Liber arbitru, da ori ba

oMariusRO, on 13 iulie 2017 - 08:44, said:

E o orientare sexuala. E legea firii. Nu aleg ei. E ca si cum ar avea sindrom Down sau autism.
De ce ii discriminezi? De ce ii judeci?

De ce esti habotnic, zoofob si necrofob? In secolu' 21?
Fii mai openmaind!

Oamenii au drepturi.
In loc sa tai frunza la caini, mai bine organizeaza si tu o pride parade cu oameni si catei morti mimand actul sexual ziua in amiaza mare. Ce daca-s si copii pe acolo? faci o mini pride si pentru ei. Cu catelusi de plus. Ca aia si asa nu-s vii.

Si ce tot vorbesti acolo de consimtamant?
In Suedia omu' isi va da consimtamantu' inainte sa moara. La fel cum il da pentru prelevarea de organe. Se cloceste si un proiect de lege civilizata.
Iar cainii nu ai vazut ce priviri galese iti arunca uneori?
Incepi sa semeni cu un crestinopat incuiat...

Edited by Sfantul Jakob, 13 July 2017 - 09:34.

Ok, cred ca am deraiat destul, haideti sa incheiem discutia despre homosexualitate aici. Se poate continua pe un topic dedicat.

Toate comportamentele omului au la baza lor o anumita motivatie sau o anumita cauza eficienta.
Omul neavand comportamente voluntare, in sensul liberului arbitru, atunci liberul arbitru devine o simpla iluzie in mintea omului. Psihismul uman este conditionat de catre o sumedenie de cauze eficiente. De exemplu, nu putem iubi la comanda, asa oricum si pe oricine. Iubirea declansandu-se doar daca presupune o cauza eficienta.

Edited by Cristi_E, 14 July 2017 - 11:59.

Nu tot ce predispune trebuie sa si dispuna (pentru aceasta ai primit acel motor numit vointa, sa alegi, sa aprobi una sau alta dupa cum iti spune constiinta si ratiunea).

In plus, predispozitiile/inclinatiile stim ca pot fi rezultatul unor dereglaje, dar o boala cand e identificata nu trebuie confundata cu normalitatea si deci nu trebuie sa devina un nou mod de a fi. E ca si cum, infirmii de un picior sau de o mana trebuie lasati sa incurajeze si pe altii sa renunte la un madular.

Cristi_E, on 14 iulie 2017 - 11:54, said:

Toate comportanentele omului au la baza lor un dat psihologic, atata tot. Omul dispune alegeri pe baza acestui material. E o confuzie intre materialul psihologic si actul alegerii.

Billy, on 25 februarie 2014 - 07:11, said:

Nu cred că pot bifa vreuna dintre cele 3 variante
O propun pe a patra : Liberul Arbitru există, dar e foarte greu de accesat,astfel încât pentru imensa majoritate  este practic inexistent! Această imensă majoritate are manifestarea în această bulă spațio-temporală guvernată de legea karmică.
Pentru a "înfrânge" destinul karmic și a beneficia de Liberul arbitru, trebuie să transcezi limitarea spațio-temporală .

Edited by Zalmoxis10, 16 September 2017 - 20:25.

si asa, copacel copacel, o karma de ici o transcenzica dincolo, mai pocnim o bula spatio-temporala si ne integram nene in ditamai absolutu'. Pana cand sa mai stam asa?

blimpyway, on 17 octombrie 2017 - 00:30, said:

Nu prea stai bine cu atenția ! Chiar ACUM ! ))

Quote

Free will is a concept in traditional philosophy used to refer to the belief that human behavior is not absolutely determined by external causes, but is the result of choices made by an act of will by the agent. Such choices are themselves not determined by external causes, but are determined by the motives and intentions of the agent, which themselves are not absolutely determined by external causes.
Traditionally, those who deny the existence of free will look to fate, supernatural powers, or material causes as the determinants of human behavior. Free will advocates, or libertarians, as they are sometimes called, believe that while everything else in the universe may be the inevitable consequence of external forces, human behavior is unique and is determined by the agent, not by any god or the stars or the laws of nature.
The traditional concept of free will enters the mainstream of Western Philosophy in metaphysical questions about human responsibility for moral behavior. Many modern debates about free will are often couched in terms of responsibility for moral and criminal behavior. In the Christian tradition, which has framed the issues surrounding free will, the belief hinges on a metaphysical belief in non-physical reality. The will is seen as a faculty of the soul or mind, which is understood as standing outside of the physical world and its governing laws. Hence, for many, a belief in materialism is taken to imply a denial of free will.
The modern view of determinism and free will does not see the two concepts as mutually exclusive. This view began to take shape with arguments such as those offered by Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan, XXI). The one god is the ultimate cause of every action, argued Hobbes, but as long as a person is not physically forced to do an act, the act is free. Hobbes couched the argument in terms of liberty vs. necessity, rather than free vs. externally determined will. The sequence of causes leading to a person being blown off a cliff by the wind would be said to have led to an event which was the necessary effect of a series of causes. A person jumping off the cliff would also have a series of causes which led up to it, but if the person was not chased off the cliff and jumped without any immediate material cause necessitating the jump, then the act is one of liberty.
Hobbes’ view shows progress for reconciling materialism, determinism and free will, but it is unsatisfactory. While it makes the case that materialism and determinism do not imply that humans have no metaphysical liberty, it does not address the issue of internal determining causes. It is unlikely a modern materialist would make the argument that regardless of a person’s neurochemical state, if the person is not pushed or chased off the cliff, but jumps, say, while under the delusion that she can fly, the act is one of liberty.
A modern view, which sees no contradiction between believing in free will and materialism, would be couched in neurological terms. The key issue stemming from the free will/determinism debate is the issue of responsibility for one’s actions. Responsibility, however, has at least two essential components: control and understanding. Even early Christian philosophers, such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, considered infants, young children and imbeciles, as lacking in control or understanding, not lacking in some metaphysical entity needed for free acts. It is an obvious absurdity to ascribe free will to infants, young children or the insane. Traditional libertarians held that only when a child had reached "the age of reason" did free will kick in. For those who never attained the capacity for adult rational thinking, free will never kicked in.
All our concepts of praise and blame, punishment and reward, depend upon our belief in human responsibility. A person who has an undeveloped or damaged brain or a neurochemical disorder is not responsible for her thoughts or actions if the condition causes an inability to understand or control them. Being able to control one’s behavior is not a sufficient condition for holding a person responsible for her actions. A mentally ill or retarded person or a child may be incapable of understanding the nature of their actions, though capable of controlling their behavior. The incapacity to understand the nature of an act absolves one of responsibility for the act, if not for the behavior. For example, a person might intentionally jump off a cliff but not intend to kill himself. He may have been responsible for jumping off the cliff, but it would a mistake to say he committed suicide if he thought he could fly and did not intend to kill himself.
Since brain development, damage, and disorders occur in degrees, it follows that understanding and control of thoughts and actions occur in degrees. At one extreme, a person may have little or no control over his or her thoughts and actions. Such a person would be a paradigm case of someone lacking free will. At the other extreme, a person may have an apparent superhuman ability to control his or her thoughts and actions. Someone with such self-discipline would be the paradigm of truly free person in the metaphysical sense of 'free'. To claim that to be truly free one must not be bound by laws of cause and effect is absurd and unnecessary. It is unnecessary for the reasons just given. It is absurd, for it requires free acts to be uncaused acts. On this notion, the only free person would be the one who had no clue as to what his or her next thought or action would be. Such a person would be as unfree as one could imagine.
Today, the focus of the debate over human responsibility is on the capacity to control one’s thoughts and actions, rather than on the metaphysical presence or absence of a non-physical entity with will. Determinism is compatible with ‘free will’, though the term should be abandoned to indicate that the issue is one of capacity for controlling one’s thoughts and actions. That capacity is independent of the truth of materialism or dualism. Certain neurophysical and neurochemical conditions must hold before one can enjoy whatever freedom our species is capable of. A better understanding of these issues will not come from traditional philosophers debating free will vs. determinism. Neuroscientists will provide the knowledge, neurophilosophers the understanding.

Edited by archaeus5, 05 November 2017 - 14:23.

"Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." ~ Albert Einstein

Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control, or undetermined by anything, ar completa Bohr.

 christinne69, on 04 noiembrie 2016 - 19:14, said:

Probabil glumești. Habar nu ai ce scrie în Biblie!

 christinne69, on 05 decembrie 2016 - 22:43, said:

Mă bucur, Cristina, mă bucur. Doctrina aceasta de la adventiști, cum ți-a explicat-o și tatăl tău, pastor adventist, este și ceea ce Biblia învață!
Baptiștii, penticostalii și alți rătăciți cred în Iadul în flăcări unde demonii chinuie veșnic sufletele păcătoase. Total nebiblic ce cred baptiștii și penticostalii!

 christinne69, on 01 noiembrie 2016 - 19:30, said:

Dacă tu zici că Biblia este cunoscută de tine ”la perfecție”, atunci poate dezbatem pe viitor o temă biblică. Și eu cunosc Biblia destul de bine și pot conversa cam pe orice temă.

 TOPCATBV, on 17 noiembrie 2017 - 14:26, said:

Bohr asta nu intelege conceptul de liber arbitru. Fara el am fi doar niste mecanisme, fara constinta, fara capacitatea de a face alegeri, fara intelegerea universului, si incapabili de a observa celelalte constinte. Pus ca mai avem o capacitate, aceea de a inova, inventa, de a creea.

Ceea ce spui tu ca am putea face numai daca am avea liber arbitru nu e in contradictie cu lipsa acestuia.