Say if you falsely use the word dog instead of dogs in a contruction that requires the plural, you are missing the morpheme s, wich indicates it. The spelling of individual morphemes is entirely a matter of orthography.
__________________
|
2013-01-04, 09:56 | Link #31 |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
^ He is technically correct. The only case where there could be slight confusion of overlap is the misspelling of individual words that are homophones. This amused me to no end with regards to coding errors being "syntax errors" when they were clearly "spelling errors" .. yes I'm a nerd.
__________________
|
2013-01-04, 10:04 | Link #33 | |
Romanticist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Age: 33
|
Quote:
But really, does it have to have a practical application in the first place? Is there simply no merit in doing it for its own sake? Like doing a crossword puzzle or a challenging math problem?
__________________
|
|
2013-01-04, 18:19 | Link #34 | |
Deadpan Snarker
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 46
|
Quote:
The problem here is with for instance my 'dessert' example: I could choose chocolate over vanilla, because my brain desires it more but I could decide against it because i want to savour the chocolate on a later time For dreams, you can not predict how psychological you're impacted by them beforehand Will your brain create more signals, will it retain more endorfines, release more adrenalin will it make you wake up rested or restless, And this is only 'medical' stuff, not even the freaky stuff your imagination conjures up during sleep You can calculate untill the earth is a square, you're not gonna fine logic there Determinism is from my PoV a pretty nihilistic idea of life had humanity adhered to this way of thinking, we would have never evolved beyond the 'live/breed/die' state since any effort towards 'more' would be a futile we wouldn't have started farming, taming animals, create machinery (and why would we, since everything would happen by itself anyway)
__________________
|
|
2013-01-04, 20:02 | Link #35 | ||
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
Quote:
Since I study Earth Sciences, I can give you another example with Earthquakes. Earthquakes are, as far as practicality is concerned, unpredictable. However, in 'theory', if we can know for sure the position of all the elements in the crust how they interact with each other, then (again, in 'theory') we could predict earthquakes. But, to acquire such information would require a huge effort that which renders this impractical, and thus 'impossible'. Like how Einstein's equations allows for the existence of time machines but for all intents and purposes, an 'impossibility' due to the sheer impracticality. Quote:
__________________
Last edited by erneiz_hyde; 2013-01-04 at 20:19. |
||
2013-01-05, 12:17 | Link #36 | |
Custom User Title
|
Quote:
/edit: Thanks to whoever corrected the title!
__________________
Last edited by ZGoten; 2013-01-05 at 12:56. |
|
2013-01-05, 19:01 | Link #37 | |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
I used to be pretty confident in determinism, however, I find myself becoming an agnostic on the subject. The principle seems logical on the surface, but with recent advances in science seeming to suggest truly random and chaotic elements exist on a micro level of the universe, I am not so sure. Whether or not we live in a deterministic universe, the complexity is at such a grand and incomprehensible scale that free will, for all practical purposes, does exist.
Quote:
|
|
2013-01-05, 22:06 | Link #39 |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
I disagree, but I'll just state my stance as I don't seek to make you change your mind or anything. The way I see it: if some being knows (with certainty) you will make decisions, you never had a choice in the first place because it is already destined to occur.
|
Tags |
free will, philosophy |
|
|