In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Why is this a trolly topic? Wasn't intended that way.
Bless your heart notater.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. What have I done wrong?!
Edit: Reading some of the replies it seems like people are reading my first post in completely the wrong way. Some people are simpletons and see the word "asshole" and gay people in the same sentence and read it as derogatory towards gay people. Read the post again. It's a contrast. I.e. assholes are bad because they affect other people in a negative way. Gay people are not bad because they don't affect people in a negative way.
Ironically the genesis of this thread (and the reason I brought up gays at all) was knight's homophobia in the other thread. I thought about how knight was as responsible for his homophobia as I am for my hatred of mustard. (Although his homophobia is obviously worse since it is harmful to people.)
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by notaterpterp 2 years ago
r.e. Your comment about these things inspiring us.
Just because something doesn't come from free will doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I like chocolate but that doesn't mean it has free will. I think you're not willing to acknowledge stuff is random because then you think you can't assign value to it. Strength of character can just be based on your DNA+environment, that doesn't mean it isn't something to admire. But instead of it being part of some outside force that we create so we can hold them more responsible for it, it's just part of the shit they are made of.
I just watched this video. Dennett is obviously really smart- much, much, much smarter than me of course so perhaps I'm missing something- but this talk doesn't really convince me. I think it's the best case you can make but when it comes down to it he's admitting that free will comes down to a bunch of micro deterministic processes isn't he? How is that different from saying what I said in my original post besides that it sounds more scientific(rhetorically not logically)? Dennett is playing with semantics here I think.
I actually want to be convinced of Dennett's argument, and I think I was on the cusp at a few different points during the speech. I was watching it and I wanted very badly for him to connect the dots. I think I would find it much more comforting if I was convinced of free will. He just never finished me off.
A public lecture by Daniel C. Dennett, Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University, entitled "Is Science Showing That We Don't Have Free Will?"
In his lecture, Professor Daniel Dennett discusses some of the current work in psychology bearing on this question.
He also drew on Hume, Darwin and Turing, three Enlightenment heroes.
Part of the University of Edinburgh's Enlightenment Lecture Series.
This post was edited by notaterpterp 2 years ago
Your hatred of mustard is less understandable.
I remember reading a possible definition about free will of decision making: It's defined as when you are able to clearly and premeditatively think about your next course of action. If one is able to vacilate and contemplate, etc, then he/she is able to make a choice (regardless of all other pre-determistic events).
The counter argument from determinism is that even though you are thinking a long time about your next course of action, that still was caused (at the last second of your thought process- by something beyond your control)
This post was edited by SodaTerpinski 2 years ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports