HeliX Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I did read them, like I said life is too short to worry if it's an illusion of choice or not, since there's no evidence to show that it is, and there's no way to prove it right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 “we assume that there is one person in each body, but in some ways we are each more like a committee whose members have been thrown together working at cross purposes” [Jonathan Haidt] There's a lecture on schizophrenia tonight. You know I've half a mind to attend.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I did read them, like I said life is too short to worry if it's an illusion of choice or not, since there's no evidence to show that it is, and there's no way to prove it right or wrong. No evidence? There are none so blind as those who will not see, even when the evidence is stuck up their noses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I know what you mean Evilgoblin. But I wouldn't know how to explain better. I would draw a diagram personally demonstrating the link between physical processes, consciousness and the absense or illusory presence of Self, but can't do it on here obviously. Not an area of philosophy I have read much about. Very interesting though. (I'LL MOVE THIS OVER TO THE NEW THREAD) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I did read them, like I said life is too short to worry if it's an illusion of choice or not, since there's no evidence to show that it is, and there's no way to prove it right or wrong. No evidence? There are none so blind as those who will not see, even when the evidence is stuck up their noses! Your definition of evidence is rather.. flexible, isn't it? When I use the word evidence, I mean scientific evidence. Not "Well it's clear to me so it must be!" evidence. That's belief, which is somewhat different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Your definition of evidence is rather.. flexible, isn't it? When I use the word evidence, I mean scientific evidence. So do I and that is precisely what has been provided. That was a pretty poor attempt at backtracking, HeliX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Your definition of evidence is rather.. flexible, isn't it? When I use the word evidence, I mean scientific evidence. So do I and that is precisely what has been provided. That was a pretty poor attempt at backtracking, HeliX. I haven't seen a single shred of scientific evidence to back up your view. How exactly am I backtracking by asking for evidence? Is your definition of backtracking in need of some work also? If you're referring to the short synopsis you posted of two studies on the prior page: 2 studies does not a conclusive answer make. Your belief is not the only conclusion that can be drawn from those studies, so they can't be used as evidence that your belief is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 HeliX, on 26 August 2012 - 01:06 PM, said: I haven't seen a single shred of scientific evidence to back up your view. I suggest that this state of your ignorance will continue for as long as you do not take the trouble to look for the evidence and to ignore that which is brought to your attention.. Quote How exactly am I backtracking by asking for evidence? You asked for evidence and I provided it - you came back saying two studies do not constitute scientific evidence (I pass over the fact that you do not produce the slightest of evidence to support your own speculation) whereas I actually supplied reference to other studies as well. I suggest you get to work with Google as you clearly have no other literary spources available on the subject. Quote Is your definition of backtracking in need of some work also? What backtracking? Stop trying to introduce red herrings. Quote Your belief is not the only conclusion that can be drawn from those studies, so they can't be used as evidence that your belief is correct. OK, Maestro - let's have your alternative rational conclusions (which I sincerely hope will.not involve tachyons roaring around in brains). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Alternate rational conclusion? There's only one REAL rational conclusion, which is that we simply don't know. But not knowing the answer isn't a very good reason to invent one that might fit. Alternate conclusion that I believe for those studies? I would say the delay isn't really indicative of anything unusual, other than that there's a delay between making the decision and registering the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Am I missing something here? the guy murdered 77 people the majority being kids and people are talking about whether his reasons were good or not. I dont get it either thommo, the only thing that I am puzzled by is how when he killed so many, especially when most killed, were basically children, what kind of people are the Norwegians? There is liberal and there is Liberal. I would of thought that many children killed would of at least provoked a few parents, out of that total, to go to any length possible to get near him and at least try and hurt him. Maybe they did and we did not hear about it, that man is a poster boy for the death penalty and I dont say that lightly, I am generally against that kind of thing but for some crimes there is only one punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Am I missing something here? the guy murdered 77 people the majority being kids and people are talking about whether his reasons were good or not. I dont get it either thommo, the only thing that I am puzzled by is how when he killed so many, especially when most killed, were basically children, what kind of people are the Norwegians? There is liberal and there is Liberal. I would of thought that many children killed would of at least provoked a few parents, out of that total, to go to any length possible to get near him and at least try and hurt him. Maybe they did and we did not hear about it, that man is a poster boy for the death penalty and I dont say that lightly, I am generally against that kind of thing but for some crimes there is only one punishment. It's almost impossible to make a "plan" to do something in a situation like that. The panic would be overwhelming. Also, chances are someone did try something, but without an enclosed space to get close to him in, he's just going to gun people down at range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Any decent survival instructor will advice against running and hiding in a situation like this, but what else are kids and unarmed and untrained adults going to do instinctively. It helps if at least someone is equipped and can respond to a situation like this but otherwise you need shear courage and man power to charge and overwhelm the attacker and this is what you'll see being advised. The shooter needs time and space to reload, don't give him either if you've got nowhere to run and there's no one to help. But that's easy to say now. The man was hell bent on destruction and its only luck that he was unable to place his ANFO bomb where he originally intended outside the government building or we'd be looking at a much greater death toll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Am I missing something here? the guy murdered 77 people the majority being kids and people are talking about whether his reasons were good or not. I dont get it either thommo, the only thing that I am puzzled by is how when he killed so many, especially when most killed, were basically children, what kind of people are the Norwegians? There is liberal and there is Liberal. I would of thought that many children killed would of at least provoked a few parents, out of that total, to go to any length possible to get near him and at least try and hurt him. Maybe they did and we did not hear about it, that man is a poster boy for the death penalty and I dont say that lightly, I am generally against that kind of thing but for some crimes there is only one punishment. It's almost impossible to make a "plan" to do something in a situation like that. The panic would be overwhelming. Also, chances are someone did try something, but without an enclosed space to get close to him in, he's just going to gun people down at range. Helix I did not mean at the time, on the island as you say at that time there would be panic and Ruger's method although the best, would be unlikely to be implemented without a large proportion of the people being shot at having some form of service training. No I meant why had none of the parents not tried to get at him in court, on the way to court or where ever he was being held. That is what surprises me given the vast numbers of children killed, some of whose parents I would of thought, the law of averages says that, at least a couple would try and kill him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Ah, sorry I misunderstood. He will have been ridiculously well guarded, and I would imagine security in the place will have been very tight indeed. Also, Norway's reaction to this (helped by their leaders) has been absolutely incredible to see. They have really gotten behind the whole "fighting back with love" thing, and it speaks volumes about their nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 The kids that died, were targetted in part because they espoused liberal values. It would be an odd memorial to go against that. Of course it is easy for me to say that I'd hope to react with humanity, with liberal values, by putting my faith in rule of law, in trusting in a fair trial and justice with a hope of rehabilitation. But I'm not sure I would if it was my family or community caught up this, in fact I'm not certain I do in this case. That's what makes the Norwegian reaction so great. Breivik challenged the nation's values and they didn't blink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.