| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 Desert Elf  Registered: 08/23/11 Posts: 765 Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
500th post
 Anyway... The material world consists of all things in existence. Something exists if it is a part of the material world. Your definition of material is causing you to see only some of what exists. Hence your need to fall back on such undefined concepts as "god" in order to explain the world. -------------------- Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha Tat Savitur Varenyam Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat
| |||||||
|
Desert Elf Registered: 08/23/11 Posts: 765 Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
I think you're missing my point. A will is an aspect of a mind. The mind is not physical. The mind is metaphysical. Brains don't have wills, they have atoms and chemical reactions. Theists are dualists, and historically believe in both brains and minds -- atheists do not. That was my point.
You dont have to be a dualist to believe the mind exists. It just means you dont put mind into make believe categories. The mind exists in the material world. If the mind exists in some other world, can you please explain how the two are linked... and if they are linked then surely they are in the same world for a link to be possible? duh. Welcome to you 2 week re-education plan. I hope you enjoy. -------------------- Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha Tat Savitur Varenyam Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat
| |||||||
|
Zing Stranger Registered: 02/28/12 Posts: 2 Last seen: 14 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I think that before this discussion can progress there should be a clear definition of 'free will'. In regards to previous posts, most people seem to lump everybody into two groups; materialists and whatever else. In my, admittedly limited experience, If you talk the people who are actually involved in research in this area, there are no stances, and there is no consensus. Most are still on the fence, adopting a wait and see approach.
At the moment this debate exists mainly between philosophers, neurobiologists and cognitive neuroscientists. Currently there is no consensus to define free will in a way that allows all parties to debate mutually. That being said, I seem to remember it has been shown that when it comes to choice, research has demonstrated some interesting results regarding free will. Imagine a test subject has to make a choice between two things (usually in this research its color based or something equally simple). When the subject consciously makes the choice, the regions in the brain thought to be involved in decision-making, the anterior cingulate cortex and the orbitofrontal cortex, will activate 200 to 400ms before the subject consciously makes the choice. 200 to 400ms is a very long time regarding brain processes, and since these brain areas are known to be active when a choice has been made (note past tense), most researchers conclude that our conscious perception of making a choice/ decision is just that; a perception/ illusion. Some part of your subconscious already made the choice for you a long time ago in terms of neurobiology. If anybody wants the source ill take a look, but i cant promise the paper(s) will be free for view. Does this disprove free will? Not by a long shot. Still need a solid cross disciplinary definition, as well as a few more decades of research coupled with far more sensitive and sophisticated methods. Besides, its a decision-making experiment, and consciousness is much broader and deeper than just that. Whats ridiculous is people already arguing that there is/ isnt free will. No way to know. Have to laugh at attempts by people to factor in quantum mechanics into the discussion, slow down a little, wont ya, its only just been shown in biology to play a role in photosynthesis, never-mind neurobiology. Somemore food for thought; most current (Sept, 2011) free for view article i could find in an excellent scientific journal (Nature). Gives a nice view on philosophy vs. biology debate, enjoy! Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will
| |||||||
|
saintphotios Stranger    Registered: 02/23/12 Posts: 448 Last seen: 11 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
All you've done is given the definition of the materialist view. I'm not arguing for or against it, but it's not really helpful. But you're really chasing the rabbit and not focusing on actual points made. Sooo... I'll try to break it down. Whether or not a god exists is irrelevant. Stop focusing on that... it's not the issue. I don't know where you stand, but for the sake of argument let's say you're an atheist and I'm a theist... I believe that within the whole of existence... some things are physical and some things are metaphysical. Physical things like rocks, trees, fish... metaphysical things like spirits, demons, whatever. You, the atheist, believe than only physical things exist. There are things like rocks, tree, fish, but of all the physical things there are, everything that exists can ultimately be reduced to things like atoms, chemical reactions, gravity, etc. You and I both agree that humans exist, brains exist and that they can be reduced to atoms and chemical reactions. But as a theist, I believe there's other stuff going on there -- things like a spirit, and mind or logos. No we're in agreement on things like brains and humans and the physical implications therein... But things like minds and spirits cannot be reduced to atoms and chemical reactions. They're not physical, so you can't believe in them. So what about a will -- as a theist, I also believe in a thing called a will. It's the motivating force to my spirit and mind realms, and there's a relationship to the Divine will and this and that. But you're an atheist, so because these things are not reducible to forces of nature (atoms, energy), you don't believe in them, and they are therefore not compatible with you're worldview. Now you might talk about a "mind" and a "will"... but these are actually just terms left over from Greeks who meant very different things by them. What you're talking about is just the brain and chemical processes involved. So to talk about the "will" and it being "free" is just nonsense metaphysical talk for what is ultimately just the physical brain and the laws of nature that govern it. That was a lot more involved then I was hoping to get... but hopefully it clears up any confusion.
| |||||||
|
saintphotios Stranger Registered: 02/23/12 Posts: 448 Last seen: 11 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
No I think the problem is you have no grasp whatsoever of the terms you're using. The terms mind and will are metaphysical terms used by the Greeks to describe something totally different than what you're talking about. But because you apparently have no understanding of history or Greek philosophy, you're going in circles. Now I'm not blaming you for not knowing Greek philosophy, maybe there's no reason why you would need to be familiar. But if you're going to be a prick while having not two shits of an idea what you're talking about... that is blameworthy. The problem isn't my ability to explain myself... the problem is you don't understand the terms you're using in their historical context. The free-will discussion has been going on for thousands of years, you're catching the tail-end of it.
Well... there's really not anybody involved in the research of the free-will debate. It's basically just people on message boards and college students at coffee shops. As for the science community, they're wherever the current scientific community is, which right now is with quantum mechanics -- so you'll see some journals address it, but it's really a non-issue for them. And honestly, I think to the extent that the term "free-will" is used in the scientific community is really due more to the fact that it's familiar jargon than anything. At the end of the day, it's necessarily deterministic -- quantum physical probability wouldn't change the deterministic nature of it, just the mode by which it determines. Edited by saintphotios (02/28/12 07:31 AM)
| |||||||
|
Desert Elf Registered: 08/23/11 Posts: 765 Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Just because the Greeks thought of the mind in a particular context has little bearing on the discussion when you entered it.
The Ancient Greeks thought of mind as soul and in a metaphysical context. OK... thanks for the contribution to humanity... on with the show. Today, the mind refers to "that which the brain does" not the brain itself. So no, being an atheist does not mean you only believe in a brain that has no mind within it. If you actually read the thread before posting, perhaps your views could be expressed in the context of what people were saying. Rather than dropping your worldview on everyone as if they care. -------------------- Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha Tat Savitur Varenyam Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat
| |||||||
|
Desert Elf Registered: 08/23/11 Posts: 765 Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Nah that sounded harsh. I meant, you assumed a whole load of things from the outset. That if you are an atheist you necessarily believe such and such... hang on... no you don't.
The first thing you say is that people are in two camps. That isn't true either. If a determinist is discussing free will, they may state that people do not make decisions, only in respects to the fact they believe everything is predetermined. But they can go on to concede that from a human perspective, we experience decision-making processes as our own thoughts. Just as we experience stimuli as our own experience. From the level that we identify with these things, it can be said that we 'feel' as if we make choices. So the discussion is valid despite your worldview. -------------------- Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha Tat Savitur Varenyam Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat
| |||||||
|
saintphotios Stranger Registered: 02/23/12 Posts: 448 Last seen: 11 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
What's your definition of "will"?
| |||||||
|
Desert Elf Registered: 08/23/11 Posts: 765 Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Here is the miracle of Google in action:
1.The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action. That fits the purpose. Of course, from a deterministic point of view, the decision is already laid out. That was actually the point of what I was saying prior to your first post here. The problem lies in what people class as 'ownership' of decision making. Some feel that if the brain (which is itself a slave to determinism) has ownership over decision making, then the individual is a slave to the brain. My point was that the individual identifies with their brain and it's processes as themselves. So when I say 'I chose do do such and such' it is the same as saying my brain processes lead to such and such action to be taken. I get the feeling people imagine 'they' are like the proverbial ghost in the machine. I prefer to identify with what I physically am in reality. My brain may have the wrong information or not complete information to be fit to make the right choice, yet that is what I identify myself as. -------------------- Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha Tat Savitur Varenyam Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat
| |||||||
|
saintphotios Stranger Registered: 02/23/12 Posts: 448 Last seen: 11 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Right, so whatever the will may be, we're essentially talking about atoms and chemical reactions -- nothing more. Whatever emotive stimuli involving "ownership" or how we identify with such things is beside the point, as these too are chemical reactions. The point is, whatever symbology we attribute to concepts about the will -- concepts are not physical and cannot be reduced to physical realities, so they don't really matter. Freedom never enters the equation in a materialist worldview. A "free-will" assumes a freedom from external factors, including physical factors -- which assumes metaphyics -- which assumes an entirely different worldview than that of materialism. So maybe I should have said it's a metaphysical debate instead of religious debate. But in contemporary philosophy, they two might as well be synonymous. Either way, it's not a debate that a materialist can coherently participate in. That was my only point. Sooo... where is our disagreement?
| |||||||
|
Desert Elf Registered: 08/23/11 Posts: 765 Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Right, so whatever the will may be, we're essentially talking about atoms and chemical reactions -- nothing more. Whatever emotive stimuli involving "ownership" or how we identify with such things is beside the point, as these too are chemical reactions. Not beside the point. It was my point. It doesn't matter that we know the 'true nature' of things because our perception remains the same. The discussion leads to perhaps a wider perspective but the same feelings remain. It is like children discussing a rainbow, they all know what it is they are pointing towards, but their views are not in line with reality. Later on they discover that a rainbow is 'merely' the result of sunlight refracting through moisture in the air. The rainbow is still there, it doesn't become diminished for knowing more about what it is. We can still identify with the 'rainbow' that is our perceived reality, even in light of further understanding it. So when somebody goes from thinking there is an 'I' behind the eyes, to realising the 'I' is the subjective result of brain function, it doesnt mean they have to stop talking about the I. It just means the body of information behind it is increased. When you say 'nothing more than atoms and chemical reaction' you grossly underestimate the imagination of a materialist thinker. As if the goal is to simplify things into alternative names and symbols. It isn't, it is to understand how things actually work. While accepting that you cant know everything. A "free-will" assumes a freedom from external factors, including physical factors -- which assumes metaphysics -- which assumes an entirely different worldview than that of materialism. Actually it depends on how pedantic you want to be. You could say human will is free-er than animals because we are able to scrutinise past information prior to making a decision. This is true. But if you want to be pedantic than you would say "the whole thing is one big reaction" and therefore nothing happens outside the laws of nature. However, from OUR perspective, we do make decisions based on previous info.. or 'personality. We identify with our personality as ourselves rather than simply witnessing a natural construct playing out autonomously. Another point, how does metaphysics offer a better solution to anything? Try and answer that. Either way, it's not a debate that a materialist can coherently participate in. I beg to differ. -------------------- Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha Tat Savitur Varenyam Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat
| |||||||
|
saintphotios Stranger Registered: 02/23/12 Posts: 448 Last seen: 11 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Fine, then you made an invalid point. Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.
There's no perceived reality... there's perception, and there's reality. Sometimes the two match up. If not, it just means they were wrong. Not a good analogy for feeling like your will is free, even though it isn't, yet feeling the need to talk about it like in some ways it still is.
If it's to understand how things actually work, then imagination would have nothing to do with it, and there would be no need to talk about a free and independent will... because according to your beliefs, that isn't how they work. I'm the one that subscribes to metaphysics, and you're the one arguing in favor of what according to your beliefs are superstitions -- something isn't right here 
Totally different. Even in a materialist worldview, subjectivity is meaningful. Saying "I" is self-reference, and it retains meaning even when understanding the inner workings of subjectivity. Talking about a will that is "free" from something with that thing is and can only be other groups of atoms governed by physical laws is wrong, and not meaningful. So say I'm being pedantic, but you're seemingly trying to argue for being able to hold beliefs contrary to your belief system. Knock yourself out, but it just makes you incoherent. It's like an atheist arguing that there's nothing wrong with believing in God -- because even though they think all the evidence points to the contrary and they don't REALLY believe God exists, they enjoy the tradition and rituals involved. Like I said, knock yourself out, but it won't make your stance any less incoherent.
That's another thread, another day I suppose. Not brushing it off... it's just not the point. (but yes, I do favor metaphysics) I haven't argued for metaphysics here. I've just said that it's necessary for free-will. Edited by saintphotios (02/28/12 11:41 AM)
| |||||||
 Diploid Cuban   Registered: 01/09/03 Posts: 19,274 Loc: Rabbit Hole |
| ||||||
|
So Diploid, is there really such a thing as randomness, or is it that the systems involved are tremendously too complex to be accurately predicted?
So this is something laypeople often misunderstand and I've covered it at length in other posts so I'm not going to do it again here. It's a big topic, so search my posts history for more details. But here I'll give you the cliff notes. What you're describing is something physicists call Hidden Variables. This is the notion that, sure, it looks like nothing causes this quantum indeterminacy, but actually SOMETHING must cause it and we just don't have the knowledge or powerful enough instruments to detect it yet. However, that intuitive view of the universe is wrong. Nothing causes the randomness, and even if we had an infinitely powerful computer that could understand infinitely complex things, it would still be unable to predict the time-evolution of even a single atom, let alone the universe. Here's the deal: some elements, like ordinary oxygen, are not radioactive (they're stable). That means they'll just sit around essentially forever. But other elements, like plutonium, ARE radioactive (they're unstable). Atoms of a radioactive element will spontaneously shatter (it's called decay) and pieces of it will fly away at high speed. How radioactive an element is (how often its atoms shatter) can be characterized by something called its half-life. Different radioactive elements have different half-lives. Some as short as a microseconds, others as long as billions of years. Half-life works like this. Consider a group of 100 atoms of some radioactive element with a half-life of 1 minute. If you watch that group of 100 atoms for 1 minute, on average 50 of them will decay (shatter) and pieces will fly away so that your original group of 100 atoms becomes a group of 50 atoms after one minute. That's where the term "half-life" comes from. After one half-life of time passes, half of your starting amount decays. If you keep watching the remaining 50 atoms for another minute, on average another half of the 50 that are left (or 25) will decay, leaving you with 25. One more minute and half again will decay, leaving you with 12.5 (that's half of 25). And so on until they're all gone. What's important to understand is that when you watch that initial group of 100 atoms, you know that 50 of them will decay after 1 minute, but there is absolutely no way of knowing which 50 of 100 atoms it will be. All you know, and all you can EVER know, is that 50 of them will decay, but not which 50. Now here's where laypeople understandably get stuck. They ask themselves how an atom knows if it should decay or not. Intuitively, it seems like there must actually exist some mechanism that selects which atoms decay, but we just don't know what it is. If we keep working on the problem, eventually we'll develop more sensitive technology and new knowledge that will show us this mechanism. These are the "hidden variables" that intuition tells us govern the random-appearing decay of radioactive elements. It's an intuitively satisfying answer to the problem. Some hidden variable picks which 50 atoms will decay, and once we find these hidden variables, we'll solve the problem. However, in the last 100 years or so, physicists have been forced to come to terms with the fact that the universe doesn't behave intuitively. In fact, it's straight up weird as fuck. Far weirder than most laypeople could ever imagine. The more one studies this, the more flabbergasted one becomes. It's one reason I will never understand mystic-heads who make up fairy tails to explain the universe when the real explanations are so much more amazing and beautiful than a stale old god, angels, and virgins. Anyway, when quantum theory was first developed, it illuminated a universe so strange that many people, including Albert Einstein, had difficulty accepting it. But over time, an enormous amount of experimental evidence began to pile up confirming quantum theory and not one single experimental result ever refuted it. To this day, after about 100 years of persistent attacks, the theory has never once failed to give an accurate prediction or failed an experimental challenge. Not once. The theory is to this day perhaps the single most successful and accurate theory in the history of science. It explains how diamonds are hard and brilliant, how stars shine, how DNA coils itself into a helix, how eyeglasses correct your vision, how geckos can cling to smooth glass, how iron rusts but stainless steel doesn't, how the CPU in your computer works, how water expands when it freezes, how magnets attract iron but not aluminum, how glass is transparent but steel is not, how the sky is blue and rainbows colorful, how radio waves pass through walls, how water condenses on a cold glass of lemonade, and an endless list of phenomenon that no other theory can explain. But still, many people insisted that quantum theory, despite its successes, was incomplete because human intuition insists that everything must have a cause. In other words, that hidden variables underpin nuclear decay. Well, in the 1960s, a physicist named John Stewart Bell gave a proof called Bell's Theorem (originally Wigner, but that's another thread) which shut the door on hidden variables once and for all. Bell's theorem says "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics". In other words (barring loopholes), there are no hidden variables and the universe is in fact weird as fuck. Now you can take my word that the proof and its experimental violations are conclusive and eliminate hidden variables or you can study the proof and experiments for yourself and come to the same conclusion. Despite it being perhaps one of the most profound results in all of science with mind-boggling philosophical implications, the math that underpins it is surprisingly simple and accessible to anyone who takes a little time to study it. Someone (don't remember who) linked this excellent explanation of Bell's theorem here recently. It doesn't use any complicated math so it's very accessible. Groking that link will blow your mind. I was always under the impression there was no real randomness, that every event had a cause, and that it is only because of our inability to measure all the factors that we then have to resort to probabilities. That's not correct. I just touched on nuclear decay, but these notions that reality is probabilistic, not deterministic, apply to the entire domain of quantum physics. It's why your argument has been falsified. You can't argue that if you know the exact current state of every single particle in the universe, then you can predict the future in the same way you can predict the time-evolution of balls on a billiard table. The universe doesn't work that way. Even if somehow you DID have all that detailed information for EVERY particle in the universe, you would still be unable to predict even a single subsequent collision. The best you could do is give the probabilities for each possible outcome, then sit back and see which one actually results. Damn, this was supposed to be a short post. -------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
| |||||||
|
Desert Elf Registered: 08/23/11 Posts: 765 Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Righto buddy, whenever you are ready. You are way off the mark. Each of those responses look as if you haven't really absorbed what was being said, you just came up with something to say that made it sound like a debate. Like I said, this wasn't a debate, it was a discussion. You interjected with your rant on how it is pointless to 'debate' free will from a materialist POV. Then you decided to dodge the rebuttal and rant about how I am not using the words will and mind in the same context as the Ancient Greeks, which somehow means I don't know what I am talking about. Now you come back with your step by step analysis of my post declaring (without a rebuttal) that I had made an invalid point, then attacked my use of 'perceived reality' (I was actually referring to the percieved reality... not reality and not perception itself.) Then there was some more rambling about stuff you clearly do not understand. Assuming the use of 'imagination' meant something other than what it did in the context... And you top it off with a nice helping of "I do have my own views, but I don't have time to put them forward for scrutiny" Well done buddy. Oh and cheers Diploid that article has given me a better understanding of quantum physics. What a crazy fucking world we live in. 
-------------------- Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha Tat Savitur Varenyam Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat
| |||||||
|
NetDiver Wandering Mindfuck  Registered: 08/24/09 Posts: 6,024 Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere Last seen: 4 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Nothing more, and nothing less. I have no idea where you get the idea that if something is a chemical reaction it doesn't matter. Chemical reactions and the behavior of other physical entities and phenomena comprise absolutely everything in existence. That's like saying a computer program is useless or irrelevant because it's "just" a bunch of electrical impulses flowing across millions of circuits.
Of course they can be reduced to physical realities. Imagine the following simple scenario: you present a person with an apple and an orange, and they take one. Reducing that to a more fundamental explanation, certain neurons fired in their heads when they were presented with sensory stimuli, causing impulses which directed their hand towards one fruit or the other. What caused the firing of those neurons? At this point we're taken back into an infinite regress. I will agree that this is an accurate description of the event, however, where our views part ways is the assertion that this proves the will doesn't exist, or that the idea doesn't matter. For I would say all of those more fundamental explanations are actually just descriptions of the same event on multiple levels. In other words, it's not as though the person reached for the apple following the firing of neurons in their head, it's that the firing of neurons in their head was their decision to reach for the apple, in its physical form. Certainly, there is no room for freedom of an entity separate from the laws of nature. However, this still assumes a dichotomy between our will and nature which need not exist. As I said before, science is essentially descriptive, not explanatory. All of those accounts of what happens on more fundamental physical levels during a decision are just different ways of describing the same observed event, an event referred to in our colloquial language as a choice.
I disagree, I believe a materialist can safely take a compatibilist position, for the reasons outlined above. --------------------   
| |||||||
|
Desert Elf Registered: 08/23/11 Posts: 765 Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Like I said earlier, The assumption that a materialist worldview reduces things to 'mere' particles and reactions, which are therefore meaningless or dead, grossly underestimates the imagination of materialist thinkers. Saintphotios then tried to say that imagination doesnt come into it, or that imagination is somehow 'superstitious' and belongs in the realm of metaphysics, as such I am contradicting myself to say it. But in order to visualise scientific explanations of things as they truly are, it does take a great deal of imagination. Take Einstein, if you read his Theory of Relativity, it requires constant 'thought experiments' and plenty of imagination to fully 'get' what is being described. I say it is quite the opposite, that materialists have the greater imagination, but one which is kept on a leash of reason. Those who subscribe to metaphysics or theism, lack the imagination to find or understand reasonable descriptions of reality, as such they have to lean back on irrational concepts that almost always 'fill the gaps' with some unproven dribble. He/she also stated that only theists have a framework from which to discuss free will. In a sense, they do, because the problem only really arises in conflict with God's supposed omniscience. From a materialist POV, the problem only arises as a conflict with some kind of 'soul', but with simple discussion, one can realise that in fact the natural constructs we call our mind, is capable of decision making, we identify with our mind/brain and the whole playing out of nature as 'ourselves', and thus, we can be said to have the ability to make decisions. The talk on whether our will is 'free' turns out to be nothing but a game of words and definition. Our will could be said to be 'free' in the way that it compares to lesser animals that react purely instinctively. In that way, our will is not free from the laws of nature, but is to a certain extent, free from animalistic impulses. Samurai
-------------------- Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha Tat Savitur Varenyam Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat
| |||||||
Hobozen  Registered: 11/03/11 Posts: 10,634 Loc: 
|
| ||||||
|
There is no free will, only freer will.
Edited by Hobozen (02/29/12 03:57 AM)
| |||||||
|
Hobozen Registered: 11/03/11 Posts: 10,634 Loc:
|
| ||||||
Couldn't that someone with free will be able to decide to visit his bros out in hyperspace? 
| |||||||
|
Desert Elf Registered: 08/23/11 Posts: 765 Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Freedom is relative. -------------------- Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha Tat Savitur Varenyam Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat
| |||||||
|
Hobozen Registered: 11/03/11 Posts: 10,634 Loc:
|
| ||||||
|
Your point in relation to my post?
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
from a scientific materialist perspective, can life have real meaning? |  Deviate |
1,474 | 18 | 09/06/05 08:32 AM by crunchytoast |
|
 |
How could atoms have not been designed? (  1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Psiledehysp |
4,274 | 73 | 09/10/05 04:37 PM by Diploid |
|
|
Closed Minded Materialists/Atheists pissing me off ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Divided_Sky |
3,967 | 49 | 09/24/05 02:22 PM by Asante |
|
 |
free PARANORMAL/AFTERLIFE ebook: Please Review |  Asante |
1,732 | 7 | 04/08/08 06:12 PM by lifemeaning93 |
|
|
Free will is bullshit. ( 1 2 3 4 ... 19 20 ) |
 Phluck |
36,309 | 380 | 01/16/07 04:57 PM by Brugman |
|
|
Im Back!!! and still convinced free will is an illusion ;) ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all ) |
ZenGecko |
17,340 | 148 | 04/22/07 10:22 PM by PhanTomCat |
|
 |
A Sound Argument for Free Will |  shroomydan |
2,995 | 17 | 10/11/04 08:21 PM by deff |
|
|
objectivism on free will | Deviate |
824 | 3 | 12/16/05 05:33 AM by Seuss |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 4,740 topic views. 3 members, 101 guests and 17 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
