mixed_biscuits
_________________________
You're denser than all of the matter in the universe crammed into a woodlouse's anus.
Try washing that out.
How full of rage are you?
- Thread starter Corpsey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- all these posters are the same person archaic torso of apollo beisers cultural positioning in the techsphere black magic fuckery bumming dead dads again cchq national festival of recrimination corpsey's demonic thread corpsey's itchy bumhole cuntsmuseum cyber nonce did corpsey do this deliberately? gruesome bum experiments haha i took the last tag space ya rudeboi berks locked in the bum-cabinet mood slime mr tldr scott 'mr. iq racist' alexander see russians everywhere sobe promotes phalos still just a rat in a cage teacher of retarded children tech adjacent intellectual scene the dick sucking pacifist the didcot parkway review of books trotskyists a zombie with no conscience wang @ the cause wharg1 4 babyman?
Try washing that out.
no use your brain for once. free will is a contradiction in terms as a philosophical problem. It only makes sense if you believe in the existence of souls. I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
You're dumber than a minute's silence at a mutes convention.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I don't know why you're so angry, because I do believe in the existence of souls, not that you give any rationale for your assertions.
other_life
bioconfused
"will" as a concept has become in its elaboration alien from action and actor. people who think "will" and not determination are always stuck trying to screw up their courage, assert themselves against nature 'like a kingdom within a kingdom'. i believe (besides science-philosophy) in infinite gradations and mutual embedding of "Worlds and Souls", with the caveat that there is no first or final World or Soul neatly separable, set above or against Worlding and Ensoulment. the soul - a small world - is growing all the time
other_life
bioconfused
how felt, in range am I
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
What's your evidence for this picture?
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
@thirdform Celia Green's book on out-of-body experiences describes observers' reports of interacting with someone while that someone's consciousness was out of their body. What they tend to describe is roughly normal human behaviour but done in a 'soulless' fashion e.g. someone left their body from the stress of performing a piece in a piano exam and the examiner called the performance 'mechanical'. These events were restricted to activities that were continued e.g. driving a car, rather than initiated.
other_life
bioconfused
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
But the picture is a lot more complex than 1 willing soul. This guy was a long-time atheist practising clinical psychologist who was approached by a channeled entity to help him with a difficult case and ended up being much more effective through this collaboration and the framework it provided. Apart from the empirical success, a compelling feature of this framework is that it maps across many of the other therapeutic/psychoanalytic models of personality...it's kind of a master model.
People who believe in souls create civilizations, people who do not have built nothing but hell on earth.
I see Daniel C. Dennett died last week. May his immortal soul learn the truth about the “epiphenomenon” of consciousness.
how does free will make sense without a soul?
it is the soul which in a sense is divorced from the physical determinations of corporeal existence, and thus is, according to those who believe in souls, able to make the choice.
It's the difference between what we call the külli will and the jüzzi will in maturidi theology, I.E: the divine will constrains the will of the human to be able to make a choice, even if said choices are ultimately divinely determined.
But if you subtract the soul from this, and I'm not sure how else one can believe in souls without it being the religious understanding of immaterial entities divorced from the world, then all choices are determined by material circumstance, not by divine will. Out of body experiences are irrelevant to this because it's a problem of method.
For instance, if you were to ignite cotton, both you setting it alite and it giving off the smell would be part of the divine will, it would only appear to you as autonomous. now with or without a soul, you could burn your finger with it, but the theory is such that in a cosmology grounded on souls, this is a free choice you make due to an intangible disposition provided to you by a divine creator. For true occasionalists, there is no reason why one can't just put their finger to burning cotton, because assuming it will always hurt is a denial of divine will. things-for-us do not exist in occasionalism, all that exists are what we are illuminated to see as sense impressions, but for a true occasionalist, sense impressions only exist within our mind. hence the idealist-materialist schism.
But without a soul, it's not a free choice, but purely determined, based on calculations one makes.
Maybe so, but one cannot believe in free will whilst denying the existence of souls. mechanical behaviours are just not relevant whatsoever. It's not as if for religious ideologues who believe in souls, the soul suddenly switches off when someone is partaking in a behaviour which appears soulless and mechanical. this is a bowdlerised secular libcucked understanding of souls.
I've not been keeping up, but did not MB confirm he believes in both?
One should hope so. He's coy about his religious affiliations though, which is a necessary prerequisite.
Not necessarily, you don't need a religious affiliation to believe with your whole heart that there is an order that stands outside of time that guides the progress of the cosmos as time progresses. I think Bohm called it the pilot wave, or Rta/satya in the Vedic texts, Logos in classical thinking, or Gnon. And of course your can have free will within such a determined framework because the influence of human will is necessarily limited compared to the overarching principes, and either concordant or discordant with it.
so if you just believe in a soul untied from its medieval tributary bedrock of religion, then you get trapped in misreading what the debate regarding free will and determinism actually is. because the debate is to do with whether God acts in time or outside of time.
If we strictly want to talk in terms of human action, then there is no debate to be had, everything is determined, pace Spinoza.
If we strictly want to talk in terms of human action, then there is no debate to be had, everything is determined, pace Spinoza.
but then there is no debate to be had. the debate is to do with how the creator acts wrt his creation.
So what you end up doing is being an occasionalist in theory but a determinist in practice.
Which ultimately means you say that said free will is determined by the material world. this is heretical!