LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

[bh]

Troy, another Eastern Philosopher you might want to try is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xunzi
I was introduced to him through a friend a while ago. I haven't really honestly read much of him, but my friend was really into him and recommended him.

[Point Breeze Penguins]

Contentment is also one of the goals of the Christian.

Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content. I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.

-- Philippians 4:11-12

Now godliness with contentment is great gain.

-- 1 Timothy 6:6

And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content.

-- 1 Timothy 6:8

Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you."

-- Hebrews 13:5

[Troy Loney]

Troy, another Eastern Philosopher you might want to try is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xunzi
I was introduced to him through a friend a while ago. I haven't really honestly read much of him, but my friend was really into him and recommended him.

Did you get a chance to look at that link i posted earlier? It had the list of works that those two guys put on their reading plan? you seem to have one of the better handles on eastern thought, so i'm curious as to your opinion of the eastern works they put on their list.

[Kraftster]

Yes, big fan of Camus in general.

I've only read MoS and part of The Stranger, but I really got a lot out of MoS.

[Troy Loney]

Yes, big fan of Camus in general.

I've only read MoS and part of The Stranger, but I really got a lot out of MoS.

I read the Plague...pretty cool.

[doublem]

Philosophies are interesting but I think sometimes people miss the point. It's about living, doing.

[LeopardLetang]

way behind the thread but..

Okay, gotta keep this thing alive. This is sort of a game theory exercise, but it has some philosophical implications.

You've been kidnapped by a creature that claims to have the power of foresight. The creature wants to play a game with you. He shows you two containers. One is translucent and has a beautiful gold vase inside, which the creature explains is worth about $1,000 (Container 1). You cannot see through the other box, but the creature explains that there are two possibilities for what is inside (Container 2). One possibility is that there is a spider in Container 2, which is worth nothing. The second possibility is the original Mona Lisa is inside Container 2, which is worth $50,000,000.

The creature gives you the opportunity to pick (a) just Container 1, (b) just Container 2, or (c) both of the containers. Before making your pick, the creature explains that he has already predicted what he thinks you will choose and he is almost always right. Based upon his prior prediction, he has already put either the spider or the Mona Lisa in Container 2. The contents of Container 2 will not change based upon what you pick. When predicting your decision and making the decision of what to put in the containers, if he thinks that you will choose just Container 2, he will have put the Mona Lisa in there; if he thinks that you will choose either both Container 1 and Container 2 or just Container 1, he will put the Spider in container 2.

What do you choose?

since he only claims to have the power of foresight, i'm going to assume i have a chance to beat him. he's a creature, and that gives me a negative connotation, and i'm thinking he's trying to avoid giving me the mona lisa. if he really had foresight and was evil, he wouldn't play this game if he knew i was going to win a mona lisa with my choice. and it wouldn't be much of a game if i felt like he was benevolent and had foresight and wanted me to win. so i'm assuming he doesn't want me to win. and so, assuming he doesn't have foresight, i'd naturally, initially, pick both - as long as i didn't have to touch the spider. i pick both because he's already made his decision and because i don't believe he had foresight.

if i believed he had foresight, then i'd only choose container 2 because he predicted that i would and so i'd get the mona lisa.

[doublem]

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/free-will/

Disbelieving Free Will Makes Brain Less Free.

[Kraftster]

I'm getting the itch with all this science talk.

[columbia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_18:38

[Kraftster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_18:38

In The Antichrist (§ 46), Friedrich Nietzsche calls upon Pilate's quip. He uses it, however, as evidence of Pilate's character, saying that he is "a solitary figure worthy of honor" and that the question "What is truth" is "the only saying that has any value" in the New Testament.

lol, freddie

[columbia]

Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... free-will/

[redwill]

The Devil is in the details.

[columbia]

That's free will, not redwill.

[Kraftster]

Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... free-will/

yes (without reading)

[Kraftster]

That's free will, not redwill.

Edit: And thanks for the bump of a great thread.

[Kraftster]

Having now read the article, it seems an awful lot like criticizing neuroscientists for defining away free will by defining it back. I agree with what he's saying we have/don't have (depending upon your perspective).

At the end of the day, conscious deliberation does matter (as the author suggests), but that conscious deliberation is not freely engaged in. He's saying that "we" are not bystanders in a physical world but that "we" play a part in causing things because our brain functions impact the causal chain. He's right, we just don't have free, independent, non-physical control over what our conscious deliberations are. I think he's wrong that most people are comfortable with this as representing our still having "free will," though.

[Troy Loney]

Having now read the article, it seems an awful lot like criticizing neuroscientists for defining away free will by defining it back. I agree with what he's saying we have/don't have (depending upon your perspective).

At the end of the day, conscious deliberation does matter (as the author suggests), but that conscious deliberation is not freely engaged in. He's saying that "we" are not bystanders in a physical world but that "we" play a part in causing things because our brain functions impact the causal chain. He's right, we just don't have free, independent, non-physical control over what our conscious deliberations are. I think he's wrong that most people are comfortable with this as representing our still having "free will," though.

Am I understanding your free will argument fully by accepting that our free will would be constrained by our mental abilities, which would be constrained by the actual brain?

[Kraftster]

Having now read the article, it seems an awful lot like criticizing neuroscientists for defining away free will by defining it back. I agree with what he's saying we have/don't have (depending upon your perspective).

At the end of the day, conscious deliberation does matter (as the author suggests), but that conscious deliberation is not freely engaged in. He's saying that "we" are not bystanders in a physical world but that "we" play a part in causing things because our brain functions impact the causal chain. He's right, we just don't have free, independent, non-physical control over what our conscious deliberations are. I think he's wrong that most people are comfortable with this as representing our still having "free will," though.

Am I understanding your free will argument fully by accepting that our free will would be constrained by our mental abilities, which would be constrained by the actual brain?

Hmm. Yes, I think.

Our free will is non-existent (in what I think of as the traditional definition of free will -- "I chose A yesterday, but I could have chosen B") because our "will" takes place within our brain, which is part of the physical world and thus constrained by its chemical/physical state and the laws of physics.

[Kraftster]

Read this quote at lunch and it caused me to laugh out loud:

As usual, there are many variations and shadings, but as far as I am aware, there is no anti-materialist credo that has proven fruitful or useful, except in the sense that self-delusion is sometimes comforting.

[columbia]

There are more than a few monks - of various varieties - who would take issue with that.

[Kraftster]

I should clarify that he is referring to Materialism and not consumerism (often called materialism).

[Kraftster]

And a quote to possibly generate some discussion:

The good life is the happy life. The question is not how to make men good (as Plato thought) but how to make them happy. All things other than happiness are sought with some other end in view, happiness alone is sought for its own sake.

-Aristotle

[no name]

That's free will, not redwill.

Free Willy was a great movie, and actually would be a great name for a porno.

Redwill frees Willy.

[columbia]

I'll let him comment on that concept.