User Controls
all is mind
-
2019-08-01 at 3:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't really know anything, but you have no control over the growth of your hair. Whether your hair grows straight, or curly, or if it maybe all falls out, none of those are really successes or failures but really just the system performing the way it performs.
And in response maybe you will straighten your curly hair, or curl your straight hair or maybe you will wear a wig on your bald head, and again none of those are inherently successes or failures but rather just the system operating the way it operates. You have no control over the beating of your heart and if it stops beating you will die. Again this is the system operating the way it operates. And maybe someone will try to resuscitate you, but whether they succeed or fail, again, is just the system performing the way it performs.
You said you don't know but now you're going ahead and making a positive claim that none of those are successes and failures. What do you know about the purpose of the growth of hair and the ways it varies? If anything you're just ignorant to it like the cuckoo chick.
You have a certain level of comprehension of your own reasons, don't arrogantly get ahead of yourself and assume it's complete.
I don't know how many Newtons of force my hands can generate in all its various arrangements but I'm in control of it to an extremely fine degree, with many degrees of freedom.
The reasons we cobble together are not the only reasons in the world, and our representational awareness of reasons is nothing special past a certain point. A monkey has more of a concept of success than an amoeba while we have more of a concept of success than a monkey, but that's ultimately relative to whatever framing we began with. The reasons are out there independent of us, it's just part of the system doing what it does, and that creates successes and failures by their own criteria.
A cuckoo chick failing its deception is a failure to survive, it's a failure to gain nourishment brood-parasitically etc, even if no one is around to see it, or even if we didn't give it that label. Our recognition is only representational. -
2019-08-01 at 3:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Irrelevant. Again as firecrotch stated she had a broken toe and yet still performed perfectly the task of walking to the fridge and getting 2 gallons of ice cream.
Again a single component doesn't control the whole device, it only controls the next component(s) that are directly in line with it…it's job is then done. It has no further input on the operational state of any of the other components downstream of it's direct "neighbor". And as stated it certainly had no control on the components before it which are controlling it…
Another analogy with be a single worker ant in an ant colony…the singular worker ant does not control the colony. It's loss will not result in the collapse of the colony or stop it's progress in any significant way.
Great, both of you should conduct an experiment: go ride a bike with half a wheel or half a chain or half a drive gear... off a pier. -
2019-08-01 at 3:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Firekrochfatty i give no fuqs..
-about semantics or spelling for most of you chumpfuckers on here.
I beg you to differ,
..don't you think for a split second mf, that I'm some unedjumacated idiot bitch who doesn't know how to fuq'n spell or know when to use appropriate English. 😎
Didn't read. -
2019-08-01 at 3:43 PM UTC
-
2019-08-01 at 3:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator You said you don't know but now you're going ahead and making a positive claim that none of those are successes and failures. What do you know about the purpose of the growth of hair and the ways it varies? If anything you're just ignorant to it like the cuckoo chick.
You have a certain level of comprehension of your own reasons, don't arrogantly get ahead of yourself and assume it's complete.
I don't know how many Newtons of force my hands can generate in all its various arrangements but I'm in control of it to an extremely fine degree, with many degrees of freedom.
The reasons we cobble together are not the only reasons in the world, and our representational awareness of reasons is nothing special past a certain point. A monkey has more of a concept of success than an amoeba while we have more of a concept of success than a monkey, but that's ultimately relative to whatever framing we began with. The reasons are out there independent of us, it's just part of the system doing what it does, and that creates successes and failures by their own criteria.
A cuckoo chick failing its deception is a failure to survive, it's a failure to gain nourishment brood-parasitically etc, even if no one is around to see it, or even if we didn't give it that label. Our recognition is only representational.
I don't know anything so why would I speculate that there is some greater purpose to a bird succeeding to survive or not? Whether the bird survives or dies is the system operating the way it operates. It's a "success" if we consider survival to be the goal, but I don't know anything so why would I consider some birds survival a success or failure any more than I would consider some random pariticals colliding or missing each other as a success or failure? -
2019-08-01 at 3:59 PM UTCFurther addressing the bike analogy that doesn't equate to the wheel controling "All" of the device, for starters the wheel needs bearings to operate and a source of energy to begin it's rotation, it has NO control over either of those things happening/being in place. The failure of the device because a critical component is missing/faulty doesn't equate to that critical component have control of all aspects of the device.
And on top of that the obvious fact a device that is not operational...isn't being controlled by anything...it's not operational. -
2019-08-01 at 4:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't know anything so why would I speculate that there is some greater purpose to a bird succeeding to survive or not? Whether the bird survives or dies is the system operating the way it operates. It's a "success" if we consider survival to be the goal, but I don't know anything so why would I consider some birds survival a success or failure any more than I would consider some random pariticals colliding or missing each other as a success or failure?
Man fuck you, you always do this shit.
Who said anything about "greater purpose"?
Classic Obbe move, straw man as if the other guy is asserting some spiritual god grand purpose shit and attack that as if you're taking the rational position.
Stop bullshitting and stick to the argument mother fucker: a system is perfectly capable of creating it's own success and failure conditions. Natural selection does it all the time, that's literally all natural selection does. Where do you think human reasons came from?
That doesn't mean there is some higher meaning to natural selection, but it is what it is: there are success and failure conditions created within nature. Nature makes its own way.
-
2019-08-01 at 5:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator That doesn't mean there is some higher meaning to natural selection, but it is what it is: there are success and failure conditions created within nature. Nature makes its own way.
That's assuming nature has a specific goal in mind - does it? I don't know, but I think nature is just a bunch a particles floating around. Sometimes they collide or stick together or miss each other but none of that activity is success or failure, it just is what it is, nature being nature. You don't need to get mad about it. It is what it is bud. -
2019-08-01 at 10:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe That's assuming nature has a specific goal in mind - does it? I don't know, but I think nature is just a bunch a particles floating around. Sometimes they collide or stick together or miss each other but none of that activity is success or failure, it just is what it is, nature being nature. You don't need to get mad about it. It is what it is bud.
No. Reasons are just naturally emergent in an evolutionary environment. Looking at it as just stuff floating around is what we call a lossful reductionism. I've tried to explain this to you twice before but you didn't get it so I'm not going to go into it. Just read the Two Black Boxes thought experiment. Just try really really hard to pay attention to it and read it twice and really understand it. I want you to understand that I'm 100% serious when I say this: it is the most important piece of philosophical literature you will ever read in all of your inquiries on the nature of mind. Dennett' book The Intentional Stance explores the idea in huge detail and I'd recommend that if you really want to understand it.
The "questions" are just complex selective pressures and the "success or failure" conditions are the right and wrong responses to those "questions" whic lead to differential reproduction. These naturally generate reasons, and s space for success and failure.
For example animals have reasons but they just don't know those reasons. "Why" does a spider weave a web? To catch flies. The spider doesn't know that shit. There have been studies where they will have the same response to black dots in their visual field as any insects, it's just a hacked together little shit animal. But... A spider builds a web to catch flies. It can succeed or fail at catching flies, for example depending on its proximity to a rubbish heap. This can lead to different levels of reproduction for example, or fitness of offspring, or fertile lifespan etc.
Reasons evolve naturally. You should read Dan Dennett's book, From Bacteria To Bach And Back. -
2019-08-01 at 10:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Just read the Two Black Boxes thought experiment.
I'll look it up.Dennett' book The Intentional Stance explores the idea in huge detail and I'd recommend that if you really want to understand it.Â
You should read Dan Dennett's book, From Bacteria To Bach And Back.
I will look for these at the library.For example animals have reasons but they just don't know those reasons. "Why" does a spider weave a web? To catch flies. The spider doesn't know that shit. There have been studies where they will have the same response to black dots in their visual field as any insects, it's just a hacked together little shit animal. But… A spider builds a web to catch flies. It can succeed or fail at catching flies, for example depending on its proximity to a rubbish heap.
Whether a spider succeeds or fails at catching a spider doesn't really matter. Nature doesn't care. Some natural disaster could wipe out all life on earth - is that a failure? Maybe a failure for life on earth, but a successful disaster? Right now, I don't think it would be either, not really. It's just a bunch of stuff happening.
Yes, nature "selects" certain traits over others by exerting various pressures on life, causing very complex and incredible responses to these pressures, like becoming complex multicellular animals, like some animals developing wings to fly over the ground or other animals developing webs to catch them, but none of this has any inherent purpose or goal. It's just stuff happening. Maybe I will change my mind after I read the materials you've suggested. -
2019-08-02 at 1:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Whether a spider succeeds or fails at catching a spider doesn't really matter. Nature doesn't care. Some natural disaster could wipe out all life on earth - is that a failure? Maybe a failure for life on earth, but a successful disaster? Right now, I don't think it would be either, not really. It's just a bunch of stuff happening.
... Bro do you legitimately have a learning disability, like dyslexia or something on those lines?
Caring is not necessary for success or failures to naturally develop.
There is no need for a "higher" purpose, understanding, judge etc. Purpose is purpose is purpose. The purpose of a spider's web is to catch flies. It can either be successful at it or fail.Yes, nature "selects" certain traits over others by exerting various pressures on life, causing very complex and incredible responses to these pressures, like becoming complex multicellular animals, like some animals developing wings to fly over the ground or other animals developing webs to catch them, but none of this has any inherent purpose or goal. It's just stuff happening. Maybe I will change my mind after I read the materials you've suggested.
The thing you will never get through your thick skull is that God doesn't need to validate something for it to be meaningful.
A spider's web has meaning independent of anyone's recognition. I'd call that "inherent" by any standard, but I really don't think you have even defined the term "I hereby meaning" in your own head.
The point that you can't seem to grasp, which is the focus of literally 99% of modern philosophy since the 50s outside of feminist bullshit, is that these different purposes in the world generated by natural selection are the real deal. You don't need Jesus to validate them.
As I have invited you to do many times before, if you really think being just atoms and shit makes something meaningless then give me all your money. -
2019-08-02 at 1:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Purpose is purpose is purpose. The purpose of a spider's web is to catch flies. It can either be successful at it or fail.
Nothing has any inherent purpose. Man gives purpose to things, considers things to succeed or to fail. Nature is just stuff happening.
Originally posted by Common De-mominator The thing you will never get through your thick skull is that God doesn't need to validate something for it to be meaningful.
I'm not saying God gives anything purpose. If anything, I'm saying that God gave no purpose to anything. It is man who asks "why" and searches for meaning.
Originally posted by Common De-mominator A spider's web has meaning independent of anyone's recognition.
It's fine if you want to believe that. Maybe reading those books will change my mind.
Originally posted by Common De-mominator As I have invited you to do many times before, if you really think being just atoms and shit makes something meaningless then give me all your money.
Life has no inherent meaning, but that has nothing to do with me giving you all my money. It's pretty stupid to even think that makes sense. If I'm going to create my own meaning and purpose in life, I'm going to use all the resource I have available, including the money I earn. -
2019-08-02 at 11:19 AM UTC*subs*
-
2019-08-02 at 11:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Nothing has any inherent purpose. Man gives purpose to things, considers things to succeed or to fail. Nature is just stuff happening.
This is why you are such a cock sucker: I just spent 2 posts arguing this very point and your response is literally "BUT BRAWNDO HAS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE, IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES".
Just repeating your talismanic phrase is not an argument asshole. You have to actually establish what you mean by "nothing has inherent meaning". Everything by definition is a "system doing what it does" so what is the notion you're referring to that "nothing has"?
I'm going to asking you to define inherent meaning and what could possibly have it, you are gonna say "it's an incoherent concept, it doesn't even make sense, nothing can have inherent meaning." I don't know what the fuck you mean by it.
This entire argument is me saying "toast is real" and you saying "toast doesn't have the property REALITRON so it's not real", then I ask what it would mean for toast to to have REALITRON and you say "nothing, it's just an incoherent concept." Okay... So what are you talking about? Sounds like you just made up a word to deny even though you don't actually have any well formed semantic content behind it.
I might as well be arguing "blargnarg" isn't real. You're wasting everyone's time including your own by inventing an issue that you've deluded yourself into believing.I'm not saying God gives anything purpose. If anything, I'm saying that God gave no purpose to anything. It is man who asks "why" and searches for meaning.
You're saying some"one" has to give some"thing" purpose when it's just blatantly false. I didn't give the spiderweb the purpose of catching flies, neither did god, but that's the purpose of a spiderweb. Man only identifies meaning.
It is the system doing what it's doing. That's everything. That's why it's real, the system doing its thing actually creates these real phenomena in the wod. There doesn't need to be a magic extra alarm of god's blessing to suddenly make it more real.Life has no inherent meaning, but that has nothing to do with me giving you all my money. It's pretty stupid to even think that makes sense. If I'm going to create my own meaning and purpose in life, I'm going to use all the resource I have available, including the money I earn.
The irony is that you don't see how this is a blatant admission of my point.
- Money is atoms
- Money has a purpose to you
- You are just a system doing it's thing
- Stuff can have a purpose for just a system doing it's thing.
That's all. There doesn't need to be anything above and beyond that, you keep claiming there does for it to be "real" but you never say what it is.
There's nothing fake about money and god doesn't need to validate that money is a real thing for it to be very real and meaningful in the world, so... I really don't know what else you want for something to be meaningful.
The reasons and purposes you have are nothing special or magic or different against the rest of the world, you just recognize them, they didn't just pop into existence in your head. There aren't "real purposes and Chinese counterfeit purposes". There's just purposes.
You're literally just generating a nonexistent problem to struggle against.
What is "missing" from these purposes that makes them not the real deal? Actually try to make a coherent point rather than parroting your phrase of the day. -
2019-08-02 at 11:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator This is why you are such a cock sucker: I just spent 2 posts arguing this very point and your response is literally "BUT BRAWNDO HAS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE, IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES".
Just repeating your talismanic phrase is not an argument asshole. You have to actually establish what you mean by "nothing has inherent meaning". Everything by definition is a "system doing what it does" so what is the notion you're referring to that "nothing has"?
You're saying some"one" has to give some"thing" purpose when it's just blatantly false. I didn't give the spiderweb the purpose of catching flies, neither did god, but that's the purpose of a spiderweb. Man only identifies meaning.
The irony is that you don't see how this is a blatant admission of my point.
- Money is atoms
- Money has a purpose to you
- You are just a system doing it's thing
- Stuff can have a purpose for just a system doing it's thing.
That's all. There doesn't need to be anything above and beyond that, you keep claiming there does for it to be "real" but you never say what it is.
There's nothing fake about money and god doesn't need to validate that money is a real thing for it to be very real and meaningful in the world, so… I really don't know what else you want for something to be meaningful.
The reasons and purposes you have are nothing special or magic or different against the rest of the world, you just recognize them, they didn't just pop into existence in your head. There aren't "real purposes and Chinese counterfeit purposes". There's just purposes.
You're literally just generating a nonexistent problem to struggle against.
What is "missing" from these purposes that makes them not the real deal? Actually try to make a coherent point rather than parroting your phrase of the day.
Purpose is what is missing. A spider's web might catch flies, but that doesn't mean the purpose of the web is to catch a fly nor is the purpose of a fly to feed a spider nor is the purpose of a spider to build webs to catch flies. Man might look at nature and decide for himself that everything must have purposes and that the purpose of a web is to catch flies, but that's a framework he is superimposing over the reality. In reality there is no purpose. Everything is just doing what it does. Imagine a spider builds a web and it doesn't catch any flies - that's still just nature doing what it does. That spider wasn't "supposed" to catch flies, nor did it fail. The spider wasn't here to starve to death on purpose either. It's just stuff happening.
If 2 particles collide together, you would be pointing at it declaring that to be the purpose of those particles. You're imposing purpose onto reality. A spider's web doesn't have any purpose. It's just something that had happened. All of this is. -
2019-08-02 at 11:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Purpose is what is missing.
Define purpose or go fuck yourself.
I'm not going to argue against REALITRONS. I could replace every mention of purpose in your post with REALITRON related terms and nothing would semantically change. You are just having an actually meaningless argument. Which is further proof that man only discerns and borrows meaning from nature, because you think this is a meaningful argument even though it absolutely isn't. -
2019-08-02 at 11:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Define purpose or go fuck yourself.
I'm not going to argue against REALITRONS.
When 2 particles collide, is it because that was their purpose? Or is it just something that happens.
When a spider's web doesn't catch any flies, do you believe that spider starved to death "on purpose"?
I don't. It's just stuff happening. It's nature doing what it does. If a large object collided with Earth tomorrow, again that would just be nature being natural. There's no purpose. -
2019-08-02 at 11:59 AM UTC
-
2019-08-02 at 12:02 PM UTC
-
2019-08-02 at 12:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe When 2 particles collide, is it because that was their purpose? Or is it just something that happens.
No, because it's an improper reduction to the level of physics, since meanings evolve on the level of biology. Biology and physics aren't two different things, it's just another mode of description that is perfectly consistent with physics.
If you disagree, give me your money.When a spider's web doesn't catch any flies, do you believe that spider starved to death "on purpose"?
??? I believe the spider weaved the web on purpose to catch flies, even if it doesn't know it. If it doesn't catch flies, it dies. If it it does, it lives to shit out more eggs, weave another web and catch more flies.
It does so for the purpose of survival and reproduction, even if it doesn't know it. The purpose of your lungs is to breathe, that was the case even before humans knew about their own anatomy. If your lungs fail to breathe, you will die. It's not a failure because you will die and it matters to you, you will die because of their failure to breathe.
The atoms don't need to say that's the purpose, and even if they did, what authority are they?I don't. It's just stuff happening. It's nature doing what it does. If a large object collided with Earth tomorrow, again that would just be nature being natural. There's no purpose.
Of course not, usually large astronomical objects don't participate in biology.
