Reputation: 0 Neutral
- Head Moderator
- Active Posts:
- 3,360 (0.69 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Star Wars Fan Convention (779 posts)
- 01-November 03
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Feb 01 2017 08:58 PM
- How did you find the site?:
- A gal I met on a film set told me about the "reasons," and sent me an email with the link. I emailed Chef, to say good job. We kept in touch, and then he invited me here.
Posts I've Made
Posted 1 Feb 2017Posted 11 April 2005 - 05:45 PM
Post #18, page 2 "Final Countdown"
In keeping with my theory that sequels in an episodic saga should follow each other quickly in time, and also have individual climaxes that wrap up their own story, here is how the movie that precedes Star Wars should end: Those rebel spies have benn trying to get plans to the Death Star, and have been having lots of adventures and close scrapes along the way. In the end, they manage to beam the plans to a ship waiting in orbit, thus foiling their enemies and they think that they have just saved the day. It tells it's own adventure, with the goal achieved, while simultaneously leading into the next film, (Star Wars).
Ha ha I had forgotten about this post.
Too bad you hadn't the chance to sell it to Disney. You were on to the nut of the idea, and it was a good one.
Posted 25 Nov 2013Well don't say no one warned you:
Posted 21 Dec 2012Jordan I don't understand what you mean when you say we can't create new thoughts. Thoughts are the product of our experiences and the way our formed personalities react to stimuli. To say thoughts come out of brains only and therefore they must pre-exist there is to say that the brain is a closed system. It is not. You might as well say, as some do, that the Earth is dying because energy goes away over time. Again, this presupposes that the Earth is a closed system, which it is not: we gain energy from the sun.
Anyway, yes, you can make new thoughts. Stimuli in, responses out.
"In theory there is no such thing as random events." Ok, I'll let that go there, but you CANNOT predict everything because all of the variables are impossible to track. Impossible, not difficult. There are too many, observing takes too long, etc. It's like trying to write down every detail of your life, a la Tristram Shandy. You will find it takes longer to write about the thing that it does to live it. So anyway, since the majority of life's business is unpredictable, you will react to what happens, and to the reactions of other people as well. To say that the fellow who walked near you and overheard the thing you said that reminded him of something that made it so he got his wife the thing she wanted ... to say that was predetermined is just a philosophical decision. It makes no practical sense to imagine that.
I am going to drop a die. In the future, its result is already known, Now, I don't know the result. Numerous variables determine what its result will be, even though you could say that in the future it is already known, and that all time is simultaneous. In order to draw that conclusion however, you have to look at time as something completely different from what it is, that is, it has to be fully observable, rather than in this way where our consciousnesses can only perceive it in one very limited way. Looking at it in a way other than the only way you are physically able to look at it is to embrace a philosophical interest that has no practical application. After all, with all your philosophy you will never be able to see the die roll until I roll it. Your reaction is not knowable before the fact. I will call your unknown reaction Free Will.
PS: I don't really have a die, and I am not about to roll it. React to THAT!
Posted 26 Nov 2012I think outside the fiction that an omnipotent being is managing everything, it is silly to conclude that the universe is ordered and predestined. There are too many variables with respect to agents and events co-existing, enough to say that the universe is random and chaotic, and that order exists only so far as there are some limitations on possibility (eg, apples always fall from trees, but people are not predestined to be sitting under them when they fall).
I don't buy the brain chemistry business either. If it can easily be observed (and it can) that people's choices are often limited by their opportunities, that their natures are often the product of their upbringing, then it is not the case that a person is born with the capacity for good while another is born only for evil. People know mostly what their peers know, they follow their peers' religions, they enjoy the art and culture enjoyed by their peers. There are no kids in Tibet spontaneously and without teaching suddenly liking Lady Gaga and reading about Christianity, for instance. Insanity is one thing, and that certainly happens, but by and large, people become who they are based on where they live, who they meet, and what happens to them. If you want to call that predestination, then have at it, but I don't believe in a puppeteer, either in the form of God or in the form of an ordered and scheduled universe.
I don't think scripture backs the idea of Predestination. Scriptures is all over Free Will.
Posted 19 Nov 2012There is no argument that disproves pure skepticism. It's the same as trying to prove a negative; no matter where the argument ends, you are still empowered to doubt it. So no, there is no argument to prove to you that your "decisions" are not hard-wired into you either by God or by the circumstances of your life.
Me, I think there is something to be made of the circumstance argument: you don't have absolute authority over the events in your life, or even over your responses to them. I think however that rather than their being a single response to every event, and one fixed outcome, you have options. These options, some chosen deliberately and others determined by chaos, constitute Free Will.
Outside a religious context, the argument is meaningless anyway. The whole point of trying to prove whether we have Free Will was to get over the paradox of Sin and Redemption. After all, if God made us and is in control of everything that happens to His creation, then how can we be considered responsible for our sins? Esp if God made us with Original Sin, then how is it our fault that we are sinful? Etc. Outside the theological context, the argument is less troublesome, except to Philosophy students.
- Member Title:
- Canada's Next Top Model.
- 48 years old
- November 17, 1968
- In Your Dreams
- I like stuff.