You can’t reason with faith.

Gplex wrote: We want to have free will.
All current data indicates that we do not have free will.
But at the end of the day there is no clear answer. For now we will have to wait and see what research on the subject can produce.

I can type this sentence based upon what I decide.

I don’t have to speak the words don’t want to.

But I had to be taught this.

Although there could be deeper mechanisms running in our neural system than we even understand now, I guess right now we can’t actually know for sure.

I just have faith at the moment that we have pseudo free will.

Haruhi demands you join Anime United!

RageOverdose wrote:

Gplex wrote: We want to have free will.
All current data indicates that we do not have free will.
But at the end of the day there is no clear answer. For now we will have to wait and see what research on the subject can produce.

I can type this sentence based upon what I decide.

I don’t have to speak the words don’t want to.

But I had to be taught this.

Although there could be deeper mechanisms running in our neural system than we even understand now, I guess right now we can’t actually know for sure.

I just have faith at the moment that we have pseudo free will.

Did you decided? Did you? I have no idea how I put my sentences together.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

Gplex wrote:

RageOverdose wrote:

Gplex wrote: We want to have free will.
All current data indicates that we do not have free will.
But at the end of the day there is no clear answer. For now we will have to wait and see what research on the subject can produce.

I can type this sentence based upon what I decide.

I don’t have to speak the words don’t want to.

But I had to be taught this.

Although there could be deeper mechanisms running in our neural system than we even understand now, I guess right now we can’t actually know for sure.

I just have faith at the moment that we have pseudo free will.

Did you decided? Did you? I have no idea how I put my sentences together.

Well, it seems LIKE I decided.

Although, when I think about it, it is based upon what I was taught, and not some original idea I came up with.

But that’s why I call it pseudo free will. By technicality it isn’t, but it still gives off such an illusion that we have some control over our mind’s synapses.

Haruhi demands you join Anime United!

RageOverdose wrote: Humans have the capability to teach “free will." It doesn’t come with the package.

Free will has to be taught? Lol, doesn’t sound like 'free will' to me. That’s like saying “Don’t do what other people tell you!"

RageOverdose wrote: You are right, without socialization we are weak as a species. Without environment, we are vegetables. We require external forces to create our psychology.

If we need external forces to create our personality, then our actions are caused by the laws of nature, not free will.

RageOverdose wrote: However, free will doesn’t exist by technicality, but it can still “exist." You just have to teach it. We CAN control our synapses. If not for that, we wouldn’t be able to program neural-computer interfaces like we’ve begun to do.

Just because we can control out synapses with conscious thoughts, doesn’t mean there aren’t any external forces causing our conscious thought that controls our synapses. It’s the same forces controlling our thoughts and actions, just less direct.

If something happens for a reason, then it was because of causuality. If something happens for no reason, then it was randomness. Either way, neither of these fit in with 'free will' and there can be no magical in between.

RageOverdose wrote: Well, it seems LIKE I decided.

Although, when I think about it, it is based upon what I was taught, and not some original idea I came up with.

But thats why I call it pseudo free will. By technicality it isn%u2019t, but it still gives off such an illusion that we have some control over our minds synapses.

What seems is not always what is. An illusion is an illusion whatever you call it.

Gplex wrote: I have faith that at the moment, my senses are reporting this universe accurately to my mind, which is the only thing that I have 100% belief actually exist.

Whether you have faith or not will have no effect on my statement that faith is irrational. Just because someone is usually a very rational thinker doesn’t mean they can’t have a few beliefs that are made on faith. Even if everyone has the same faith, it means nothing. And most people do believe the universe exists, but I do not consider this an irrational statement, because I have my own reasons for believing in the reality of this universe, which may or may not be irrational, but are at least an attempt at reason and not a belief I hold just because I like it.

At this point, I’d like to elaborate on what is meant by faith. Is faith irrational based on evidence and arguments the believer is aware of? Or is it belief that contradicts the reality of things, whether the believer is ignorant of proof or not?

If faith is the former, then I do not have faith that this universe is real. Although it may be wrong, my arguments are at least an attempt at reason;
We often believe in things because we percieve them, and we can percieve this universe. However, our senses can lie to us, so that raises the question of what objective proof can be provided that this universe is real. So, this universe may be an illusion. But if an illusion was all that existed, would it really be an illusion? If everything was just a dream, with no actual metaphysical person dreaming it, could we actually call it a dream? I don’t think so, because if that version of the universe was all that existed, then it would fit the definition of objective reality; all that exists.

So, for this universe to be false, there would have to be some kind of meta-reality where this universe exists as only an illusion; percieved but not objective. But there is no evidence that this is the illusion of a universe in a meta-universe. In fact it could be further specualted that this is the illusion of a universe in a meta-universe, which is actually just the illusion of a meta-universe within a meta-meta-universe and so on, toward infinite regress. Occams razor would tell us here that, if there has to be an objective reality somewhere along the line, then we don’t need to further complicate the explanation by introducing a potentially infinite number of illusional universes within a meta-universe, and that therefore, until the existence of a meta-universe can be proven, we can assume this universe exists in it’s own right.

Another logical problem I have with this universe being an illusion is that, if it is real, we can disprove this by revealling it to be an illusion within a meta-universe, but the statement that this universe isn’t real is not falsifiable, because if there is no meta-universe we cannot travel outside our own to see if it exists or not.

If faith is the latter, then I could have faith on this subject if I’m wrong. If you find any possible mistakes in my arguments posted above, don’t hesitate to point them out.

Shaun of the Living wrote: Whether you have faith or not will have no effect on my statement that faith is irrational. Just because someone is usually a very rational thinker doesn’t mean they can’t have a few beliefs that are made on faith. Even if everyone has the same faith, it means nothing. And most people do believe the universe exists, but I do not consider this an irrational statement, because I have my own reasons for believing in the reality of this universe, which may or may not be irrational, but are at least an attempt at reason and not a belief I hold just because I like it.

I too use to believe that faith is stupid. But I have come to understand more about the word faith.
My belief that the universe is real is a faith belief. Without this faith base belief, I would not be able to get anything in this universe done (even if this is a dream, delusion, or some sort of simulation).

Shaun of the Living wrote: At this point, I’d like to elaborate on what is meant by faith. Is faith irrational based on evidence and arguments the believer is aware of? Or is it belief that contradicts the reality of things, whether the believer is ignorant of proof or not?

The word faith has many meanings.
faith
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Because the word has so many different definitions you cannot understand the meaning unless you know the context the word is used in. Just like another unofficial word - fuck.

Shaun of the Living wrote: If faith is the former, then I do not have faith that this universe is real. Although it may be wrong, my arguments are at least an attempt at reason;
We often believe in things because we percieve them, and we can percieve this universe. However, our senses can lie to us, so that raises the question of what objective proof can be provided that this universe is real. So, this universe may be an illusion. But if an illusion was all that existed, would it really be an illusion? If everything was just a dream, with no actual metaphysical person dreaming it, could we actually call it a dream? I don’t think so, because if that version of the universe was all that existed, then it would fit the definition of objective reality; all that exists.

It doesn’t matter if the universe actually exist in this argument. The belief that the universe is real falls under 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Shaun of the Living wrote: So, for this universe to be false, there would have to be some kind of meta-reality where this universe exists as only an illusion; percieved but not objective. But there is no evidence that this is the illusion of a universe in a meta-universe. In fact it could be further specualted that this is the illusion of a universe in a meta-universe, which is actually just the illusion of a meta-universe within a meta-meta-universe and so on, toward infinite regress. Occams razor would tell us here that, if there has to be an objective reality somewhere along the line, then we don’t need to further complicate the explanation by introducing a potentially infinite number of illusional universes within a meta-universe, and that therefore, until the existence of a meta-universe can be proven, we can assume this universe exists in it’s own right.

You cannot be sure that anything outside of your mind actually exists. The prevents any sort of investigation about the universe right off the bat, unless you assume it is real, and you can learn something about it.

Shaun of the Living wrote: Another logical problem I have with this universe being an illusion is that, if it is real, we can disprove this by revealling it to be an illusion within a meta-universe, but the statement that this universe isn’t real is not falsifiable, because if there is no meta-universe we cannot travel outside our own to see if it exists or not.

How could you prove that the data you are receiving from your senses are correct? You can’t, so you take it on faith that everything you perceive through your senses is correct. That falls under faith.

Shaun of the Living wrote: If faith is the latter, then I could have faith on this subject if I’m wrong. If you find any possible mistakes in my arguments posted above, don’t hesitate to point them out.

The word faith is clearly made up to try and legitimize religious like beliefs. By grouping beliefs that should be laugh at with the assumptions that we need to make to live our lives in this universe.
I think the word itself is stupid, but to call faith stupid, irrational or anything else, can only be true or false on the context it is use.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

Hmm wat r u guys debating bout now?

A genius isnt someone with a massive amount of intellegence, a genius is someone who shoots at something no one else can see and hits it.

Shaun of the Living wrote:

Gplex wrote: I have faith that at the moment, my senses are reporting this universe accurately to my mind, which is the only thing that I have 100% belief actually exist.

Whether you have faith or not will have no effect on my statement that faith is irrational. Just because someone is usually a very rational thinker doesn’t mean they can’t have a few beliefs that are made on faith. Even if everyone has the same faith, it means nothing. And most people do believe the universe exists, but I do not consider this an irrational statement, because I have my own reasons for believing in the reality of this universe, which may or may not be irrational, but are at least an attempt at reason and not a belief I hold just because I like it.

At this point, I’d like to elaborate on what is meant by faith. Is faith irrational based on evidence and arguments the believer is aware of? Or is it belief that contradicts the reality of things, whether the believer is ignorant of proof or not?

If faith is the former, then I do not have faith that this universe is real. Although it may be wrong, my arguments are at least an attempt at reason;
We often believe in things because we percieve them, and we can percieve this universe. However, our senses can lie to us, so that raises the question of what objective proof can be provided that this universe is real. So, this universe may be an illusion. But if an illusion was all that existed, would it really be an illusion? If everything was just a dream, with no actual metaphysical person dreaming it, could we actually call it a dream? I don’t think so, because if that version of the universe was all that existed, then it would fit the definition of objective reality; all that exists.

So, for this universe to be false, there would have to be some kind of meta-reality where this universe exists as only an illusion; percieved but not objective. But there is no evidence that this is the illusion of a universe in a meta-universe. In fact it could be further specualted that this is the illusion of a universe in a meta-universe, which is actually just the illusion of a meta-universe within a meta-meta-universe and so on, toward infinite regress. Occams razor would tell us here that, if there has to be an objective reality somewhere along the line, then we don’t need to further complicate the explanation by introducing a potentially infinite number of illusional universes within a meta-universe, and that therefore, until the existence of a meta-universe can be proven, we can assume this universe exists in it’s own right.

Another logical problem I have with this universe being an illusion is that, if it is real, we can disprove this by revealling it to be an illusion within a meta-universe, but the statement that this universe isn’t real is not falsifiable, because if there is no meta-universe we cannot travel outside our own to see if it exists or not.

If faith is the latter, then I could have faith on this subject if I’m wrong. If you find any possible mistakes in my arguments posted above, don’t hesitate to point them out.

No offence but you really dont get the meaning of faith.

@ pola - please elaborate

@ Gplex - can’t be fucked now, but will reply eventually