Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
I know this topic is often discussed in this particular forum. Most of you have probably walked around the concept several times already. Have probably already got a well formed opinion about it. Which itself isnt whats brought my interest to it, back to it I should say. Its the fact that you already got a stance on it. You dont need to rethink it, at least not fully. Which is to say you already know what your going to say before you even think of saying it. Similar to the way you react to a skid reflexively after learning how to control one, or the vague notion you already have of what randomness is. Its already been run past your awareness already. You've formed ideas about it, that its not thought of, its the antithesis of a rhythm. You may think we have freewill or we dont. It might be a direct opinion about it, like that that or it might be an idea thats slightly removed from freewill such as a belief in destiny. Much of what we do is reflexive, but thats not to say we havent consciously developed those reflexes. Libets experiment might have found a spike of neuronal activity before the participants became aware of when they were going to push it, but that could easily be explained by an already pre-agreed notion of random selection. One that fires up before we're even aware of it, the same way we twist the wheel before we even realize what were doing to avoid something. You've already decided hitting something would be a bad thing well in advance of you ever hitting anything. Just like you've already thought about what a random action is. Rather then a signal of freewills non existence isnt it more likely that that spike before they became aware was really caused by the nature of the behavior rather then the nature of freewill?
My awareness of how I was reacting to [[[your writing style AND [the topic]] AND [my predispositions]] put me in an appreciative frame of mind:
In my mind, discussions about the topic have three main attributes: 1) style __________of language __________of approach __________of framing premises
2) content __________of new ideas arriving at the discussion table __________honoring ideas that have been collecting for years
3) ennui __________related to the escalated meaning or resonance that underlies the question __________prejudicial sense of inadequacy and loss
Talking about it helps, IMO, and the ennui humanizes participants in the discussion, and probably most significant is the potential of people appreciating the character or stylistic of other people through the discussion process: so this becomes more about socializing than actual philosophy - which is a sysyphysian task.
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 566 topic views. 3 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]