Mcfly616 wrote...
Anderson was unable to break the hold over him. And if you played through the first 2 games and only realized there was something special/symbolic about Shepard at the end of ME3, than you must've not been paying attention.
dreman9999 wrote...
That's still based on state of mind. How a person can react still is effected by state of mind.darkiddd wrote...
fiendishchicken wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
I well updated my post.
Added, the question comes with the issue of the nature of the human body. Much of it is dictated by insicts and chemical reactions. We have no true control over these chemical reactions. You can say you have free will till you get drunk and lose self control. Or have other outside simuli get uncontrolible reaction from you. The issueis not do we have self determisum but how much self control we have of our reactions. Much of what we feel is chemical based. If that right part of the mind is cut out, that would drasicly change.
You miss the point entirely. You jumped from philosophical freedom to physiological mechanisms. The two are not the same at all. They're not even related. Your argument is invalid.
I call bogus on all that anyway. You're always in control. Not physical perhaps (though I don't mind not having to remember to breath or make my heart beat). But you have absolute choice in how you choose to react to anything external. You get drunk, that's all on you. You chose to drink alcohol. For other outside stimuli, you still have control over your actions. I may not be able to control my emotions and feelings about something, but I am in full control over how I choose to react to it externally. That won't fly any other way.
This. Freedom doesn't even have be exteriorized. Freedom is choosing how to react to the circumstances even if you are trapped or phisically immovilized .
dreman9999 wrote...
1.Not using the crusible out of prinsiple is an issue of pride.
Logic would indicate a slime chance over no chance.
2.It 'san issue of sevival. Control let's them continue to exsist as they are. It like them taking back the heritics. Synthesis has too much the question of losing some self determainsum
dreman9999 wrote...
That's still based on state of mind. How a person can react still is effected by state of mind.darkiddd wrote...
fiendishchicken wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
I well updated my post.
Added, the question comes with the issue of the nature of the human body. Much of it is dictated by insicts and chemical reactions. We have no true control over these chemical reactions. You can say you have free will till you get drunk and lose self control. Or have other outside simuli get uncontrolible reaction from you. The issueis not do we have self determisum but how much self control we have of our reactions. Much of what we feel is chemical based. If that right part of the mind is cut out, that would drasicly change.
You miss the point entirely. You jumped from philosophical freedom to physiological mechanisms. The two are not the same at all. They're not even related. Your argument is invalid.
I call bogus on all that anyway. You're always in control. Not physical perhaps (though I don't mind not having to remember to breath or make my heart beat). But you have absolute choice in how you choose to react to anything external. You get drunk, that's all on you. You chose to drink alcohol. For other outside stimuli, you still have control over your actions. I may not be able to control my emotions and feelings about something, but I am in full control over how I choose to react to it externally. That won't fly any other way.
This. Freedom doesn't even have be exteriorized. Freedom is choosing how to react to the circumstances even if you are trapped or phisically immovilized .
Amendment: Kasumi would pick Synthesis. If she were there instead of Shepard, Starbrat would probably make of point of mentioning that she'd get to see Keiji again. And that would be that. She would head directly down the center ramp.clennon8 wrote...
Mordin would never ever ever pick Synthesis. That's just laughable. I know Ieldra likes to coopt the Salarians as Synthesis allies, but I think that's garbage. Even if he's right, Mordin would be an exception. There is no way in Hades that guy would pick Synthesis. Neither would EDI. Frankly, none of them would. Maybe Legion, if he were still around. I could see a couple of them picking Control, though. Liara.
She'd be husked/vaporized. No Kaiji...clennon8 wrote...
Amendment: Kasumi would pick Synthesis. If she were there instead of Shepard, Starbrat would probably make of point of mentioning that she'd get to see Keiji again. And that would be that. She would head directly down the center ramp.clennon8 wrote...
Mordin would never ever ever pick Synthesis. That's just laughable. I know Ieldra likes to coopt the Salarians as Synthesis allies, but I think that's garbage. Even if he's right, Mordin would be an exception. There is no way in Hades that guy would pick Synthesis. Neither would EDI. Frankly, none of them would. Maybe Legion, if he were still around. I could see a couple of them picking Control, though. Liara.
Not true at all. Emotion reaction is all that is needed to alter normal reactions. It's not true you always have control, just self control over your reactions. You have to consider you emotions and state of mind is a point to a persons desisions.fiendishchicken wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
That's still based on state of mind. How a person can react still is effected by state of mind.darkiddd wrote...
fiendishchicken wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
I well updated my post.
Added, the question comes with the issue of the nature of the human body. Much of it is dictated by insicts and chemical reactions. We have no true control over these chemical reactions. You can say you have free will till you get drunk and lose self control. Or have other outside simuli get uncontrolible reaction from you. The issueis not do we have self determisum but how much self control we have of our reactions. Much of what we feel is chemical based. If that right part of the mind is cut out, that would drasicly change.
You miss the point entirely. You jumped from philosophical freedom to physiological mechanisms. The two are not the same at all. They're not even related. Your argument is invalid.
I call bogus on all that anyway. You're always in control. Not physical perhaps (though I don't mind not having to remember to breath or make my heart beat). But you have absolute choice in how you choose to react to anything external. You get drunk, that's all on you. You chose to drink alcohol. For other outside stimuli, you still have control over your actions. I may not be able to control my emotions and feelings about something, but I am in full control over how I choose to react to it externally. That won't fly any other way.
This. Freedom doesn't even have be exteriorized. Freedom is choosing how to react to the circumstances even if you are trapped or phisically immovilized .
At best, you'd have to be in some kind of mental and physical impairment (illness, exhaustion, intoxication, etc) to make your statement even somewhat true. I may be angry as hell that I got dear john'd by my ex while I was in Afghanistan, but that didn't mean I was going to take stupid and foolish risks. I ended up doing so, and that was a failure on my part.
You always have control over your state of mind and your reactions. You have to make a choice before making any actions. Always. You have to choose to go to work. You have to choose to take a shower. Hell, you have to choose to drink water (I wouldn't recommend not doing this). You have the ultimate choice over your cause and effect in life. Don't argue otherwise.
Modifié par dreman9999, 06 janvier 2013 - 07:37 .
Freedon can't be killed but it can be limited.darkiddd wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
That's still based on state of mind. How a person can react still is effected by state of mind.darkiddd wrote...
fiendishchicken wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
I well updated my post.
Added, the question comes with the issue of the nature of the human body. Much of it is dictated by insicts and chemical reactions. We have no true control over these chemical reactions. You can say you have free will till you get drunk and lose self control. Or have other outside simuli get uncontrolible reaction from you. The issueis not do we have self determisum but how much self control we have of our reactions. Much of what we feel is chemical based. If that right part of the mind is cut out, that would drasicly change.
You miss the point entirely. You jumped from philosophical freedom to physiological mechanisms. The two are not the same at all. They're not even related. Your argument is invalid.
I call bogus on all that anyway. You're always in control. Not physical perhaps (though I don't mind not having to remember to breath or make my heart beat). But you have absolute choice in how you choose to react to anything external. You get drunk, that's all on you. You chose to drink alcohol. For other outside stimuli, you still have control over your actions. I may not be able to control my emotions and feelings about something, but I am in full control over how I choose to react to it externally. That won't fly any other way.
This. Freedom doesn't even have be exteriorized. Freedom is choosing how to react to the circumstances even if you are trapped or phisically immovilized .
True. I won't deny that external and internal freedom can be reduced through conditioning but in the end the individual has to make the choice so despite everything freedom can't be killed. A very idealistic notion but that's what I think
clennon8 wrote...
Amendment: Kasumi would pick Synthesis. If she were there instead of Shepard, Starbrat would probably make of point of mentioning that she'd get to see Keiji again. And that would be that. She would head directly down the center ramp.clennon8 wrote...
Mordin would never ever ever pick Synthesis. That's just laughable. I know Ieldra likes to coopt the Salarians as Synthesis allies, but I think that's garbage. Even if he's right, Mordin would be an exception. There is no way in Hades that guy would pick Synthesis. Neither would EDI. Frankly, none of them would. Maybe Legion, if he were still around. I could see a couple of them picking Control, though. Liara.
dreman9999 wrote...
]Freedom can't be killed but it can be limited.
Edi and Legiona can't and won't pick synthsis.fiendishchicken wrote...
clennon8 wrote...
Amendment: Kasumi would pick Synthesis. If she were there instead of Shepard, Starbrat would probably make of point of mentioning that she'd get to see Keiji again. And that would be that. She would head directly down the center ramp.clennon8 wrote...
Mordin would never ever ever pick Synthesis. That's just laughable. I know Ieldra likes to coopt the Salarians as Synthesis allies, but I think that's garbage. Even if he's right, Mordin would be an exception. There is no way in Hades that guy would pick Synthesis. Neither would EDI. Frankly, none of them would. Maybe Legion, if he were still around. I could see a couple of them picking Control, though. Liara.
As I said earlier, Kasumi seems to be obsessed with Keiji and Keiji only. Just say Keiji and green beam together and she'd run at it.
Ieldra isn't right at all. He's too wrapped up in his notions of 'science fiction'. The Salarians would see that the Reapers are too much of a threat, an unknown, and would go with the safe option and blow them to smithereens.
If you meta-game, the only squadmates who'd consider synthesis are EDI and Legion. Outside that, they would both go with destroy. The only abberance to that is Early ME2 Miranda and Mordin. They'd both control the Reapers early in that game, but once they come to the realization of what they really are, they would both swiftly convert to destroy.
Morinth is the only squadmate out of 20 who I think would not pick destroy. She'd go with Control for the power.
Modifié par dreman9999, 06 janvier 2013 - 07:43 .
dreman9999 wrote...
Not true at all. Emotion reaction is all that is needed to alter normal reactions. It's not true you always have control, just self control over your reactions. You have to consider you emotions and state of mind is a point to a persons desisions.
1. What you side..."but the trick is not to control them, but to not let them control you."fiendishchicken wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Not true at all. Emotion reaction is all that is needed to alter normal reactions. It's not true you always have control, just self control over your reactions. You have to consider you emotions and state of mind is a point to a persons desisions.
It's absolutely true, what the hell are you talking about? Those are chemical reactions inside your brain. You have about as much control over them as you do as a cancerous growth growing on your balls or a hairy mole on your ass. You're seriously chalking all that up to philosophical freedom?
You don't control those internal reactions, but the trick is not to control them, but to not let them control you. That is the concept you seem to be missing. You always have control over wether or not they have an effect or not. The only ones that do control you are the basic physiological necessities to maintain survival (like needing air, or your heart beat, or the need to ingest calories to make energy for the body. In those cases, I'm perfectly fine giving up my self-control to stay alive.)
You get angry. You can't control that you get angry. But you can control your anger. You can control its affect on you. It can't define you, or it can, based on your decision to let it or not.
1. No sh*+. And I was saying it before you did. Self-determinism is pretty much defined as self-conrol.dreman9999 wrote...
1. What you side..."but the trick is not to control them, but to not let them control you."
Is what I already stated...
"The issueis not do we have self determisum but how much self control we have of our reactions. "
2.Our emtional state still limits how we react. We can make suew we don't let our feeling control us but our feeling still can limit our choice to how we react.
This issue is a big question in ruling judgement in law. If it was always the case the a person is judge for there actions, we would have cases of insanity, or warp state of mind made.
I'm not saying we don't have free will, just that a person has points to question it . We don;t have self control all the time.
Modifié par fiendishchicken, 06 janvier 2013 - 08:17 .
dreman9999 wrote...
1. What you side..."but the trick is not to control them, but to not let them control you."fiendishchicken wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Not true at all. Emotion reaction is all that is needed to alter normal reactions. It's not true you always have control, just self control over your reactions. You have to consider you emotions and state of mind is a point to a persons desisions.
It's absolutely true, what the hell are you talking about? Those are chemical reactions inside your brain. You have about as much control over them as you do as a cancerous growth growing on your balls or a hairy mole on your ass. You're seriously chalking all that up to philosophical freedom?
You don't control those internal reactions, but the trick is not to control them, but to not let them control you. That is the concept you seem to be missing. You always have control over wether or not they have an effect or not. The only ones that do control you are the basic physiological necessities to maintain survival (like needing air, or your heart beat, or the need to ingest calories to make energy for the body. In those cases, I'm perfectly fine giving up my self-control to stay alive.)
You get angry. You can't control that you get angry. But you can control your anger. You can control its affect on you. It can't define you, or it can, based on your decision to let it or not.
Is what I already stated...
"The issueis not do we have self determisum but how much self control we have of our reactions. "
2.Our emtional state still limits how we react. We can make suew we don't let our feeling control us but our feeling still can limit our choice to how we react.
This issue is a big question in ruling judgement in law. If it was always the case the a person is judge for there actions, we would have cases of insanity, or warp state of mind made.
I'm not saying we don't have free will, just that a person has points to question it . We don;t have self control all the time.
It not aquestion of being judge, it's a question of fault.The act of judgement is irrelivent to the issue of the person being held accountible in the question of free will.darkiddd wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
1. What you side..."but the trick is not to control them, but to not let them control you."fiendishchicken wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Not true at all. Emotion reaction is all that is needed to alter normal reactions. It's not true you always have control, just self control over your reactions. You have to consider you emotions and state of mind is a point to a persons desisions.
It's absolutely true, what the hell are you talking about? Those are chemical reactions inside your brain. You have about as much control over them as you do as a cancerous growth growing on your balls or a hairy mole on your ass. You're seriously chalking all that up to philosophical freedom?
You don't control those internal reactions, but the trick is not to control them, but to not let them control you. That is the concept you seem to be missing. You always have control over wether or not they have an effect or not. The only ones that do control you are the basic physiological necessities to maintain survival (like needing air, or your heart beat, or the need to ingest calories to make energy for the body. In those cases, I'm perfectly fine giving up my self-control to stay alive.)
You get angry. You can't control that you get angry. But you can control your anger. You can control its affect on you. It can't define you, or it can, based on your decision to let it or not.
Is what I already stated...
"The issueis not do we have self determisum but how much self control we have of our reactions. "
2.Our emtional state still limits how we react. We can make suew we don't let our feeling control us but our feeling still can limit our choice to how we react.
This issue is a big question in ruling judgement in law. If it was always the case the a person is judge for there actions, we would have cases of insanity, or warp state of mind made.
I'm not saying we don't have free will, just that a person has points to question it . We don;t have self control all the time.
A person IS judged for their actions if they are ilegal. Other thing is the verdict and measures imposed considering the circumstances of that person when it commited the act: maybe the person was fine or maybe he was in a state of necessity, duress, intoxication sought or not sought, insanity or mental issue etc...
You're not getting the concept the the issue of free will is an issue of how much discipline that person has. Not every has the same level of discipline. Since they don't not everyone has the same level of free will. Only the most discipline mind have the most self determinism.fiendishchicken wrote...
1. No sh*+. And I was saying it before you did. Self-determinism is pretty much defined as self-conrol.dreman9999 wrote...
1. What you side..."but the trick is not to control them, but to not let them control you."
Is what I already stated...
"The issueis not do we have self determisum but how much self control we have of our reactions. "
2.Our emtional state still limits how we react. We can make suew we don't let our feeling control us but our feeling still can limit our choice to how we react.
This issue is a big question in ruling judgement in law. If it was always the case the a person is judge for there actions, we would have cases of insanity, or warp state of mind made.
I'm not saying we don't have free will, just that a person has points to question it . We don;t have self control all the time.
2. That's a crock of sh*+. I don't buy that garbage one bit. I'll let it slide and chalk it down to my experience in the US Military. Any and all self-respecting serviceman has absolute control over all of his choices and options. You have to maintain personal and professional composure of conduct at all times.
'I was angry and hurt' is no excuse at all. Neither is 'I was jealous.' 'I was drunk' is the best of the bunch.
I don't buy the 'crime of passion' plea. It's stupid. The person made the choice to commit the crime, they get to deal with the consequences. Yeah you're blind and infuriatingly angry. You still made the decision to act on that fury.
The insanity plea is different. That comes from a recognized and diagnosed mental disorder in which the defendent is constantly suffering in a permanent state.
garrusfan1 wrote...
How can anyone think liara would choose control I seriously don't get that
garrusfan1 wrote...
How can anyone think liara would choose control I seriously don't get that
KotorEffect3 wrote...
garrusfan1 wrote...
How can anyone think liara would choose control I seriously don't get that
ME 1 Liara might not have picked control. But ever since ME 2 and becoming the SB Liara has changed. Being the SB she can manipulate things behind the scenes. Whether or not she would admit it the concept of being in control does intrigue. Whether or not that translates into controlling the reapers is harder to tell. I assume she would still pick destroy but I don't rule out her favoring control.
Retour en haut
