User Controls
Determinism
-
2017-06-09 at 12:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Im very sad that I haven't been refuted at all. Do you guys all think I'm that fucking stupid that my points make no sense? You just gloss over whatever I have to say and talk to the next person who is smarter? FUCK.
This is determinism. This is why I'm getting fucking pissed off after having 12 drinks that I haven't been specifically addressed and the thread is involving others arguments ALWAYS igrnoning mine. ITS B EEN DETERMINED by your faacggot lifestyles that you don't want to fucking engage in conversation with me online because you assume I'm too fucking stupid to hold an actual converstaion. THANKS.
DETERMINISM is me actually swan diving off my balcony and snapping my stupid bird neck because it was meant to be. FUCK ALL OF YOU.
Fo real, man. What a bunch of assholes. It was their choice to do it, too. -
2017-06-09 at 12:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie I am in the free will camp. Also, if everything is determined why do we even punish criminals? They can't help it, it was destined to happen so it is unfair to punish them. Also, why should we ever aspire to anything? If we fail it was determined that we would, if we succeed same story. So why not just don't do anything at all? Because you can't go wrong in a deterministic Universe.
agreed but then wasn't it already determined that the pigs would punish the criminals too. personally i agree with free will, this is just like fate and karma type shite.
. -
2017-06-09 at 12:17 PM UTCThis thread reminds me of the geometry proofs in high school:
You can spend all day proving one concept's relation to another but at the end of the day it doesn't fucking matter -
2017-06-09 at 12:30 PM UTCi like multiverse theory. the theory that every option we approach causes a new universe/s to happen where each possible option continues. so if i go to the fridge and there is ham and cheese, a new universe continues where i chose to make a cheese sandwich, another where i chose ham and yet another where i got greedy and had ham and cheese, and yet another for where i decided to order pizza instead. then four instances of me are created where in each i have no realization of the fact that i actually made all the choices and this is just the universe where i made X choice. each one of us has already created infinite universes and somewhere there is a universe where i am absolutely fucking balling.
i actually wonder if this 'power of positive thinking' malarky is just channeling your mind to go with the option every time where you end up in the universe where you have the most luck and success.
i wonder how much the differing choices in each universe change you as a person tho. they must have an effect. if you went one way in a street and got home safely, but in the other universe where you went the other way where bill the cat was lurking and subjected you to some brutally violent male rape. surely that shit is going to affect the different you's. so would you both still be you?
. -
2017-06-09 at 1:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Where am I dismissing cases of free will? I guess said I did say quantum indeterminism doesn't imply freedom but that covers all of compatabilist, incompatabilist, and libertarian definitions of free will so I guess take your pick?
I don't feel obligated to offer a definition of free will because I don't want to defend a definition of free will and it doesn't really matter with respect to the point I was making: experts seriously argue for both the presence and absence of free will in both the presence and absence of physical determinism.
Yes, but if you say quantum indeterminism doesn't imply freedom, then you must have some definition of freedom in mind which makes it so that quantum indeterminism does not imply it.
Secondly, I absolutely disagree; the compatibilist definition stands whether or not there is quantum indeterminism. It is the only definition that I've seen so far that makes sense, and it makes plenty of sense; you, as an individual, deterministic or indeterministic entity, are an agent of free will, and can exercise your free will as long as you are not externally restricted from exercising it.
That seems pretty intuitive; "you" (whatever your theory on identity is) are that system that gives outputs to a given input. Whatever that black box is, is making its decisions freely unless it's being restricted. That works regardless of free will or compatibilism. -
2017-06-09 at 1:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist i like multiverse theory. the theory that every option we approach causes a new universe/s to happen where each possible option continues. so if i go to the fridge and there is ham and cheese, a new universe continues where i chose to make a cheese sandwich, another where i chose ham and yet another where i got greedy and had ham and cheese, and yet another for where i decided to order pizza instead. then four instances of me are created where in each i have no realization of the fact that i actually made all the choices and this is just the universe where i made X choice. each one of us has already created infinite universes and somewhere there is a universe where i am absolutely fucking balling.
Yes, there's an allure to completely unfalsifiable claims that confirm our intuitive ideas about causality.
i actually wonder if this 'power of positive thinking' malarky is just channeling your mind to go with the option every time where you end up in the universe where you have the most luck and success.
i wonder how much the differing choices in each universe change you as a person tho. they must have an effect. if you went one way in a street and got home safely, but in the other universe where you went the other way where bill the cat was lurking and subjected you to some brutally violent male rape. surely that shit is going to affect the different you's. so would you both still be you?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-06-09 at 4 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny CF already destroyed you on this so I'll pass it up beyond saying you're a moron.
actually, you're wrong, you'll always be wrong, and i'll always be right. it's safer to assume im right about everything and everyone else is wrong. im a complete genius and every time one of you faggot contradicts me, its just your failure to grasp what i'm saying. ive supported my argument perfectly and if you dont understand it, its because youre a brain damaged fuck with a rotting dad. cf is just a virgin loser who doesnt know what hes talking about -
2017-06-09 at 4:12 PM UTCI think both sides have good arguments.
-
2017-06-09 at 4:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Yes, but if you say quantum indeterminism doesn't imply freedom, then you must have some definition of freedom in mind which makes it so that quantum indeterminism does not imply it.
Secondly, I absolutely disagree; the compatibilist definition stands whether or not there is quantum indeterminism. It is the only definition that I've seen so far that makes sense, and it makes plenty of sense; you, as an individual, deterministic or indeterministic entity, are an agent of free will, and can exercise your free will as long as you are not externally restricted from exercising it.
That seems pretty intuitive; "you" (whatever your theory on identity is) are that system that gives outputs to a given input. Whatever that black box is, is making its decisions freely unless it's being restricted. That works regardless of free will or compatibilism.
I don't really have a problem with how compatibilism defines freewill. It is basically how freewill is defined in a court of law. However I think it is important to distinguish that from the common sense of freewill people experience in their daily lives, the libertarian sense of freewill, that you are the absolute cause of your actions. Because obviously you are not. -
2017-06-09 at 4:34 PM UTClmao at lanny calling me a moron and then immediately discussing quantum indeterminacy as if he thought of it. you dumb bitch, my thoughts clearly own yours. and yes, if one measurement doesnt necessarily imply the other, this lack of implication suggests randomness, i.e. not determinism. you dumb fucking bitches, this is why people with valuable insights never get to contributes. you say im wrong and then suck my dick. im basically a god compared to you to. you deserve to die for your heresy
-
2017-06-09 at 4:37 PM UTC"The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know simultaneously the exact position and momentum of a particle. That is, the more exactly the position is determined, the less known the momentum, and vice versa."
yeah, so clearly zeroing in on one measurement has nothing to do with randomness affecting the other measurement. this is what happens when we have a society of people with college degrees who dont know why 2 + 2 = 4 -
2017-06-09 at 5:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Secondly, I absolutely disagree; the compatibilist definition stands whether or not there is quantum indeterminism.
That was my point though. I didn't say "indeterminism implies there is no free will", I said "indeterminism doesn't imply free will", that is the proposition of physical determinism doesn't say much about popular notions of free will at all.
Originally posted by Rebirth actually, you're wrong, you'll always be wrong, and i'll always be right. it's safer to assume im right about everything and everyone else is wrong. im a complete genius and every time one of you faggot contradicts me, its just your failure to grasp what i'm saying. ive supported my argument perfectly and if you dont understand it, its because youre a brain damaged fuck with a rotting dad. cf is just a virgin loser who doesnt know what hes talking about
Originally posted by Rebirth "The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know simultaneously the exact position and momentum of a particle. That is, the more exactly the position is determined, the less known the momentum, and vice versa."
yeah, so clearly zeroing in on one measurement has nothing to do with randomness affecting the other measurement. this is what happens when we have a society of people with college degrees who dont know why 2 + 2 = 4
You are so mad that your cargo cult view of science is failing you miserably right now. I feel kinda bad for you. -
2017-06-09 at 6:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind I don't really have a problem with how compatibilism defines freewill. It is basically how freewill is defined in a court of law. However I think it is important to distinguish that from the common sense of freewill people experience in their daily lives, the libertarian sense of freewill, that you are the absolute cause of your actions. Because obviously you are not.
But you are! It's just that "you" isn't some black box that exists outside of time and space. Literally novody believes that. -
2017-06-09 at 7 PM UTC
-
2017-06-09 at 9:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon But you are! It's just that "you" isn't some black box that exists outside of time and space. Literally novody believes that.
Some compatibilists insist that even if our thoughts and actions are the product of unconscious causes, they are still our thoughts and actions. That our unconscious neurophysiology is just as much "us" as our conscious thoughts are.
But I think these compatibilists change the subject. They trade a psychological fact - the subjective experience of being a conscious agent - for a conceptual understanding of ourselves as persons. This is a bait and switch. The psychological truth is that people feel identical to a certain channel of information in their conscious minds. This is like saying we are made of stardust - which we are. But we don't feel like stardust.
At this moment you are making countless unconscious "decisions" with organs other than your brain - but these are not events for which you feel responsible. Are "you" producing red blood cells at this moment? Your body is doing this, of course, but if it "decided" to do otherwise you would consider yourself to be the victim of these changes rather than their cause. To say that you are responsible for everything that goes on inside your skin because it is all "you" is to make a claim that bears absolutely no relationship to the feelings of agency and moral responsibility that have made the idea of freewill an enduring problem for philosophy.
There are more bacteria in your body than human cells. Many of these organisms perform necessary functions - they are "you" in some wider sense. Do you feel identical to them? If they misbehave, are you morally responsible? This is the trouble with compatibilism. It solves the problem of "freewill" by ignoring it.
How can we be "free" as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and of which we are entirely unaware? We can't. To say that "my brain" decided to think or act in a particular way, consciously or not, and that this is the basis for my freedom is to ignore the very source of our belief in freewill: the feeling of conscious agency. People feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions, and this is the only reason why there seems to be a problem of freewill worth talking about.
Post last edited by Open Your Mind at 2017-06-09T22:10:13.127849+00:00 -
2017-06-09 at 9:39 PM UTCI'm a Calvinist
-
2017-06-09 at 10:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Some compatibilists insist that even if our thoughts and actions are the product of unconscious causes, they are still our thoughts and actions. That our unconscious neurophysiology is just as much "us" as our conscious thoughts are.
But I think these compatibilists change the subject. They trade a psychological fact - the subjective experience of being a conscious agent - for a conceptual understanding of ourselves as persons. This is a bait and switch. The psychological truth is that people feel identical to a certain channel of information in their conscious minds. This is like saying we are made of stardust - which we are. But we don't feel like stardust.
At this moment you are making countless unconscious "decisions" with organs other than your brain - but these are not events for which you feel responsible. Are "you" producing red blood cells at this moment? Your body is doing this, of course, but if it "decided" to do otherwise you would consider yourself to be the victim of these changes rather than their cause. To say that you are responsible for everything that goes on inside your skin because it is all "you" is to make a claim that bears absolutely no relationship to the feelings of agency and moral responsibility that have made the idea of freewill an enduring problem for philosophy.
There are more bacteria in your body than human cells. Many of these organisms perform necessary functions - they are "you" in some wider sense. Do you feel identical to them? If they misbehave, are you morally responsible? This is the trouble with compatibilism. It solves the problem of "freewill" by ignoring it.
How can we be "free" as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and of which we are entirely unaware? We can't. To say that "my brain" decided to think or act in a particular way, consciously or not, and that this is the basis for my freedom is to ignore the very source of our belief in freewill: the feeling of conscious agency. People feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions, and this is the only reason why there seems to be a problem of freewill worth talking about.
Post last edited by Open Your Mind at 2017-06-09T22:10:13.127849+00:00
fucking damn plagiarists these days. i'll link to the source for you, seeing as you failed to in order to look like an inter-lectural an all that.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iRpkNcRt1IcC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=Some+compatibilists+insist+that+even+if+our+thoughts+and+actions+are+the+product+of+unconscious+causes,+they+are+still+our+thoughts+and+actions.+That+our+unconscious+neurophysiology+is+just+as+much+%22us%22+as+our+conscious+thoughts+are.&source=bl&ots=vEP6qOH0EQ&sig=zS8vAX0qPkIWQR_FnOXjWHYdFTg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixwcS85LHUAhXH0RQKHWDDDLAQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Some%20compatibilists%20insist%20that%20even%20if%20our%20thoughts%20and%20actions%20are%20the%20product%20of%20unconscious%20causes%2C%20they%20are%20still%20our%20thoughts%20and%20actions.%20That%20our%20unconscious%20neurophysiology%20is%20just%20as%20much%20%22us%22%20as%20our%20conscious%20thoughts%20are.&f=false
pages 22/23 if anyone wants to check this thieving asshole. I knew this just sounded way too smarts for this kiddo.
HahA fucking pwnd
.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-06-09 at 10:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Some compatibilists insist that even if our thoughts and actions are the product of unconscious causes, they are still our thoughts and actions.
that's the point. Again, what is "our"? do you consider your identity to be in a vaccum, like you're some sort of godly black box outside of the universe?That our unconscious neurophysiology is just as much "us" as our conscious thoughts are.
But I think these compatibilists change the subject. They trade a psychological fact - the subjective experience of being a conscious agent - for a conceptual understanding of ourselves as persons. This is a bait and switch. The psychological truth is that people feel identical to a certain channel of information in their conscious minds. This is like saying we are made of stardust - which we are. But we don't feel like stardust.
At this moment you are making countless unconscious "decisions" with organs other than your brain - but these are not events for which you feel responsible. Are "you" producing red blood cells at this moment? Your body is doing this, of course, but if it "decided" to do otherwise you would consider yourself to be the victim of these changes rather than their cause. To say that you are responsible for everything that goes on inside your skin because it is all "you" is to make a claim that bear absolutely no relationship to the feelings of agency and moral responsibility that have made the idea of freewill an enduring problem for philosophy. There are more bacteria in your body than human cells. Many of these organisms perform necessary functions - they are "you" in some wider sense. Do you feel identical to them? If they misbehave, are you morally responsible? This is the trouble with compatibilism. It solves the problem of "freewill" by ignoring it.
How is that a problem? There's no condition that what happens inside of your skin is what constitutes free will. You're setting up a straw man to knock down. There is some qualitative content to your experience and this is what the concept of free will is tied to. If that exists for other elements of your body, then that would apply to them too. It might! But we don't know if it does.
Let me put it another way; you cannot consciously decide what thoughts you have. These seemingly just emerge from the mists of your mind. but whatever box of scraps rattles that thought around and spits out an outcome, if what is considered to be "you". The key difference between this and some other system that spits out an output for an input is your ability, seemingly, to process 2nd and 3rd order reasoning with some qualitative content to your 2nd and 3rd (or higher) order considerations. We can' quantify these qualia but that's fine, we know it exists because we have it (what is blue? The colour you see, not what the wavelength of light).How can we be "free" as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and of which we are entirely unaware? We can't. To say that "my brain" decided to think or act in a particular way, consciously or not, and that this is the basis for my freedom is to ignore the very source of our belief in freewill: the feeling of conscious agency. People feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions, and this is the only reasons why there seems to be a problem of freewill worth talking about.
that's what your will is; whatever you are predisposed to decide, that's YOUR predisposition, and it comes from that weird black box in your head and not because some other black box is forcing you to, then it's your free will.
Again, define free will. You're constantly trying to dismiss things as being not free will, but yet you refuse to define it. this conversation is useless unless you actually commit to a position.
I swear, this is the weasliest discussion on this site. -
2017-06-09 at 10:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist fucking damn plagiarists these days. i'll link to the source for you, seeing as you failed to in order to look like an inter-lectural an all that.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iRpkNcRt1IcC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=Some+compatibilists+insist+that+even+if+our+thoughts+and+actions+are+the+product+of+unconscious+causes,+they+are+still+our+thoughts+and+actions.+That+our+unconscious+neurophysiology+is+just+as+much+%22us%22+as+our+conscious+thoughts+are.&source=bl&ots=vEP6qOH0EQ&sig=zS8vAX0qPkIWQR_FnOXjWHYdFTg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixwcS85LHUAhXH0RQKHWDDDLAQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Some%20compatibilists%20insist%20that%20even%20if%20our%20thoughts%20and%20actions%20are%20the%20product%20of%20unconscious%20causes%2C%20they%20are%20still%20our%20thoughts%20and%20actions.%20That%20our%20unconscious%20neurophysiology%20is%20just%20as%20much%20%22us%22%20as%20our%20conscious%20thoughts%20are.&f=false
pages 22/23 if anyone wants to check this thieving asshole. I knew this just sounded way too smarts for this kiddo.
HahA fucking pwnd
.
the mention of stardust actually tipped me off, but I dismissed it as like, maybe he just read/listened to a Sam Harris talk. Looks like Obbe just steals wholesale
That actually upsets me, because I like(d?) obbe and thought he was actually smart and shit regarding philosophy, now I find out he's a plagiarist... and I wonder, how long has he been bamboozling me? -
2017-06-09 at 10:50 PM UTCOoof. It sounded great. I'll have to retract my thanks for that one.
