Posts by DaanO

i like the map, hate the fog

i love them, all. just perfect

There are logical gaps in your proof, circular reasoning among them. All the time i agreed with you and i was aware of that i just disagree with the logic behind it.

Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge

Lunch Money

Minesweep

skdr, lovely picture!~

Apply at Khaeon

Mawibse, Nietzsche i assume? He's a madman, good writer though.

Anyway, my own thoughts on free will are all based on the undeniable awareness of itself (which is proven by doubt, which is the only thing one cannot doubt - the one thing Descartes based his philosophy on when he 'started all over'). It is my firm belief (and i'm getting closer to getting logical proof for this stand) that awareness cannot be explained only through physicial processes and that it can be traced back to a more pure level of reality which be can get a glance of through conscience. Read Immanuel Kant: He made his so-called Copernican turn dismissing the idea that we can see reality objectively and embraced the idea that we cannot go round some tools we need to interpret reality: time, space, causality, etc. He listed twelve (i think) of those categories. These 'glasses' we are wearing all the time are disguising this more pure reality and turn it into how we see the world. However, awareness cannot be explained in terms of these categories. Not because of a limited knowledge right now but because of a fundamental incompatibility. I've written an essay on the 'proof' (if you can speak of proof when it comes to philosophy) of this, but this is the basic idea.

"You simply cant think of something without thinking about it."

Please explain this sentence, it makes no sense to me and i won't comment on the rest before i understand this one. I do however get the feeling that you're oversimplifying the whole proces of thoughts here, based on the thought (i can not know whether this is an assumption of not) that thoughts are a lineair proces instead of a whole of spontaneous activity of elements that are a part of a whole of thoughts. This thought is an essential part of the theory that no fundamental free thoughts are possible. Yet again, you are using a part of what is questioned to prove it, yet you disguise it whether you see it yourself or not.

Don't get me wrong, i have an open mind to both philosophical views, i've read work from philosophers from Descartes to Sartre (including their views on a free thought) but my mind is not open for views that contradict themselves, or thoughts where the explanandum overlaps with the explanans.

Personally i'd like to see some completely new kind of character when it comes to people to try to conquer the world, something that people do not expect. This has gotten old. (no offense intended), which is proven by the fact that he looks like Bison. The sketch itself is pretty nice, i just don't like the character.

Scratches are becoming a texture cliche and sometimes they're just not needed. I think this is one of those times. I agree about some highlights though

"Your decision to break it has a reason"

This assumption is only based on the assumption that there are no fundamentally free thoughts. My point still stands.

haha cool

You are now simply assuming that once a proces of reacting to the world has started, a human being can not interfere (because of consciousness for example). Why wouldn't it be possible for a being to make a fundamentally free choice later in life, breaking the circle? Your reasoning is therefor based on the assumption (which is basically the same as the former) that humans cannot go against the laws of nature and are simply processing units of worldly impulses. You're using the assumption of no free choices to prove that there's no free choices.

I don't wear glasses.

Since it is impossible for humans to go against the laws of physics (jump to the moon because you want to), there needs to be something transcedental if there would a free will. This is something that all philosophers, no matter how different their views are, agree on.

So how did those papers end up UNDER that small wall in the right? (which looks a bit out of place anyway)

Besides that, nice work

Piss mapcore in the snow for us please

He always imagines to have relationships and then after a month he finds out the girls disagree.

Philosophical back-up? Read Sartre, use your imagination and then some more of it and you might end up at a point in thinking that vaguely resembles what rd is talking about. Or just read Sartre and follow his views. Personally, i think the wrong assumption in this debate is the existence of will itself (which is, by definition, always a free will because else it is no will at all). That is one thing i highly doubt. I see it as a model to understanding the world - and it can work wonders - but i really doubt it has any value when it comes to a metaphysical _reality_. Because people are trying to reason whether there's a will or a free will (how strange, really) they are getting stuck trying to find an answer where there ain't even a question. This assumption is ruining the debate.

That would be awesome, an Iranian woman drawing a cartoon, all Arabs burning Iranian flags, including the Iranians, everybody left confused